http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle25634384/
Printable View
"In Europe, the consequences of the ban, which is up for review this year, have not been good. Canola crops in Britain and Germany – which were especially dependent on neonics – have been devastated by flea beetles. Farmers are moving away from canola, which is an important food source for bees."
The European ban is now cancelled in the UK because it was doing more harm than good and the science doesn't support it.
And if it's what the UK is doing it must be right...just ask Justin Beib...I mean Trudeau
No it hasn't. For 120 days, a few farmers are allowed to use just 2 of the banned neonics to spray less than 5% of the total English oil seed rape crop.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleK
The ban/restrictions are still pretty much in place.
The ban is effectively lifted for 2015 crops. 95% of the crop is already planted, so it obviously can't be used on that part of the crop. It can be used on everything planted from here out in 2015, then they'll decide what to do next year.
Regardless, I would think the take away from this is that.
Kneejerk reactions are rarely good and that we should know by now, people or groups with agenda's can't always be taken as gospel. Most if not all of these bullits were the reasons and causes for concern mentioned and discussed just last month.
~Environmental lobby groups, for example, depend for their survival on tales of epic disaster.
sound familiar?. Global warming?
~This year the environmental lobby scored a major coup by persuading the Ontario government to sharply restrict the use of a class of insecticide known as neonicotinoids (neon's).
sound familiar? GEA?
~Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals, who have a long record of misguided green initiatives.
sound familiar? Where do I start/stop?
~Canola crops in Britain and Germany – which were especially dependent on neonics – have been devastated by flea beetles.
~Farmers are moving away from canola, which is an important food source for bees.
Unintended consequences
~Mr. Denys thinks part of the problem is that city dwellers, the kind of folks who eat organic foods and support the Sierra Club, have no idea how……………..
sound familiar? Bears, Wind, Gas plants….oh so much…..but damn they do make a wanna be king or queen salivate when it comes to elections and making them happy.
fool me once…
fool me twice…
fool me how many times….
the number of honeybee colonies is at a record high. Last year, according to Statistics Canada.
Why the rush Ms Wynne? Haven't you learned?
I'd just like to point out that "...canola, which is an important food source for bees...." is not an important food source for bees. In mass quantities, it's a great honey producer for beekeepers, but it's actually a pain in the for bees. It granulates in the comb, which means more energy required to reliquify prior to consumption for a hive. Commercial beekeepers like it because it generates good honey flows. If farmers switch to another crop the beekeepers are just going to move their hives to find a better source of nectar... and there's a ton of wild forage out there for bees if you put them in the right spots.
This is about a lot more than just honey bees. They are effectively a managed livestock, and if something was killing off your cattle in pasture you'd be pretty concerned about it. What's causing a deeper concern here is the potential loss of "unmanaged" wild insects. The bees and bugs and birds and amphibians that nobody bothers to count and keep statistics on. The flora in the soil, of which we only have the most basic understanding.
On a tangent to the Neonic discussion... Roundup (glyphosate) is used just as much... and it's long term effects and buildup in the soil and ecosystem are showing up as well. The method of action for the herbicide has been found the affect the flora in the soil, effectively killing the soil on which it's sprayed. That same flora exists in our gut; and we don't even understand the connection that gut flora has to the rest of our body. Most people don't even understand the thousands of acres of crown land where glyphosate is sprayed to control regrowth to ensure fast buildup of softwood forests... forestry companies harvest softwood, then spray to ensure the hardwood that starts to regrow is suppressed because "we took softwood, we need to replace with softwood". Millions of litres of this stuff is dumped into the ecosystem every year in the same places we hunt and fish and play.... and the natural regrowth phases of the forest are disrupted for monetary reasons.
Poison is poison, regardless of what shade of lipstick you put on it. I try to limit my exposure to poison as much as possible.
...This is about a lot more than just honey bees...Quote:
Originally Posted by northernontario
Actually, no, its not. The current pesticides were developed specifically to reduce harm to birds, reptiles, amphibians and small damage. Honey bees appear to be all and only what this is about.
A little off topic, but can you shed some light on this point?Quote:
Originally Posted by northernontario
Soil microbes typically break down and metabolize glyphosate rapidly, and it could possibley shift the dominant organisms, but since the application only occurs a few times a year, then it would be temporary. Unless you have really poor soil, the community structure is quite robust.
"Suspended"Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
The anti-neonics crowd refers to the "ban being lifted".
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ious-harm-bees
Northern O.
When I read that, and thought about "unintended consequences". My thoughts were.
Wild bees would/are benefitting from mass produced canola. If untreated canola is being hammered by beetles and farmers are moving to something else.....akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
Not how it will impact the bee keepers, for whom it's a PITA, and who will just use something's else.
The EU ban, from what I understand (now) was only a 2 year ban to see what would happen.
"Yet, as activists continue to campaign to get neonics banned, news from Europe, where a two-year moratorium went into effect last year, suggests that farmers are unable to control pests without them. Partly in desperation, they are replacing neonics with pesticides that are older, less effective and demonstrably more harmful to humans and social insects, and farm yields are dropping."
I wouldn't bet on it being renewed.
...that's a old link from Jan/15
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...to-bee-health/
Here is a link to a very interesting article on why an Iowa farmer has reverted from GMO;d corn back to conventional on his 1,000 acres, explains why , he gets better yields and saves over $80.00 per acre , pls, read.
