# NYDEC Announces Actions to Protect New York's Pollinators by Restricting Use of 'Neonic' Pesticides



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

New Requirement for Neonicotinoids Will Help Prevent Potentially Harmful Exposure to Honeybees and Other Beneficial Insects


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

clyderoad said:


> New Requirement for Neonicotinoids Will Help Prevent Potentially Harmful Exposure to Honeybees and Other Beneficial Insects


hopefully some one is tracking the net difference, to see if this can be rolled out to other places or canned.

GG


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

What will the acceptable, PROVEN replacement be?
And NOTHING is a non-answer.
There will be other insecticides utilized in place of these.
Will they be worse? Did anyone consider that?


----------



## adrock (Mar 19, 2021)

This will keep some dangerous chemicals out of untrained hands. Those with a license can still use them. Hopefully there is a sense of responsibility with my fellow licensed pesticide applicators.


----------



## Akademee (Apr 5, 2020)

My county did this several years ago. Banned the neonics and literally nothing changed.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Akademee said:


> My county did this several years ago. Banned the neonics and literally nothing changed.


not building up in the soil, in paces
not increasing in ground water where sprayed
1/2 life clock is ticking, soon 1/2 will have broke down.
your definition of Nothing is different than mine.

Maybe the levels did not get to "bee disturbing" YET

Better statement: 
My perception of change since Neonics were banned is non existent.

Unless of course you speak for every person and every Eco system.

Then please disregard my comment.

GG


----------



## Akademee (Apr 5, 2020)

I suppose a better statement would be there has been no noticeable effect on overwintering success or overall bee health in my area on a hobby, or commercial level since they banned neonics in my agriculturally heavy county several years ago.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

The EU imposed a virtual ban of neonics in 2013 then an absolute ban in 2018. We now have years of data that could be collected from the EU comparing before and after ban survival rates of honey bee colonies. Where are these comparisons and studies? If we truly wanted to know the correct answer to whether use of neonics caused wide-spread colony collapse, we could easily find that out. 

No one wants to know. No one wants to admit they may have been wrong.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> No one wants to know. No one wants to admit they may have been wrong.


no upside to investing $$ in that study.
the "Ban" was not just a dart tossed at a board. it was done from "data" so there was a reason.

Just depends on what the replacement now is.

GG


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

psm1212 said:


> Where are these comparisons and studies? If we truly wanted to know the correct answer to whether use of neonics caused wide-spread colony collapse, we could easily find that out.
> 
> No one wants to know. No one wants to admit they may have been wrong.


Thanks to the Greenpeace, as of 2020:


> _Unearthed _investigation has found that in the two years since the ban was agreed,* EU countries have issued at least 67 different “emergency authorisations” for outdoor use of these chemicals. *











Loophole keeps bee-killing pesticides in widespread use, two years after EU ban


Investigation finds EU countries have issued at least 67 'emergency authorisations' for use of three neonicotinoids since ban came into force in 2018




unearthed.greenpeace.org





Pretty much, the administrations issued a ban which they can not effectively enforce.

Google for example - "EU neonics ban 2018 before after effect comparison".
Read on.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Like I said, no one really wants to know the answer. Greenpeace is hedging its bets with the claim that somehow, due to only 68 EAs over two years across all of the territory of the EU, the ban did not reduce neonics by any statistically significant level. Which defies common sense.

For those that want the same ban in the US as in the EU, I suggest they study the data from the EU ban and make their case. I don't know why anyone would oppose this. I do know why many would fear the result.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

The next line of denial will be residual effects from previous usage of neonicitonoids. They will find traces in some areas and insist that we will need at least a decade to rid the soil of the poison. They will still be wrong. 

If neonics had any significant bearing on colony loss rates in the EU, how can we LEGITIMATELY explain no significant declines in loss rates since they have been effectively removed since 2013?

If the correlation of neonics use equaled causation of honey bee deaths, I would think that correlation of its non-use would certainly equal causation of honey bee survival.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Gray Goose said:


> it was done from "data" so there was a reason.


