Insecticides Put World Food Supplies at Risk, Say Scientists - Environment - The Guardian

1/7/2014 Insecticides put world food supplies at risk, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/insecticides-world-food-supplies-risk 1/23
News Sport Comment Culture Business Money Life & style Travel Environment Tech TV
Video Dating Offers Jobs
Search
Today's best video
Living in the Shadows
David Maurice Smith visits the remote
Barkindji Aboriginal community of Wilcannia,
New South Wales, Australia
Iraqi government
troops battle Isis
militants video
Footage aired on
Iraqi state television
apparently shows
Iraqi government troops launching attacks on
Isis militants, east of Tikrit
Surfers have a close
encounter
Sydney surfers have
a close encounter
with a whale.
Let the hangover
commence:
Glastonbury wraps up
for another year
Glastonbury 2014
saw the metal hordes
take the main stage in the shape of Metallica,
and a country & western flash mob in honour
of Dolly Parton
Environment
Pesticides
Insecticides put world food
supplies at risk, say scientists
Regulations on pesticides have failed to prevent
poisoning of almost all habitats, international
team of scientists concludes
Email
Tweet 2,254
Share
Share 0
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Tuesday 24 June 2014
Jump to comments (570)
Farmers use helicopters to spray insecticide and fertilizer on wheat crops in
Henan province, China. Photograph: TPG/Getty Images
The worlds most widely used insecticides have
contaminated the environment across the planet so
pervasively that global food production is at risk,
according to a comprehensive scientific assessment
of the chemicals impacts.
The researchers compare their impact with that
reported in Silent Spring, the landmark 1962 book by
Rachel Carson that revealed the decimation of birds
and insects by the blanket use of DDT and other
pesticides and led to the modern environmental
movement.
Billions of dollars worth of the potent and long-lasting
neurotoxins are sold every year but regulations have
failed to prevent the poisoning of almost all habitats,
the international team of scientists concluded in the
most detailed study yet. As a result, they say,
creatures essential to global food production from
Environment
Pesticides Bees
Farming Wildlife
Insects Food
UK news
World news
Science
Global development
Food security
Society
More on this
story
Do farmers really
need bee-harming
insecticides?
Syngenta says
some farmers
have no choice but
to use banned
neonicotinoids,
which are linked to
declining bee
populations. But is
it true that no
alternatives exist?
With your help,
Karl Mathiesen
investigates.
Syngenta seeks
'emergency'
exemption to use
banned
insecticide on UK
crops
Edition:
UK US AU Sign in Beta
Subscribe About us Today's paper
The Guardian's
online dating site
I am a
Seeking
Aged
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Last 24 hours
Peru now has a
licence to kill
environmental
protesters
Extreme weather official advice rewritten
to remove climate change link
First wild beavers to be seen in England
for centuries to be captured
Liberal push to strip environmental groups
of charitable tax status
Rate of deforestation in Indonesia
Meet someone worth meeting
Man
Women
25 to 45
Enter your charity in The Guardian
Charity Awards
Be rewarded and recognised for your great
work. Enter your charity today.
On Environment
bees to earthworms are likely to be suffering grave
harm and the chemicals must be phased out.
The new assessment analysed the risks associated
with neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides on which
farmers spend $2.6bn (1.53bn) a year.
Neonicotinoids are applied routinely rather than in
response to pest attacks but the scientists highlight the
striking lack of evidence that this leads to increased
crop yields.
The evidence is very clear. We are witnessing a threat
to the productivity of our natural and farmed
environment equivalent to that posed by
organophosphates or DDT, said Jean-Marc Bonmatin,
of the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)
in France, one of the 29 international researchers who
conducted the four-year assessment. Far from
protecting food production, the use of neonicotinoid
insecticides is threatening the very infrastructure which
enables it. He said the chemicals imperilled food
supplies by harming bees and other pollinators, which
fertilise about three-quarters of the worlds crops, and
the organisms that create the healthy soils which the
worlds food requires in order to grow.
Systemic insecticides. Photograph: /Guim
Professor Dave Goulson, at the University of Sussex,
another member of the team, said: It is astonishing we
have learned so little. After Silent Spring revealed the
unfortunate side-effects of those chemicals, there was
a big backlash. But we seem to have gone back to
exactly what we were doing in the 1950s. It is just
history repeating itself. The pervasive nature of these
chemicals mean they are found everywhere now.
If all our soils are toxic, that should really worry us, as
soil is crucial to food production."
The assessment, published on Tuesday, cites the
chemicals as a key factor in the decline of bees,
Caff, 26 logoboy, 41
Search
Most viewed Latest
Neonicotinoids
are the new DDT
killing the natural
world
overtakes Brazil, says study
More most viewed
alongside the loss of flower-rich habitats meadows and
disease. The insecticides harm bees ability to
navigate and learn, damage their immune systems and
cut colony growth. In worms, which provide a critical
role in aerating soil, exposure to the chemicals affects
their ability to tunnel.
Dragonflies, which eat mosquitoes, and other
creatures that live in water are also suffering, with
some studies showing that ditchwater has become so
contaminated it could be used directly as a lice-control
pesticide.
The report warned that loss of insects may be linked to
major declines in the birds that feed on them, though it
also notes that eating just a few insecticide-treated
seeds would kill birds directly.
One of the last living male dusky seaside sparrows is seen in this 1981 file
photo while in captivity at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville,
Florida. DDT pesticide spraying since the 1940s contributed to the
extinction of this species. Photograph: Nathan Benn/Corbis
Overall, a compelling body of evidence has
accumulated that clearly demonstrates that the wide-
scale use of these persistent, water-soluble chemicals
is having widespread, chronic impacts upon global
biodiversity and is likely to be having major negative
effects on ecosystem services such as pollination that
are vital to food security, the study concluded.
The report is being published as a special issue of the
peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and
Pollution Research and was funded by a charitable
foundation run by the ethical bank Triodos.
