neonics - science collapse disorder

Rather than dumping this in the bee thread, here we go

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...ss-bee-deaths/

..and an evironment canada report including bee mortality during the planting season.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/...id-eng.php#a22

Yet agriculture canada hasn't banned it, yet Ontario politicians - not researchers think they are smarter and are banning it, similar to the ban on broadleaf weed killers a decade or so ago - not that the ban will do anything productive, just that banning something was a popular decision.

No science here. I'd bring up the spring bear hunt ban too, and blame it all on stupid liberals - but that was Harris.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the decision. The ban isn't permanent and its not impeding future testing and experimentation.

If the companies pimping such products and procedures can prove they're safe with proper testing and straight up reports, and if anti's scientists cant prove they're as dangerous as claimed...they'll be back on the market.

But since its been proven that there are major gaps in the testing and reporting in the development of many agrichems (specifically neonics here) and since the FDA's corrupted practice of accepting poorly tested products is the laughing stock of the developed world... Whats the harm in halting sale and use of such products until real answers are found?

Edit to add:
If you pay attention to the debate, nobody respectable is claiming that CCD is solely caused by neonics. It's more a point that so many factors (weather, transporting bees for pollination, mites and predators, normal diseases, foreign diseases, pesticides, abnormal forage (GMO) and mis-bred genetics) are putting undue stress on bee colonies.

Neonics is definitely one of the factors, its proven to weaken bee immunity and make them more susceptible to numerous health issues and hive disorders. Neonics don't just flat out kill a colony like a heavy pesticide spray does. So the nay-sayers think they can get away with claiming its harmless.

Also, there are many confirmed cases of CCD in southern Ontario (one beekeeper has a YouTube vid of 100% colony mortality -about 30 hives at one site that had been previously healthy for 30+ yrs) so any article that tries to claim there are no Canadian instances can be immediately disregarded as straight up merde.

The beekeepers I know in the ottawa area say banning neonics is going to have a negative effect on the bees as farmers replace using it with other pesticides. Both guys I know also say that CCD (which they haven't experienced, but have talked to others in the industry about) is largely caused by starving bees during the winter.

The neonics - like the weed killer ban for lawns - is largely a BS political thing.

Disagree.
Many jurisdictions world wide are banning neonics for good reason.
Environmental persistence is a huge problem
CCD is likely multi-factorial in it's ability to occur. The trigger has yet to be defined.

All to often, when folks defend toxins like Neonics, they are actually attacking people of different political/cultural persuasion.

You may not like liberals/Mother Earth News/ European Union/environmentalists but there are some serious concerns these folks have. Blindly denying the validity of their science is going to destroy this world.

I was horrified this winter when I was ordering seeds for my garden from Stokes.
Among many things, I wanted about 500 seeds for sweet corn.

It was difficult to find any that had not been pre-treated with neonics.

What's up?
I guess I am "organic" when it comes to my own garden. Maybe I'm the same hunting too. No antibiotics or supplements for the deer/grouse and ducks I eat.
No chemicals in the free range chickens I raise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Both guys I know also say that CCD (which they haven't experienced, but have talked to others in the industry about) is largely caused by starving bees during the winter.

The neonics - like the weed killer ban for lawns - is largely a BS political thing.

---

Such an opinion may have merit... If CCD was happening to only newbs like me.

Unfortunately the fact that some of the most substantial victims (Ontario) have been huge operations that span upwards of 5 generations - ppl who know what they're doing and don't starve their bees in other words - speaks to the point that it isn't the cause of the mass CCD we saw occur the last 2 yrs.

The fact that we're not seeing much - if any - cases of CCD in eastern and northern Ontario where forage is more diverse and corn and soy makes up a much smaller percentage of our flora than is the case in Southern Ontario (where 98% of Canadian reported cases of CCD have been) also speaks volumes.

Your own report you linked to pointed out 2 or 3 ways its been proven neonics have affected and killed bee colonies, and also expressly stated that no conclusions can be drawn from the extensive longterm testing underway, yet.

Pretty clear there's an issue, and questions needing answers.

A couple weeks of empty shelves in the grocery store is going to solve all of this.
We came close in 2010.

Have a read if you have the time. For and against amongst farmers and beekeepers.

http://www.ontariofarmer.com/sitepag...d%20treatments

http://www.gfo.ca/GovernmentRelation...llinators.aspx

http://practicalfarmersontario.ca/fa...eonicotinoids/

http://www.ontariobee.com/issues-and...oid-pesticides

http://www.ontariobee.com/inside-oba...neonicotinoids

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...erious-trouble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cramadog2

Have a read if you have the time. For and against amongst farmers and beekeepers.

http://www.ontariofarmer.com/sitepag...d%20treatments

http://www.gfo.ca/GovernmentRelation...llinators.aspx

http://practicalfarmersontario.ca/fa...eonicotinoids/

http://www.ontariobee.com/issues-and...oid-pesticides

http://www.ontariobee.com/inside-oba...neonicotinoids

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...erious-trouble

---

The last article (financialpost.com) is well worth the read.

From the article:

No one is arguing neonics are exactly a health food for bees. They’re pesticides. Bees are insects. The science is clear: neonics kill bees when administered in sufficient doses.
The science is less clear, however, on whether bees are exposed to anything like those doses in the field when farmers use neonics according to guidelines and recommendations.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

The last article (financialpost.com) is well worth the read.

From the article:

No one is arguing neonics are exactly a health food for bees. They’re pesticides. Bees are insects. The science is clear: neonics kill bees when administered in sufficient doses.
The science is less clear, however, on whether bees are exposed to anything like those doses in the field when farmers use neonics according to guidelines and recommendations.
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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleK

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,

---

No, you can't. Which is why i say more work has to be done to reach the happy medium. You as a farmer need to be supported better both by social programs, but also by social education for the general masses.
Case in point, the beekeepers called for a moratorium on neonics use and much deeper studies... yet the farmers instantly went on the offensive blasting all beekeepers and declaring their request a "ban". It wasn't... and it isn't... yet that's still the propaganda the farmers love to run with and it played a big part in polarizing the topic.

Simply saying "i only want to use harmful chemicals - I will not support any other initiatives" is no longer going to cut it with the general public. Whether Johnny Q is educated on his personal health... or a complete bandwagon jumper on the latest health crazes - nobody is buying the argument that we have to kill ourselves and other species in order to make farmers happy.

There has to be a balance point other than choosing ONLY the farmers or ONLY the bees. But the court of public opinion is no longer going to side with any group, in any industry that is pimping the use of dangerous chemicals and using threats to get their way.

