# Spray toxicity and risk potential of 42 commonly used formulations



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

* 
Spray toxicity and risk potential of 42 commonly used formulations of row crop pesticides to adult honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)*
Free Download, http://www.apicoltorifvg.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/jee.tov269.full_.pdf

Journal of Economic Entomology, published September 5, 2015
YU CHENG ZHU, JOHN ADAMCZYK, THOMAS RINDERER, JIANXIU YAO, ROBERT DANKA4
RANDALL LUTTRELL, AND JEFF GORE

J. Econ. Entomol. 1–8 (2015); DOI: 10.1093/jee/tov269
ABSTRACT To combat an increasing abundance of sucking insect pests, >40 pesticides are currently
recommended and frequently used as foliar sprays on row crops, especially cotton. Foraging honey bees
may be killed when they are directly exposed to foliar sprays, or they may take contaminated pollen back
to hives that maybe toxic to other adult bees and larvae. To assess acute toxicity against the honey bee, we
used a modified spray tower to simulate field spray conditions to include direct whole-body exposure,
inhalation, and continuing tarsal contact and oral licking after a field spray. A total of 42 formulated pesticides,
including one herbicide and one fungicide, were assayed for acute spray toxicity to 4–6-d-old
workers. Results showed significantly variable toxicities among pesticides, with LC50s ranging from 25 to
thousands of mg/liter. Further risk assessment using the field application concentration to LC1 or LC99
ratios revealed the risk potential of the 42 pesticides. Three pesticides killed less than 1% of the worker
bees, including the herbicide, a miticide, and a neonicotinoid. Twenty-six insecticides killed more than
99% of the bees, including commonly used organophosphates and neonicotinoids. The remainder of the
13 chemicals killed from 1–99% of the bees at field application rates. This study reveals a realistic acute
toxicity of 42 commonly used foliar pesticides. The information is valuable for guiding insecticide
selection to minimize direct killing of foraging honey bees, while maintaining effective control of field
crop pests.

For the endless "glycophosphate" rant, please note that Glycophosphate is 42nd out of 42 formulations tested in terms of assay toxicity.
In the study estimation, the lethal concentration for 50% (LC50) is 46,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 micrograms per liter. 
Yup, I think you'll be seeing that.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Yes, I remember hearing Bob Danka discussing this study at a bee convention a couple of years ago. Apparently Mother Earth News didn't get the memo.


----------



## tmwilson (Apr 5, 2015)

It is apparent in some of the forums many contributors, although probably well intentioned, don't actually load up the sprayer and apply product to anything. If they did some of these other substances JW is referring to would have been discussed long ago. Many of the products are of concern, but I will quickly agree roundup is lower on the list than most. I have often wondered why roundup garners much of the attention on a forum that I would think may be more interested in product that kills or harms insects.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

tmwilson said:


> It is apparent in some of the forums many contributors, although probably well intentioned, don't actually load up the sprayer and apply product to anything. If they did some of these other substances JW is referring to would have been discussed long ago. Many of the products are of concern, but I will quickly agree roundup is lower on the list than most. I have often wondered why roundup garners much of the attention on a forum that I would think may be more interested in product that kills or harms insects.


Exactly, but the anti-Roundup zeal is more about hatred of the company that produces it and abhorrence of the genetic modification that has made its use so widespread than it is about any real data that shows it as harmful in any way. Thats truly unfortunate because a large group of folks are spending their time and efforts opposing a product thats butt naked last on this list instead of focusing on the products at the top of the top of the list that tends to kill most every living thing that comes into contact with them. 
Is there anyone out there that can at least say "yes, I know its a pretty safe product but I guess I'm just morally opposed to man made genetic alterations". I don't necessarily agree with that but it at least makes more sense to me than trying to massage all the data available on current health trends and applying your positive bias to blaming every blip on glyphosate. Its a given that farmers are going to use chemicals to control weeds and insects, isn't it a good thing that the most widely used one is also the least toxic?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Do they have Amitraz on that list ?


----------



## jonsl (Jul 16, 2016)

Mitiban is the active ingredient in Amitraz. I don't see it on the list. Speaking of which where is that list from. We are taking it on faith that the data is valid since it doesn't list the source.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

jonsl said:


> Mitiban is the active ingredient in Amitraz. I don't see it on the list. Speaking of which where is that list from. We are taking it on faith that the data is valid since it doesn't list the source.


The second line of my post is a download link to the full peer-reviewed paper. You may have your opinions, but the paper has the authority and credibility of a peer-reviewed document.


----------



## jonsl (Jul 16, 2016)

Sorry, jumped before I looked at the link. Thanks for the info.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

jim lyon said:


> Exactly, but the anti-Roundup zeal is more about hatred of the company that produces it and abhorrence of the genetic modification that has made its use so widespread than it is about any real data that shows it as harmful in any way.


