Should We Have A 2 Year Ban On 'bee-Poisoning' Insecticides

[jake-the-peg]

The issue of whether a small group of insecicides are killing bees comes up again at the Europen parliament today with a call for a 2 year ban on neonicitinoids.

Since these came into use a few years ago there has been a staggering drop off in pollinators like honey bees, there is fair but not conclusive evidence implicating neonicitinoids.

http://www.euractiv.com/sustainability/insecticide-firms-secret-bid-ban-news-519410


The UK government abstained last time should they back the 2 year ban this time or back the insecticide industry who oppose it?

If the bee disappeared off the face of the earth, man would only have four years left to live.” ― Albert Einstein

He may have overstated it but to me a two year ban seems a small price to find out

[ummmm]

I think they should do everything in their powers to try and reverse things.

This isn't a new problem; bees have been in the decline for years.

[Sharingan]

I personally think we should have a permanent ban on them, so yes 2 years would be a very good start.

[youngmafbog]

A permanent ban on them. Do you understand why they are used in the first place?

Difficult one Jake. I have watched a number of reports on this and there seems there is no real agreement, even amongst bee keepers.

The price we may have to pay is of course poorer crops and consequently higher prices. Would people be happy for that or blame the Government?

Personally I am really not sure, so I think I would pump for a ban in certain parts of the country so a better assessment can be made.

Is 2 years enough to clear anything from the soil, if it is a problem?

[Sharingan]

''A permanent ban on them. Do you understand why they are used in the first place?''
Oddly yes, which is why I expressed an opinion on the matter.
Some alternative reading for you:-

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/bees_neonics_alts.pdf

[LazyGun]

The half life of neonicitinoids in the soil has been estimated as anywhere between around 200 days ( manufacturers reports) to at the other extreme 7000 days from a US report. Most of such studies have settled around the 1-2 year mark - And that presents a problem if you are applying them annually, since you can get a build up in the soil.

I cannot find any reports of how widespread their use is across the whole of the UK - A scottish report would suggest only 1% of scottish agriculture makes use of neonicitinoids, which would imply a ban would not have a serious effect on yields etc, but I have no idea how widely used they are in the rest of the UK.

Given that very few of the safety studies have focused on the effect of such systemic insecticides on beneficial pollinators, and also given that neonicitinoids were able to circumvent some of the safety testing over in the US, I think a temporary ban for 2 -3 years would be in everyones interest so that the data can be collected and analysed.

[magsmay]

//Is 2 years enough to clear anything from the soil, if it is a problem?//

The insecticide is on the plant not the soil -and is picked up by bees when they try and pollinate the plant - if they do not spray the plant then the bees do not pick it up.

[LazyGun]

"Furthermore, EFSA calculated the half-life of the insecticide – the time for half to degrade – in the soil at 1,333 and 1,268 days in the UK trials, performed on winter barley. A half-life of more than a year means annual application of the insecticide can lead to a dangerous build-up in the soil. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/12/mps-insecticide-regulators-bees

[anotheoldgit]

A typical example of my often criticised remark, 'it never happened in my day', we never had all the present day use of Insecticides etc, yet the food tasted better and was much cheaper.

Yes they should be banned, if they are having that effect on bees, what is their long term effect on humans.

Incidentally Jake did that chap Einstein, ever work for the Daily Express? :0)

[mushroom25]

//did that chap Einstein, ever work for the Daily Express? :0) //

I don't believe so - if he did, he'd have been reciting some mantra about Madeleine McCann.

[jake-the-peg]

I agree that the Science isn't definative but there is a strong suspicion based on the timing of this particular familly of insecticides and bee decline plus lab tests showing bees affected by it.

Half life in the soil is only a concern here if the transmission is via that path - if bees are affected by it after it's sprayed for example that's irrelevant.

Is doing nothing really an option

[jomifl]

Bees do not pollinate barley by the way.

[jomifl]

Pollenate....

[jim360]

Insecticides have brought benefits and disadvantage, AOG. In your day our farms only had to sustain a global population approximately half of what it is today. Good lucky managing that, with approximately the same area available as farmland and no insecticides/ pesticides etc.

Otherwise you're probably quite right -- food that is produce on a small scale tends to have had more attention given to it which tends to lead to better quality. Not sure about the pricing, though -- I'd have thought intuitively that mass production would lead to cheaper food rather than more expensive.