The EU, opposed by the British government and the
National Farmers Union, has already imposed a
temporary three-year moratorium on the use of some
neonicotinoids on some crops. This month US
president Barack Obama ordered an urgent
assessment of the impact of neonicotinoids on bees.
But the insecticides are used all over the world on
crops, as well as flea treatments in cats and dogs and
to protect timber from termites.
However, the Crop Protection Association, which
represents pesticide manufacturers, criticised the
report. Nick von Westenholz, chief executive of the
CPA, said: It is a selective review of existing studies
which highlighted worst-case scenarios, largely
produced under laboratory conditions. As such, the
publication does not represent a robust assessment of
the safety of systemic pesticides under realistic
conditions of use.
Von Westenholz added: Importantly, they have failed
or neglected to look at the broad benefits provided by
this technology and the fact that by maximising yields
from land already under cultivation, more wild spaces
are preserved for biodiversity. The crop protection
industry takes its responsibility towards pollinators
seriously. We recognise the vital role pollinators play in
global food production.
A Bulgarian beekeeper grabs dead bees during a demonstration in Sofia to
call for a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in April.
Photograph: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images
The new report, called the Worldwide Integrated
Assessment on Systemic Pesticides, analysed every
peer-reviewed scientific paper on neonicotinoids and
another insecticide called fipronil since they were first
used in the mid-1990s. These chemicals are different
from other pesticides because, instead of being
sprayed over crops, they are usually used to treat
seeds. This means they are taken up by every part of
the growing plant, including roots, leaves, pollen and
nectar, providing multiple ways for other creatures to
be exposed.
The scientists found that the use of the insecticides
shows a rapid increase over the past decade and
that the slow breakdown of the compounds and their
ability to be washed off fields in water has led to large-
scale contamination. The team states that current
rules on use have failed to prevent dangerous levels
building up in the environment.
Almost as concerning as what is known about
neonicotinoids is what is not known, the researchers
said. Most countries have no public data on the
quantities or locations of the systemic pesticides being
applied. The testing demanded by regulators to date
has not determined the long-term effect of sub-lethal
Tweet
Email
Prev Next

Comments for this discussion are now closed.
570 comments. Showing 50 conversations, threads collapsed , sorted oldest first
1 2 3 5
All comments Staff replies Guardian picks
15 PEOPLE, 16 COMMENTS
Show 13 more replies Last reply: 24 June 2014 8:37pm
Ecomouse1
So fucking depressing.
24 June 2014 12:20am
530
drfotheringham Ecomouse1
My thoughts exactly. Hell and handcart.
24 June 2014 12:26am
119
BWhale Ecomouse1
In the end, the market will destroy everything we know.
24 June 2014 12:35am
385
thelastchanceinn Ecomouse1
Yeah. Depressing that common sense has truly disappeared!
24 June 2014 12:51am
45
roninwarrior
24 June 2014 12:22am
384
doses, nor has it assessed the impact of the
combined impact of the cocktail of many pesticides
encountered in most fields. The toxicity of
neonicotinoids has only been established for very few
of the species known to be exposed. For example, just
four of the 25,000 known species of bee have been
assessed. There is virtually no data on effects on
reptiles or mammals.
Sign up for the Green light email
The most important environment stories each week
including data, opinion pieces and guides.
Sign up for the Green light email
Share
Share
Show 18 more replies Last reply: 24 June 2014 11:45am
Thank you Bayer and Monsanto
PeteSaman roninwarrior
Now Monsanto's favourite "Roundup" is beginning to appear in breast milk
An utterly despicable company, no wonder Tony Blair likes them.
24 June 2014 1:42am
262
Sionnachfionn PeteSaman
Can you link to the peer reviewed scientific journal study that found the
glyphosate in breast milk? I've looked very hard and only found a report on
the 'study' written and published by the group who purported to have run the
study (Moms Across America), and that report was scientifically illiterate at
best! I'm no fan of profiteering at the expense of human/environmental
health, but I despise the people on the 'other' side of scientific debates who
lie and misrepresent data to line their pockets, just as much.
This is an interesting insight into the motivations of some of those on the
'organic' side.
http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Academics-
Review_Organic-Marketing-Report1.pdf
24 June 2014 2:37am
57
LostintheUS roninwarrior
From the friendly people who brought you mustard gas and Agent Orange.
24 June 2014 3:04am
69
Ecolophant
oh fuck, you mean we have to live here as well...
24 June 2014 12:22am
59
TechnicalEphemera Ecolophant
Well look at the upside, if they manage to kill off the bees we won't be living
here very long.
24 June 2014 7:25am
48
theomatica Ecolophant
The problem is, is that there is no solution to this, the higher yields from
intensive chemical based farming can not be matched by organic and we
need these to feed the world.
If somehow humanity globally, was able to reduce it's population via
education and tax incentives for 1 or 2 children choices. And if we all ate
less meat and got rid of crop grown biofuels then eventually there wouldn't
be the need for chemicals. But this is highly unlikely to ever be acted upon.
So, the march will continue with chemically soaked GMO's the next.
24 June 2014 10:38am
14
purpleswimmingtigers theomatica
We're not feeding the world now, we could but there's no profit in it.
24 June 2014 11:20am
25
peppermintish
GM maybe the only way then.
24 June 2014 12:22am
22
drfotheringham peppermintish
Erm no infact NO!
24 June 2014 12:28am
225
priceus peppermintish
Organic...
24 June 2014 12:41am
143
illeist peppermintish
GM uses seeds that are modified to withstand drenching in large amounts of
24 June 2014 12:55am
28
ArthriticNinja
That's all of us fucked then.
24 June 2014 12:24am
56
KallisteHill ArthriticNinja
Only the 99%. The 1% think they'll buy their way out of this mess.
24 June 2014 12:46am
165
GreatGrandDad KallisteHill
The 1% think they'll buy their way out of this mess.
I don't see much in the way of signs that the 1% have realised what is on its
way due to this mess.
If they did, they'd be buying crofts, not yachts----and using their wealth to
get those crofts thoroughly equipped with good tools and stock and be
building up their and their children's crofting skills.
