# Ortho to stop selling Neonics



## Pete O (Jul 13, 2013)

I recently read that the state of Maryland has banned future use of neonics. Lets hope that other states will jump on the bandwagon.


----------



## maudbid (Jul 21, 2014)

Oh yes, because other pesticides are so much better for bees and the environment. I suspect they are also better for the manufacturer's bottom line since they get to sell so much more of them.


----------



## dudelt (Mar 18, 2013)

Pete O said:


> I recently read that the state of Maryland has banned future use of neonics. Lets hope that other states will jump on the bandwagon.


Maryland banned their use for home gardeners, not commercial users such as farmers. Guess which of the two uses more?


----------



## Hops Brewster (Jun 17, 2014)

Ortho is owned by Scotts Miracle-Gro. Primarily caters to commercial and residential lawn and garden.
6 years to phase it in? Well. it's a start. Let the snowball begin to roll.

And let us pray they don't replace it with something worse.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Nothing like the uninformed public holding corporations feet to the fire. They probably see dollar signs as maudbid says...

Be careful what you ask for...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Pete O said:


> I recently read that the state of Maryland has banned future use of neonics. Lets hope that other states will jump on the bandwagon.



The bill has not been signed by the governer, so it is not banned.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

as i understand the situation, the states are banned from regulating seed treatments. it is not even easy for our friends in washington to do it. seed treatments are mostly exempt from regulation in the usa..


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Any consumer worried about neonics need only refrain from buying any products that have "time release" action. The majority of lawn care products that kill insects are doing so with a short release pyrethrin based insecticide. If you are using lawn weed killers, they are using basic ole 2,4-D which only indirectly harms bees by the fact that they kill such bee forage as dandelions. Perhaps its asking too much for the consumer to read labels and educate themselves about what they are using.


----------



## DrJeseuss (May 28, 2015)

While I don't want to argue my views on neonics, I do have a few takeaways from the article...
I'm glad to see large corporations are still willing to listen to consumer input and preference, right or wrong. I was amused that they note prices will be largely unaffected, but that products will need applied more often. This would in fact lead to higher prices overall. Nice spin job. The other fact that caught my eye, "About one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and honeybees are responsible for 80 percent of that pollination." I'm fascinated at how these stats change so much from one article to the next! Honeybees ARE great and all, but I think that number might be a bit inflated. Had they said 'bees' maybe I could overlook it, but specifically 'honeybees'?

While I appreciate the intent, I'm guessing it's largely marketing, like 'gluten free'. It sells these days! IF neonics are the problem, it'll be big ag that needs to change much more than homeowners. An average homeowner wouldn't use in a lifetime what a single farmer applies annually.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mathesonequip said:


> as i understand the situation, the states are banned from regulating seed treatments. it is not even easy for our friends in washington to do it. seed treatments are mostly exempt from regulation in the usa..



I don't think you understand the situation. States are not banned from regalating seed treatments.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

it is my understanding that states are forbiden to regulate any seed treatment if the seed goes across a state line.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

DrJeseuss said:


> I'm glad to see large corporations are still willing to listen to consumer input and preference, right or wrong.


I'm not. I want action to be taken based on evidence, not fear. If large swaths of the population simply "believe" something even though the research evidence shows otherwise, I don't want companies to act on the "belief" over the actual evidence.



DrJeseuss said:


> IF neonics are the problem, it'll be big ag that needs to change much more than homeowners. An average homeowner wouldn't use in a lifetime what a single farmer applies annually.


Well, for a single homeowner, maybe, and for specifically neonics, maybe. But according to US Fish and Wildlife: _Homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops, and they spend more per acre, on average, to maintain their lawns than farmers spend per agricultural acre._

http://www.fws.gov/dpps/visualmedia...ons/2003_HomeownersGuidetoProtectingFrogs.pdf


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mathesonequip said:


> it is my understanding that states are forbiden to regulate any seed treatment if the seed goes across a state line.



Source?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I guess I'm in the minority... I sprayed the occasional dicamba on the lawn and sometimes would use slug bait and some ortho home defense for ants, but I've never sprayed my yard or trees with pesticides ever in my life, never saw the need. I could've been an entomologist and I don't really care if I get some cobwebs or mud daubers on the house (the wife does though), but I never saw the need to sterilize the yard or house of insects. I don't mind blackwidows or other spiders, just the ants got annoying. People need to get over their irrational fears of such things and learn to embrace bio-diversity and enjoy nature more.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

nabber..... the source was a speaker on regulations, empire state honey producers association... it is probably in my notes but as i recall it has to do with the department of commerece regulations about interstate trade. somehow seed treatments are a special case that other government agencies can not touch. it makes little sense to me. it is not usda or epa. it was odd enough that i got it fixed in my head.


