Pollinator plantings: helping or hurting bees?

Here’s a link to a study released just last week conducted by Christina Mogren and Jonathan Lundgren: Neonicotinoid-contaminated pollinator strips adjacent to cropland reduce honey bee nutritional status.  For any of you trying to understand the issues surrounding the neonicotinoid family, it is important reading.

It’s not difficult to see why the USDA has become increasingly uncomfortable with what Lundgren and Mogren have found.  The study addresses questions that should have been asked and answered by the USDA and EPA 20 years ago; before clothianidin was given a conditional registration to cover Bayer’s loss of market share because of the expiration of their patent on imidacloprid, and before hundreds of millions of acres were poisoned by these water-soluble chemicals with half-lives of years, unleashed on the environment virtually without restraint.  Findings like these confirm previous studies done by others, like this one from the UK showing that 97% of the neonic contamination of bees came from wildflowers not the target crops, or this recent USGS paper that showed contamination of native bees with neonics when there was no agriculture within their flight range, (and that was right here in Northeastern Colorado).

The conclusions emerging are that the environmental damage may be more mobile and pernicious than anyone in the USDA or EPA is willing to admit to, and that widespread plantings along highway rights-of-way and elsewhere may be killing fields rather than habitat unless we have a baseline understanding of what the contamination is – or isn’t. None of the EPA or USDA people who were involved in the decisions that brought us to this environmental disaster wants to go anywhere near that Pandora’s Box and it’s up to people like Mogren, like Lundgren, like you and me, to open it up.

Is the Pesticide Industry Clipping the Wings of Bee Protection Efforts?

This report by Friends of the Earth is a signal work.  It clearly documents the history and current state of pollinator protection.  It is required reading for anyone trying to understand what the challenges are.  Take the time to read it slowly, carefully, and in its entirety.

Advocacy Groups Comment on Imidacloprid

After 22 years of carnage from the first neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, the EPA concluded in this preliminary assessment that “maybe” imidacloprid might have an adverse effect on honey bees on two crops under certain circumstances, yet countered that revelation with a near blanket dismissal of harm from any other uses.

On January 15, 2016 the EPA opened a 60 day comment period on its full review of imidacloprid, an exercise it is required to go through by law, but which it rarely pays much attention to if comments run counter to the corporate pesticide agenda.

Below are a number of comments submitted by advocacy groups.  Click on each logo to read each group’s comments.  They are well thought out, articulate, and well worth the time for those of you who want to understand the intelligent arguments. Read the full range of comments on the EPA Docket.

Insect biomass decline documented in Germany

This paper, an Investigation of the Biomass of flying insects in the Orbroich Bruch Nature Reserve near Krefeld, Germany, and the italicized notes below, came yesterday from Graham White in Scotland. Worldwide the environmental destruction is enormous. This recent exploratory study by the USGS, Native Bees Foraging in Fields Are Exposed to Neonicotinoid Insecticides, found neonics in native bees right here in the grasslands of northeastern Colorado far removed from agriculture. Even were we to wave a magic wand and stop the use of neonics today, it will likely take years for the environment to purge itself of these poisons.

Please see attached a science study published by the Krefeld Entomological Society in the Orbroich Bruch Nature Reserve – a wetland and water meadow area near Krefeld in Germany. The reserve has been managed for conservation objectives for many decades.

In 1989 – when flying insects were trapped, identified and the total weight of insects was recorded in grat detail.

Twenty five years later, in 2013, the same experiment was duplicated: using the same insect traps, on the same sites, in the same Nature Reserve and over the same sampling periods.

The entomologists describe their results as “frightening”.

The biomass of insects trapped in 2013 had fallen to less than 20% of the biomass collected in 1989 – and during some collecting periods, the biomass had fallen to less than 10% of 1989 levels.

The decline was not merely the physical biomass of insects, but was also reflected in a decline in the variety of species and taxa.

This ecological collapse took place within a designated Nature Reserve which has been specifically managed to maximise “conservation benefits” for over 25 years.

Pesticides and herbicides had been used on grassland areas nearby and neonicotinoid coated seeds are used on farmers fields, which surround the reserve, but the massive decline in flying insects within the reserve itself came as a great shock.

The accelerating decline of insect life parallels the decline of other wildlife species in the reserve, notably the Shrike – which bred widely in the reserve up to the 1960s but has now entirely vanished – largely because of the disappearance of the beetles and grasshoppers which the Shrike depended on to feed its chicks.