You say you can't afford to lose 20% of your crop... but you think a beekeeper can afford to lose 80% of his colonies? How is that fair? Why is your life any more important than his? Again, balance must be reached.

Neonics were said to be harmless in all applications, for all involved. They hit the market, had a few years to establish themselves and now we're seeing issues. Once folks reported these issues and sought correlative/causal indicators the fingers were pointed at neonics.

And justifiably so. Tests of the ON & QC lost colonies, 80% of all dead bees from the 3 test years had substantial levels of neonics exposure - far more than Bayer ever announced could be possible with proper use and application of the product.

Then the books got opened on the testing that was performed before they were greenlit for market and all sorts of holes were found and the general public realized
"HOLY S#!+! This stuff was approved without ANYONE having a clue what will happen once it's been in the soil for 10+ years, once a human has ingested it for 30 yrs of their life, once bee colonies have been exposed to it for 4 or 5 seasons", etc etc, so on and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleK

the European bans have already been shown to hurt crop yields without helping bees.

---

Well, that's false. European bees didn't rebound by any significant measure in YEAR ONE of the ban. Well, that's not surprising since we're now seeing that the neonics will stay active in the soil and show up in subsequent crops up to at least 3 years after the treated crop was first planted.

However, by YEAR TWO of the ban, European colony losses had dropped roughly 30%. Admittedly, that's far short of the 70% reduction the pro-ban-campaigners touted, because other pests and predators moved back in, in the wake of insubstantial measures of pest control.

But, the ban merits stand as the colony die-offs are 1) decreasing overall and 2) showing that neonics are no longer prevalent in the fewer bees that are dying.

Again, imo, just more evidence that we need to look for broader measures and more alternatives. I don't think beekeepers have a right to drive farmers out of business, but i also don't think farmers have a right to kill every beekeeper's colonies and incomes either.
And, because i have a strong distrust and disrespect for anyone who claims that the ONLYway to do something is based on unproven tech/chems (or even worst, by threatening to revert back to proven dangerous tech/chems) my hope is that healthier alternatives will be sought/developed and that the calmer heads on both sides can prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

I don't think beekeepers have a right to drive farmers out of business

---

I don't know what you are smoking , but you obviously have no grounding in the real world to post this arrogant loopy crap.
LOTS of neonics and LOTS of other crop aids are in the ground , being sprayed and they will be next year and years after as well.
A bunch of bankrupt socialist urban freak jobs ain't gonna change that.

Lol your rambling spazz outs are more entertaining than you know. Please, continue.

Hey Oddmott,

Here is a farmer on 2000 acres from North Dakota who grows cash crops, on top of many other crops and grasses and vegetables and grazes beef, goats, pork and chicken on the residues, and all with zero pesticides, chemical fertilizers, fungicides, zero GMO's and only a little herbicides. He has built up great soil. Now I'm sure it's not easy to do, and this guy is very sharp, but it can be done... Gabe brown;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

Plus he claims he makes the most money in the county per acre because of low input costs and diverse crops.

Regardless of ones personal feeling on this, these two threads have been good reading. Am more knowledgable today, than yesterday.

For what it's worth as an outsider ( aka just learning about some of the concerns) who has no bone in this. Interesting dilemma, on one hand we know how important bees are and the problems there, on the other we know how important food is.

I almost liken this to another topic. Idealism rarely works. ITD that's wonderful that guy can do it. Think we can feed the US or the world by going that way? We also know that organic meats and produce cost way more for the consumer. See Walmart vs local independants. Likewise farmers are already heavily subsidized M and while your points about social programs are good,

Pray tell where the $$ is to come from in this day and age.


On the whole I would tend to side with M. It wouldn't be the first time something was rushed to market without adequate testing, science, consideration for the future and ramifications. But that pendulum can swing both ways and if we have learned anything the past 40-50 years. Correcting big problems caused by knee-jerk reactions is always just as bad, if not worse.

Environ Toxicol Chem. 2014 Apr; 33(4): 719–731.
Published online 2014 Apr 1. doi: 10.1002/etc.2527

PMCID: PMC4312970

Risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees


This is a good primer with the most of the current literature on the subject.

EDIT:
This is only Apis mellifera, other bee species behave differently and have difference sensitivities to neonicotinoid pesticides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleK

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.

---

I'd correct Dale's statement to "there are NO CURRENT PRACTICAL" alternatives. Hence the return to the previous generation of more toxic pesticides. And its not at all "spiteful" for farmers to use these - it's a livelihood for them, not a hobby - as it is for most bee keepers.

Part of the issue surrounding colony collapse disorder research is that it is difficult to collect quality data from apiarists.

There was a caution in the last couple of papers I have read; the self-reporting data from the beekeepers that agreed to the study contained major omissions. These studies were on the control of the scourge of beekeepers worldwide, the Varroa destructor mite, and the efficacy of treatments for colony infections. There appeared to be no consistent treatment of infected colonies across the board, with varying degrees of post-treatment assessment. Not confidence-inspiring, considering these mites have been dragging down colonies since the late 80's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

I'd correct Dale's statement to "there are NO CURRENT PRACTICAL" alternatives. Hence the return to the previous generation of more toxic pesticides. And its not at all "spiteful" for farmers to use these - it's a livelihood for them, not a hobby - as it is for most bee keepers.

---

It was absolutely spiteful. The statement that they would return to use of previous pesticides was made as a threat. They used it as a threat in an effort to force public, industry and government to allow them to continue use of a product that is being proven dangerous, being applied by growers who are proving to be uncaring (hence the improper use and application). You cannot threaten without spite.

Your claim that most farmers are doing it for a living while most beekeepers are hobbiests is erroneous... i think you'll find that the ratio of commercial beekeepers (depending on it for livelihood):hobbyists (<20 hives) is pretty much the exact same as the ratio of commercial farmers:backyard gardeners.

I get the point you're trying to make, the amount of food (and resources required to grow it) demanded globally dwarfs the global demand for honey, so obviously the industries are on a completely different scale.

Regardless of any of it... i still simply cannot understand the commercial growers' casual indifference A) to any species being snuffed out but particularly B) an entire spectrum of pollination species that directly benefit growers efforts.

The top 4 pollinators in Canada provide 5x better pollination than wind in Ontario, and 3x better than wind on the Prairies. It's not even a close race... yet so many commercial growers truly do not care.

It's not a threat. It's what is going to happen. The moved from one generation of pesticides to another, which is now being banned. How is reverting to what they used before spiteful? What do you expect them to do? All go organic???

As far as ratios of bee keepers and farmers livelihood vs hobbies. There are a lot of livelihood farmers in eastern Ontario. I don't know of any livelihood bee keepers. I was with the impression that almost all of Canada's honey came from one of the western provinces - Alberta, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

It's not a threat. It's what is going to happen. The moved from one generation of pesticides to another, which is now being banned. How is reverting to what they used before spiteful? What do you expect them to do? All go organic???