As I said in my comment below (at 1:00am), Crash Two is going to be very
painful, particularly in industrialised regions.
It is impossible to forecast how it will work out, but after socialism and
capitalism have failed distributism may be tried----and a 1% never be allowed
to arise again.
24 June 2014 1:15am
101
illeist GreatGrandDad
But some have done so. There are some self-sufficient communities now in
24 June 2014 2:05am
30
mundayschild
So eventually the human species will become the virus that destroys it's own food
chain.
Fucking stupidity.
24 June 2014 12:26am
270
caffienated mundayschild
Given the interlinked causality of this all, it would be interesting to see
farmers freed from the supermarket buyers and concepts of 'prettiness' of
produce such that size and taste were what mattered - or maybe even taste
alone. If there wasn't the relentless pressure to grow more of something at
the wrong time of year for less money than last year, maybe we wouldn't
need all this rubbish.
Oh, and the briefly interviewed representative of Pesticide Co- u don't believe
for one second you care about natural pollinators if they endanger your
ability to sell your poison - otherwise we'd have comprehensive test data on
the effects upon them available. I imagine there's more profit yielding
chemistry and gene splicing lurking in the wings to render natural pollination
unnecessary so long as you buy your seed from Mr Monsanto and
understand you'll get a crop but no useful seed from it...
If we're really piling up residual poison like that and it doesn't all harmlessly
breakup as some imply, then we're heading for a big problem that's going to
be quite expensive to fix.
24 June 2014 12:53am
68
be quite expensive to fix.
mundayschild caffienated
And the first casualties will be third world contries and those too poor to be
able to cope.
What a nightmare.
24 June 2014 1:00am
33
mundayschild mundayschild
*countries
24 June 2014 1:01am
twistedtwister
Native American saying...
When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river
poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money.
24 June 2014 12:26am
239
mimpiview twistedtwister
Good evidence that this is a modern saying, from 1972.
Its also cheesy.
But its true.
24 June 2014 3:20am
32
leonoracat mimpiview
Because it dates from 1972 doesn't mean that it wasn't coined by a Native
American!
24 June 2014 8:26am
35
AllMixedUp mimpiview
From that article:
24 June 2014 8:58am
8
The_Truth_Hurts
Money money money
24 June 2014 12:31am
37
UnevenSurface The_Truth_Hurts
Talking of money, what on earth is the point of quoting the Crop Protection
Association - an interested party - in this piece? Is it to try and inject some
manufactured controversy where none exists? This is journalism at its
laziest. If you can't find disinterested parties to represent both sides, that's
nature's way of telling you that only one is valid.
24 June 2014 4:20am
12
ID6477671 The_Truth_Hurts
Keep ABBA out of this please
25 June 2014 11:00am
rebeccazg
can we ask for owen paterson to resign now ?
24 June 2014 12:31am
58
cheveguara
I read Silent Spring as a student in 1973 when I found out what the spraying of DDT
had done to the environment. So for the last forty years I have supported organic
farming's aim of being at one with nature. We know that bees are being seriously
affected by neonicotinoids, so perhaps everything else is likely to be affected. Going
organic is the only way forward which will free us from the very real chance of our
environment being poisoned to death, and which will also free us from the rapacious
drug companies who only care about their profit billions and nothing about the
environment.
24 June 2014 12:35am
175
GreatGrandDad cheveguara
I read Silent Spring as a student in 1973.....
I, too, remember the debates that we had in the early 1970s after the
publication of Limits to Growth, A Blueprint for Survival, and Silent Spring.
Unfortunately the older generation didn't cotton on and elected Thatcher and
Reagan and pursued 'Greed is Good'.
Historians in the future will look back and try to explain how people who
called themselves capitalists did not realise that it was wrong to squander
the finite resources of coal and oil and treat production of them as energy
income that could be expended rather than as energy capital that should
only be turned into other forms of energy capital (such as hydro schemes
and photovoltaics) to capture solar energy.
24 June 2014 1:29am
106
churchcat GreatGrandDad
But Capitalism is not a sane religion - it is the religion of a mad dog. I once
confounded an economics PhD student by asking him this Q - You have
one cake - you eat it - what's left ? Nothing he answered
You have one planet, you eat it - what's left?
The idea had never crossed his mind
24 June 2014 8:37am
44
tscrimshaw churchcat
We're constantly told that growth is a good thing. But we rarely care to think
24 June 2014 9:41am
8
ID7340157
These are products, sold for cash by companies for profit. Sponsored by
governments bought and paid for these giant corporations.
They are doing very well out of this. 135 million acres of Monsanto engineered soya
grown in Argentina each year, and killing the locals. Trying to ignore what's going on
really helps.
You know I can remember a time when plastic bottles didn t exist. And we survived. I
was on a beach in the South China Sea a while back. The plastic bottles were piled
up all along the beach from jungles edge to sea. Half a meter thick! I wept for the
children in the shacks who will never know what its like to walk on sand. But we all
carry a plastic bottle of water cos modern humans can t get from A to B without
dehydrating, said the marketing guru and you believed him/her.
24 June 2014 12:37am
163
LostintheUS ID7340157
The good alternative is to purchase a stainless steel water bottle and fill it
from your filtered tap.
24 June 2014 3:09am
25
ColdRobin
Yes, it's truly grim to realise the greed and stupidity of man !
24 June 2014 12:39am
45
KallisteHill ColdRobin
Especially when that man is Dave Cameron.
24 June 2014 12:45am
33
amrit ColdRobin
Bees are dying because of crop spray.
we fatten chickens, pigs and other animals for meat.
we feed cows more harmone based stuff to deliver more milk.
it works all the way and we are becoming fat and will die because of many
kinds of diseases and it may be too difficult to reach the plastic bottle that
contains water.
I am sure we can rely on fructose liquid from corn to be used for honey on
toast. we will soon devise some strategy how to fertilize flowers in crops.
when I was very young even an illiterate farmers used to say, you see these
fertilizers and insecticide, people have started using, will ultimately harm us.
