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 remoteBarkindji Aboriginal community of Wilcannia,

New South Wales, Australia

Iraqi government

troops battle Isis

militants video

Footage aired onIraqi state television

apparently showsIraqi government troops launching attacks on

Isis militants, east of Tikrit

Surfers have a close

encounter

Sydney surfers have

a close encounterwith a whale.

Let the hangovercommence:

Glastonbury wraps up

for another year

Glastonbury 2014

saw the metal hordestake the main stage in the shape of Metallica,

and a country & western flash mob in honour

of Dolly Parton

EnvironmentPesticides

Insecticides put world foodsupplies at risk, say scientistsRegulations on pesticides have failed to preventpoisoning of almost all habitats, internationalteam of scientists concludes

Email

Tweet 2,254

Share

Share 0

Damian CarringtonThe 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 reallyneed bee-harminginsecticides?Syngenta sayssome farmershave no choice butto use bannedneonicotinoids,which are linked todeclining beepopulations. But isit true that noalternatives exist?With your help,Karl Mathiesen

investigates.

Syngenta seeks'emergency'exemption to usebannedinsecticide on UKcrops

Edition: UK US AU Sign in Beta SubscribeAbout us Today's paper



The Guardian'sonline dating site

I am a

Seeking

Aged

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Last 24 hours

Peru now has alicence to kill

environmental

protesters

Extreme weather official advice rewrittento 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 GuardianCharity 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

Neonicotinoidsare the new DDTkilling the naturalworld



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 filephoto 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 theglyphosate in breast milk? I've looked very hard and only found a report onthe 'study' written and published by the group who purported to have run thestudy (Moms Across America), and that report was scientifically illiterate atbest! I'm no fan of profiteering at the expense of human/environmentalhealth, but I despise the people on the 'other' side of scientific debates wholie 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 livinghere very long.

24 June 2014 7:25am

48

theomatica Ecolophant

The problem is, is that there is no solution to this, the higher yields fromintensive chemical based farming can not be matched by organic and weneed these to feed the world.

If somehow humanity globally, was able to reduce it's population viaeducation and tax incentives for 1 or 2 children choices. And if we all ateless meat and got rid of crop grown biofuels then eventually there wouldn'tbe 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 itsway due to this mess.

If they did, they'd be buying crofts, not yachts----and using their wealth toget those crofts thoroughly equipped with good tools and stock and bebuilding up their and their children's crofting skills.

As I said in my comment below (at 1:00am), Crash Two is going to be verypainful, particularly in industrialised regions.It is impossible to forecast how it will work out, but after socialism andcapitalism have failed distributism may be tried----and a 1% never be allowedto 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 foodchain.

Fucking stupidity.

24 June 2014 12:26am

270

caffienated mundayschild

Given the interlinked causality of this all, it would be interesting to seefarmers freed from the supermarket buyers and concepts of 'prettiness' ofproduce such that size and taste were what mattered - or maybe even tastealone. If there wasn't the relentless pressure to grow more of something atthe wrong time of year for less money than last year, maybe we wouldn'tneed all this rubbish.

Oh, and the briefly interviewed representative of Pesticide Co- u don't believefor one second you care about natural pollinators if they endanger yourability to sell your poison - otherwise we'd have comprehensive test data onthe effects upon them available. I imagine there's more profit yieldingchemistry and gene splicing lurking in the wings to render natural pollinationunnecessary so long as you buy your seed from Mr Monsanto andunderstand 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 harmlesslybreakup as some imply, then we're heading for a big problem that's going tobe 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 beable 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 riverpoisoned, 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 NativeAmerican!

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 ProtectionAssociation - an interested party - in this piece? Is it to try and inject somemanufactured controversy where none exists? This is journalism at itslaziest. If you can't find disinterested parties to represent both sides, that'snature'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 DDThad done to the environment. So for the last forty years I have supported organicfarming's aim of being at one with nature. We know that bees are being seriouslyaffected by neonicotinoids, so perhaps everything else is likely to be affected. Goingorganic is the only way forward which will free us from the very real chance of ourenvironment being poisoned to death, and which will also free us from the rapaciousdrug companies who only care about their profit billions and nothing about theenvironment.

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 thepublication of Limits to Growth, A Blueprint for Survival, and Silent Spring.

Unfortunately the older generation didn't cotton on and elected Thatcher andReagan and pursued 'Greed is Good'.