---

Why do you keep lying?

Neonics are not banned in Ontario. They are being more strictly regulated and monitored while the studies that SHOULD have been conducted before they were ever released for use, are conducted 15-20 yrs too late.

If a grower wants to use neonics, they'll have to prove that there's actually a threat to their crops.

I would expect growers to follow the regulations.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-ma...9633587#cn_1.7

AB 43%
SK 24%
MB 17%
ON 8%
QC 4%
others 4%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

Why do you keep lying?

Neonics are not banned in Ontario. They are being more strictly regulated and monitored while the studies that SHOULD have been conducted before they were ever released for use, are conducted 15-20 yrs too late.

If a grower wants to use neonics, they'll have to prove that there's actually a threat to their crops.

I would expect growers to follow the regulations.

---

Why can't you accept the truth???

so it's only an 80%, right??? The only reason there hasn't been a 100% ban is that would require approval from Health Canada, which apparently is not forthcoming. That should tell you a bit about the Ontario ban right there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ario-1.2849318

Actually, Environment Canada is one of the principle bodies involved in the in-depth Canadian tests being conducted on neonics right now. And Health Canada accepts their findings as gospel and moves policy based on it.

I'm extremely confident from Environment Canada's initial reports (after 2 years of testing) that they're going to find that neonics are substantially lethal to numerous pollinators (they're testing beyond just commercial honeybees) and a full ban will be issued within a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Why can't you accept the truth???

so it's only an 80%, right??? The only reason there hasn't been a 100% ban is that would require approval from Health Canada, which apparently is not forthcoming. That should tell you a bit about the Ontario ban right there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ario-1.2849318

---

From the CBC article "
The strategy includes

• An 80 per cent reduction in acreage planted with neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seed by 2017.
• Limiting the number of honey bees that die during winter by 15 per cent by 2020.
• Developing a "comprehensive" action plan for pollinator health. "

I wonder how OMAFRA is going to accomplish point #2? That seems like pie in the sky thinking, unless they dictate the actions of honey producers and pollinator companies. I wonder if it is meant to be limiting the deaths to 15 percent, or reducing it by 15 percent? Limiting it by 15 percent does not make any sense.

EDIT - I found the discussion paper. CBC just made an editorial mistake; OMAFRA wants to limit winter-kill to 15 percent.

OMAFRA's plan is HERE

LOL!!! or should I say more accurately say "Gag".

M on one hand I kind of lean towards your points, however from the cbc article Werner just linked.

~The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs laid out a three-point initiative Tuesday that it says will ensure "healthy ecosystems" and a "productive agricultural sector"
And who is the Agriculture and Rural affairs minister? Ah yes Ms Wynne herself.

~An 80 per cent reduction in acreage planted with neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seed by 2017.
That's a "ban" imo.

~The ministry will consult with stakeholders on a proposal to reduce neonicotinoid-treated seed, and if the proposal moves forward, new rules will be in place by July 1
Ah yes, Ms Wynnes favorite ploy. Stakeholder consultations. Aka promises to sit at a table, listen to stakeholders before ramming her ideals down throats. FN Land claims, Wind farms, Sex ed, ad nauseum.

~In October, Ontario's environmental watchdog urged the province to act before the completion of a federal study that could see recommendations to limit the use of the pesticides nationwide.
Hmmm, pot calling kettle black, lets react and jump in with both feet before completion of Federal studies????????????? Be scared imo, very scared.

This new regulation is unfounded, impractical, and unrealistic and the government does not know how to implement it," said Henry Van Ankum in the statement. He added that the announcement is evidence that "popular vote trumps science and practicality."


No alarmism that last, Ms Wynne and this admin have proven many times to be, inept and motivated not by science, or whats best or much of anything except....See the GEA, Wind, smart meters, all day daycare, See so much.

Would you trust Ms Wynne with a lemon-aide stand let alone to be "right" (why not wait for the Feds due in the fall??) on this, or implement it properly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

~An 80 per cent reduction in acreage planted with neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seed by 2017.
That's a "ban" imo.

---

Ban
: to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>

This is not a ban, it's regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Would you trust Ms Wynne with a lemon-aide stand let alone to be "right" (why not wait for the Feds due in the fall??) on this, or implement it properly?

---

Nope, my faith is in the results gleaned from the continuing EU testing that is now 8 years old and the extensive Canadian tests being performed by both the private sectors and Fed gov't. That is what will drive national policy and lead to the primary outcome.

In the end, it doesn't matter what or who Wynne is - the neonics are proven harmful, the only question is just how harmful. Tighter regulations are justified as we wait for answers from the testing that should have been performed decades ago.

"Ban"
Semantics M.

And yeah, it does matter. Weren't you yourself in another thread griping about how untrusty, incompetent they are?
time and time again they have proven numerous things. Be it the GEA.....Windfarms, (Windfarms in Lake O, then cancelled because there wasn't enough data/studies), smart meters and so much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

"Ban"
Semantics M.

No, that would be accuracy and specifics. The exact opposite of semantics.

And yeah, it does matter. Weren't you yourself in another thread griping about how untrusty, incompetent they are?
time and time again they have proven numerous things. Be it the GEA.....Windfarms, (Windfarms in Lake O, then cancelled because there wasn't enough data/studies), smart meters and so much more.

---

We're not talking about a solution looking for a problem here. We're talking about an actual problem that has been identified, with lethal effects on several species under certain circumstances. Hating a government is a piss poor excuse to argue for non-action.

Difference between hating a govt and knowing they are
A) Inept....By all means M, name me one inititive you feel they have implemented correctly.
B) Concerned only with popular votes
C) Corrupt

I guess you being a bee keeper has absolutely jack squat to do with it.
Me, I'm impartial, unbiased
You. Biased, with self interest.
See the difference. I really have "no bone" in this other than seeing both sides and despite me actually "siding" with you....This govts track record speaks for itself. No escaping that.

And no splitting hairs over whether regulations reduce it by 80% or 100% is not "accuracy", it's semantics.

Just facts accuracy on all the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Difference between hating a govt and knowing they are
A) Inept....By all means M, name me one inititive you feel they have implemented correctly.
B) Concerned only with popular votes
C) Corrupt

I guess you being a bee keeper has absolutely jack squat to do with it.
Me, I'm impartial, unbiased
You. Biased, with self interest.

And no splitting hairs over whether regulations reduce it by 80% or 100% is not "accuracy", it's semantics.

Just facts accuracy on all the above.