24 June 2014 2:38am
33
Joshlondon
For years we've been told by farmers, agribusiness and the supermarkets that
Organic food production is a con and a waste of money. Well for those of us who
don't want to eat poison on our food it seems that the constant spraying of toxins
into our environment has unsurprisingly had a devastating impact on our ecosystem.
It's time to return food production to first principles of good husbandry respecting the
environment and the mutual interdependence of plants, animals, birds and insects.
24 June 2014 12:40am
172
GiulioSica Joshlondon
Yes, one of the classic putdowns of the so-called promoters of such
corporate science is that everything is organic, since everything comes from
the earth, or that humans have been modifying nature for thousands of years
and this is no different. Do we have to wait another 20 years before the
damage that is being done by these companies regarding GMOs is finally
revealed. We know all this yet seem powerless to stop them. Truly a tragic
situation.
24 June 2014 12:48am
97
pdog Joshlondon
If I wanted to be contrary I would say for years the public have told farmers,
the agribusiness and supermarkets that they don't really have a great
appetite for organic.
Although it has a niche demand, which goes up slightly through times of
perceived economic prosperity (pre-2007/8), as soon as households feel a
'squeeze' the first thing to go out of the window is the 'luxury' of organic.
Look at the organic egg market. It worked for a while and there was enough
demand to make a business from it. But as soon as the recession came
that demand shifted back to non-organic (and cheaper) options.
I will hazard the generalisation that the public couldn't really give a damn
about where their food comes from, as long as it is available and cheap.
You only have to look at the aftermath of the horse-meat scandal to see
that.
So who is to blame for the effects that the article describes?
I don't know, but it's probably just about everyone.
24 June 2014 8:08am
15
churchcat pdog
Everyone? For blame you have to have an action taken in the face of
24 June 2014 8:43am
11
Notjimdewar
I was wondering why, in Adelaide, it has been a few years since I have seen a [once
24 June 2014 12:45am
22
I was wondering why, in Adelaide, it has been a few years since I have seen a [once
ubiquitous] sparrow or willy-wagtail.
Beanfield85
Meanwhile we stuck with a climate-change denying Monsanto placeman as
Environment Secretary.
Nothing's ever going to be done about this, is it? Just a steady stream of corrupt
politicians refusing to take action until it's too late.
It's the children I feel sorry for, their lives are going to be dreadful.
24 June 2014 12:48am
131
illeist Beanfield85
That's what my gran said when I was a lass and asked her what she thought
the world would be like when I was her age.
24 June 2014 1:02am
6
Beanfield85 illeist
I'm tempted to say she was right. Every successive government just seems
to take more away from us.
Things just get worse and worse. I can't think of any government that's really
made anything better, beyond a few dog treats here and there.
Nothing every really changes, different sets of millionaires come in, fiddle
about and leave with a gold plated pension while our lives get steadily
worse.
It really is horribly depressing.
24 June 2014 1:37am
56
Beanfield85 Beanfield85
The above should have read, "I can't think of any government within my
24 June 2014 1:40am
2
Mark Steel
Weren't pesticides originally used to *improve* crops, thereby boosting food
production...?
24 June 2014 12:54am
3
GreatGrandDad Mark Steel
Pesticides improve yields temporarily, until some new pest gets a grip, but
their secondary effects do harm.
They are a classic example of how technology creates more problems than
it solves.
I recommennd TechNoFix
24 June 2014 1:55am
38
GreatGrandDad GreatGrandDad
Sorry----finger trouble!
I recommend a recent book TechNoFix for a detailed exposition.
24 June 2014 2:01am
10
KarlMarxJr GreatGrandDad
Technology isn't the problem. The problem is that markets put profit first and
24 June 2014 2:54am
11
unaszplodrmann
Brawndo's got what plants crave!
24 June 2014 12:54am
6
MrBlueberry
Oh come come....the UK refused to ban neonicotinoids because they said there was
no harm being done to our food or the bees....they must be right after all because
they did their own study and after great deliberation they still refuse to accept the EU
directive for a temporary ban. Remember weapons of mass destruction? Pesticides
of mass destruction?
The UK government's FSA also said organic food was no better than conventional
food. Yes, oh yes, a government we can really trust for honesty and integrity. Yes,
hey ho, a government that looks after the interest of the common person like you and
me before corporate finance and its fair distribution. A government that understands
completely the will of its people, the plants that inhabit its country, the animals that
walk upon it, the soil under it, the air above and the universe that surrounds it. Oh
yes, not a moment spent on greed or inequality. No hunger upon this planet, no
thirst. This is why we have governments.....who know what they are doing and
rescue us from the terrors of the modern world.
24 June 2014 12:57am
67
Bricke MrBlueberry
The scientists said it was okay, so it must have been okay. Don't panic, the
scientists will sort this problem out for us!
24 June 2014 1:12am
5
GreatGrandDad Bricke
I like the sarcasm, and your implication that it is time to panic.
When it is time to panic, he who panics first panics best.
I recently read about an American who was asked why he was taking early
retirement and going off to live in a little valley in the hills. He replied: "Well,
it is a lovely property with great scenery, fertile land and its own
microhydroelectricity-----but the really big attraction is that it puts 300 miles
of armed hillbillies between me and the nearest city"!!.
24 June 2014 2:13am
39
MrsWormwood MrBlueberry
No, they said that organic food was no more nutritious than non-organic.
24 June 2014 8:19am
12
psychopathiclovelord
If we throw mother nature out the window, she comes back in the door with a
pitchfork.
Masanobu Fukuoka
24 June 2014 12:58am
53
blundermouth psychopathiclovelord
Confucius say: 'We're fucked'.
24 June 2014 8:11am
10
psychopathiclovelord blundermouth
Well fortunately for Confucius he was long gone before all this bullshit
started. If he were alive I'm sure he would have been more pragmatic about
the problems we face. On a personal level there is much we can do, not
buying food that is sprayed with poisons for a start. The organic/ natural
food movements around the world have had strong support since we started
farming in a way non compatible with nature, among these great men such
as Fukuoka. We are only fucked if the majority close their eyes and say
'We're fucked'
24 June 2014 2:49pm
1
illeist
So many song birds are gone. I never see the insect eaters anymore.