Historians in the future will look back and try to explain how people whocalled themselves capitalists did not realise that it was wrong to squanderthe finite resources of coal and oil and treat production of them as energyincome that could be expended rather than as energy capital that shouldonly be turned into other forms of energy capital (such as hydro schemesand 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 onceconfounded an economics PhD student by asking him this Q - You haveone 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 bygovernments bought and paid for these giant corporations. They are doing very well out of this. 135 million acres of Monsanto engineered soyagrown in Argentina each year, and killing the locals. Trying to ignore what's going onreally helps.You know I can remember a time when plastic bottles didn t exist. And we survived. Iwas on a beach in the South China Sea a while back. The plastic bottles were piledup all along the beach from jungles edge to sea. Half a meter thick! I wept for thechildren in the shacks who will never know what its like to walk on sand. But we allcarry a plastic bottle of water cos modern humans can t get from A to B withoutdehydrating, 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 itfrom 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 manykinds of diseases and it may be too difficult to reach the plastic bottle thatcontains water.

I am sure we can rely on fructose liquid from corn to be used for honey ontoast. 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 thesefertilizers 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 thatOrganic food production is a con and a waste of money. Well for those of us whodon't want to eat poison on our food it seems that the constant spraying of toxinsinto 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 theenvironment 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 suchcorporate science is that everything is organic, since everything comes fromthe earth, or that humans have been modifying nature for thousands of yearsand this is no different. Do we have to wait another 20 years before thedamage that is being done by these companies regarding GMOs is finallyrevealed. We know all this yet seem powerless to stop them. Truly a tragicsituation.

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 greatappetite for organic.

Although it has a niche demand, which goes up slightly through times ofperceived 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 enoughdemand to make a business from it. But as soon as the recession camethat demand shifted back to non-organic (and cheaper) options.

I will hazard the generalisation that the public couldn't really give a damnabout 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 seethat.

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 [onceubiquitous] sparrow or willy-wagtail.



Beanfield85

Meanwhile we stuck with a climate-change denying Monsanto placeman asEnvironment Secretary.Nothing's ever going to be done about this, is it? Just a steady stream of corruptpoliticians 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 thoughtthe 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 seemsto take more away from us. Things just get worse and worse. I can't think of any government that's reallymade anything better, beyond a few dog treats here and there.Nothing every really changes, different sets of millionaires come in, fiddleabout and leave with a gold plated pension while our lives get steadilyworse.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 foodproduction...?

24 June 2014 12:54am

3

GreatGrandDad Mark Steel

Pesticides improve yields temporarily, until some new pest gets a grip, buttheir secondary effects do harm.

They are a classic example of how technology creates more problems thanit 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 wasno harm being done to our food or the bees....they must be right after all becausethey did their own study and after great deliberation they still refuse to accept the EUdirective for a temporary ban. Remember weapons of mass destruction? Pesticidesof mass destruction?

The UK government's FSA also said organic food was no better than conventionalfood. 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 andme before corporate finance and its fair distribution. A government that understandscompletely the will of its people, the plants that inhabit its country, the animals thatwalk upon it, the soil under it, the air above and the universe that surrounds it. Ohyes, not a moment spent on greed or inequality. No hunger upon this planet, nothirst. This is why we have governments.....who know what they are doing andrescue 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, thescientists 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 earlyretirement 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 ownmicrohydroelectricity-----but the really big attraction is that it puts 300 milesof 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 apitchfork. 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 bullshitstarted. If he were alive I'm sure he would have been more pragmatic aboutthe problems we face. On a personal level there is much we can do, notbuying food that is sprayed with poisons for a start. The organic/ naturalfood movements around the world have had strong support since we startedfarming in a way non compatible with nature, among these great men suchas 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 orgrasshopper.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 insectsthat you had to scrape them off with a stick. Nowadays a drive of twice thatlength 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 giveit a few decades and it may well be. But here in my Devon town garden I'vegot bees and butterflies and (in the next month or 2) the occasional biggreen dragonfly, along with sparrows, blue tits, goldfinches, wrens, robins,blackbirds, thrushes..... and sea gulls. There are still plenty of grasshoppersin 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 laternoticed that there were flies all around the fast growing grass. At close inspectionshe noticed that the worms in that area were dead and the flies were there becauseof the worms. It is then she realised the seeds must have been treated with somekind of chemicals. Wow, first hand experience of this articles. I am amazed howobservant 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 theindustrialised 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 hiredby 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 theending of excessive dependence on coal and oil/gas (simply because their easyavailability is now contracting) will cut down on industrialised agriculture and food willhave 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 theindustrialised/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, whoclearly does see the devastating Crash Two occurring soon, could not put it intospoken words (probably because that would so have offended his colleagues whosere-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 andaccompanied 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 beuseful 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 totalk 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 theirmobile phones can also talk?