---

lol you're impossible to talk with JBen, you can't even accept something as simple as a word's definition. A ban is a ban is a ban and it means ONE HUNDRED PERCENT prohibition of use. 80% reduction through regulation is NOT A BAN. Deal with it... or not.

As for the rest... i don't care how inept the Liberals are. They're the party in power, an issue has been brought to them and they have begun to act upon it. Nothing is set in stone yet so it's impossible to know if it'll be a massive clusermuck or a miracle of legislation or somewhere in between.

My stance on neonics is the same today (4 months after becoming active in beekeeping) that it was 3 years ago - the testing performed on neonics prior to launch in the industry was subpar, careless and potentially criminally lackluster.

I'm not a beekeeper that relies on commercial crops. Today, and for the foreseeable future, my colonies will be wildflower feeders. Down the road? Who knows.

My concern goes beyond the bees to include all pollinators. We're only talking about bees because they make some Canadians money... but we have no idea how the neonics are affecting other pollinating insects and animal species. This is research that needs to be done - it's inexcusable that it wasn't done before, and it's inexcusable for anyone to argue that commercial growers should be allowed to use the crap willy nilly, when they have no idea what it's capable of.

Well seeing as how your hung up on definitions today. Heres one for you I suggest you read it and comprehend it's meanings before A) accusing someone of....and B)......

Semantics

Quote:

---

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

---

If the shoe fits....

And as you always do, when you run out of logic, fact and points.
insults, first that and now....

how predictable.

Question: If the feds are currently studying it and are expected to come out in Oct with their findings and it's expected they will limit it's useage.

What's Ms Wynne's rush.
Care to answer?

There is no rush. The initial Federal report will be out long before any of the Ontario initiatives are engaged and enforced. Well, kind of, I predict the initial testing is going to show that the neonics are far more dangerous, across all spectrums of use, than oversight orgs were first led to believe and studies will be extended before final decisions will be made.

As for your inability to accept what a ban is, look at it this way.

You are currently under a ban - 100% prohibition - to not own any fully automatic firearms.

However, if you liken the ON neonics proposed regulations to gun regulations, if you proved you had suffienct cause to protect yourself forcebly, you would be allowed to comprise a specific portion of your firearm collection with fully automatic firearms.

There is a big difference between not being allowed use of any full autos, and being allowed to use some... Isn't there?

What we do know about neonics is that they are far less toxic to birds and small mammals than the insecticides they replaced - this has been the general trend of the chemical manufacturers and they have come a long way since DDT in the 50's and 60's. And the reasonable course of actions - and I'm sure they are already working on it - is a next generation insecticide which is even less toxic, not an abandonment of the course and revert back to the previous more toxic insecticides.

What the Wynne and OMFRA's plan does not include is what are farmers supposed to be using instead of neonics? No one involved at OMFRA has thought this through.

80% or 100% is splitting hairs M.
Your hung up on the word "Ban" and that is semantics.
/shrug

Quote:

---

What the Wynne and OMFRA's plan does not include is what are farmers supposed to be using instead of neonics? No one involved at OMFRA has thought this through.

---

Are you surprised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

What the Wynne and OMFRA's plan does not include is what are farmers supposed to be using instead of neonics? No one involved at OMFRA has thought this through.

---

Well, there is no plan yet. Just a couple heading titles really. And understandably that's got growers concerned.

How can they prove they're at risk of threat? Once they do prove there's a risk, will they get authorization to act in time to save crops? Will different regions with different pressures get unique considerations? So on and so forth.

If the growers do revert back to more dangerous products, it'll definitely be interesting to see how the public reacts.

One huge misunderstanding within OMFRA is that they don't seem to realize is that the best way to keep pests at bay is to try to eradicate them...and to do that where crops like corn are planted almost contiguously, everyone uses pesticide and keeps their crops as bug free.

OMFRA wants to not use pesticide until the pests exist at a level above some "threshold" and then allow farmers to try to manage them. That might work in your backyard, but not on hundreds of acres. Once you have reached the measureable threshold, you're stuck with trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

Well, there is no plan yet. Just a couple heading titles really. And understandably that's got growers concerned.

How can they prove they're at risk of threat? Once they do prove there's a risk, will they get authorization to act in time to save crops? Will different regions with different pressures get unique considerations? So on and so forth.

If the growers do revert back to more dangerous products, it'll definitely be interesting to see how the public reacts.

---

The public will likely still be happy that neonics are banned and that we're "saving the bees"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

The public will likely still be happy that neonics are banned and that we're "saving the bees"...

---

Apparently the public will think what the Sierra Club wants them to think. They are targeting Glyphosphate next. Time for the Feds to step up and get jurisdiction over farming practices. It's too important to leave to the provincial loons the citiots elect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

Well, there is no plan yet. Just a couple heading titles really. And understandably that's got growers concerned.

How can they prove they're at risk of threat? Once they do prove there's a risk, will they get authorization to act in time to save crops? Will different regions with different pressures get unique considerations? So on and so forth.

If the growers do revert back to more dangerous products, it'll definitely be interesting to see how the public reacts.

---

Well living in one of the largest corn production areas in Ontario and knowing plenty about the agricultural industry , I can say that growers are simply going to look out for their crops if that means having to spray insecticide to save a crop or prevent yield loss it will be done , oddmott you seem to underestimate the complexity of this issue and your claims that farmers "are holding a gun to someone's head " don't have any merit , these producers have simply stated that the Ontario government is forcing them to go back to previous methods of crop protection if they are prohibited from the use of treated seed , I know hundreds of farmers and none of them would tell you they don't care about the bees or the environment . Your claim that they will still be able to use them if they have a problem , well it's too late at that point , the use of neonics is just like an insurance policy and if I was in their shoes and the government told me my policy was now cancelled and provided no alternative I'd be responding in the same manner as the gfo is now to the liberal party.

Not that I'm sure it will mean anything to you oddmott as your mind is most obviously made up , but here is a very interesting article

http://www.country-guide.ca/2015/06/...ts-real/46788/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

Not that I'm sure it will mean anything to you oddmott as your mind is most obviously made up , but here is a very interesting article

http://www.country-guide.ca/2015/06/...ts-real/46788/

---

Good article...

