Discover Magazine‘s Steve Volk has a longish article (paywall) on the problems of neonicotinoid – both physical and political – and their role in colony collapse disorder:
Dead bee, probably from the weather.
[Jeffrey Pettis and entomologist Dennis vanEngelsdorp] fed neonics to bees, then exposed that group and a neonic-free control group to Nosema, a common gut pathogen in the honeybee. The bees fed neonics proved more susceptible to Nosema. And the effect was consistent even when bees received neonics in amounts too small to be detected in their system. “The only reason we knew the bees had exposure [to neonicotinoid pesticides],” says vanEngelsdorp, “is because we exposed them.”
Beekeepers rejoiced. “They really sounded like they found something big,” says Dave Hackenberg, a central Pennsylvania beekeeper. “They were like, ‘This is it.’ ”
“We really felt confident,” says Bret Adee, co-owner of Adee Honey Farms in South Dakota. “These were the guys everyone would listen to, and now we were going to get something done.”
But nothing happened.
Well, something happened.
“We call it the ‘whack-a-mole’ theory of bee science,” says Hackenberg, the commercial beekeeper in central Pennsylvania. “People who stick their head too far above ground on the subject of pesticides get whacked.”
This kind of talk smacks of conspiracy. However, the alignment of self-interests leaves plotting and planning unnecessary. Big agricultural companies pay many millions annually in political donations and lobbying. The politicians receiving all of this attention and money determine the dwindling budgets at agencies like the EPA and USDA.
In late 2014, EPA scientists released a study showing that neonic seed treatments produce no significant increase in crop yield. The reason is simple, even predictable: Each year, soil-based pests, targeted by seed treatments, only pop up in about 10 percent of America’s cropland. But instead of dialing back pesticide use, scientists at USDA publicly rejected the EPA’s findings.
In recent years, allegations of scientific suppression have grown louder. In fall 2015, Jonathan Lundgren, an entomologist in the USDA’s Agricultural Research office who is now the director of the nonprofit research Ecdysis Foundation, filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that his supervisors levied a pair of bogus suspensions on him to prevent his publicizing the dangers of chemical pesticides.
Sometimes I think we should just ban lobbying. Lobbyists will tell you that they provide important information to the politicians who appoint the people making these decisions – but sometimes it seems like the companies are purchasing insurance plans, not providing information.
[Edit: added link to thread 2/12/2017]
