neonics - science collapse disorder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

And if neonics are banned, farmers will return to using spray and granular pesticides, which they say are less effective at protecting crops in the growth stage and even more harmful to human, bee and environmental health.

---

This is the childish petulance i find most entertaining... the whole whiny "well, if you don't let us play with this unproven and dangerous product, we'll just go back to using products that are proven to be dangerous" argument.

Pathetic. Farmers are attempting to hold a gun to everyone's head. We'll see how it plays out.

The fact of the matter is that the developers of neonics provided short term tests on virgin soil (stupid and lazy), they provided short term tests only in regards to how the crops affected humans and select livestocks (more stupid and lazy) and they rushed the product into the industry before knowing anything about how it would actually affect anyone or anything long term or even short term under unexpected doses (just plain stupid).

They didn't research how it affected pollinators, they didn't research how the various methods of delivery affected surrounding terrain or life, they didn't research how the neonics built up (or faded away) over time, and they didn't research how all of these factors may (or may not) differ across completely different climate zones and environments.

The "Science Collapse Disorder" happened with the stupid and lazy (this is being kind as i doubt their methods are accidental) producers and now the farmers crying foul.

I support farmers - i'll sign off on any subsidy, any tax break, any public education campaign about the true cost of our produce & meats, any supportive initiative you can imagine - but I cannot support any group or individual that bawls that the only way to do something is by endangering & hurting themselves or others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

It really makes you wonder how farmers survived all these years and were successful before the Big Chemical Companies developed all these chemicals that increase the yields of crops [and kill off more beneficial insects than necessary, and at the same time our song birds are dying off due to the lack of food "insects" ]

Bayer , Monsanto and Shell are slowly damaging the atmosphere.

---

This isn't a new phenomena - Rachel Carson wrote a book on it in 1964 or so - "Silent Spring" - I think DDT was the culprit at the time. Chemical pesticides have been in use since the late '40's and there have been many advances on making them more effective and less toxic - neonic's is just another step in that direction.

Prior to that, farmers had to deal with the prospect of significant crop losses due to insect pests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

I support farmers - i'll sign off on any subsidy, any tax break, any public education campaign about the true cost of our produce & meats, any supportive initiative you can imagine - but I cannot support any group or individual that bawls that the only way to do something is by endangering & hurting themselves or others.

---

Wow - that's a very American perspective for someone who hates doing everything the way Americans do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

This is the childish petulance i find most entertaining... the whole whiny "well, if you don't let us play with this unproven and dangerous product, we'll just go back to using products that are proven to be dangerous" argument.

Pathetic. Farmers are attempting to hold a gun to everyone's head. We'll see how it plays out.

The fact of the matter is that the developers of neonics provided short term tests on virgin soil (stupid and lazy), they provided short term tests only in regards to how the crops affected humans and select livestocks (more stupid and lazy) and they rushed the product into the industry before knowing anything about how it would actually affect anyone or anything long term or even short term under unexpected doses (just plain stupid).

---

I'm not so sure its childish. The whole purpose of neonicotinoids is that they are less toxic to birds and small mammals than their predecessors (organophosphate and carbamate insecticides). So farmers will go back to the already approved but more toxic pesticides. I'm not sure what you see as being childish about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Wow - that's a very American perspective for someone who hates doing everything the way Americans do it.

---

It has nothing to do with "the way Americans do it". Agriculture subsidies are relied upon by farmers the world over. The USA doesn't hold any patent to it.

In most of western Europe public education campaigns work wonders for making sure consumers know exactly where their foods come from, how much they cost to produce and why, they inform folks ahead of time when shortages are expected and circulate lists of alternative foods to fill the gap as well as recipes to work with other foods, etc.

In other nations where social infrastructure is lacking, the farmer subsidy and support systems are still in place, just on a smaller scale. Across much of northern africa, crop rotation takes on a whole new meaning with farmers actually switching to different crops and livestock every couple years so that they all share the risk of more difficult farming, as well as the ease of safer farming. In times of extreme drought and crop loss the communities stop sending their kids to school for a time and pool the saved tuition to give to the farmers.

Humans need to eat. And as fewer people become proficient in providing for themselves, we rely on farmers more. There are many ways to ensure farmers' success that don't rely simply on using dangerous or unproven chemical solutions.

This is EXACTLY like the spring bear hunt. The Sierra Club financed and led a takeover of the OBA by a handful of people, then went to Wynne promising to help get her votes in the GTA if she would promise to ban neonics. And, in spite of claims to the contrary, the legislation IS a de facto ban. Also the Minister of the Environment is already on record as saying this is his first step to banning more chemicals and eventually forcing all agriculture in the province to go organic.

it isn't just industry studies that show neonics are safe... OMAFRAs own employee scientists have done work showing the same result. How much arrogance does it take to say that the experts you employ are wrong and the Sierra Club is right?

The fact of the matter is Wynne won without rural Ontario and now we can go to hell... Don't be surprised if hunting and fishing continue down the same path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleK

it isn't just industry studies that show neonics are safe... OMAFRAs own employee scientists have done work showing the same result. How much arrogance does it take to say that the experts you employ are wrong and the Sierra Club is right?

---

Nobody, not the producers, not the retailers, not the govt oversight orgs have claimed neonics are completely safe. They've claimed that they are safer than most alternatives based on extremely limited (and often sub par) testing.

After launch and immersion into the industry, potential harmful side effects are popping up, so NOW (15 yrs too late) govts and the industry are doing the in depth and longterm studies on neonics that should have been done in the first place.

You will not find one supported study that claims neonics are "safe", just safer than older tech. There's a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

Nobody, not the producers, not the retailers, not the govt oversight orgs have claimed neonics are completely safe. They've claimed that they are safer than most alternatives based on extremely limited (and often sub par) testing.

After launch and immersion into the industry, potential harmful side effects are popping up, so NOW (15 yrs too late) govts and the industry are doing the in depth and longterm studies on neonics that should have been done in the first place.

You will not find one supported study that claims neonics are "safe", just safer than older tech. There's a difference.

---

And with the neonics ban, farmers will return to the older, less safe pesticides. So just how is the ban on them a good idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

And with the neonics ban, farmers will return to the older, less safe pesticides. So just how is the ban on them a good idea?

---

They don't have to. That's a choice - a spiteful one - that they'd be making. There are alternatives.

But they'd rather take the childish route that the only course of action is their use of dangerous chemicals - they will not entertain any other considerations.

There are NO current alternatives. There may be in the near future. In the meantime, I can't afford to lose 10-20% of a crop, particularly when the European bans have already been shown to hurt crop yields without helping bees.