24 June 2014 12:59am
22
So many song birds are gone. I never see the insect eaters anymore.
When was the last time I saw a bee, or a butterfly, or a dragonfly, cricket or
grasshopper.
I can't clearly remember. Maybe 14 years.
UnevenSurface illeist
In the summers of the 60s my father would put us in the car and we'd drive
24 June 2014 4:29am
4
UnevenSurface UnevenSurface
Around for an hour. The front if the ca would be so thick with dead insects
that you had to scrape them off with a stick. Nowadays a drive of twice that
length still leaves your car pristine.
24 June 2014 4:31am
24
tickyt illeist
You need to get out of the concrete jungle. It's not all dead yet - though give
it a few decades and it may well be. But here in my Devon town garden I've
got bees and butterflies and (in the next month or 2) the occasional big
green dragonfly, along with sparrows, blue tits, goldfinches, wrens, robins,
blackbirds, thrushes..... and sea gulls. There are still plenty of grasshoppers
in the fields and skylarks up on the moor.
It's not too late, although the eleventh hour may already be upon us.
24 June 2014 9:07am
12
sadhu
My dear friend who recently bought some fast growing grass seeds, few days later
noticed that there were flies all around the fast growing grass. At close inspection
she noticed that the worms in that area were dead and the flies were there because
of the worms. It is then she realised the seeds must have been treated with some
kind of chemicals. Wow, first hand experience of this articles. I am amazed how
observant she is in these matters.
24 June 2014 12:59am
56
illeist sadhu
Maybe a fungicide or mold inhibitor?
24 June 2014 1:15am
1
anniegyg illeist
Whatever.
The basic problem is the same.
We kill off the insects, earthworms, etc. And their predators.
The insects come back in modified form. But the predators are dead.
Did that solve the problem?!
24 June 2014 10:15am
5
GreatGrandDad
This report is but one more indicator that de-development and de-growth in the
industrialised regions should be welcomed and cannot come too soon.
That helicopter in the photo was not hired by a farmer to spray his crop----it was hired
by a manager in an agribusiness that is part of the industrialised-agriculture
'development'. And that 'development' was only possible due to petrochemically-
based artificial fertilisers, herbicides, and pesticides.
It is going to be messy and cause a lot of hardship in industrialised regions but the
ending of excessive dependence on coal and oil/gas (simply because their easy
availability is now contracting) will cut down on industrialised agriculture and food will
have to be produced by agrarian farmers and smallholders.
We nearly had the start of de-development in 2008 after the rise in oil price in 2007
(due to a very small deficiency of supply) caused food prices to rise, holders of 'sub-
prime' mortgages to have to default and the shaking of the
industrialised/consumerist/capitalist 'developed' system in Crash One.
24 June 2014 1:00am
40
I was greatly discouraged recently to see that even cool-headed Alastair Darling, who
clearly does see the devastating Crash Two occurring soon, could not put it into
spoken words (probably because that would so have offended his colleagues whose
re-election chances he would have blighted).
Read about his interview---and read between the lines.
He knows 'total social collapse' is very near.
The subsequent societal reconstruction is going to be painful and messy and
accompanied by regrets that we wasted forty years in which we could have prepared.
(Blueprint for Survival, The Ecologist 1972).
Thanks for those links.
There might be a small window to get skilled up to learn a trade that will be
useful after things settle. But I agree that it will be a very difficult adjustment.
24 June 2014 1:14am
5
NB: Blueprint for Survival, The Ecologist 1972
http://www.theecologist.org/back_archive/dynamic/?
url=http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/exact/browse/307/308/5390/3/1/0/
24 June 2014 1:34am
2
bluntforcemedia
Growing your own in a community co-op is a start. That is if people can be fucked to
talk to each other in real life.
24 June 2014 1:00am
37
Bricke bluntforcemedia
What, you mean that those zombies that walk around looking at their
mobile phones can also talk?
24 June 2014 1:08am
33
Sakuraba Bricke
Or lay in bed with their laptop and moan on the Guardian comments
section.
Dam I'm guilty!!
That's the problem, the destruction is on such a mass scale it has to be
changed on an international level. And it wont happen any time soon.
24 June 2014 1:16am
9
EgonGeist Bricke
I just read your comment, then I accidently walked into a lamp post.
24 June 2014 8:08am
2
Bricke
Science, the modern-day Catholicism. Too many ignorant sheep out there worship
science and it is them that makes this sort of irresponsible behaviour politically
possible. It is time the rest of us wrenched back control of our world.
24 June 2014 1:07am
16
KallisteHill Bricke
At last - someone as delusional as IDS!
24 June 2014 1:11am
14
Bricke KallisteHill
24 June 2014 1:24am
13
I think you will find that science created these poisons and government
scientist then okayed these poisons for use in our country. Big business
then rolled out some scientist to reassure us that all this stuff is safe. If you
want to control the poisoning of our planet then who would you legislate
against, bus drivers?
24 June 2014 1:24am
Kaitain Bricke
You are essentially saying that it's ignorant to worship knowledge, whatever
24 June 2014 1:55am
13
illeist
Here's a couple of links to some research papers on studies of the effects of
neonicotinoids on human health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3290564/
http://www.buzzaboutbees.net/neonicotinoid-pesticides-and-human-health.html
24 June 2014 1:09am
13
tickyt illeist
went to this with some cynicism. Cynicism replaced by great concern -
especially as a parent
Conclusions/Significance
This study is the first to show that ACE, IMI, and nicotine exert similar
excitatory effects on mammalian nAChRs at concentrations greater than 1
M. Therefore, the neonicotinoids may adversely affect human health,
especially the developing brain.
24 June 2014 9:14am
Patrick Ryan
Naw!
I thought this stuff just miraculously disappeared into oblivion after it had performed
it's miracle purpose.
