Auteur: Henk Tennekes

  • Public Relations at the highest level designed to bolster the UK government’s position on the use of neonics

    Public Relations at the highest level designed to bolster the UK government’s position on the use of neonics

    A very interesting paper has been issued under the aegis of the UK Royal Society, which however seems highly selective and biased in its ‘interpretations’. While this ‘appears’ to be a neutral assessment of the existing evidence on neonicotinoids and bee deaths, it is in my opinion a government/ science establishment project designed to justify/ bolster the UK government’s position. The involvement of Tjeerd Blacquiere from Wageningen in Holland makes one immediately suspect a rat – as does the involvement of anyone from Rothamsted Research – whose so-called ’scientists’ have served as the shock-troops for the advancement of GM technology, systemic pesticides and the industrialisation of farming in the UK. There are two scientists here from NERC -funded (National Environmental Research Council) research bodies; this is synonymous with UK government. The paper will undoubtedly be used to justify the UK government’s continued support for neonics and for their opposition to a Europe-wide ban.

    A very interesting paper has been issued under the aegis of the UK Royal Society, which however seems highly selective and biased in its ‘interpretations’. While this ‘appears’ to be a neutral assessment of the existing evidence on neonicotinoids and bee deaths, it is in my opinion a government/ science establishment project designed to justify/ bolster the UK government’s position. The involvement of Tjeerd Blacquiere from Wageningen in Holland makes one immediately suspect a rat – as does the involvement of anyone from Rothamsted Research – whose so-called ’scientists’ have served as the shock-troops for the advancement of GM technology, systemic pesticides and the industrialisation of farming in the UK. There are two scientists here from NERC -funded (National Environmental Research Council) research bodies; this is synonymous with UK government. The paper will undoubtedly be used to justify the UK government’s continued support for neonics and for their opposition to a Europe-wide ban.

    Source:
    Godfray HCJ, Blacquière T, Field LM, Hails RS, Petrokofsky G, Potts SG, Raine NE, Vanbergen AJ, McLean AR. 2014. A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20140558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0558

  • The heated debate around the use of the neonicotinoid-coated seeds turned Canada into a kind of environmental battlefront

    The heated debate around the use of the neonicotinoid-coated seeds turned Canada into a kind of environmental battlefront

    This spring most Canadian corn and soybean growers will be planting another crop of pesticide-coated seeds, even as researchers raise new warnings that the practice may have deadly side effects for bees and other wildlife. The heated debate around the use of the neonicotinoid-coated seeds, developed by Bayer CropScience and introduced here about a decade ago, has divided farmers, beekeepers and scientists, and turned Canada into a kind of environmental battlefront.

    This spring most Canadian corn and soybean growers will be planting another crop of pesticide-coated seeds, even as researchers raise new warnings that the practice may have deadly side effects for bees and other wildlife. The heated debate around the use of the neonicotinoid-coated seeds, developed by Bayer CropScience and introduced here about a decade ago, has divided farmers, beekeepers and scientists, and turned Canada into a kind of environmental battlefront.

    To protect its bees, Europe banned the use of neonic pesticides last year, while U.S. authorities have so far taken a more cautious approach, saying these pesticides are just one possible factor in the collapse of so many bee colonies. Bayer filed a court challenge against the EU ban in August last year, saying the EU has wrongly linked the pesticide to bee deaths.
    Bayer and Health Canada maintain that proper planting practices minimize the risk to bees, while others say use of neonics should be suspended until the questions being raised by researchers and beekeepers have been answered.

    Over the past few years, neonicotinoids have become the dominant insecticide in everything from corn and canola to flea collars for pets.

    But some believe this insecticide, particularly the version that coats the seeds and protects the plant as it matures, is responsible for the decline in honey bees.
    When Health Canada tested dead bees last spring it found neonicotinoid on 70 per cent of them. At the time, it was thought the bees had become exposed to the dust that’s kicked up during the planting process.

    “Current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable due to their impacts on bees and other pollinators,” Health Canada then declared in a statement dated Sept. 13, 2013.

    To address the dust concern, Health Canada’s pesticide regulatory agency and the makers of the insecticide developed new best practices guidelines for farmers to go into effect this spring.

    As part of the initiative, Bayer introduced a new lubricant that its lab tests suggest will help the treated corn seed flow through the planter, reducing total dust by 90 per cent and the active ingredient by 40 to 70 per cent.

    Bayer told the CBC: “The new fluency agent has been shown to dramatically reduce dust when compared to the current industry standard lubricants.”

    But when the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food tested the new lubricant under field conditions, it found dust was still problematic. OMAF field crop entomologist Tracey Baute says, “the lubricant, the fluency agency, does reduce the amount of active ingredient in the dust by 21 per cent.”

    “We’re still trying to determine if a balance can be made in the use of these products and protecting the pollinators,” Baute adds.

    Veteran Ontario beekeeper Tibor Szabo Jr. is not impressed. “A 21 per cent reduction of something that’s very, very toxic isn’t going to make me feel better,” he says. “Do I think it’s going to save the bees? Heck no.

    “There’s a heck of a lot more to this than dust.”

    Indeed now some researchers are saying that dust from planting could be just part of a bigger issue with neonics.

    Canadian environmental scientist Madeleine Chagnon has spent the past 20 years studying honey bees.