That is the kicker. It wasn't done from data. They could not get results from field studies that supported a ban.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

PSM


GregB said:


> Pretty much, the administrations issued a ban which they can not effectively enforce.





psm1212 said:


> For those that want the same ban in the US as in the EU, I suggest they study the data from the EU ban and make their case





psm1212 said:


> If neonics had any significant bearing on colony loss rates in the EU, how can we LEGITIMATELY explain no significant declines in loss rates since they have been effectively removed since 2013?


So how can it be a non enforced ban and completely removed? One of the above must be a streach.

If it was not enforced them we would not expect a difference.
And If the 1/2 life is 10 years, we would not yet see a difference.

google says :
This long breakdown period allows neonics to accumulate in agricultural soils with each application until levels plateau after *2-6 years* 
presuming what we see online is true.

I would argue that neonics are not the only thing sprayed that has an effect on bees.

EXample, removing 1 carcinogen is not going to prevent any cancers. Ok we removed lead and Asbestos, so no more cancer correct. we are measuring no difference in cancers, so lets use lead and Asbestos again. 

not sure a "no measured change" is a basis to re begin neonics .

GG


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

psm1212 said:


> If the correlation of neonics use equaled causation of honey bee deaths, I would think that correlation of its non-use would certainly equal causation of honey bee survival.


Unless the replacement chemical used also affects honey bee survival. Something must have replaced the neonic pesticide and as a beef farmer living in a huge grain belt I do know that almost any farmer will replace it with another pesticide. He will not just quit using pesticides all together and throw in the towel.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

It is an enforced ban. You cannot get it without petitioning the government for limited applications. Farmers throughout the EU have suffered billions in damages because they cannot use it.

The EU is comprised of 27 separate countries that issued a total of 67 EAs over 3 growing seasons. That is less than 1 EA per country per growing season. 

But when the ban does not work and there is no rise in survival of honey bee colonies, you have to find a reason, don't you? Because they sure as hell aren't going to admit they were wrong.

So here are the list of excuses that I could have written long before the ban was ever going to be put into place:

1. Farmers are still illegally/covertly/by EA using it.
2. Soil is poisoned forever, so we can't expect to see ANY difference in colony survival for decades.
3. You will not see any real difference until you also eliminate A, B & C, which we cannot demostrate any field trials that indicate A, B or C has any effect on honey bees.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

ursa_minor said:


> Unless the replacement chemical used also affects honey bee survival. Something must have replaced the neonic pesticide and as a beef farmer living in a huge grain belt I do know that almost any farmer will replace it with another pesticide. He will not just quit using pesticides all together and throw in the towel.


See Pre-packaged Excuse #3 above.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Gray Goose said:


> And If the 1/2 life is 10 years, we would not yet see a difference.


Half life of imidacloprid = 39 days, with a range of 26.5 to 229 days.
Half life of clothianidin = <1 day if exposed to light. 148 to 1155 days if buried in soil.
Half life of thiamethoxam = 15 to 18.8 days in clay silty clay soil; 20.1 to 21.5 days in loam soil.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

We go from dumping hundreds of tons of neonics every year for over a decade, down to a small trickle 8 years ago, then down to a complete ban (with 67 approved EAs) 3 years ago.

No difference. None. 

Varroa mites and the viruses they vector are the primary cause of colony loss, and there is not a close second. Until we accept that reality and quit chasing boogeymen, we will not develop varroa controls in a timely and affordable manner to help beekeepers keep their colonies alive. 

We all need to start singing from the same page.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> Half life of imidacloprid = 39 days, with a range of 26.5 to 229 days.
> Half life of clothianidin = <1 day if exposed to light. 148 to 1155 days if buried in soil.
> Half life of thiamethoxam = 15 to 18.8 days in clay silty clay soil; 20.1 to 21.5 days in loam soil.


more important IMO what is the 1/2 life stored in comb as bee bread?
plants pull in the chems and it is in the pollen and nectar.

what about in ground water 2 feet under the soil?

something must be going on, the data looks like it should not affect bees.

Admit they were wrong, well good luck with that...

GG


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> We go from dumping hundreds of tons of neonics every year for over a decade, down to a small trickle 8 years ago, then down to a complete ban (with 67 approved EAs) 3 years ago.
> 
> No difference. None.
> 
> ...


right
Who picks the page?