Perhaps some kind of undetectable and totally harmless fusion process.
Who would have thought?
24 June 2014 1:10am
7
smndvdcl
Oh God - why haven't consumers been told about this sooner? Breaking bad
practices that are causing an unnecessary environmental slow burn - cheers
industry!
24 June 2014 1:15am
8
nemossister
Surely if the UK government can consider making it illegal for those born after 2000
to buy and smoke tobacco, they can make the sale of these toxic pesticides illegal
here too, on the same grounds of 'public health'. Then all UK produce would be
pesticide-free, and the public could make a choice on whether to 'Buy British' or
not.....? Could end up a great export industry too.
24 June 2014 1:16am
29
Sionnachfionn
'The report is being published as a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal
Environmental Science and Pollution Research and was funded by a charitable
foundation run by the ethical bank Triodos.'
It's interesting that this study is being funded by a bank who will clearly profit from
the findings.
24 June 2014 1:21am
11
An extensive review of market research published over the past 25 years by organic
and natural product marketers, corroborated by peer reviewed published academic
and government funded studies, reveals that perceived safety concerns tied to
pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs are the critical component driving sales
in the organic food sector
Organic marketers often publicly proclaim consumer interest in the environment,
ethical practices and sustainability are the drivers for sales. But a 2014 consumer
research study by the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) found that
traditional organic-associated eco-labeling claims linked to sustainability concepts
are rarely translated into purchases and correspondingly sustainability labeling
claims do not play a major role in consumers food choices. (Klaus, et al, 2014)
However, other research (detailed in following sections of this report) reveals safety
and health-related concerns tied to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs not
only influence, but are clear drivers of organic consumer purchasing behaviors.
Correspondingly, organic business marketing strategies and investments over the
past 25 years reflect a clear and sophisticated understanding of this consumer
research creating, bolstering and spreading food safety concerns they link to
competing conventional products to drive organic sales. Further, an industry-
acknowledged and critical component of their success was the imprimatur of the
United States government through the implied endorsement and approval of their
products with the USDA Organic Seal.
http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Academics-Review_Organic-
Marketing-Report1.pdf
Fantomette6 Sionnachfionn
It's interesting that this study is being funded by a bank who will
clearly profit from the findings.
In what way will they profit from the findings?
The source you copy-pasted from, however, is very carefully discreet about
its sponsors; they are rather strident about their pro-GM agenda though.
24 June 2014 5:59am
9
henbag Sionnachfionn
Who are you and where to start to reply to your ludicrous arguments??
Triodos are an ethical bank, started in Holland and they support ethical and
sustainable and social business. They make a profit- but thats what
businesses do. DUH. Ethical businesses make a profit and do good, they
are not mutually exclusive. look at Quaker business practices.
7% of the UK population are what we used to call dark green, they
understand the the 'organic' proposition and understand all the arguments-
animal welfare, pesticide residues, biodiversity, sustainable food production
etc etc. The remaining 93% of the population couldn't give a fuck. Basic
market research shows that they do give a fuck about their health and
immediate environment.
Are you seriously suggesting that organic producers should not use basic
marketing tools to persuade the 93% of the benefits of their products? How
do you think Coca cola and every other multinational food company sell their
mostly crap products? They sure as hell don't give a flying damn whether
their products are 'good' etc etc.
Your reasoning beggars belief.
My figures come from market research done by the Organic Milk Suppliers
co-op done in 2000-2003 done by a professional marketing company.
24 June 2014 12:37pm
2
tomminh
Notice the knee jerk reaction of the pesticide lobby: The Crop Protection
Association. "A selective view" indeed! The fact that they are making millions out of
poisoning the earth wouldn't be influencing their position in anyway now would it?
Food as well as the basic necessities of life should be left out of the purview of big
corporations. Time to nationalize these industries and subject these psychopaths to
some form of public accountability. The more we deregulate however, the less likely
we will be able to do anything about this problem and the myriad of others humans
are presently facing.
24 June 2014 1:23am
20
anniegyg tomminh
"selective view" indeed. Well, they should know!!
Scientific research is funded [pardon the obvious].
Most is funded by big business. For its own purposes.
The questions asked are intended to produce favourable results. Questions
which might produce unfavourable results are not asked - obviously.
And results are released with their own spin. Or not released if unfavourable.
24 June 2014 10:27am
1
And results are released with their own spin. Or not released if unfavourable.
So the 'Pesticide-Producers'-Association' will be all too familiar with
"selective views"!
waginn tomminh
This research was funded by an ethical bank with a huge investment in
organic farming , can't trust anyone now .
http://www.triodos.co.uk/en/personal/
24 June 2014 6:25pm
1
kallumpoole
This, the oceans dying and sea levels rising it looks like humanity has killed us all
24 June 2014 1:24am
14
sophiesnoogins
Mmmmm, Soylent Green, here we come.
24 June 2014 1:29am
3
ConvertAndCopy
We are advised to stop using these chemicals but how do we act on the advice?
Governments do not listen to the people. If only 50,000 people marched to protest
austerity, how many would march to protest pesticides? Would it even reach double
figures?
Archaeology has uncovered evidence of civilisations rising and then falling - could it
really happen to us, and in our lifetimes? And given the global connections between
contemporary civilisations, one fails, all fail. I think I will re-watch my Bear Grylls
DVDs. May as well be prepared. Survivalists were right after all, who knew?
24 June 2014 1:29am
10
Turnbull2000
Yet the Greenies remain ideologically opposed to GM crops. Just how many lives
are they willing to sacrifice, how much destruction of the environment will be allowed
to continue, all in the name of an irrational hatred of progress and profit.
24 June 2014 1:34am
9
Bricke Turnbull2000
One bunch of scientists fucks it up so you want us to hand the problem over
to another bunch of scientists, the GM ones this time?
24 June 2014 1:50am
30
Kaitain Bricke
GM is potentially an extremely useful tool, but it must be regulated heavily
to prevent abuse by the greedy.