"
Who will be left to speak for me?Seeds of this debate go back to the days of the cosmetic pesticide ban, Denys believes. He says many in agriculture felt they could ignore that debate, for two key reasons. One, it was happening to the lawn care sector, not on farms. Two, few believed the Liberal government would last as long as it has.
“The reality is the exact same people who were involved in the cosmetic pesticide ban within the government are the ones leading the charge now,” Denys says.
Denys believes those government insiders have only got shrewder. He believes they’re telling farm groups outside the grain and oilseed sector to stay out of this issue, that it isn’t their fight, and if they do become embroiled, the government will do to them what it’s doing to row-crop farmers."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

Not that I'm sure it will mean anything to you oddmott as your mind is most obviously made up , but here is a very interesting article

http://www.country-guide.ca/2015/06/...ts-real/46788/

---

Quote:

---

When Townsend pressed Bennett to divulge how much of the Sierra Club’s funds go to research pollinator health, Bennett’s reply was, “We do not fund any research, only promote awareness.”

---

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

If neonics are not that destructfull, why are they banned by 27 countries in the EU.? link;http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-banned-europe
and another link;http://www.motherearthnews.com/natur...z1307zkin.aspx
another;http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/...des-are-a-huge

It is not only bees that are affected , neonics also destroy many other beneficial insects which are eaten as food by our songbirds which then are also affected, neonics have a far more destructive reaching affect than is presently known by most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

If neonics are not that destructfull, why are they banned by 27 countries in the EU.?

---

Well my goodness we should ban them because they are so destructfull !! lol

Don't want to spoil your time on the high stool, but did you look at the origins of your links?
I thought not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Well my goodness we should ban them because they are so destructfull !! lol

Don't want to spoil your time on the high stool, but did you look at the origins of your links?
I thought not.

---

Well said Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

If neonics are not that destructfull, why are they banned by 27 countries in the EU.? link;http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-banned-europe
and another link;http://www.motherearthnews.com/natur...z1307zkin.aspx
another;http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/...des-are-a-huge

It is not only bees that are affected , neonics also destroy many other beneficial insects which are eaten as food by our songbirds which then are also affected, neonics have a far more destructive reaching affect than is presently known by most.

---

Jaycee - this isn't (or shouldn't be) an argument over neonics being harmful or not, it should be about whether they are less harmful that alternatives (which they are), and what the alternatives are (and no pesticide use is not a practical alternative). Neonics were introduced party because of their lesser effect on birds and small mammals.

Banning them in Europe may have been workable where the farms are small and subsidies are large (57B Euro), but that is not a practical solution for Canada. I can't find numbers for Canada, but...

europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-631_en.htm

"Europe has 12 million farmers and an average farm size of about 15 hectares (by way of comparison, the US has 2 million farmers and an average farm size of 180 hectares)."

A hectare is roughly 2.5 acres, so 38 acres in the EU vs 450 ac in the US.

So what you have in Europe is 12 million hobby farmers (by North American standards) whose hobbies are being financed by subsidies (read that taxpayers). The two are not at all comparable.

If Ontario wants to ban neonics and start subsidizing at a EU level, you can bet there would be a lot more farms in Ontario. But I don't see that happening - not with the province's current financial situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Jaycee - this isn't (or shouldn't be) an argument over neonics being harmful or not, it should be about whether they are less harmful that alternatives (which they are),

---

That is what this is about. Since the science was cheated in the first place, and nobody actually knows anything about how neonics affect land, humans & select livestock over longer periods of time... it's quite premature for you to announce anything about them, defacto.

All you know about neonics is that they are less harmful, in some ways, to some select species, over a specific period of time. You do NOT know if it's harmless to those same species over longer periods and after continued and cumulative exposure. You do NOT know a thing about how they affect non-tested species. You do NOT know their safety level, at all.

The EU is 8 years into a 25 yr effort of study. Canada is only in the 4th year of an open-ended study that may not be completed in our lifetimes, but the preliminary reports from the Canadian testing does not look favorable for those who claim neonics are all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

That is what this is about. Since the science was cheated in the first place, and nobody actually knows anything about how neonics affect land, humans & select livestock over longer periods of time... it's quite premature for you to announce anything about them, defacto.

All you know about neonics is that they are less harmful, in some ways, to some select species, over a specific period of time. You do NOT know if it's harmless to those same species over longer periods and after continued and cumulative exposure. You do NOT know a thing about how they affect non-tested species. You do NOT know their safety level, at all.

The EU is 8 years into a 25 yr effort of study. Canada is only in the 4th year of an open-ended study that may not be completed in our lifetimes, but the preliminary reports from the Canadian testing does not look favorable for those who claim neonics are all that.

---

What we do know is that in the short term neonics appear to be less toxic to the environment, small mammals and birds than current alternatives. That is why they are in use today. The issue from is not "neonics or nothing" it's "neonics or previously approved pesticides". To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

If the evaluation that neonics is being exposed to was applied to automobiles, we'd still be using horse and buggies. Those darn newfangled contraptions are dangerous, waste non-renewable resources, and pollute the air. The practical approach of cost/benefit which we apply to all other technology gets thrown out the window in the neonics discussion. "One bee killed is one to many" I believe I read on one website. Want to take a guess at how many bees get killed by automobiles. Lets ban those too to save the bees.

I'll be honest, i find it extremely entertaining how someone who posted the thread title "Science Collapse Disorder", continues to defend and promote some of the worst scientific work ever performed.

In your eyes it's terrible for a gov't to move quickly to impose strict regulations on a product while further scientific studies are performed on it... but it's perfectly fine by you for that product to be rushed to market and widespread use, without any concrete knowledge about how it works or effects our ecosystem and food stocks.

That's... a special kind of logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

I'll be honest, i find it extremely entertaining how someone who posted the thread title "Science Collapse Disorder", continues to defend and promote some of the worst scientific work ever performed.

In your eyes it's terrible for a gov't to move quickly to impose strict regulations on a product while further scientific studies are performed on it... but it's perfectly fine by you for that product to be rushed to market and widespread use, without any concrete knowledge about how it works or effects our ecosystem and food stocks.

That's... a special kind of logic.

---

That's that the best response you can come up with for the pretty valid points I raised. Most guys value their dignity to go away quietly after they've been beaten into the ground.

Through with this thread if the best you can come up with is that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

That's that the best response you can come up with for the pretty valid points I raised. Most guys value their dignity to go away quietly after they've been beaten into the ground.

Through with this thread if the best you can come up with is that.

---

What valid points? Your last paragraph essentially states that we shouldn't bother to expect proper science if it means impeding man's progression to ultimate laziness.

Let's keep dumping chemicals into our food... because it's easier than asking the producers (agri-chem corps) to employ actual science to ensure it won't kill us down the road.

What exactly do you think is valid about that outlook?

Semantics all around imo.

M: If "knee jerk" products are rushed to market, but work and serve a purpose.

Care to explain why a knee jerk reaction removing them is any better, especially when, as Werner is pointing out. The only existing alternatives are proven to be far worse. And the fall back of nothing is utterly unworkable, impractical. Utter nonsense.