Maybe they'd feel more comfortable with Jimson weed growing uncontrolled in the fields and gathered up with the crop.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

JWChesnut said:


> *
> Spray toxicity and risk potential of 42 commonly used formulations of row crop pesticides to adult honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)*
> Free Download, http://www.apicoltorifvg.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/jee.tov269.full_.pdf
> 
> ...


However there is one astronomically huge problem with the LC50 value that is listed for glyphosate. 

46,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 micrograms is really close to the mass of the Sun (~2.0E30 kg) and there is no way that you can dissolve 2E30 kg of anything in a liter of water; no less all of the water in our entire solar system. The authors obviously over-extrapolated the results (by billions of orders of magnitude) on the high end of the curve. I believe in the results up to about tetraconazole (number 32 on the list), but going any further is really bad reporting. I can't believe that anybody with any knowledge of statistical limits actually published the article as is. Sad times for science.


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

WHY WHY WHY??? 
Why do people post insecticide info then lump glyphosate in? 


Glyphosate is a herbicide. 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Someone smarter than me please explain what I just said.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

aunt betty said:


> WHY WHY WHY???
> Why do people post insecticide info then lump glyphosate in?
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe to dispel rumours?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

They are all pesticides


----------



## tmwilson (Apr 5, 2015)

There was a time when the term "peer-reviewed" meant a lot to me. It's meaning has been eroded. Too many peer reviewed articles have been retracted or proven at least partially false. Too many times a team of people with a load of academic credentials say one thing, then some years later it's demonstrated they were either partially or completely wrong in their findings. Of course it holds more weight if it's reviewed and accepted, but it does not make your research or conclusions infallible. 

If Nabber is correct about his thoughts on statistical limits, it demonstrates the point.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

So whos information and data do you believe???? You cannot believe science, or industry, or the environmental side, ???


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I think the LC50 number is generated by a standard algorithm based on observed toxicity (which was under 1%, and reported elsewhere in the linked paper). I have no idea why the ridiculous exponent was included == likely some tongue-in-cheek needling at the "glyphosphate = collapse of civilization" chicken-little reporting.


----------



## tmwilson (Apr 5, 2015)

I am a skeptic Dave, that is for sure. I believe much of what I read, but I also know a small portion of what I read today will be proven wrong in the future. That's been true throughout history. I think it will always be that way.


----------



## jonsl (Jul 16, 2016)

tmwilson said:


> There was a time when the term "peer-reviewed" meant a lot to me. It's meaning has been eroded. Too many peer reviewed articles have been retracted or proven at least partially false. Too many times a team of people with a load of academic credentials say one thing, then some years later it's demonstrated they were either partially or completely wrong in their findings. Of course it holds more weight if it's reviewed and accepted, but it does not make your research or conclusions infallible.
> 
> If Nabber is correct about his thoughts on statistical limits, it demonstrates the point.


I think this is the normal scientific process. There is continuous testing of things by new researchers. Perhaps it just appears to happen more often in our hyper-media world.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

aunt betty said:


> WHY WHY WHY???
> Why do people post insecticide info then lump glyphosate in?
> 
> 
> ...



I was wondering that too. If anything it proves by comparison that glyphosate is not a pesticide.


Edit: They were not trying to pull anything funny -  42 formulated pesti-cides, including one herbicide and one fungicide, were assayed for acute spray toxicity to 4–6-d-oldworkers.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> I was wondering that too. If anything it proves by comparison that glyphosate is not a pesticide.
> 
> [/FONT]


Any chemical used to control any pest is by definition a pesticide. In some situations weeds are pests so Roundup is a pesticide. The word pesticide has nothing to do with insects, it has to do with pests, which may be insects, weeds, nemotodes, fungi, bacteria, rats, etc.

My guess on the nonsense exponents is simple. I have seen this problem over and over and over ever since we switched from slide rules to calculators and now puters. Someone puts data in the calculator or puter and out comes an answer and God has spoken as electronics never make an error so far too many never even look at the number and asks does this make the slightest sense.

To a fair extent peer review is meaningless in many open access publications. Even thou the publication claims papers are peer reviewed in some cases they are simply making up facts about their publication procedures. So, one rather imperfect way to decide if something has had a meaningful peer review is to ask yourself if it is free or if you have to pay to get the paper. Much better odds if you have to pay, unless the journal is closed access for a period of years before it becomes open and free. In the case of free papers the authors had to pay a lot of money to get the paper published so the publisher has a big motivation to publish everything with little meaningful review because that is how he makes money. I get solicited all the time to publish in open access journals, including journals so far from my field of expertise it is a joke. Literally I have gotten hundreds of such spam email requests to publish in such journals. I have only once been solicited by a closed access journal and that was after we had published several papers in that journal and that solicitation was a personal contact from the editor, not some mass mailed spam email like the open access journals use.

Dick


----------