Link;http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/
From that link:Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
During the growing season, Huegerich sprays both his conventional and his GMO corn twice with herbicides and twice with pesticides, despite the GMO’s theoretical resistance to rootworm. “It gives me peace of mind,” Huegerich says.
So instead of using a bug resistant GMO, he sprays the hell out of it with pesticides??? Is that really better???
An exert from this study "ResultsQuote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater.
link;http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
And another ; Then, with no pyrotechnics, he offered his theory: "I think it's possible you've developed a reaction to genetically modified corn." from this study;
link;http://www.elle.com/beauty/health-fi...modified-corn/
Glyphosate is not breaking down as promised
In 1996, New York’s attorney general sued Monsanto over the company’s use of “false and misleading advertising” about RoundUp. That case ended with Monsanto agreeing to stop calling Roundup “biodegradable,” and to pull ads claiming that Roundup was “safer than table salt,” “practically nontoxic,” and “stayed where you put it.”
Two decades after the advent of “RoundUp Ready” crops and their dominance in the agricultural marketplace, the evidence of their falsehoods abound: multiple studies have found significant levels of glyphosate in streams, soil, air, rainwater, and groundwater
link;http://gmo-awareness.com/resources/glyphosate/
There are so many others, a report I read from a study by the U. of Calgary and York U. stated a study done on a slough out west that had roundup/glyphosate sprayed on the fields around it 5 years previously , still had residuals of roundup in it , it is not breaking down as Monasanto has been telling the public. This chemical is hanging around and getting into out food chain and we will be succumbing to it more sooner than later.
Here is another study that should scare everyone;Is Glyphosate Responsible for your Health Problems? - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/is-....nBUVKS2b.dpuf
Link;http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/is-...alth-problems/
You do realize that enveurope.com study was retracted after it was published?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691512005637
It was republished by a non-scientific organization a couple of years later.
And when we start quoting www.elle.com beauty and womens magazine...seriously, are we really doing this?
[QUOTE] And when we start quoting www.elle.com beauty and womens magazine...seriously, are we really doing this? [/QUOTE ]
Werner , you have chosen to make fun of, denigrate a report because of the media it was published in.
However the originator of the study and report is, Stephanie Sennef, a " Senior Research Scientist " at MIT with so many degrees it looks like a confused alphabet who lately has been concentrating on Biology particularly on GMO and GLYPHOSATE relationship to many human disorders and diseases.
So you have any credentials that can counter her reports? I think not.
I also know many farmers who are reverting back to conventional farming and in particular a few of them are claiming their dairy herds are healthier with no loss at calving time , more and better quality milk.
[QUOTE=jaycee;913379]Jaycee - google "Stephanie Sennef" and see what the scientific community (not just the big Ag companies) think of her. "Controversial" seems to come up in every article about here.Quote:
And when we start quoting www.elle.com beauty and womens magazine...seriously, are we really doing this? [/QUOTE ]
Werner , you have chosen to make fun of, denigrate a report because of the media it was published in.
However the originator of the study and report is, Stephanie Sennef, a " Senior Research Scientist " at MIT with so many degrees it looks like a confused alphabet who lately has been concentrating on Biology particularly on GMO and GLYPHOSATE relationship to many human disorders and diseases.
So you have any credentials that can counter her reports? I think not.
I also know many farmers who are reverting back to conventional farming and in particular a few of them are claiming their dairy herds are healthier with no loss at calving time , more and better quality milk.
Here's a quick synopsis of what you will find:
...Seneff, however, has not actually performed any research into glyphosate. She is “a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.” She is also an anti-GMO activist. That does not mean she is wrong – it just means it is misleading to cite her as a researcher and authority. She has published only speculations and gives many presentations, but has not created any new data."
That's from https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...-new-bogeyman/
The degrees she holds are in computer related fields and that's where she works, NOT in the biological research fields - although here 1968 degree - would have been useful half a century ago had she decided to enter that field (which she did not).
She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT.
As far as "So you have any credentials that can counter her reports?", I'd say since we are both working in the Engineering and Computer science fields, our credentials in biological research are about equal - somewhere around zero. But at least I'm not publishing junk science.
And are vaccines good or bad? Sennef is an anti-vaxer. Another Jenny McCarthy - just with a few degrees.
Hell - even the people that don't like Monsanto don't like Sennef because her junk science which is so obviously junk science damages the reputation of all who go against GMOs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-...b_3162694.html
I am very well aware of who she is and the dislike of many for her, Sennef's studies aren't the only ones, there are many others along the same lines done world wide . They are also suppressed by the manufactures as they have the money and lobby groups in Gov. to hush the reports, all you have to do is some digging and you will find them, they cannot all be wrong.
Apples to oranges comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
No - same thing - she is a anti- crusader. Logic be damned.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
"dislike for her" would be the understatement of the year. Looks like she's generally accepted as a nutcase by those on both sides of the GMO argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
"they cannot all be wrong"... when they have credentials like "Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga." how are we taking this seriously???
Along the same line of anti-oil crusaders. Ban pipelines, shut the tar sands down, halt any further exploration of fossil fuels and expansions in Canada. Attack anything oil and gas related here at home but the corrupt dictating oil cartels a free pass. But still drive cars, heat your house and use many oil based products daily. Hypocrisy beyond belief. There are many " credible " scientific reports, skewed both ways, that you take with a grain of salt and form your own opinion. But then there the numerous outlandish, farcical ones that the anti- everything crusaders latch onto and promote them vigorously as fact based, knowing full well that they are "lies ". Al Gore,David Suzuki come to mind anyone???Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche