# A city property ban on Neonicontinoids in Eugene, Oregon



## reidflys (Jan 14, 2011)

I think this will get some press,
and maybe its misdirected, but still, america shouldn't be the worlds
pesticide guinea pig


----------



## wags (Feb 17, 2014)

I live in this city (Eugene). I've read that the ban only pertains to CITY PROPERTY - which in reality isn't very significant. 

Meaning a private commercial park can spray these chemicals all over their landscaping, and poison the bees there. Bees aren't confined to CITY PROPERTY and thus the issue. Most pollination takes place outside of CITY PROPERTY when it comes to Eugene. Private farmers and businesses still have access to these chemicals for use on their property.

They should actually BAN the products from the STATE. It's sad that the U.S hasn't been a leader on this issue, protecting the world's honeybees and other natural pollinators.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

And what will be used to replace the neonics?


----------



## Solarbeez (Apr 20, 2012)

That is the 64 million dollar question, but it's a question worth asking because without wild pollinators, the cost of food will skyrocket...do we want to "hand pollinate everything?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

But shouldn't that question be answered before acting? Assuming Neonics are the boogieman some claim them to be, going back to the prior insect control methods are known to be worse. This could easily be going from the frying pan into the fire. 

Aim, aim, aim, then fire, not the other way around. This is so some city govt. folks can feel good about themselves though it's a completely hollow gesture with no actual positive results, only increased costs and unintended consequences. All flash, no bang.


----------



## Solarbeez (Apr 20, 2012)

D Coates said:


> But shouldn't that question be answered before acting? Assuming Neonics are the boogieman some claim them to be, going back to the prior insect control methods are known to be worse. This could easily be going from the frying pan into the fire.


These studies suggest there may be a connection between neonics and honeybee deaths. I don't think we can afford to wait. The bees keep dying.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/01/bee-killing-pesticides-not-just-corn-fields
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/documents/pesticide_list_final.pdf
http://www.xerces.org/neonicotinoids-and-bees/

It's a tough question for sure. I think Eugene's ban on neonics is just the start. I'd like to see the whole state ban them for about 5 years to see if the honeybee population benefitted.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

i feel safer already


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> These studies


They are not peer reviewed studies.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Solarbeez said:


> These studies suggest there may be a connection between neonics and honeybee deaths. I don't think we can afford to wait. The bees keep dying.
> http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/01/bee-killing-pesticides-not-just-corn-fields
> http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/documents/pesticide_list_final.pdf
> http://www.xerces.org/neonicotinoids-and-bees/
> ...


So you're willing to experiment with a ban and play with others lives and income for 5 years on a hunch and some reports from obviously biased sources? If it's so clear why can't these findings be repeated by others, why are there no huge lawsuits that show a smoking gun? If it's all about saving the bees (that are not native to North America) are you comfortable with the losses (native insects, birds, amphibians) the old non discriminatory insecticides will create when they are dusted off to be reused? Are you then going to go to bat for all the many other things that are killed off? Why were those old chemical shelved if they were so good?

If it's clear that Neonics are the source of the deaths why aren't the losses occurring in Australia too? They use neonics there but aren't seeing similar losses. Australia doesn't have varroa mites. It really is that simple. No one can find a smoking gun because there isn't one.


----------



## wags (Feb 17, 2014)

D Coates said:


> So you're willing to experiment with a ban and play with others lives and income for 5 years on a hunch and some reports from obviously biased sources? If it's so clear why can't these findings be repeated by others, why are there no huge lawsuits that show a smoking gun? If it's all about saving the bees (that are not native to North America) are you comfortable with the losses (native insects, birds, amphibians) the old non discriminatory insecticides will create when they are dusted off to be reused? Are you then going to go to bat for all the many other things that are killed off? Why were those old chemical shelved if they were so good?
> 
> If it's clear that Neonics are the source of the deaths why aren't the losses occurring in Australia too? They use neonics there but aren't seeing similar losses. Australia doesn't have varroa mites. It really is that simple. No one can find a smoking gun because there isn't one.