24 June 2014 1:51am
9
Scott Maciejewski Turnbull2000
GM has barely been tested for long term human consumption.tumors
24 June 2014 2:04am
7
nocod
The game is up.
We have already entered the next extinction.
Not a maybe, not a might
nor a could be, or will.
The damage has been done, is done, remains done and so lays before us, did.
Too late.
Too late to call to arms survival, use of education and intelligence applied.
In front of us instead stands the exact moment
24 June 2014 1:35am
10
In front of us instead stands the exact moment
our future generations died.
ppKlvs
if we all want to buy cheap food...
24 June 2014 1:48am
6
buddingBuddha ppKlvs
Same idea as burning your house to warm yourself.
24 June 2014 8:28am
6
Bricke
Is this report by the same scientists that initially said it was safe to use these
poisons? If not, what do those original scientists have to say about this?
24 June 2014 1:49am
2
Zepp Bricke
I take it escapes you that the people making you aware of the dangers and
urging you to stop this are ALSO scientists.
The difference? This lot aren't corporate whores.
24 June 2014 2:29am
15
Bricke Zepp
How do we know which ones we can trust?
24 June 2014 3:22am
3
Kaitain
Cue Daily Telegraph readers insisting that these findings are fabrications of a group
of scientists who just want to increase their research grants.
24 June 2014 1:50am
8
waginn Kaitain
sorry don't often read the telegraph but here is a link to the organisation that
funded the above research , up to you how impartial you think they might
be.
http://www.triodos.co.uk/en/personal/
24 June 2014 6:21pm
2
Alan Jones
And smoking gets banned in public because of the risks caused, they say, of
secondary inhalation. Bloody Americans are paranoid about it even if you light up in
the middle of an unoccupied prairie, but then the Yanks along with the EU get all
hung up about minor things and don't give a shit about the major problems. It is all a
smoke screen, forgive the horrible pun, to take peoples attention away from the real
pollution issues. OK so smoking tobacco is undoubtably (will bloody microsoft stop
correcting correct spellings) bad for health but blame the highly visible for all the
cancer and keep stum about the hidden hazards. Such as all the poisons in the
atmosphere and in your food which governments cannot tax, but tobacco? easy
peasy. Where is Ash when you want muscle and protests against the real serious
polluters. I cannot condone cigarettes or the tobacco lobby, but there is a whole
polluting industry hiding behind them and passing the buck. You don't even have to
eat the crap if you are nearby when the damn plane/helicopter dumps its load on
your head. Someone posted "GM the only way then?" don't make me laugh,
cynically of course.
24 June 2014 1:51am
13
MarjaE Alan Jones
24 June 2014 2:33am
1
Well, I'm allergic to nicotine; a whiff of tobacco smoke, or a bite of eggplant,
will give me a nasty asthma attack. ... I'm worried about neonicotinoids, but
don't know how to avoid them.
24 June 2014 2:33am
sdkeller72 MarjaE
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our
FAQs.
24 June 2014 6:44am
ks009746
Owen Paterson, are you listening?
24 June 2014 1:53am
3
EntropyNow
A resource based economy, rather than plutocracy, could end this insanity once and
for all, 'scientists' could not be bought.
For those who may not have heard of 'The Venus Project', watch the film 'Paradise or
Oblivion' - a viable alternative to the status quo that could save humanity, before it's
too late.
24 June 2014 1:58am
12
Willena EntropyNow
Thank you, ENow, for giving us this link to 'The Venus Project'...
24 June 2014 6:11pm
1
EntropyNow Willena
You are most welcome Willena. Jacque Fresco is an extraordinary man,
way ahead of his time. The Venus Project offers humanity a truly 'civilised'
alternative to war, poverty and human suffering, so unnecessary with the
technologies we have today. The choice is ours, let us hope the world
listens before it's too late.
24 June 2014 9:27pm
Billy Taylor
The sweeping critical statements put forth by Von Westenholz are a clear sentiment
for market based incentives. If agricultural practices are affecting pollinators, birds,
soil and water sources, where is the so-called biodiversity?
24 June 2014 2:02am
MrRussels
Where's Greenpeace when you need them? oh yeah, probably getting wasted on
Champagne in a 5 star hotel.
24 June 2014 2:04am
8
ds9074 MrRussels
Or on the regular commute by air.
24 June 2014 2:32am
6
priceus MrRussels
Source?
Or is this just agitprop?
24 June 2014 2:42am
6
steeply MrRussels
8
Or trying to work out why cynical fact ignoring people like you are so
24 June 2014 2:53am
DJersey
It is very simple. The clover is flowering and there are no bees to be seen. If that
does not scare you I don't know what will, cause it certainly scares me. I should be
able to hear the bees as they are working the clover. But there is a deafening silence
in my meadow.
24 June 2014 2:05am
31
MrRussels
Rice doesn't require bees, eat more rice.
24 June 2014 2:08am
1
DJersey MrRussels
But rice does require the nutrients that other plants in their cycle draw from
the soil. but off you go and live on rice alone, we will all applaud you.
24 June 2014 2:19am
13
Lsmythers DJersey
Coming soon to Channel 5: The Man Who Lived Off Rice For 12 Years.
The same schedule will feature 'Serial Killer: How I Once Met Fred West'
and 'The Worst Hits of the 80s', narrated by Pat Sharp.
24 June 2014 2:30am
4
suzny MrRussels
Growing rice requires a lot of water which creates problems for people,
crops, and wildlife downstream from the paddies. In parts of Africa, some
politicians are corrupt and have diverted water from rivers for their "rice
plantations" and flower farms and so all species downstream suffer more
than ever during the dry season. I've seen it in Tanzania. There is no water in
the river during the dry season--none--just silt and sand. Meanwhile,
elephants are digging holes looking for a bit of water. This world is all
messed up.
24 June 2014 2:43am
19
mergatroidohara
With any luck Michael Eavis might just whizz that helicopter of to Glastonbury this
weekend & spray that lot with carbolic soap & deodorant..