24 June 2014 1:08am

33

Sakuraba Bricke

Or lay in bed with their laptop and moan on the Guardian commentssection.

Dam I'm guilty!!

That's the problem, the destruction is on such a mass scale it has to bechanged 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 worshipscience and it is them that makes this sort of irresponsible behaviour politicallypossible. 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 governmentscientist then okayed these poisons for use in our country. Big businessthen rolled out some scientist to reassure us that all this stuff is safe. If youwant to control the poisoning of our planet then who would you legislateagainst, 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 ofneonicotinoids 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 similarexcitatory effects on mammalian nAChRs at concentrations greater than 1M. 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 performedit'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 badpractices that are causing an unnecessary environmental slow burn - cheersindustry!

24 June 2014 1:15am

8

nemossister

Surely if the UK government can consider making it illegal for those born after 2000to buy and smoke tobacco, they can make the sale of these toxic pesticides illegalhere too, on the same grounds of 'public health'. Then all UK produce would bepesticide-free, and the public could make a choice on whether to 'Buy British' ornot.....? 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 journalEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research and was funded by a charitablefoundation run by the ethical bank Triodos.'

It's interesting that this study is being funded by a bank who will clearly profit fromthe findings.

24 June 2014 1:21am

11



An extensive review of market research published over the past 25 years by organicand natural product marketers, corroborated by peer reviewed published academicand government funded studies, reveals that perceived safety concerns tied topesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs are the critical component driving salesin 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 consumerresearch study by the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) found thattraditional organic-associated eco-labeling claims linked to sustainability conceptsare rarely translated into purchases and correspondingly sustainability labelingclaims 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 safetyand health-related concerns tied to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs notonly influence, but are clear drivers of organic consumer purchasing behaviors. Correspondingly, organic business marketing strategies and investments over thepast 25 years reflect a clear and sophisticated understanding of this consumerresearch creating, bolstering and spreading food safety concerns they link tocompeting conventional products to drive organic sales. Further, an industry-acknowledged and critical component of their success was the imprimatur of theUnited States government through the implied endorsement and approval of theirproducts 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 willclearly profit from the findings.

In what way will they profit from the findings?

The source you copy-pasted from, however, is very carefully discreet aboutits 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 andsustainable and social business. They make a profit- but thats whatbusinesses do. DUH. Ethical businesses make a profit and do good, theyare not mutually exclusive. look at Quaker business practices.7% of the UK population are what we used to call dark green, theyunderstand the the 'organic' proposition and understand all the arguments-animal welfare, pesticide residues, biodiversity, sustainable food productionetc etc. The remaining 93% of the population couldn't give a fuck. Basicmarket research shows that they do give a fuck about their health andimmediate environment.Are you seriously suggesting that organic producers should not use basicmarketing tools to persuade the 93% of the benefits of their products? Howdo you think Coca cola and every other multinational food company sell theirmostly crap products? They sure as hell don't give a flying damn whethertheir products are 'good' etc etc.Your reasoning beggars belief.My figures come from market research done by the Organic Milk Suppliersco-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 ProtectionAssociation. "A selective view" indeed! The fact that they are making millions out ofpoisoning 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 bigcorporations. Time to nationalize these industries and subject these psychopaths tosome form of public accountability. The more we deregulate however, the less likelywe will be able to do anything about this problem and the myriad of others humansare 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. Questionswhich 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 inorganic 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 protestausterity, how many would march to protest pesticides? Would it even reach doublefigures?

Archaeology has uncovered evidence of civilisations rising and then falling - could itreally happen to us, and in our lifetimes? And given the global connections betweencontemporary civilisations, one fails, all fail. I think I will re-watch my Bear GryllsDVDs. 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 livesare they willing to sacrifice, how much destruction of the environment will be allowedto 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 overto 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 heavilyto 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 mightnor 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 momentour 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 thesepoisons? 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 andurging 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 groupof 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 thatfunded the above research , up to you how impartial you think they mightbe.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, ofsecondary inhalation. Bloody Americans are paranoid about it even if you light up inthe middle of an unoccupied prairie, but then the Yanks along with the EU get allhung up about minor things and don't give a shit about the major problems. It is all asmoke screen, forgive the horrible pun, to take peoples attention away from the realpollution issues. OK so smoking tobacco is undoubtably (will bloody microsoft stopcorrecting correct spellings) bad for health but blame the highly visible for all thecancer and keep stum about the hidden hazards. Such as all the poisons in theatmosphere and in your food which governments cannot tax, but tobacco? easypeasy. Where is Ash when you want muscle and protests against the real seriouspolluters. I cannot condone cigarettes or the tobacco lobby, but there is a wholepolluting industry hiding behind them and passing the buck. You don't even have toeat the crap if you are nearby when the damn plane/helicopter dumps its load onyour 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, butdon'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 ourcommunity standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see ourFAQs.