Rock meet hard place.
In short, your argument about diving head first into the pool without plumbing the depths first can be mirrored right back at you. And worse, not only are they jumping in with both feet, ........................you admit theres no plan (same old song from this crew isn't it?????)

Hypocrisy?

6 of one, half dozen of another imo.

last edit.
Gee M, why not regulate all fossil fuels and oil by products be reduced by 80% in 2018.
You good with that? Sounds a lot like the GEA doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Semantics all around imo.

M: If "knee jerk" products are rushed to market, but work and serve a purpose.

Care to explain why a knee jerk reaction removing them is any better, especially when, as Werner is pointing.

---

Where's the kneejerk reaction of removing them? After 5 years of their mass-use in Canada, associated issues began arising in Ontario in Quebec. 7 - SEVEN! - years after those first issues, sufficient data had been accumulated to say definitively that neonics are more dangerous than their producers claimed.

Eight years after those first issues (13 years after their mass-use started across Canada), the govt of ON says "okay, we're going to restrict and reduce their use, as further studies are compiled".

13 years... and they're still not banned, just restricted. Where exactly is this kneejerk reaction you mentioned?

What's the fall back M.
DDT?

Only a fool would pull the plug on something that's as critical as something like this. Our crops/food/Agriculture industry.

With no soft place to land. That's a "knee-jerk"...by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Well my goodness we should ban them because they are so destructfull !! lol

Don't want to spoil your time on the high stool, but did you look at the origins of your links?
I thought not.

---

Most definitely looked at the origins .
If you didn't like the origins of those articles , try this one ,from "Harvard School of Public Health" , http://peakenergy.blogspot.ca/2014/0...k-between.html

Here is another one by Stefanie Seneff, who is a senior Research Scientist at MIT with so many degrees after her name it looks like a confused alphabet ;http://hercolano2.blogspot.ca/2014/0...-its-dark.html
scroll down to where it starts -thurs. July 3/2014.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Most definitely looked at the origins .
If you didn't like the origins of those articles , try this one ,from "Harvard School of Public Health" , http://peakenergy.blogspot.ca/2014/0...k-between.html

Here is another one by Stefanie Seneff, who is a senior Research Scientist at MIT with so many degrees after her name it looks like a confused alphabet ;http://hercolano2.blogspot.ca/2014/0...-its-dark.html
scroll down to where it starts -thurs. July 3/2014.

---

With regards to the second post. Yes , Stefanie Seneff has a few degress (Biophysics B.Sc, and both an M.Sc and Ph.D in Electrical Engineering), and is a senior researcher at MIT, in their Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; she specializes in language algorithms, and natural language processing with human-computer interactions. I do not doubt that she is brilliant in her work.

I do not know the academic background of her co-author, but he has been running his own environmental consultant businesses since 1972. I have read Dr. in front of his name, but I don't know what field his PhD might be in. He is also someone who publicly denounces GMO use, not to say that invalidates any of his research, but his impartiality may be suspect.

I read the article published in Entropy, the one the blog post is referring to. I claim no expert knowledge, but I can see why that paper was sent to a 'pay to publish' journal from a Chinese Open Access Publisher. It almost comes across as a review article, but then makes new claims, that should each have their own study, thrown in for good measure.

I read a few of the referenced materials, and on some points the Entropy article is technically correct, but then slaps grand conjectures on those facts. On the whole, it reads like a shoddy literature review with a clear intention: find ways to prove glyphosate is responsible for the obesity epidemic, Alzheimer's Disease, the rise in Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses, and other stuff. For the length of it, there is not much meat to each section.

Although the subject matter is physiological in nature, the authors do not attempt to frame their conclusions within physiologically relevant concentrations or conditions. Not uncommon to see, but with the claims the authors are making, it should be a prerequisite. With the resources they had, I have to wonder why they did not present this as a series of meta-analyses on the different subjects within their paper, while toning down the conclusions/soapbox parts. It would have been better received that way; either the associations are there, or they are not.

There may be some valid points in the paper, but they are drowned out by the writing style and assertions. I would have to read all of the referenced material for each section to trust that those papers claim what these two authors say they do.

Perhaps relevant; the authors also have published about the dangers of Aluminum, and how it should not be used in Society. Dr. Seneff has also recently published a paper with a sports concussion nutritionist. In it, they seem to blame glyphosate for increases in sports concussions. Their abstract has a huge, glaring, error in it, so I'm not sure how it got published. There is a difference between microbial and human physiology, and I would think they should know that before they write a paper. Then again, I didn't read the full paper, so maybe they clear that up somewhere.

All that said, I definitely support research into the effects of these different pesticides. Put the companies' products through the wringer, and test all of the company scientists' claims. They are not as free to publish as the academic community at large, so they need help to scrub off some of the sunshine and rainbows.

It is important that the studies are done. It is also important that the published research is not garbage.

There is surprisingly little oversight on scientific research, and nobody likes to point fingers at their 'peers' for doing a crap job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

MHere is another one by Stefanie Seneff, who is a senior Research Scientist at MIT with so many degrees after her name it looks like a confused alphabet

---

Looking at her alphabet soup means nothing. Auditing her bank account and revenue sources would be more revealing. Also her political and environmental leanings.

Ontario is the first place in North America to put restrictions on the use of neonics starting July 1.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/06/09/on...des-by-farmers

Bingo Sharon.

I asked M earlier "what's the rush to jump off the deep end". Sound familiar with their rush to be

Leaders in green energy?

Not surprisingly David Suzuki is making noise on FB cheering it.
Buried within the comments are more comments linking more studies criticising the rush from other scientists essentially saying "not so quick people". Funny he has nothing to say about those.

Sound familiar (global warming)? Just because some say it's so.....and if we have learned anything from that idiocy as well....

Ms Wynnes rush to be at the front imo is blantantly obvious and that's cause for concern.

As things stand Id love to see anyone backing the decision/rush without alternatives voice opinions on what agriculture is supposed to do or use

/crickets

And lastly

Even though at this point my own thoughts/feelings is that there's enough to say neonic have a role and should be dealt with.

I am more than just a little skeptical of those who push/champion such things.

You'd think by now given the green energy disasters, or global warming.

People would have learned that even "science" isn't alway...upright, godly, without agendas, especially the left idealist or

Infallible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Looking at her alphabet soup means nothing. Auditing her bank account and revenue sources would be more revealing. Also her political and environmental leanings.

---

I have more faith in the findings of an Independent Research Scientist , than someone who is paid and works for the big chemical companies, they definitely will not find anything wrong with these neonics , as they would be cutting off The Hand That Feeds Them.
The independent researcher is facing very strong opposition from [ the intensive lobbying and pressure from the AGChem industry who are seeking to protect their profits.] in brackets from an article in todays paper.