GG


----------



## Akademee (Apr 5, 2020)

There are so many ways to study half lives of chemicals in soils and they are affected by a hundred different variables. The high end half lives come from lab tests where a soil sample is exposed to the chemical and sits in a beaker in a lab for years. No weather, no plants, no UV, no freeze-thaw cycles, no temperature swings, nothing. This, unsurprisingly, produces very long half lives. Compare that with say, a silage field test, where not only are the chemicals being tested are exposed to weather, the sun, uptake through plants, etc, but huge amounts of biomass are exported out of the field, taking the chemicals with it, with almost no biomass being returned to the soil like in a dry corn harvest. This is where we get the low ends of the half lives. This diversity of testing is the reason why sources vary from 3 months to 3 years when it comes to the half life of neonics.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Gray Goose said:


> more important IMO what is the 1/2 life stored in comb as bee bread?
> plants pull in the chems and it is in the pollen and nectar.
> 
> what about in ground water 2 feet under the soil?
> ...


Those are good questions that should have been known BEFORE the ban.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Gray Goose said:


> Who picks the page?


Science, not politicians.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

NY is following in the footsteps of MD, CT (2016), VT (2019), MA (2021), the EU and CAN.
An announcement by the folks at - beyond pesticides - upon the approval last year in MA is attached. Lots of cross references to other announcements but none to any "science" backing the hyperbole.









Massachusetts Regulators Restrict Consumer Use of Bee-Toxic Neonicotinoid Pesticides - Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog


(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2021) Earlier this week, pesticide regulators in the commonwealth of Massachusetts voted to restrict outdoor consumer uses of neonicotinoid insecticides. The move is the result of sustained advocacy from broad coalition of individuals and organizations focused on...



beyondpesticides.org


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

psm1212 said:


> See Pre-packaged Excuse #3 above.


I have no side in this to take and dismissing the fact that the farmers do have to use pesticides and obviously have resorted to another type does not make my point an excuse. 

Dismissing it as such, IMO, is also an excuse for the other side to ignore the possibility. It is valid position that needs to be examined.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> Those are good questions that should have been known BEFORE the ban.


better if before the permit, IMO not enough work up front.
If tested properly do not need to ban.

GG


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

usra_minor: I concede your point that other pesticides/herbicides should be studied and should be studied when used _contemporaneously_ with neonics and these could be issues for pollinators and other fauna. But I do not think a ban is justified on the basis of what _could_ be a _possibility_. Otherwise, we what will be the next product we chose to ban prophylactically without evidence?

GG: I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of rigorous study before approval.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> usra_minor: I concede your point that other pesticides/herbicides should be studied and should be studied when used _contemporaneously_ with neonics and these could be issues for pollinators and other fauna. But I do not think a ban is justified on the basis of what _could_ be a _possibility_. Otherwise, we what will be the next product we chose to ban prophylactically without evidence?
> 
> GG: I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of rigorous study before approval.


I wish there was a safe spray or powder to use that worked on the bugs targeted, had a fast break down and did not effect bees. we can hope, maybe now that the manufactures understand that pollinator friendly is a design criteria, we get better products.

seems we always get it right after 2 or 3 wrongs

GG


----------



## ursa_minor (Feb 13, 2020)

Gray Goose said:


> I wish there was a safe spray or powder to use that worked on the bugs targeted, had a fast break down and did not effect bees.


As do I, I am within a stones throw on three sides to three different huge grain farmers each of which spray on their own whim. One makes sure the wind does not drift into the yard, another does not care, and the last one even sprays if a person is walking or driving on the road right next to his boom and the drift goes right over them. I feel it is only a matter of time till my hives encounter a problem.


----------



## drummerboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Gray Goose said:


> I wish there was a safe spray or powder to use that worked on the bugs targeted, had a fast break down and did not effect bees. we can hope, maybe now that the manufactures understand that pollinator friendly is a design criteria, we get better products.
> 
> seems we always get it right after 2 or 3 wrongs
> 
> GG



You cannot be serious.  

What we do wrong far out weighs (does more damage) anything we might ever do right.


----------