----------



## DrJeseuss (May 28, 2015)

libhart said:


> I'm not. I want action to be taken based on evidence, not fear. If large swaths of the population simply "believe" something even though the research evidence shows otherwise, I don't want companies to act on the "belief" over the actual evidence.


Valid point and I totally agree, though big business, big ag, governments, and the like have been known to 'adjust' findings in their favor from time to time. I don't want to cite references to the past as others here get upset over this, but fact is fact. Pull out the history books and see a repeat cycle. My point isn't to encourage knee-jerk reactions, just to say that it's good to see a company pays attention to feedback. The gov't shouldn't have to regulate things tightly, the producers should responsibly supply things in the safest and best manner, while we as informed consumers should support those getting it right. I don't have a clue how the dynamic would look, but I'm sure there's a balance in there somewhere.



libhart said:


> Well, for a single homeowner, maybe, and for specifically neonics, maybe. But according to US Fish and Wildlife: _Homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops, and they spend more per acre, on average, to maintain their lawns than farmers spend per agricultural acre._


I live on 5 acres. I can't think of any farms near me with a field size of only 5 acres, thus my point that farmers use more product than average homeowners. Even compounding based on the above, My 'allotment' of 10x on my acres would be equivalent to 50 acres of farmland. That's still a small plot around the midwest, so I still think in total volume ag passes residential use, so long as we're looking apples to apples. With spin, a lot of things can look very good, or very bad, harmless, or horrible.

I'm no saint, and not saying all things are bad. Moderation is key. Anything can be bad when in excess. Maybe neonics aren't the issue, maybe they are. The point is that it is of concern, and most arguments land fully on harmless or fully on evil. I suspect both are wrong, and we all deserve a thorough understanding of exactly what's happening. Asking to limit the use of the product until that can be determined seems fair. If someone said your family's shampoo is killing your pet dog, while another says it's completely safe, wouldn't you do what you could to determine what was right, and to limit use until you knew? It's not to say don't use shampoo, just not THAT shampoo, and just until you can gather enough info to be sure. This is a situation where being wrong about the safety could be devastating long term. Maybe it is harmless, but what's the rush (I know the arguments for the product, just speaking rhetorically)? I'm generally disappointed for the 'studies' I've seen from either side. Few have been unbiased, information always has holes or exceptions, painting only a partial picture, or running such short duration to leave the long term implications out of the picture. If some countries limit use and bee populations bounce back, great... if not, we tried.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

DrJeseuss,

I go with you on concept, but reality has to set in. "Until the safety can be determined..." Well, when exactly is that? How much studying has to be done, and when do we defer to the experts and to a consensus of experts. We know the reality of the full-on hive kills with the old school pyrethroids. We also know that the neonics are wholly safer for birds and mammals than organophosphates. We also see where there are large beekeepers successfully keeping hives (Alberta I believe has examples) on neonic seed-treated rape where the bees are clearly working the crop. So at what point does the "we're not sure it's safe at all" become, "well, yeah, evidence shows it is the safest option". I'm no scientist, just a science geek, but I like to have measurable objectives and goals. So I'm wondering where those goalposts are positioned. I don't know, but they should be set so we know when we're done and can finally make a reasonable decision.

As for studies having holes or exceptions, that's just science, especially today. Scientists are some of the most insecure people I know. They constantly hedge, they're never sure of anything. We're never going to get a reasonably run, peer reviewed scientific study that proclaims, "We have proven X to be safe." In the same way, if I see a study that reads, "We have proven Y to be unsafe." I am extremely suspicious. There will always be a type of insecure language. It's one of the things that is proper but at the same time makes science communication difficult. For instance, a recently written article on GMOs stated that the scientific consensus was the GMOs "posed no greater risk" than conventionally bred crops. The anti-GMO side simply says, "They're unsafe," and leaves it at that. Instead of saying "Yes, they're safe," the scientific community uses a proper scientific phrase, "No greater risk." That's not nearly as plain a way to rebut that argument, but it's properly stated scientifically. Sorry to go off on a tangent like that, just wanted to address some of your points.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

libhart you hit the nail on the head. In this day and age emotion rules over fact. We have our hives in a sea of neonics. We had pollen samples tested last year, and there were zero neonic residues.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

mathesonequip said:


> nabber..... the source was a speaker on regulations, empire state honey producers association... it is probably in my notes but as i recall it has to do with the department of commerece regulations about interstate trade. somehow seed treatments are a special case that other government agencies can not touch. it makes little sense to me. it is not usda or epa. it was odd enough that i got it fixed in my head.