You mean like Al Gore and some of his friends Jaycee?

No such thing as independent these days. Everyone gets funding, grant money etc etc. and everyone is beholden to someone, some side. Might also want to think about irrigation and mounting problems there (see California, EU, Aust) and while unrelated that to will impact the ability to produce.

Perhaps some might like to link some studies that suggest alternatives. How we are to feed millions of people, avoid losses, the price of produce sky rocketing and more?

Or do we just go back to DDT or agent orange?

Funny that. Do away with the noise from both sides. And when you ask the simple question.

What's the solution. None of "antis" ( lol can't help myself)

Have answers. Haven't thought it all the way through. Just ban this, ban that, not unlike GW, or Oil or GE.

Idealism. Utopia doesn't work in an imperfect world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

What's the solution. None of "antis" ( lol can't help myself)

Have answers. Haven't thought it all the way through. Just ban this, ban that, not unlike GW, or Oil or GE.

Idealism. Utopia doesn't work in an imperfect world

---

Without weighing into the seed coating pesticide debate, I simply don't know the answer there, I just posted a link on page three of this thread of a farmer who is farming on an extremely large scale, 2000 acres in production, multiple cash crops and grasses and vegetables, and free range beef, pork, chicken. With no chemical fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide and only a small amount of roundup... Took him 5 years to get off the pesticide, 15 the fertilizer, but he's doing it! Of course billion dollar agri chemical makers want you spraying and spreading as much as possible, it's simple business.

He's beggining to get well known... If you spend the 1 hour and 15 minutes watching it, you'll get it... He is not an anti and makes more money per acre than conventional farmers. Again I'm sure it's not that easy to do, but it is being done... I realize talk is cheap, but here it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

I am sur Wynne and company have thought this through but how are they going to enforce these restrictions they put in place? Set up another agency? With many levels of government employees.. yep , sounds about right.

Dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intothedeep

Without weighing into the seed coating pesticide debate, I simply don't know the answer there, I just posted a link on page three of this thread of a farmer who is farming on an extremely large scale, 2000 acres in production, multiple cash crops and grasses and vegetables, and free range beef, pork, chicken. With no chemical fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide and only a small amount of roundup... Took him 5 years to get off the pesticide, 15 the fertilizer, but he's doing it! Of course billion dollar agri chemical makers want you spraying and spreading as much as possible, it's simple business.

He's beggining to get well known... If you spend the 1 hour and 15 minutes watching it, you'll get it... He is not an anti and makes more money per acre than conventional farmers. Again I'm sure it's not that easy to do, but it is being done... I realize talk is cheap, but here it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

---

I completely understand that it can work BUT unfortunately not every farmer is a good farmer just like every carpenter isn't a good carpenter. Many farmers will take the easiest route to farm and get a crop in and harvest in the fall. Some will educate themselves and find alternative ways to go almost chemical free. Many growers, greenhouse managers, horticulturist etc. have for many years have taken an IPM approach (Intergrated Pest Management). Almost 30 years ago the IPM approach was part of my turf , greenhouse, arboriculture , fruit tree, ecology courses while attending college. It was driven in our heads to identify diseases, pests, weeds, fungus etc. so that we knew when to apply a chemical to control a potential problem. Majority of the time only spot spraying was necessary. But unfortunately many will not take the time to educate themselves and gain this knowledge that would save them thousands of $ every year and less harmful to our environment. Many farmers need to be held accountable and gain this knowledge and apply it. Last week I was out for a drive and i saw four different farmers spraying their fields on one of the most windy days. The chemical was not even hitting the crop below the boom sprayers.Money was literally blowing in the wind, what a waste ! That is one of the first things that had to be considered among many others when picking a day to spray that was taught to me when I took my pesticide course. If it's too windy you pick another day to spray. Humidity and temperature was another because of evaporation for full coverage. Another problem is seeing them apply chemicals with no personal protective gear. Complete stupidity, laziness and I wonder why many of the good pesticides, herbicides if properly used were banned.

Thats just it ITD, we live in an imperfect world (and that applies to many aspects).

Solutions, workable, practical solutions are needed and this anyways isn't something (imo) we can just leap off the edge on. See the GEA as an example. Few I think will argue the problems with coal/hydro/nuke…(Neonics its looking like). Doesn't mean we should rush into wind and create more/bigger problems.

Just for example, at its very simplest, while all this talk of helping farmers is great.

Anyone looked around at the economic/financial realities of today?
Im sure Ms Wynne won't mind taxing everyone another 1% or 2% so that a) she doesn't have find savings elsewhere to pay peter or B) promote her versions of idealism and provide funding, or subsidies or protections against losses…..

On a small scale I don't think, can't envision why farmers might not be able to( your definition of large scale is not mine :) ), but we aren't talking small scales here in NA, especially on "these" crops.

If we want to get sarcastic (aka realize this is tongue in cheek sarcasm). Next thing we know, we run into problems with corn crops and shortage, or the price goes through the roof as a result, and the green idealist start griping about the lack of corn for their bio fuel cars and we need to jump off the deep end for something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yellow dog

I completely understand that it can work BUT unfortunately not every farmer is a good farmer just like every carpenter isn't a good carpenter. Many farmers will take the easiest route to farm and get a crop in and harvest in the fall. Some will educate themselves and find alternative ways to go almost chemical free. Many growers, greenhouse managers, horticulturist etc. have for many years have taken an IPM approach (Intergrated Pest Management). Almost 30 years ago the IPM approach was part of my turf , greenhouse, arboriculture , fruit tree, ecology courses while attending college. It was driven in our heads to identify diseases, pests, weeds, fungus etc. so that we knew when to apply a chemical to control a potential problem. Majority of the time only spot spraying was necessary. But unfortunately many will not take the time to educate themselves and gain this knowledge that would save them thousands of $ every year and less harmful to our environment. Many farmers need to be held accountable and gain this knowledge and apply it. Last week I was out for a drive and i saw four different farmers spraying their fields on one of the most windy days. The chemical was not even hitting the crop below the boom sprayers.Money was literally blowing in the wind, what a waste ! That is one of the first things that had to be considered among many others when picking a day to spray that was taught to me when I took my pesticide course. If it's too windy you pick another day to spray. Humidity and temperature was another because of evaporation for full coverage. Another problem is seeing them apply chemicals with no personal protective gear. Complete stupidity, laziness and I wonder why many of the good pesticides, herbicides if properly used were banned.