    When she analyzed dead bees she discovered a bio-marker that suggested the bees had come into contact with neonicotinoids whether they had been exposed to planting dust or not. This suggests that they were exposed to the pesticide while collecting pollen from maturing plants, says Chagnon.

    “They’re taking in something that they will ultimately die from, and they’re taking this into the hive and feeding on it all winter, then we wonder why we have winter mortality.”

    For Chagnon, this means no amount of dust-reducing agents, better communication or labelling will prevent what is happening to honey bees. She’s pushing for neonic products to be banned.
    Other bee researchers have reached the same conclusion.

    Dutch toxicology consultant Henk Tennekes told the CBC, “there is little doubt that neonicotinoids are implicated in bee decline.”

    And a new study by a Harvard University researcher and two Massachusetts’ beekeepers, published earlier this month in the journal Bulletin of Insectology, also put the blame squarely on neonicotinoids for what has been called colony collapse disorder.

    Tennekes’s book The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making has been compared to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which warned of the impending disaster of DDT in the environment in the 1960s.

    “Even if Bayer were to succeed in reducing one route of exposure to virtually zero, many other routes of exposure are not affected,” he said. Once a bee comes into contact with the insecticides, no matter the concentration, the effect is irreversible. The neonics bind with nerve cells and block their ability to function, which explains why some bees cannot find their way back into the hive.

    He suggests that the continued use of neonics will “cause a collapse of the ecosystem” because they create breaks in the natural food chain.

    Not everyone agrees with these dire assessments.

    Ernesto Guzman is one of the most respected bee researchers in Canada, and a world expert on pathology in honey bees. As head of the Honey Bee Research Centre at the University of Guelph, Guzman does not see pesticides as the main culprit.

    Guzman says that bee mortality in the spring is caused in part by pesticides, as evidenced by Health Canada’s spring mortality results of 2013. But he insists that whether or not systemic insecticides are the main threat to honey bee health is still debatable.

    Ernesto Guzman, head of the Honey Bee Research Centre at Guelph University, says pesticides are not the main culprit when it comes to the mass deaths of honey bees. (CBC)

    “Certainly pesticides are in fashion now and we hear a lot about them, but other factors also have to do with colony mortality, such as parasites like the Varroa mite,” he says.

    Guzman is not alone, either, in this assessment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency said last May, following a long study, that pesticides are just one of the many stressors contributing to the declining health of honey bees.

    And there are scores of scientists who say neonics, when used properly, are safe for all non-target wildlife.
    It was thought that insecticide-treated seeds were less harmful to the environment because the pesticide is planted underground along with the seed.

    Steve Denys, a corn farmer and vice-president of Pride Seeds in Chatham, Ont., says coated seeds are a huge improvement for the environment over previous spraying practices. (Courtesy Steve Denys)

    But there is new research that indicates the insecticide may stay active in the soil and the groundwater.

    During and shortly after spring planting last year, Laval University entomologist Valerie Fournier tested rainwater in cornfields. “Water samples, collected either in May or in June [2013], were shown to contain neonics in concentrations that are concerning for the bees,” Fournier says.

    She adds that insecticides in the water could cause “multiple sublethal effects” for bees, such as “impaired foraging behaviour, reduced food consumption, increased viral load and reduced fecundity and queen production.”

    A 2013 Dutch study from Utrecht University found that surface water collected from neonicotinoid-treated potato, horticultural and chicory fields “contained so much insecticide that it could actually be used directly as a lice-control pesticide.” Dutch researcher Jeroen Van der Sluijs says a bee drinking that water would die within a day.

    Last July, in a study funded partially by the Grain Farmers of Ontario association, Baute took samples of pollen from foraging bees as they returned to their hives and as Ontario corn was starting to tassel.

    Laval University entomologist Valerie Fournier is finding high concentrations of neonics in groundwater.
    She found that the pollen had been primarily collected from corn and soy beans.

    When she tested the neonicotinoid levels in the pollen she found an average above five parts per billion.

    While that is well below Health Canada’s lethal dose benchmark of 38 pbb, beekeeper Tibor Szabo suggests that it is enough to contribute to chronic poisoning in honey bees.

    Knowing that the corn pollen continues to express active pesticide well into the late summer shows the systemic nature of the neonicotinoids, Szabo says.

    As the bees feed on the stored pollen all winter long, the pesticide causes a “delayed toxic effect in the beehives,” he suggests.

    “We’re all still trying to learn more about the sublethal side of this”, says Baute. “Chronic or sublethal, it’s very hard to separate the two.”

    Trace amounts

    University of Saskatchewan biologist Christy Morrissey studied the levels of neonics in Prairie wetlands and concluded that “upwards of 80 to 90 per cent of the wetlands adjacent to tens of millions of acres of neonicotinoid-treated canola are contaminated.”

    Though the concentrations are only in the parts per trillion range, under chronic exposure that would have toxic effects on sensitive aquatic invertebrates, she says.

    “You should be aware that these compounds are much more toxic and are in the water far longer than other insecticides used on the market,” Morrissey says. “So they [bees] basically are being hit continuously with the chemical.”

    However, Steve Denys, the Ontario seed supplier and corn farmer, says if researchers go looking for minute traces of just about anything they could find it. “I could probably find coffee residue from a Tim Horton’s cup in the field if I looked hard enough for it”, he says.

    Virtually all of the 21 million acres of canola planted in Canada is neonicotinoid-treated, says Canola Council of Canada market access manager Brian Innes. But he says “there have been no reported problems of harm from neonics on pollinators in any of the fields.”

