Beekeeping Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,487 Posts
it seems that some folks are somewhat fooled by the stitching together of two things/concepts like pest and icides. for all practical purposes pesticides kill a lot more than just pest. some even in fairly small quantities will kill you or me... don't know about you, but I don't look at myself as being a pest?

I myself don't consider these systemic type product to represent ALL the problem associated with honeybees but certain they are at least part of the problem. in some fashion the systemics are even more lethal since the bees that pick these up these nasties are not killed quickly, so they bring the product back into a hive where it can (imho) work in very lethal synergistic ways with other pollutants (some of which may not be insecticides in the purest since of the word at all).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
"However, Bayer eco-toxicologist David Fischer said the honeybee study used doses of pesticides far higher than those used on crops bees normally pollinate"

Bayer is going to say whatever needs to be said in order to keep their product on the market. As has been pointed out in numerous studies and Bee journals, the studies that Bayer has done to show that neonics are "safe" to bees are following protocols that really don't apply. More specifically, pesticide toxicology protocols done to meet EPA testing requirements are based on 'old-style' pesticide applications (e.g., spraying something ON the plant). Neonics are systemic - they are IN the plant. It's sort of like saying that because a chemical doesn't hurt you if you spill on on yourself, therefore it must be safe to drink.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,829 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
"However, Bayer eco-toxicologist David Fischer said the honeybee study used doses of pesticides far higher than those used on crops bees normally pollinate"

Bayer is going to say whatever needs to be said in order to keep their product on the market. As has been pointed out in numerous studies and Bee journals, the studies that Bayer has done to show that neonics are "safe" to bees are following protocols that really don't apply. More specifically, pesticide toxicology protocols done to meet EPA testing requirements are based on 'old-style' pesticide applications (e.g., spraying something ON the plant). Neonics are systemic - they are IN the plant. It's sort of like saying that because a chemical doesn't hurt you if you spill on on yourself, therefore it must be safe to drink.
Interesting comment Indy:

Unbeknownst to some here, I actually have a sibling that through his work (grower supply co.) actually distributes these types of products. He has been on trips that are paid for by some of these (German) companies :wink: and we have had some heated discussions on this topic.
The last one ended with the statement "You would be better off drinking a glass of Roun-up than drinking a glass of vinegar" :shock:
Needless to say we agree to disagree and avoid the topic altogether now. He continues to peddle and I try to keep my bees alive.:smile:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,162 Posts
Whom to believe?

I believe in the bees, they are the ones that are dying to tell us something.

Sad thing is, we are also purchasing the end products for our own consumption. Just wondering what it is doing to us on a long term effect?

Perry I wonder if your sibling will ever come around and spill the beans to you of how nasty some of this stuff really is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
967 Posts
Things found safe when testing in isolation is no guarantee they are safe in multiple combinations with each other or when encountered when the patient may be suffering from some other stressor. Tests can be done based solely on mortality observations but you only need to compromise a bees navigation and homing instincts a bit to tilt the playing field. I question a lot of things but especially the advice of parties with a vested interest. That covers territory from chemical manufacturers literature to writers of books that defame them; lots of information is hidden between the lines!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I believe that neonicotinoids are chemicals that are, "intentionally" designed to poison and kill insects. They're not sprayed to coat the exterior of the crop plants, nor sprayed to contact and kill existing target pest organisms, they're potent enough that a small amount is applied to the crop seed and is translocated throughout every part of the crop plant as it grows and matures, including everything produced or excreted by the crop plant. Though there seems to be sufficient concentrations of active pesticide in most plant tissues to deter or kill target crop pests, supposedly the quantities present in guttation water, nectar, and pollen are dilute enough to not have a harmful effect on honey bees or other beneficial insects.

Of course they're not harmless to bees or other beneficial insects -- it's just assumed that under normal circumstances, with carefully controlled use of these pesticides, no normal mode of delivery would expose the bees to quantities of pesticide that could cause problems for these non-target, beneficial insects.

I just don't trust that accidents will rarely or never happen.

- - - -
I believe that, the powers that be, probably accept the second paragraph I wrote above to be true. I certainly hope that it is.

During the "cold war" nuclear weapons were considered the ultimate threat, also considered a "deterrent" to actual war. Somehow I feel safer knowing that nuclear weapons exist, perhaps enough to destroy our entire world (global annihilation), but as long as they're not used, we're all relatively safe from them. I feel less safe when I consider the synthetic chemical compounds we humans keep creating and insinuating into our environment, not really knowing their ultimate impact or the myriad of interactions possible.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,579 Posts
I feel safest eating from my garden, and I wouldn't touch grocery store sweetcorn, I haven't bought cornmeal in 10 years (still have half a bag from that purchase), and really am reducing and reducing any grocery purchases. Bees are part of that. I THOUGHT I would avoid GE Sugar... hahahaha, now I feed it to bees.

But my dogs and chickens are getting neonic corn in their feeds I am sure. It's a very nasty world out there, radiation, chemicals, pollutants. As much as I can, I stay home.
Don't know how long I'll live, choose to enjoy it.

I Live in an area where the chemical pushers and oil companies run rampant, don't like people much, that I would meet out in the business world or at social events, anymore.

My customers on the other hand, are pretty organic people - got to be, to keep pond fish alive in your yard. So I like to go to work. I meet better people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,337 Posts
...And now it is being studied as to the residues of neonic pesticides that wind up in corn syrup produced from the neonic corn. Thus beekeepers themselves might be adding yet more neonic pesticides to their hives through feeding them corn syrup. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0406/Is-corn-syrup-killing-the-honeybees
So the bees bring the pesticides back to the hives from the cornfields during the summer, and then they are fed more of it in corn syrup all Spring and Fall.

....and what about all the corn syrup we are all unknowingly eating in our food every day? Read the labels- corn syrup is everywhere in processed food now. American children are developing attention deficit syndrome at higher and higher rates every year, causing behavioral and learning disabilities- pesticide/neurotoxins accumulating and affecting proper brain development, leading to impaired ability to concentrate? Bees losing their ability to navigate back to the hives? Sounds CRAZY, right? ....maybe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,708 Posts
Tec snip: . don't know about you, but I don't look at myself as being a pest?

Efmesch says: You really opened the door for comments on that one-----take it as a compliment that no one picked it up. The silence is deafening--and answers your question.
:think: :grin:

As to the real issue at hand: Need one remind everyone about how the "reliable independent scientific" studies (hiddenly run by or for the tobacco companies) "proved" how smoking was harmless?
:mad:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top