I would need to see some hard data to prove your theory about Australia's bees. They might not be using these insecticides to the degree that we do in America.

How about we try for natural ways to deal with issues instead of these man-made toxins which obviously have negative effects on various natural elements?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

So now hard data is important? It doesn't seem to bans are demanded or implemented. So be it. How about you look for the Australian info on your own so it won't be considered biased? It's out there but a bit uncomfortable for some points of view so it's ignored. Here's another question, how much are you willing to pay for increased food costs and how many people are you willing to put at risk for starvation to get rid of these man-made toxins without already having something to replace it in place?

Everything has a cost.


----------



## wags (Feb 17, 2014)

D Coates said:


> So now hard data is important? It doesn't seem to bans are demanded or implemented. So be it. How about you look for the Australian info on your own so it won't be considered biased? It's out there but a bit uncomfortable for some points of view so it's ignored. Here's another question, how much are you willing to pay for increased food costs and how many people are you willing to put at risk for starvation to get rid of these man-made toxins without already having something to replace it in place?
> 
> Everything has a cost.


All I'm saying is, that industrialized farming might be good for how much food we can produce as a nation: but it is completely unnatural. You think growing endless amounts of corn and soybeans is healthy for the land or the native insects? Then spraying such crops with all kinds of insecticides so we can harvest as much as possible?

There needs to be a balance.

We are becoming way too dependent on poisons to keep our food output high, and there are consequences to this.

There are a lot of other factors to rising food costs, including weather and fuel prices. You are just assuming that ridding of these specific poisons will greatly impact crops and food prices. With that said, If we lose massive amount of bee populations, our food output will surely dwindle.

The real problem is the human population on this planet. We have hit critical mass, and are now doing whatever we need to to sustain feed for our population.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

wags said:


> [HIGHLIGHT]The real problem is the human population [/HIGHLIGHT]on this planet. We have hit critical mass, and are now doing whatever we need to to sustain feed for our population.


If too many people is the real problem, then what does banning neonicontinoids in Eugene have to do with addressing the problem?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

wags said:


> All I'm saying is, that industrialized farming might be good for how much food we can produce as a nation: but it is completely unnatural. You think growing endless amounts of corn and soybeans is healthy for the land or the native insects? Then spraying such crops with all kinds of insecticides so we can harvest as much as possible?
> 
> There needs to be a balance.
> 
> ...


Let's go with your hypothesis. If we have hit critical mass as a population then wouldn't dwindling food output help the planet because it will reduce the population? Then in theory, wouldn't the bees dying off be good for the planet? Then following this thought wouldn't banning neonics (assuming they are as awful as claimed) be bad if we're trying to reduce our food output? How else are we to control the continued expansion of the human population? Heck, if we continue this line of thinking wouldn't this make conventional war good for the planet because it reduces the population?

Most importantly, who gets to decide what the balance is, and decide who lives and who dies... to "save the planet"?


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

What about this for hard data from Australia.

http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/bee_and_neonicotinoids.php



> On the basis of information available to it, the APVMA is currently of the view that the introduction of the neonicotinoids has led to an overall reduction in the risks to the agricultural environment from the application of insecticides.
> This view is also balanced with the advice that Australian honeybee populations are not in decline, despite the increased use of this group of insecticides in agriculture and horticulture since the mid1990s.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Here's an appropriate "study" for April 1. From Bee-L