    Barry Brown, a Saskatchewan beekeeper whose hives are in a “sea of yellow” — meaning they are surrounded by canola fields — says he lost 23 per cent of his hives over the winter.

    “We don’t have the smoking gun, but I don’t think he could actually say no bees have been harmed by neonics in Saskatchewan,” Brown says about Innes’s assertion.

    Meanwhile, in a 32-square-kilometre area in central-east Saskatchewan, Morrissey says she found concentrations of the chemical three to four times higher than what has been deemed habitable for insects. Morrissey’s water and sediment samples were collected from wetlands in agricultural fields.

    “We’re not talking about a little regional problem. We’re talking about something that’s happening over tens of millions of acres,” she told CBC News. “The longer that the chemical is in the water, the longer the exposure time for the bugs.”

    Birds and amphibians

    Based on her findings, Morrissey says she also suspects that further up the food chain there’s an impact on birds. She concludes that there are potential consequences for wetland-dependent species such as amphibians, waterfowl and aerial insectivorous birds.

    She’s not alone. In March 2013, former Environment Canada senior researcher Pierre Mineau, whose specialty is pesticide ecotoxicology, co-authored a paper for the American Bird Conservancy called, The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds.

    The main chemical compounds used in neonics are imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and Mineau’s findings show the chemicals stay on the seeds that are then eaten by birds.

    The study found that a single kernel of imidacloprid-treated corn can kill small and “blue jay-sized birds,” and sicken larger ones. It concluded that “imidacloprid is too acutely toxic to be used as a seed treatment insecticide on any seed type.”

    Third generation Ontario beekeeper Jim Coneybeare is among those calling for a ban on the insecticides “as soon as possible, because [otherwise] we are going to lose the bee-keeping industry.”

    But he is not optimistic this is going to happen.

    “I think we’re into neonics so deep … because chemical companies are making billions of dollars on the usage of these products.”

    Denys insists that the new seed technology is an improvement not only for farmers, but for the environment. “On my bean crop, before neonics, I used 100 times the amount of active ingredient to provide protection.”

    What’s more, he says because farmers spend less time tilling their fields they burn fewer fossil fuels than before.

    Health Canada shows no signs of pursuing a ban, and instead is working with the industry to try and find better ways to reduce the chances of exposing non-target insects to the pesticide.

    A spokesperson recently told the CBC, “The [regulatory] agency is currently re-evaluating the neonicotinoid insecticides, which will include an examination of residues in the environment.”

    Bayer CropScience, the makers of the controversial seed coating, told the CBC that the company “will continue to promote better collaboration between farmers and beekeepers to improve bee health and ensure the adoption of best management practices.”

    Bayer adds that it is “committed to meaningful stewardship efforts to safeguard honey bee health and maintain sustainable agricultural practices.”
    Source: CBC, 20 May 2014
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bee-researchers-raise-more-warning-flags-about-neonicotinoid-pesticides-1.2644354

  • L’éditeur de Food and Chemical Toxicology obligé de publier un droit de réponse après le retrait de l’étude NK603 et Roundup de l’équipe du Pr Séralini

    L’éditeur de Food and Chemical Toxicology obligé de publier un droit de réponse après le retrait de l’étude NK603 et Roundup de l’équipe du Pr Séralini

    L’éditeur de Food and Chemical Toxicology applique deux poids deux mesures en matière de publication en faveur de l’industrie. Face à ce flagrant délit, le groupe Elsevier l’a obligé à publier un droit de réponse de l’équipe Séralini & al. Plus d’un an après publication, le rédacteur en chef de Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr A. Wallace Hayes, retirait l’étude de toxicologie de long terme sur deux produits de Monsanto, le maïs OGM (NK603) et son herbicide associé (Roundup) de l’équipe Séralini & al, tout en reconnaissant ni fraude ni mauvaise interprétation intentionnelle. Dans un nouvel article publié dans les colonnes de FCT, grâce à la pression du groupe éditorial Elsevier, les chercheurs expliquent pourquoi ils n’acceptent pas les conclusions du Dr Hayes : ils dénoncent l’absence de sérieux des raisons scientifiques évoquées, réfutent la prétendue sensibilité des rats et précisent les statistiques approfondies portant sur les paramètres sanguins et urinaires perturbés, confirmant les pathologies hépatiques, rénales, et les tumeurs mammaires.

    L’éditeur de Food and Chemical Toxicology applique deux poids deux mesures en matière de publication en faveur de l’industrie. Face à ce flagrant délit, le groupe Elsevier l’a obligé à publier un droit de réponse de l’équipe Séralini & al. Plus d’un an après publication, le rédacteur en chef de Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr A. Wallace Hayes, retirait l’étude de toxicologie de long terme sur deux produits de Monsanto, le maïs OGM (NK603) et son herbicide associé (Roundup) de l’équipe Séralini & al, tout en reconnaissant ni fraude ni mauvaise interprétation intentionnelle. Dans un nouvel article publié dans les colonnes de FCT, grâce à la pression du groupe éditorial Elsevier, les chercheurs expliquent pourquoi ils n’acceptent pas les conclusions du Dr Hayes : ils dénoncent l’absence de sérieux des raisons scientifiques évoquées, réfutent la prétendue sensibilité des rats et précisent les statistiques approfondies portant sur les paramètres sanguins et urinaires perturbés, confirmant les pathologies hépatiques, rénales, et les tumeurs mammaires.