The study could not determine the ‘cause’ of this ecological collapse but concludes that if the decline of insects continues at the current tate, the reserve could be facing ecological collapse as soon as 2025.

Given the extensive use of herbicides, fungicides and pesticides in adjacent fields, the obvious hypothesis is that these biocides are spreading into the Nature Reserve via air and water, and decimating insect populations.

The implications of all this, for wildlife of all kinds in Europe – but especially for insectivorous birds – are extremely alarming.

One wonders if any similar time-comparison studies of insect life being carried out by wildlife organisations in the UK and USA?

– Graham White

Jim Doan on the state of American beekeeping

Here is a stark but enlightening interview with commercial beekeeper Jim Doan, on the state of American beekeeping. Thirty minutes long, but well worth the time for any of you trying to understand the elements of the crisis we are in. The first half is the interview with Jim. In the second half host June Stoyer and I discuss a number of pertinent topics.

Is ‘pounds’ an accurate measure of pesticide use?

As good as this article from Civil Eats is, As Bees Die Off, the EPA Shuffles Its Feet, there are some mistakes. The most serious is that we still let the criminals define the vocabulary we use, and we continue to talk in ‘pounds’ as if that was an accurate measure of pesticide use.

Three million pounds of neonics on corn, another million on soybeans, looks pretty good when compared to the year of highest usage for DDT, eighty million pounds in 1959. Four million pounds of neonics, what’s all the fuss about?

Well, what’s missed is the fact that those four million pounds of neonicotinoids have the toxic equivalence of about fifteen billion pounds of DDT. And if that isn’t mind boggling enough, consider that only 5% of the actual usage is accounted for. Seed treatment, the focus of the lawsuit just filed against the EPA, represents 95% of the use. Add that in, multiply by a conservative five thousand (neonicotinoids are five to ten thousand times more toxic than DDT to lower level life forms) and we have the toxic equivalence of approximately 300 billion pounds of DDT, every year, year after year. This is the agricultural use, you can probably add in another 100 billion for urban and suburban use.

And in the face of this massive environmental poisoning what do we get from the EPA? Excuses, cover ups, evasions and sleight of hand. After twenty years of carnage and millions of colonies lost they conclude that neonicotinoids ‘may’ harm bees. Do they go to the law to better understand their responsibilities? Hardly.They go to the law instead to find a way to avoid those very responsibilities, and in all likelihood were complicit in the creation of those loopholes in the first place. Rather than revisit their failed decision making they instead have to be sued to get them to do their job.

League of Women Voters, Minnesota takes a position on the neonics

This Briefing Paper from the Minnesota League of Women Voters is an excellent overview of many of the questions surrounding the the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides. Take the time to read it in its entirety and it will help put some of the controversy in perspective.

Click the logo to read the PDF

David Hackenberg questions seed coatings

June Stoyer and I interviewed David Hackenberg about seed treatments on The Neonicotinoid View the day after his suit was filed against the EPA.

Beekeepers and allies sue EPA over neonicotinoid seed coatings

On January 6, 2016 several advocacy groups, farmers and beekeepers filed a law suit against the EPA for failure to properly register and regulate neonicotinmoids and other systemic pesticide seed coating. Here is the press release and a link to the suit itself for those who would like to dig deeper.

It is of great concern that the EPA continues to examine the law, not to better understand what their responsibilities are, but rather to find excuses for not fulfilling those responsibilities.

January 6, 2015

Beekeepers, Farmers, and Public Interest Groups Sue EPA over Failed Oversight of Neonicotinoid-coated Seeds

WASHINGTON, DC —Center for Food Safety, on behalf of several beekeepers, farmers and sustainable agriculture and conservation groups, filed a lawsuit today challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inadequate regulation of the neonicotinoid insecticide seed coatings used on dozens of crops. EPA has allowed millions of pounds of coated seeds to be planted annually on more than 150 million acres nationwide. The lawsuit alleges the agency has illegally allowed this to occur, without requiring the coated seeds to be registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), without enforceable labels on the seed bags, and without adequate assessments of the serious ongoing environmental harm.

“EPA’s actions surrounding neonicotinoid seed coatings have led to intensifying and destructive consequences. These include acute honey bee kills, as well as chronic effects to numerous species, nationwide water and soil contamination, and other environmental and economic harms,” said Peter Jenkins, attorney with Center for Food Safety. “This lawsuit aims to hold EPA accountable to dramatically reduce this harm in the future.”

Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides known to have acute and chronic effects on honey bees and other pollinator species and are considered a major factor in overall bee population declines and poor health. Up to 95 percent of the applied seed coating ends up in the surrounding air, soil and water rather than in the crop for which it was intended, leading to extensive contamination.

“My honey farm business is not capable of surviving another three to five years if EPA chooses to ‘drag out’ the treated article exemption in the courts at the request of the pesticide industry instead of properly regulating these pesticides. People need pollinated food; somebody must stand up and say no to unregulated killing of pollinators,” said Jeff Anderson, beekeeper and the lead plaintiff in the case.

“After experiencing a large loss of bees this spring due to corn planting ‘dust off,’ I believe that it is of critical importance that this defective product not be used as a prophylactic seed treatment,” said Bret Adee, owner of the largest commercial beekeeping operation in the country.

“As a beekeeper for over 50 years, I have lost more colonies of honey bees in the last ten years from the after effects of neonic seed coatings than all others causes over the first 40 plus years of my beekeeping operation,” said beekeeper David Hackenberg. “This not only affects my honey bees, but as a farmer it also affects my land and the health of my soil. It is time for EPA to accept the responsibility to protect not only our honey bees and other pollinators, but also our soil and our environment.”

“Farmers rely on the crop pollination services of beekeepers to increase the yield of their crops. Farmers need clear, concise pesticide label guidelines in order to protect their crops and protect honey bees. Healthy relationships between soil and water, beekeepers and farmers, and beneficial insects and crops are essential to an affordable and sustainable food supply,” said Michele Colopy, program director at the Pollinator Stewardship Council, Inc.

The cost-effectiveness of neonicotinoid seed coatings has been challenged in recent years, with numerous studies indicating that their near ubiquitous use is unnecessary — and making EPA’s disregard of their risks all the more harmful. Along with honey bees, wild bees and other beneficial insects are in serious decline, leading to reduced yields. Overuse of the insecticides threatens sustainable agriculture going forward.

“I began to question the value of neonicotinoids after some side-by-side comparisons showed little if any yield advantage. Shortly after this I began to hear of the possible connection between neonicotinoids and their detriment to honey bees, and I stopped using them altogether,” said Kansas grain farmer Gail Fuller of Fuller Farms.

“A single seed coated with a neonicotinoid insecticide is enough to kill a songbird. There is no justification for EPA to exempt these pesticide delivery devices from regulation. American Bird Conservancy urges the agency to evaluate the risks to birds, bees, butterflies, and other wildlife,” said Cynthia Palmer, director of pesticides science and regulation at American Bird Conservancy.

“EPA can’t bury its head in the sand any longer. Seed coatings are just the latest delivery device of pesticide corporations that pose a threat to pollinators and the food system,” said Marcia Ishii- Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network. “Given widespread use and persistence of these bee-harming pesticides, it’s time for EPA to fully and swiftly evaluate the impacts of seed coatings — and prevent future harm.”

EPA has also allowed several other similar systemic seed-coating insecticides onto the market and appears poised to approve additional coating products in the near future.

The plaintiffs in the case are beekeepers Jeff Anderson, Bret Adee, David Hackenberg, and Pollinator Stewardship Council, farmers Lucas Criswell and Gail Fuller, and public interest and conservation groups American Bird Conservancy, Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action Network of North America.

Federal Court Strikes Down Sulfoxaflor

Watch this decision on sulfoxaflor closely. Sulfoxaflor raised the same unanswered questions as clothianidin, but because the EPA had come under criticism for its outrageous abuse of conditional registrations, once again they tried to do an end run around the law. If they had given sulfoxaflor a conditional registration, there would of course have been conditions, which could have been tracked and monitored. Instead the EPA gave sulfoxaflor full registration which under the law would have meant that they would not have to revisit that decision for 15 years unless challenged. They were challenged, rightly so, and the court has found their decision lacking. According to Michele Colopy of the Pollinator Stewardship Council the EPA has 45 days in which to comply with the judges’ decision. We won’t have to wait long to see if the EPA does comply and follows its charter to protect people and the environment or tries to use some dodge to weasel out and carry out the wishes of their chemical handlers. Next we need to revisit their flawed decision to register clothianidin despite its clear failure to meet the requirements for registration. This isn’t over yet.