If I may ask, AOG, "in your day" what were the prices of, say:

- A chicken or typical cut of meat;
- Local vegetables such as carrots, potatoes and broccoli;
- Something more exotic like a bunch of bananas;
- Loaf of bread;
- luxury food items such as bar of chocolate.
- Anything else that springs to mind that you can remember buying.

[Old_Geezer]

Myu knowledge just extends to the morning news today. Seems to me that exerts are undecided as to whether this is urgent and necessary or a knee jerk banning that will turn out not to solve the issue. If they don't seem to have a united front yet, I'm unsure what to make of it.

A two year moratorium may be a reasonable compromise as long as there are scheduled the necessary discussion of findings at the end of it to see whether it should be extended. But I'd suspect there is the risk of being sued for loss of trade from a ban brought in without legal cause ?

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

This is not my list, but I can confirm that it is pretty accurate.

A pint of milk: a penny ha'penny (i.e. 1.5 times a 240th of a pound)
A two ounce bar of chocolate, tuppence (a 120th of a pound)
Seven ounces of Lyons' "Green label" tea: seven pence ha'penny. (7.5 old pence)
Eggs around one and six a dozen, i.e. a penny ha'penny each.
A gallon of paraffin (aka kerosene) for portable lamps or heaters, two shillings (24 old pence)
A packet of twelve cigarettes (Will's Gold Flake or Player's Navy Cut) eleven pence ha'penny.
An adult man's haircut, short back and sides: six pence.
A rail journey: a penny a mile (or a penny ha'penny first class).
A tinned can of baked beans or anything similar: six pence.
A battery for a small torch (aka flashlight) for the "blackout", five pence farthing, including purchase tax (a farthing was a quarter of a pre-decimalisation penny)
A new novel. seven shillings and six pence (a shilling was a twentieth of a pound)
A reprinted novel: six shillings.
A Penguin paperback: six pence.
A weekday newspaper: one penny
A first class postage stamp: a penny ha'penny, increased to tuppence ha'penny during the war.

These are my recollections
Bananas what were them?
Loaf of bread: 4½ pennies
Petrol: 4 gallons for £1
Carrots: 1 Penny each

Another good source of information

http://www.ne-diary.bpears.org.uk/Bck/Popular.html

[jim360]

Was that before or after the War?

As best I can make out, using this inflation calculator, the prices are comparable with today's prices:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

if 1939, then 1 old penny is worth about 23.5p today. Carrots are available loose in Tesco for 9 pence currently. A loaf of bread costing 4 and ha'penny is about £1 today -- bread loaf prices range from 50p for a value loaf up to about £1.50 for branded.

4 gallons of (unleaded) petrol now comes to about £25 pounds - but would have been £56 back then (1939, or £37 in 1945) using this same calculator! That one shocks me rather.

As far as I can make out everything now is comparatively cheaper (or of a similar price) than back then, but this may be misleading -- would also need to know of an average salary in 1939, and also may have got hold of the wrong end of the War. Over the period the value of a pound reduced by about 34%.

[kettledrum]

Jim. I got my first car in 1963 & petrol then cost 4/11d a gallon ie you could buy 4 gallons & still have change from a pound.

[woofgang]

set prices against wages before you fire up the time machine. I think a 2 year ban is a good compromise. There was an article about it on Countryfile last week. Even the people who think that there is a link are not yet certain. The sad bit is that they were brought in to avoid the use of known toxic chemicals which needed to be applied in greater concentration.
With respect sharin, i wouldn't call F.O.E an unbiased source of information

[wiltsman]

I think we all need to take care when using insecticides.

I do sometimes use them, but only sparingly - and I never use them when there are open flowers showing on the weeds I need to clear.

[jim360]

kd - I'm using the figures quoted in AOG's post, and can't vouch for their accuracy.

There are a few reasons why I'm not sure whether or not my figures are accurate. Firstly the reference year matters as there was a lot of inflation during the War, so I need really to know which side of it AOG is meaning. Secondly the average salary also matters, as I acknowledged, so it could be that a penny then meant far less, or more, than it appears using the inflation measure from that site.

Even with all this taken on board, though, I think some things back then may have been more expensive than today, comparatively, than might appear. But I'm aware that there's reason to be a bit sceptical of my figures. I await AOG's reply as to reference year.