    L’éditeur en chef de FCT avait justifié le retrait de la publication sur le fait qu’il n’était pas possible de conclure sur un lien entre OGM et cancer, alors qu’à aucun moment le mot cancer n’y a été employé. Toutes les tumeurs ne sont pas des cancers, mais elles induisent en général la mort à cause d’hémorragies internes et de compressions d’organes vitaux. Hayes arguait par ailleurs que 10 rats par groupe, de la souche Sprague-Dawley, ne permettaient pas d’atteindre la puissance statistique autorisant à conclure sur la toxicité d’un OGM. Or FCT a publié deux études (Hammond & al, 2004 et Zhang & al, 2014), mesurant le même nombre de rats de la même souche, sans remettre en cause leur puissance statistique et plus encore leur résultat : l’innocuité des OGM concernés ! La toute récente étude de Zhang & al concerne, comme celle de Séralini & al, les potentiels effets chroniques de la consommation d’un OGM (riz transgénique produisant un insecticide Bt modifié) et utilise, au delà de la souche et des effectifs de rats, également le même protocole.

    Pour le professeur Séralini : « Force est de constater que la décision du journal FCT n’est donc pas conditionnée par la rigueur du protocole et de la démarche scientifique de l’étude, mais par les résultats des auteurs : Zhang & al concluent en effet que le riz transgénique testé est aussi sûr et nutritif que le riz conventionnel. Ce cas de deux poids, deux mesures ne peut s’expliquer que par des compromissions et des facilités de publication faites aux industriels des biotechnologies et des pesticides pour faire accepter les OGM et le Roundup. L’intégration de Richard Goodman, ancien salarié de Monsanto, au sein du comité éditorial de FCT, et ce juste après publication de l’étude NK603, en est l’illustration la plus flagrante. Pire, ce prisme pro-industrie touche également les autorités réglementaires, telles que l’EFSA (Agence européenne de sécurité des aliments), qui justifient leurs autorisations de mises sur le marché sur des études scientifiquement médiocres, tout en écartant systématiquement celles des chercheurs indépendants aboutissant à des conclusions discordantes. »
    L’utilisation de ces « doubles standards » scientifiques sur des sujets aussi sensibles nuit gravement à la santé publique et remet profondément en cause la garantie de qualité et d’indépendance de l’édition scientifique.

    Référence : Séralini, G.-E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Spiroux, J. (2014) Conclusiveness of toxicity data and double standards. Food and Chem. Tox. DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2014.04.018 – Article joint en PJ.

    Contact : presse@criigen.info Tel : 02 31 56 56 84

  • Editor of Food and chemical Toxicology is obliged to give Prof. Séralini’s team right of reply after retracting NK603 and Roundup study

    Editor of Food and chemical Toxicology is obliged to give Prof. Séralini’s team right of reply after retracting NK603 and Roundup study

    The editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) uses double standards when it comes to publishing in favour of the industry, Prof. Séralini’s team say. Now the journal’s publisher Elsevier has compelled him to publish a right of reply by the Séralini team. More than a year after its publication, the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr A. Wallace Hayes, retracted the long-term toxicity study on two Monsanto products, the NK603 GM maize and its associated herbicide Roundup by Séralini et al. He did so despite the fact that he found neither fraud nor conscious misinterpretation in the study. In a new article published in FCT, following pressure from the journal’s publisher Elsevier, the scientists explain why they do not accept Dr Hayes’ conclusion. They denounce the lack of scientific validity of the reasons given for the reatraction, explain why the Sprague-Dawley rat strain used is appropriate, and describe the statistical results in depth concerning the blood and urine parameters affected, proving that the liver and kidney pathologies and the mammary tumours are solidly based.

    The editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) uses double standards when it comes to publishing in favour of the industry, Prof. Séralini’s team say. Now the journal’s publisher Elsevier has compelled him to publish a right of reply by the Séralini team. More than a year after its publication, the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr A. Wallace Hayes, retracted the long-term toxicity study on two Monsanto products, the NK603 GM maize and its associated herbicide Roundup by Séralini et al. He did so despite the fact that he found neither fraud nor conscious misinterpretation in the study. In a new article published in FCT, following pressure from the journal’s publisher Elsevier, the scientists explain why they do not accept Dr Hayes’ conclusion. They denounce the lack of scientific validity of the reasons given for the reatraction, explain why the Sprague-Dawley rat strain used is appropriate, and describe the statistical results in depth concerning the blood and urine parameters affected, proving that the liver and kidney pathologies and the mammary tumours are solidly based.

    The editor-in-chief justified his retraction of the publication by the fact that it is impossible to conclude a link between GMO and cancer – even though the word cancer was never used in the paper. Not all the tumours were cancers but they nevertheless brought death through internal haemorrhages and compressions of vital organs. Dr Hayes also argued that 10 rats per group, of the Sprague-Dawley strain, did not allow the level of statistical strength to conclude about the toxicity of the GMO and Roundup. But FCT published two studies (Hammond & al., 2004; and Zhang & al., 2014) measuring the same number of rats of the same strain, without calling into question the strength of the statistics, let alone their conclusion – that the GMOs tested were safe!

    The recent study by Zhang et al, like the study by Séralini et al, measures the potential chronic effects of the consumption of a GMO (transgenic rice producing a modified Bt insecticide). It uses the same strain and measures the same number of rats. The only substantive difference was in the results: Zhang and colleagues concluded that the GMO under test was safe.

    Prof. Séralini commented : “We are forced to conclude that the decision to withdraw our paper was based on unscientific double standards applied by the editor. These double standards can only be explained by pressure from the GMO and agrochemical industry to force acceptance of GMOs and Roundup. The most flagrant illustration is the appointment of Richard Goodman, a former Monsanto employee, onto the FCT editorial board, soon after the publication of the NK603 study. Worse, this pro-industry bias also affects regulatory authorities, such as EFSA (European Food Safety Authority),which gives favourable opinions on risky products based on mediocre studies commissioned by the companies wishing to commercialize the products, as well as systematically dismissing the findings of independent scientists which cast doubt on their safety.”

    The application of unscientific double standards to data on products that have entered our food supply puts public health at risk and throws into question the quality and independence of scientific editorial processes.

    Référence : Séralini, G.-E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Spiroux, J. (2014) Conclusiveness of toxicity data and double standards. Food and Chem. Tox. DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2014.04.018 (article attached).

    Contact : presse@criigen.info Tel : 0033 (0)2 31 56 56 84

  • Environmental Fate of Soil Applied Neonicotinoid Insecticides in an Irrigated Potato Agroecosystem

    Environmental Fate of Soil Applied Neonicotinoid Insecticides in an Irrigated Potato Agroecosystem

    Since 1995, neonicotinoid insecticides have been a critical component of arthropod management in potato, Solanum tuberosum L. Recent detections of neonicotinoids in groundwater have generated questions about the sources of these contaminants and the relative contribution from commodities in U.S. agriculture. Delivery of neonicotinoids to crops typically occurs as a seed or in-furrow treatment to manage early season insect herbivores. Applied in this way, these insecticides become systemically mobile in the plant and provide control of key pest species. An outcome of this project links these soil insecticide application strategies in crop plants with neonicotinoid contamination of water leaching from the application zone. In 2011 and 2012, our objectives were to document the temporal patterns of neonicotinoid leachate below the planting furrow following common insecticide delivery methods in potato. Leaching loss of thiamethoxam from potato was measured using pan lysimeters from three at-plant treatments and one foliar application treatment. Insecticide concentration in leachate was assessed for six consecutive months using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Findings from this study suggest leaching of neonicotinoids from potato may be greater following crop harvest in comparison to other times during the growing season. Furthermore, this study documented recycling of neonicotinoid insecticides from contaminated groundwater back onto the crop via high capacity irrigation wells. These results document interactions between cultivated potato, different neonicotinoid delivery methods, and the potential for subsurface water contamination via leaching.

    Since 1995, neonicotinoid insecticides have been a critical component of arthropod management in potato, Solanum tuberosum L. Recent detections of neonicotinoids in groundwater have generated questions about the sources of these contaminants and the relative contribution from commodities in U.S. agriculture. Delivery of neonicotinoids to crops typically occurs as a seed or in-furrow treatment to manage early season insect herbivores. Applied in this way, these insecticides become systemically mobile in the plant and provide control of key pest species. An outcome of this project links these soil insecticide application strategies in crop plants with neonicotinoid contamination of water leaching from the application zone. In 2011 and 2012, our objectives were to document the temporal patterns of neonicotinoid leachate below the planting furrow following common insecticide delivery methods in potato. Leaching loss of thiamethoxam from potato was measured using pan lysimeters from three at-plant treatments and one foliar application treatment. Insecticide concentration in leachate was assessed for six consecutive months using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Findings from this study suggest leaching of neonicotinoids from potato may be greater following crop harvest in comparison to other times during the growing season. Furthermore, this study documented recycling of neonicotinoid insecticides from contaminated groundwater back onto the crop via high capacity irrigation wells. These results document interactions between cultivated potato, different neonicotinoid delivery methods, and the potential for subsurface water contamination via leaching.

    Source: Huseth AS, Groves RL (2014) Environmental Fate of Soil Applied Neonicotinoid Insecticides in an Irrigated Potato Agroecosystem. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097081

  • Harvard universiteit bevestigt de oorzaak van bijensterfte

    Harvard universiteit bevestigt de oorzaak van bijensterfte

    Wetenschappers van de Harvard University hebben sterke aanwijzingen gevonden naar de oorzaak van ‘colony collapse disorder’, ofwel bijenverdwijnziekte in het Nederlands. De bijenverdwijnziekte is een fenomeen waarbij bijenkolonies plots leeg worden teruggevonden. Zelfs de dode bijen worden niet meer teruggevonden. Volgens het onderzoek zouden pesticiden de oorzaak zijn van de bijenverdwijnziekte. Het researchteam, onder leiding van Chensheng Lu, onderzocht achttien bijenkolonies op drie locaties in Massachusetts gedurende de winter van 2012. Vier kolonies op elke plaats kregen maïssiroop met pesticiden die neonicotinoïden bevatten. Neonicotinoïden is voor insecten een soort zenuwgas en het imiteert de werking van nicotine. De twee andere kolonies per plaats kregen niets toegediend. In de lente van 2013 bleek dat de kolonies die neonicotinoïden toegediend kregen voor de helft verdwenen waren. De bijenkolonies die nog overbleven waren niet in de beste staat. Vaak hadden ze geen bijenkoningin of ontwikkelende bijen.