EU bans household soaps,
citing harm to bees
April 1, 2014

In a surprise move, the European Union acted this morning to
prohibit the sale of all man-made soaps for household use. The permanent ban,
which takes effect immediately, is partly a response to a recent study
linking massive die-offs of bees to the use of soaps in everyday life. The action also follows a massive online petition drive
spearheaded by British actor Jason Robbins.
The study was the result of an epiphany Robbins had after
hiring an exterminator to deal with a wasp problem. “I had a nest of
yellowjackets under a tree in my backyard and I called a pest control company.
The exterminator, who marketed his business as environmentally friendly, killed
the little buggers by dumping a bucket of warm, soapy dishwater down the hole.
I was quite pleased that I didn’t have to smell the nasty insecticides these
guys usually use.
“But it got me thinking,” he added. “We use this stuff
everywhere. Dish soaps, hand soaps, bath soaps - if they’re that toxic to wasps,
aren’t they bad for the bees too?”
As it turns out, they are. In areas of Latin America and the
southwestern United States where Africanized bees are a problem, a common
method of killing a problem colony is to douse them with soapy water.
Soapy water is also commonly used by organic growers as a
“natural” repellent for plant pests.
Like many people, Robbins had been hearing for years about
the precipitous declines in honeybee populations. He’d also heard a variety of
possible causes – from parasites to pesticides, even cellphone towers.
But soap was a culprit that none of the so-called experts
had ever mentioned. “The answer may have been right in front of our faces,” Robbins
said. “Actually, right ON our faces, and on our hands, hair and the rest of our
bodies. And if it’s on the bodies of the beekeepers, it naturally gets
transferred to the bees.
“I mean, if you look at these commercial beekeepers, hardly
any of them are wearing gloves. Not only are they touching and handling the honeycombs,
but the bees are crawling around on their hands and arms. You know a lot of these
guys probably wash their hands after they go to the loo, and if you’ve ever
used soap on your hands, you know that residue stays on there for awhile. Sure,
it may not kill the bees outright, but what about the sublethal effects?”
A recent study done at Rhode Island State University tested
just such sublethal effects. Led by Dr. Stanislaus Wegger, scientists at the university’s
Insect Studies Lab confined worker bees in screened hives, fed them a diet of
sugar water dosed with a leading brand of dishwashing soap, and compared their
resulting lifespans to those of free-range controls.
It wasn’t even close. The soaped bees died an average of
eight days sooner than the control bees. Given that the average worker bee’s
lifespan is between six and eight weeks, that is a significant difference. “These
were field-relevant doses,” said Dr. Wegger. “Clearly, this is the cause of
worldwide bee die-offs,” he added, “and no doubt some of the other extinctions
we’re seeing these days. The sooner these dangerous substances are banned, the
sooner our fragile planet can begin to heal.”
Making matters worse, say researchers, is the fact that many
soaps come with floral scents that can actually attract bees. So bees might
actually be seeking out toxins that will shorten their lifespan.
Industry skeptical
Not everyone is convinced. Detergent makers were predictably
outraged by the EU’s new rules. “There is no evidence that this edict will save
bees,” said British home products giant Baker and Knowles in a prepared
statement, “one poorly designed study notwithstanding.”
“This is just ridiculous,” added one industry insider. “The
French haven’t used soap in years, and there’s no indication that their bee
populations are any healthier than those elsewhere on the continent.”
But Robbins is undeterred. “That’s just the profit motive
talking,” he said in an interview. “How many billions of euros will these
chemical companies – these monsters –
spend to defend the indefensible? They are poisoning our planet, one species at
a time. It has to stop.”


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

camero7 said:


> “The French haven’t used soap in years, and there’s no indication that their beepopulations are any healthier than those elsewhere on the continent.”


That quote is hilarious and I'm trusting the whole article is an "April Fools" joke. There's a portion of me believes some folks are just loony enough to do this though.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>The soaped bees died an average of
eight days sooner than the control bees.

Not only are they touching and handling the honeycombs,
but the bees are crawling around on their hands and arms. You know a lot of these
guys probably wash their hands after they go to the loo, and if you’ve ever
used soap on your hands, you know that residue stays on there for awhile. Sure,
it may not kill the bees outright, but what about the sublethal effects<<

Thats IT, I'm not using soap ANYMORE! Thats all the information I need! LOL


----------