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 andfor all, 'scientists' could not be bought.

For those who may not have heard of 'The Venus Project', watch the film 'Paradise orOblivion' - a viable alternative to the status quo that could save humanity, before it'stoo 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 thetechnologies we have today. The choice is ours, let us hope the worldlistens before it's too late.

24 June 2014 9:27pm

Billy Taylor

The sweeping critical statements put forth by Von Westenholz are a clear sentimentfor 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 onChampagne 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 thatdoes not scare you I don't know what will, cause it certainly scares me. I should beable to hear the bees as they are working the clover. But there is a deafening silencein 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 fromthe 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, somepoliticians are corrupt and have diverted water from rivers for their "riceplantations" and flower farms and so all species downstream suffer morethan ever during the dry season. I've seen it in Tanzania. There is no water inthe river during the dry season--none--just silt and sand. Meanwhile,elephants are digging holes looking for a bit of water. This world is allmessed up.

24 June 2014 2:43am

19


mergatroidohara

With any luck Michael Eavis might just whizz that helicopter of to Glastonbury thisweekend & spray that lot with carbolic soap & deodorant..

24 June 2014 2:12am

steeply mergatroidohara

Hear Hear MergatroidA bit of square bashing as wellKnock em in to shape

24 June 2014 2:51am

2

mergatroidohara steeply

Well,..& I do hope those insects are humanely stunned before these savagespoison them..Oh the Humanity !!

24 June 2014 3:05am

Lsmythers

Yesterday I was overjoyed as there were five bumble bees feeding on the flowers ona 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 in20 years time. We've known for years how pesticides f up the food chain. Yetincreases in population, and corporations driving down food prices to remaincompetitive means it goes unchecked. I don't think that this is an issue that can beresolved by consumers choosing to buy organic: it's an international problem thatdoesn'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 thefarmers and the scientists was that the EU has imposed this temporary ban onneonicotinoids, but that by its own admission it's doing nothing to measure theimpact / success if that policy.

The scientists were also saying that the ban isn't in place for long enough to fullyassess it's impact.

While the farmers were obviously unhappy about the ban as it makes life harder forthem, you got the impression that they would be more willing to accept it if it waspart 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 morewidespread and therefore more viable.

The whole outlook and system needs changing.

Ultra-powerful big business will ensure that doesn't happen. Politicians areonly 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 toldby 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 insteadutilized in food growing and composting operations we could have abundant localchemical 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 x100ft and if we reorganized a bit we could get much more production. It couldprobably feed three families, say 12 people. We don't spray any chemicals, and useas 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 isnext 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 onestate 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 asfood. There are exceptions, of course, locally produced food from smallcompanies 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 itslegislation 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 independentacademic research about, among other things, the effect of various pesticides onhumans and other organisms.What I found was .. very little. There were many papers with glancing or obliquereferences to pesticides, or effects on the environment, but there was nothing that Icould find that systematically researched pesticide use and its effects.There was noteven basic, readily available information about toxicity. i.e. it may have existed butunpicking the locks on the information was well nigh impossible and even when Ifound 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 donesystematically.In reality the costs of running reliable research programmes that might giveinformation in advance of all the commercial claims and any dangerous effects is toogreat. In other words the technology is driven forward, essentially unchecked, with noinvestment in the consequences.The point is that those people who place faith in the market finding solutions toproblems shirk a large proportion of the costs of the technological fix because theviability of the enterprise would be fatally undermined. In a real sense-marketphilosophy is a gamble in a much wider sense than just the narrow one of theinvestment/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 contextof globalised corporations and information systems the risks are greatly magnified toa global scale.

24 June 2014 2:55am

23

Lynx13 crinklyoldgit

Precisely, crinkoldgit. I have come to be very suspicious of the phrase thereis no evidence that x is harmful with no reference to any studies. What thistoo often means is that there has been a concerted effort to avoid publishingresearch findings contrary to vested commercial interests voil, noevidence that it is harmful. It is not possible to scientifically prove somethingis absolutely safe, of course, however have we entered an era wheneverything is considered safe until proven overwhelmingly to not be, while atthe same time no one is looking for evidence that corporations don't wantfound?

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

Date post:	13-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	afranio-souza
View:	12 times
Download:	0 times

Insecticides Put World Food Supplies at Risk, Say Scientists _ Environment _ the Guardian

Documents