    Wetenschappers van de Harvard University hebben sterke aanwijzingen gevonden naar de oorzaak van ‘colony collapse disorder’, ofwel bijenverdwijnziekte in het Nederlands. De bijenverdwijnziekte is een fenomeen waarbij bijenkolonies plots leeg worden teruggevonden. Zelfs de dode bijen worden niet meer teruggevonden. Volgens het onderzoek zouden pesticiden de oorzaak zijn van de bijenverdwijnziekte. Het researchteam, onder leiding van Chensheng Lu, onderzocht achttien bijenkolonies op drie locaties in Massachusetts gedurende de winter van 2012. Vier kolonies op elke plaats kregen maïssiroop met pesticiden die neonicotinoïden bevatten. Neonicotinoïden is voor insecten een soort zenuwgas en het imiteert de werking van nicotine. De twee andere kolonies per plaats kregen niets toegediend. In de lente van 2013 bleek dat de kolonies die neonicotinoïden toegediend kregen voor de helft verdwenen waren. De bijenkolonies die nog overbleven waren niet in de beste staat. Vaak hadden ze geen bijenkoningin of ontwikkelende bijen.

    De overblijvende bijen waren wel gezond en hadden niet meer of minder infecties dan de bijen die niets toegediend kregen, wat er op duidt dat de neonicotinoïden een andere biologische reactie veroorzaakt bij de bijen. Een kolonie die niets kreeg toegediend was wel volledig gestorven, maar alle dode bijen waren terug te vinden in de bijenkorf. Nadien stelde het onderzoeksteam vast dat die bijenkorf te maken had met een parasiet. Deze studie imiteert een eerdere studie uit 2010, door hetzelfde researchteam. Toen testten ze slechts één soort pesticide met neonicotinoïden en stierf er 94% van de bijenpopulatie. Het verschil in bijensterfte kan te wijten zijn aan een strengere winter. Het is nog niet duidelijk welke rol neonicotinoïden spelen in de bijensterfte. De onderzoekers suggereren dat de pesticiden de neurologische functies van de bijen aantasten, vooral het geheugen, de kennis en het gedrag. De stress die de winter met zich meebrengt voor de bijen zou deze effecten nog erger maken. Door de neonicotinoïden zouden bijen niet meer weten hoe ze terug naar hun kolonie moeten vliegen, wat verklaart dat de imkers de dode bijen niet terugvinden.
    Bron: Metro, 15 mei 2013
    http://nl.metrotime.be/2014/05/15/must-read/wetenschappers-hebben-een-oorzaak-voor-de-bijensterfte-gevonden/

  • The common toad is no longer that common in Hampshire – and frogs are in decline too

    The common toad is no longer that common in Hampshire – and frogs are in decline too

    These are the findings have been released by the RSPB as part of the charity’s biggest ever wildlife survey. For the first time the Big Garden Birdwatch survey asked respondents to report back on garden wildlife other than birds. The report reveals that only seven per cent of Hampshire residents see toads in their gardens regularly, while 12 per cent see frogs on a monthly basis. That compares with national figures showing 28 per cent of residents see toads monthly, while almost half of the respondents across the UK see frogs once a month – more than three times as many as in Hampshire.

    These are the findings have been released by the RSPB as part of the charity’s biggest ever wildlife survey. For the first time the Big Garden Birdwatch survey asked respondents to report back on garden wildlife other than birds. The report reveals that only seven per cent of Hampshire residents see toads in their gardens regularly, while 12 per cent see frogs on a monthly basis. That compares with national figures showing 28 per cent of residents see toads monthly, while almost half of the respondents across the UK see frogs once a month – more than three times as many as in Hampshire.

    Source: Salisbury journal, 30 April 2014
    http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/11167172.Toads_in_decline_in_Hampshire/

  • Dürfen Lobbyisten die EFSA kontrollieren?

    Dürfen Lobbyisten die EFSA kontrollieren?

    Heute werden die Ständigen Vertreter der Mitgliedsstaaten in Brüssel (Coreper) über die Ernennung von sieben Mitgliedern des Verwaltungsrats der Europäischen Lebensmittelbehörde (EFSA) abstimmen. Die EFSA ist für alle Bereiche der Lebensmittelsicherheit zuständig, darunter Gentechnik, Pestizide und Lebensmittelzusatzstoffe. Der Verwaltungsrat ist das höchste Entscheidungsgremium der Behörde, das unter anderem über die Unabhängigkeit der EFSA wachen soll. Eine Gruppe konservativer und liberaler Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments hatte im Januar zwei KandidatInnen, die als Lobbyisten für die Lebensmittelindustrie tätig sind, als Top- Kandidaten für diese Position ausgewählt. Zwei weitere Mitglieder des Verwaltungsrats, die sich erneut bewerben, haben ebenfalls enge Verbindungen zur Industrie. Die Unabhängigkeit der EFSA ist äußerst umstritten: Es wurde vielfach über Interessenkonflikte berichtet, an den wissenschaftlichen Stellungnahmen der Behörde wurden immer wieder Zweifel geäußert.

    Heute werden die Ständigen Vertreter der Mitgliedsstaaten in Brüssel (Coreper) über die Ernennung von sieben Mitgliedern des Verwaltungsrats der Europäischen Lebensmittelbehörde (EFSA) abstimmen. Die EFSA ist für alle Bereiche der Lebensmittelsicherheit zuständig, darunter Gentechnik, Pestizide und Lebensmittelzusatzstoffe. Der Verwaltungsrat ist das höchste Entscheidungsgremium der Behörde, das unter anderem über die Unabhängigkeit der EFSA wachen soll. Eine Gruppe konservativer und liberaler Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments hatte im Januar zwei KandidatInnen, die als Lobbyisten für die Lebensmittelindustrie tätig sind, als Top- Kandidaten für diese Position ausgewählt. Zwei weitere Mitglieder des Verwaltungsrats, die sich erneut bewerben, haben ebenfalls enge Verbindungen zur Industrie. Die Unabhängigkeit der EFSA ist äußerst umstritten: Es wurde vielfach über Interessenkonflikte berichtet, an den wissenschaftlichen Stellungnahmen der Behörde wurden immer wieder Zweifel geäußert.

    „Professionelle Lobbyisten der Lebensmittelindustrie sollen Aufpasser bei der EU-Lebensmittelbehörde werden. So wird der Bock zum Gärtner gemacht. Damit tut man der Behörde keinen Gefallen, deren Ruf ohnehin schon ramponiert ist. Und man setzt mutwillig die Interessen von Umwelt und VerbraucherInnen aufs Spiel“, sagt Christoph Then von Testbiotech. Von den 23 Kandidaten, die ursprünglich von der EU- Kommission ausgewählt wurden, hatten oder haben vier Kandidaten sehr enge Beziehungen zur Industrie:

    •Beate Kettlitz ist Direktorin für Lebensmittelsicherheit bei der Lobbyorganisation FoodDrinkEurope, die alle großen Lebensmittel- und Getränkehersteller in der EU vertritt.
    •Jan Mousing, der sich erneut für den Verwaltungsrat bewirbt, ist der Geschäftsführer des Danish Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, einer privaten Firma, welche die Interessen der dänischen Lebensmittelindustrie vertritt.
    •Piet Vanthemsche, der sich ebenfalls erneut bewirbt, ist in führender Position beim Europäischen Bauernverband COPA und bei einem Agro-Investmentfonds tätig (MRBB Holding). Dieser Fonds hält auch Anteile an Konzernen, die gentechnisch verändertes Saatgut verkaufen.
    •Milan Kovac vom slowakischen Ministerium für Landwirtschaft war bis 2011 Mitglied des Verwaltungsrats von ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute) Europe. ILSI wird u. a. von der Agro-Industrie finanziert und dient als ein entscheidendes Instrument für die Einflussnahme der Industrie auf die EFSA.

    Die Koordinatoren des Umweltausschusses hatten in einer nicht-öffentlichen Sitzung am 16. Januar eine Empfehlung für acht Kandidaten beschlossen. Dabei sprachen sie sich insbesondere für Kettlitz und Mousing aus. Dagegen hatten sich vor zwei Jahren das Europäische Parlament und die EU-Mitgliedsländer in einer ähnlichen Abstimmung gegen die Berufung von Industrie-Lobbyisten in den Verwaltungsrat ausgesprochen. Zudem hat das Europäische Parlament in einer Resolution im April 2014 sogar eine Stärkung der Unabhängigkeit der Behörde gefordert. Auf Rückfrage rechtfertigten zwei der Koordinatoren des Umweltausschusses die Empfehlung für Kettlitz und Mousing: Chris Davies, ein britischer Abgeordneter, der zur Gruppe der Liberalen gehört, und der deutsche Sozialdemokrat Mathias Groote, Vorsitzender des Umweltausschusses.

    Dieser erklärte auf Rückfrage gegenüber der lobbykritischen Organisation Corporate Europe Observatory, dass der Vorschlag in Übereinstimmung mit den EU-Vorgaben stehe. Die Verordnung 178/2002 verlangt, dass vier der 14 Mitglieder des Verwaltungsrats „aus dem Kreis der Organisationen, die die Verbraucherschaft und andere Interessen in der Lebensmittelkette vertreten“, kommen sollen. Doch es steht nirgendwo, dass es sich dabei um Vertreter der Industrie handeln soll. Im Gegenteil: Die Richtlinien der EFSA zur Wahrung ihrer Unabhängigkeit sehen vor, dass niemand, der für die Industrie arbeitet, auch zugleich für die Behörde tätig sein soll.

    Martin Pigeon von der Organisation Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) erklärt: „Es ist bedauerlich, dass eine Handvoll EU-Abgeordneter über eine so wichtige Frage in einer nichtöffentlichen Sitzung in Namen des Europäischen Parlaments entscheiden darf. Gerade erst hat dasselbe Parlament mit großer Mehrheit erklärt, dass es gegen eine Schwächung der Unabhängigkeit der EFSA ist. Wir fordern die Regierungen der Mitgliedsländer der EU auf, die Unabhängigkeit der EFSA zu verteidigen und eine Unterwanderung der Lebensmittelbehörde durch die Industrie zu verhindern.“
    Quelle: Pressemedlung Testbiotech, 07.05.14
    http://www.bio-markt.info/web/Aktuelle_Kurzmeldungen/Politik/Lobbyisten/15/32/0/16785.html

  • EFSA published new guidance for pesticides and soil degradation rates

    EFSA published new guidance for pesticides and soil degradation rates

    EFSA has published new guidance that enables scientists to carry out a specialised aspect of environmental exposure assessment for pesticides. The guidance document provides a clear methodology for evaluating studies that measure the time required for the actual degradation of 50 % of a chemical pesticide and its transformation products in soil. This is known as the DegT50 value. Importantly, it allows users to exclude the effects of dissipation, another process that causes pesticide residues to disappear from soil. The guidance is aimed primarily at risk assessors and industry applicants and allows them to derive DegT50 values, critical information for the safety evaluation of pesticides. EFSA has developed the guidance document as part of its ongoing work in the field of pesticides to safeguard the environment. The methodology can be also applied to chemicals released into soil from non-pesticide uses.

    EFSA has published new guidance that enables scientists to carry out a specialised aspect of environmental exposure assessment for pesticides. The guidance document provides a clear methodology for evaluating studies that measure the time required for the actual degradation of 50 % of a chemical pesticide and its transformation products in soil. This is known as the DegT50 value. Importantly, it allows users to exclude the effects of dissipation, another process that causes pesticide residues to disappear from soil. The guidance is aimed primarily at risk assessors and industry applicants and allows them to derive DegT50 values, critical information for the safety evaluation of pesticides. EFSA has developed the guidance document as part of its ongoing work in the field of pesticides to safeguard the environment. The methodology can be also applied to chemicals released into soil from non-pesticide uses.

    In June 2014, EFSA will hold a full-day meeting with around 65 stakeholders to explain how best to use the methodology set out in the guidance. The event, which takes place at the Authority’s headquarters in Parma, is fully subscribed and registration is closed.

    Source: Agri.eu, May 10, 2014
    http://agri.eu/efsa-published-new-guidance-for-pesticides-and-soil-degradation-rates-news5741.html

  • A new study from Harvard implicates imidacloprid and clothianidin in the ongoing plague of honeybee CCD

    A new study from Harvard implicates imidacloprid and clothianidin in the ongoing plague of honeybee CCD

    A team of Harvard biologists has come closer to cracking the mystery of honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), eight years after its appearance. CCD persists in transforming bee colonies around the world into ghost towns: by the end of each winter, some colonies wind up littered with dead bees and emptied of many more, with no signs of renewal. “One of the defining symptomatic observations of CCD colonies is the emptiness of hives in which the amount of dead bees found inside the hives do not account for the total numbers of bees present prior to winter when they were alive,” states the report, published May 9 in the Bulletin of Insectology.

    A team of Harvard biologists has come closer to cracking the mystery of honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), eight years after its appearance. CCD persists in transforming bee colonies around the world into ghost towns: by the end of each winter, some colonies wind up littered with dead bees and emptied of many more, with no signs of renewal. “One of the defining symptomatic observations of CCD colonies is the emptiness of hives in which the amount of dead bees found inside the hives do not account for the total numbers of bees present prior to winter when they were alive,” states the report, published May 9 in the Bulletin of Insectology.

    The exact mechanism behind these collapses remains dauntingly unclear, but they have been linked with pathogen infestation, malnutrition, and pesticide exposure. This week’s report strongly indicates that two neonicotinoid insecticides that are widely used on crops can decimate honeybee colonies’ winter survival rates, whether or not mites or parasites are present.

    The two chemicals, imidacloprid and clothianidin, both block insects’ central nervous systems, killing them by paralysis. Imidacloprid is the world’s most widely-used insecticide, and has been registered for use in the US since the 1994; clothianidin was registered in 2003 by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which found that it had passed honeybee-specific toxicity tests.

    These scientists studied the health of 18 bee colonies in central Massachusetts over a six-month period spanning the winter of 2012-2013. Six of the colonies were fed sugar spiked with sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid, six had theirs laced with clothianidin, and six less-unfortunate control colonies ate clean sugar, starting in October.

    All of the colonies went about their apian routines in good form throughout the fall. But by late January, six of the 12 poisoned colonies experienced collapses with CCD-like symptoms, like en-masse disappearance and the presence of un-hatched young. Of the six control hives, only one failed to survive the winter, seemingly due to an infestation by Nosema Ceranae parasites.

    “The honey bee clusters in the six surviving neonicotinoid treated colonies were very small, and were either without queen bees or had no brood,” reports the study, suggesting the poisons harm the animals’ abilities to raise and train new young. In contrast, the five surviving control hives replenished their populations quickly, as the winter gave way to spring.

    According to the report, these results “reinforce the conclusion that sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids is likely the main culprit for the occurrence of CCD.”

    The finding raises a large question for further study: Why do honeybees, who don’t normally abandon their hives during winter, do so when poisoned by neonicotinoids?

    The finding may point to “the impairment of honey bee neurological functions, specifically memory, cognition, or behavior, as the results from the chronic sublethal neonicotinoid exposure,” suggest the authors. “Although the failure to initiate brood rearing and the vanishing of the worker caste in the neonicotinoid-treated colonies might be governed by completely different mechanisms, they suggest the possible involvement of cascading events prior to the occurrence of CCD.”

    The study comes amid a busy spring season for honey bee research. Last month a team of Kenyan biologists found that African honey bees seem be impervious to the pests, Varroa and Nosema, which plague honey bee populations in Europe, Asia, and the United States.

    And earlier this week Brazilian scientists identified two substances in honeybees’ brains, that appear to vary as the insects move through space and time, guiding their age-related division of labor.

    Source: The Christian Science Monitor. May 9, 2014
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0509/World-s-No.-1-pesticide-brings-honeybees-to-their-knees-say-scientists