24 June 2014 2:12am
steeply mergatroidohara
Hear Hear Mergatroid
A bit of square bashing as well
Knock em in to shape
24 June 2014 2:51am
2
mergatroidohara steeply
Well,..
& I do hope those insects are humanely stunned before these savages
poison them..
Oh the Humanity !!
24 June 2014 3:05am
Lsmythers
Yesterday I was overjoyed as there were five bumble bees feeding on the flowers on
a tree in my garden in central london. I wondered whether I would see that again in
24 June 2014 2:15am
17
a tree in my garden in central london. I wondered whether I would see that again in
20 years time. We've known for years how pesticides f up the food chain. Yet
increases in population, and corporations driving down food prices to remain
competitive means it goes unchecked. I don't think that this is an issue that can be
resolved by consumers choosing to buy organic: it's an international problem that
doesn't get coverage as enough people don't care. But we can all see the impact:
wherever you live, high yield farming is killing wildlife, and us in the process.
ds9074
This was discussed on Countryfile last weekend. One of the complaints of both the
farmers and the scientists was that the EU has imposed this temporary ban on
neonicotinoids, but that by its own admission it's doing nothing to measure the
impact / success if that policy.
The scientists were also saying that the ban isn't in place for long enough to fully
assess it's impact.
While the farmers were obviously unhappy about the ban as it makes life harder for
them, you got the impression that they would be more willing to accept it if it was
part of a cohert policy, with serious science based monitoring and testing.
24 June 2014 2:29am
5
anniegyg ds9074
That's the point. It needs to be part of a widespread coherent policy.
This would encourage alternative systems to develop.
Alternative systems already being tried, for example organic, would be more
widespread and therefore more viable.
The whole outlook and system needs changing.
Ultra-powerful big business will ensure that doesn't happen. Politicians are
only too ready to be lobbied and bought off.
24 June 2014 10:41am
1
Studynight
We can grow all our food and livestock organically.
The whole "You couldn't feed all the people if it was organic" is utter nonsense told
by the fools selling chemicals, and people who can't think for themselves.
If the petrol people used on traveling to the supermarket in their cars was instead
utilized in food growing and composting operations we could have abundant local
chemical free produce.
This guy in Canada has it sorted. Read and learn.
https://www.themarketgardener.com/les-jardins-de-la-grelinette/
The greenhouse where I work is heaving with food growing right now. It's about 30ft x
100ft and if we reorganized a bit we could get much more production. It could
probably feed three families, say 12 people. We don't spray any chemicals, and use
as least stuff, plastic, liquids, as we can from what we refer to as the military-
industrial food complex.
Just don't buy anything been sprayed with neonicotinoid or fipronil, or what ever is
next in the dirty tricks gardening box. Then they will stop using it.
24 June 2014 2:40am
20
anniegyg Studynight
You think they'll tell us on the packet??
24 June 2014 10:43am
Studynight anniegyg
In Vermont they're getting there with GMO labeling. One step forward for one
state in a backward striding country.
Try to not buy anything that comes in a packet.
I wouldn't consider pretty much most packaged stuff in a supermarket as
food. There are exceptions, of course, locally produced food from small
companies most of them.
24 June 2014 11:44am
Prev Next
Comments for this discussion are now closed.
1 2 3 5
crinklyoldgit Studynight
I understand that Vermont is being sued by Monsanto in relation to its
legislation wrt GMO,with a strong likelihood that Monsanto will succeed.
24 June 2014 9:45pm
crinklyoldgit
About four years ago I spent a reasonably long time trying to identify independent
academic research about, among other things, the effect of various pesticides on
humans and other organisms.
What I found was .. very little. There were many papers with glancing or oblique
references to pesticides, or effects on the environment, but there was nothing that I
could find that systematically researched pesticide use and its effects.There was not
even basic, readily available information about toxicity. i.e. it may have existed but
unpicking the locks on the information was well nigh impossible and even when I
found something, it was rarely reliable or robust.
I was slightly astonished at first.
Essentially the experiment is us all and the entire world.
Effects arise and sometimes causality is investigated. But even this is not done
systematically.
In reality the costs of running reliable research programmes that might give
information in advance of all the commercial claims and any dangerous effects is too
great.
In other words the technology is driven forward, essentially unchecked, with no
investment in the consequences.
The point is that those people who place faith in the market finding solutions to
problems shirk a large proportion of the costs of the technological fix because the
viability of the enterprise would be fatally undermined. In a real sense-market
philosophy is a gamble in a much wider sense than just the narrow one of the
investment/profitability/risk relationship which informs business and (often)
government regulation.
The problems of this strategy were not as far reaching in the past but in the context
of globalised corporations and information systems the risks are greatly magnified to
a global scale.
24 June 2014 2:55am
23
Lynx13 crinklyoldgit
Precisely, crinkoldgit. I have come to be very suspicious of the phrase there
is no evidence that x is harmful with no reference to any studies. What this
too often means is that there has been a concerted effort to avoid publishing
research findings contrary to vested commercial interests voil, no
evidence that it is harmful. It is not possible to scientifically prove something
is absolutely safe, of course, however have we entered an era when
everything is considered safe until proven overwhelmingly to not be, while at
the same time no one is looking for evidence that corporations don't want
found?
24 June 2014 3:24am
13
David Smith Lynx13
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
24 June 2014 8:19am
5
anniegyg crinklyoldgit
Because research has to be funded.
24 June 2014 10:47am
4
Hot topics
Climate change news
Climate change facts
Green news roundup
Green living
Sea ice
License/buy our cont ent | Privacy policy | Terms & condit ions | Advert ising guide | Accessibilit y | A-Z index | Inside t he Guardian blog | About us | Work for us | Join our dat ing sit e t oday
2014 Guardian News and Media Limit ed or it s affiliat ed companies. All right s reserved.

Insecticides Put World Food Supplies at Risk, Say Scientists - Environment - The Guardian

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Insecticides Put World Food Supplies at Risk, Say Scientists - Environment - The Guardian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/7/2014 Insecticides put world food supplies at risk, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian

You might also like