---

Agreed, I'm sure it's not easy, anyone can play armchair farmer... But I sure bet Monsanto and Bayer and so forth don't want people finding out those techniques.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Thats just it ITD, we live in an imperfect world (and that applies to many aspects).

Solutions, workable, practical solutions are needed and this anyways isn't something (imo) we can just leap off the edge on. See the GEA as an example. Few I think will argue the problems with coal/hydro/nuke…(Neonics its looking like). Doesn't mean we should rush into wind and create more/bigger problems.

Just for example, at its very simplest, while all this talk of helping farmers is great.

Anyone looked around at the economic/financial realities of today?
Im sure Ms Wynne won't mind taxing everyone another 1% or 2% so that a) she doesn't have find savings elsewhere to pay peter or B) promote her versions of idealism and provide funding, or subsidies or protections against losses…..

On a small scale I don't think, can't envision why farmers might not be able to( your definition of large scale is not mine :) ), but we aren't talking small scales here in NA, especially on "these" crops.

If we want to get sarcastic (aka realize this is tongue in cheek sarcasm). Next thing we know, we run into problems with corn crops and shortage, or the price goes through the roof as a result, and the green idealist start griping about the lack of corn for their bio fuel cars and we need to jump off the deep end for something else.

---

I thought you'd already jumped off the deep end Jben:)

I did.
But I looked first ;) Can you say the same of Ms Wynne and Liberals or the people of Toronto who vote for them?

Not exactly farmer friendly are they?
http://tvo.org/video/211702/big-wind

Add soaring Hydro, the land being raped (and aren't you normally a huge proponent of farmers?) and now this?

Don't get me wrong, I do think Neonics need to be dealt with. Like you, Im not really getting into that debate. I try to see the whole picture and give thought to ripple effects, and more. Something this govt and frankly the Green Champions and urban residents rarely do.

So does anyone have "workable, practical solutions" in lieu of neonics? Given come July 1st and 2017….

/dons tinfoil hat and removes sarcasm filter
one wonders if they are intentionally driving rural ontario to their knees so they sell those farms to make more room for eyes sores and more $ in their pockets.

Now be honest, have you set aside an hour of your time, looked around Rural Ont?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intothedeep

Agreed, I'm sure it's not easy, anyone can play armchair farmer... But I sure bet Monsanto and Bayer and so forth don't want people finding out those techniques.

---

That is why Big Chemical Co.'s fund research which is all "PROFIT Based" it is all about the MIGHTY DOLLAR .
You do not /will not see any research results that are negative published or announced to the user/public. All the results that are published by those large companies are always very positive so they can sell more chemicals , [The Almighty Dollar again].

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...o-rethink-ban/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...o-rethink-ban/

---

A couple of key paragraphs from trappermatt's link:

The US Agriculture Department and the EPA convened a working group two years ago to address that very question. Their report, issued last May, put activists back on their heels. It concluded that neonics, while a contributor, were way down the list of possible causes. They cited as the primary drivers colony management, viruses, bacteria, poor nutrition, genetics and habitat loss. By far the biggest culprit—the report called it “the single most detrimental pest of honeybees”—was identified as the parasitic mite varroa destructor—the likely cause of the 2004 die-off.

The federal report echoed findings published last year by the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which evaluated the cause of bee deaths as the European Union was debating whether to institute a ban. DEFRA noted that the bees used in many of these lab experiments were exposed to doses hundreds of times higher than what they encounter in the wild, and they were often administered by injections.

Yep, funny that Werner. And oddly, those that are in the scientific community (more than just these...can anyone say Global Warming??) and even here on the forum that are suggesting.

"Slow down, lets not jump off the deep end, with knee jerk reactions...." or..."Lets weigh the entire picture and not just in a black and white vacuum (Bees vs Neonics) be it ripple effects or other dynamics (Hydro, wind farms and those issues for Ontario farmers) or lack of alternatives, or....

Don't get measured and thoughtful responses but rather the same old same old. Not unlike anyone who is "against" the sex ed changes, is a homophobe. Nope instead its
Just corporate greed, or "your impossible" or more rhetoric and party lines.

Rather than possible solutions and balanced. Im sure Ms Wynne, Dr Bug and more won't say boo about those studies and findings.

While everyone out there seems to recognize the "conflict of interest" position that big business is in (big oil in the global warming debate, Monsanto and others in the neonics debate), few seem to realize that those arguing the other side of these arguments are also in a similar "conflict of interest" position. David Suzuki made millions off global warming, as have other researchers. Sierra club is pulling in big bucks off the neonics debate, as are many researchers. Find a (perceived) problem and become the expert, the publicize the heck out of it and you will be a rich man.

Likely the best example of this is the guy - I don't even recall his name - a non technical sales guy, that started the Y2K scare and became the Y2K planning expert commanding fees of 5K+ per 1/2 day to speak to corporate execs about how to plan for y2k preparedness. One of the biggest, costliest scams of the 20th century.

Or if you want a current example of people getting very rich. Those pushing Wind, (and their experts) and those building the turbines, because they sold an agenda and science masquerading as a solution to a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intothedeep

Without weighing into the seed coating pesticide debate, I simply don't know the answer there, I just posted a link on page three of this thread of a farmer who is farming on an extremely large scale, 2000 acres in production, multiple cash crops and grasses and vegetables, and free range beef, pork, chicken. With no chemical fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide and only a small amount of roundup... Took him 5 years to get off the pesticide, 15 the fertilizer, but he's doing it! Of course billion dollar agri chemical makers want you spraying and spreading as much as possible, it's simple business.

He's beggining to get well known... If you spend the 1 hour and 15 minutes watching it, you'll get it... He is not an anti and makes more money per acre than conventional farmers. Again I'm sure it's not that easy to do, but it is being done... I realize talk is cheap, but here it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

---

Mr brown seems like a very interesting fellow and looks like he has built a very successful enterprise , I'm not going to type for hours on this ITD , you do realize many of the same practices are used here in our province currently , no -till , cover crops , sequestered grazing for the guys still pasture raiseing beef and so on , many of the pics he shows with lots of worms and healthy organic matter I could go for a drive with a shovel and reproduce in less then an hour , fact is I can step right off my property line into the field behind and do it for that matter . So many try to take a very complex industry and point at simple blanket solutions so many things need to be looked at , it says he doesn't have any tile drainage , here without drainage thousands of acres would not be in production , another would be the costs of land , land where he is at is top end $3500 an acre , land here 2km from my house just sold at $22,500 an acre , like it or not the quest for cheap food has made the agriculture industry what it is , he talks about 20 buck a pound steak or 5 dollar a pound broiler chickens , plain and simple most people I know can't afford food costs like those and I'd be willing to bet not many on this site eat 20 dollar a pound steak very regular.