I don't see how the Feds could possible stop a state from banning treats seeds. It's not like it is written into the constitution. The state of California bans all sorts of chemicals and pesticides. Because of the agricultural industry, they would never be able to do it, but if they wanted to, I don't see how anyone could stop them.


----------



## DrJeseuss (May 28, 2015)

libhart said:


> So I'm wondering where those goalposts are positioned. I don't know, but they should be set so we know when we're done and can finally make a reasonable decision.


I fully agree. I'm not sold on either side, but get edgy when people are so definitive in either direction. The research just hasn't given enough clarity yet, especially in terms of long term effect. Some mark of success needs to be agreed upon and worked toward. Maybe the product is ideal so long as it's used only in certain ways or with certain plants, etc. That needs worked out, scientifically, not politically. Unfortunately, funding always comes from a company after a profit, or an extremist watchdog organization. It's a shame the government is so easily swayed to the corporations on issues like this. The EPA in particular he become something of a joke when it comes to determining safety of chemicals, even allowing the maker to assert their own 'proof'. 'Well, we sprayed it on mice for a week and none died until a week later, so it should be safe on bees.'. Time will tell.


----------



## Bg7mm (Mar 15, 2016)

on our local news here this evening. save the bees


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

nabber... the constitution gives the federal government sole power over interstate commerce. somehow the federal law exempts all seed coatings from regulations, if the seed moves between states. good luck with a federal law change anytime soon.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

mathesonequip said:


> it is my understanding that states are forbiden to regulate any seed treatment if the seed goes across a state line.





Nabber86 said:


> Source?


It is because they are classified as "Treated articles or substances" under FIFRA. They are classified the same way as pressure treated wood and are therefore exempt under the federal regulation

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/152.25


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

mathesonequip said:


> nabber..... the source was a speaker on regulations, empire state honey producers association... it is probably in my notes but as i recall it has to do with the department of commerece regulations about interstate trade. somehow seed treatments are a special case that other government agencies can not touch. it makes little sense to me. it is not usda or epa. it was odd enough that i got it fixed in my head.


Reed Johnson from Ohio State spoke on this subject at a recent Ontario Beekeepers Association meeting. The FIFRA exemption basically ties the EPA's hands so they can't actually regulate or change the labeling requirements for treated seed they can only either ban the active ingredient or not. So a regulated IPM solution like what is being implemented in Ontario this season isn't an option in the US.


----------



## exmar (Apr 30, 2015)

Here's another article.

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organi...nounces-plan-phase-out-bee-harming-pesticides


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

zhiv9 said:


> It is because they are classified as "Treated articles or substances" under FIFRA. They are classified the same way as pressure treated wood and are therefore exempt under the federal regulation
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/152.25



The law means that that certain substances are exempt for FIFRA regulations. It does not mean that an individual state cannot ban a substance. Saying that States are forbidden to regulate a substance because of this is a gross misunderstanding.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

DrJeseuss said:


> The research just hasn't given enough clarity yet, especially in terms of long term effect.....Time will tell.


But how much time? How long does something exist and is studied and used before we can stop saying we don't know the "long term effects"? 5 years, 10, 15? They've already been around that long. Neonics have been in widespread use for 20 years now, or very close. What's the number when we can stop saying that?

I take this back to GE crops because that's such a mantra I hear. "We don't know the long term effects." They've been around for over 20 years. So when do we know the long term effects? Taken to extremes, does the founding generation of a product/technology not get to benefit from it, they only get to study it because they spend their whole lives testing it so the next generation then knows the long term effects?

Disclosure: I have none. I have no dog in the hunt for promotion of neonics. I just know they've replaced worse things that are all still perfectly legal and will be used tomorrow should neonics be banned. I also know that should they be banned tomorrow, those who lose bees seemingly every single year will almost certainly (there's that hedging) continue to lose their bees every single year, but we'll be spraying more dangerous products.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Individual states certainly _do_ have the power to stop use of a given pesticide, even if that pesticide has been approved for use by the federal EPA. For example, the US EPA has approved the use of oxalic acid as a varra pesticide. However, use of oxalic acid as a varroa pesticide has only been approved by 41 individual states as of this point. That means that in 9 states, applying oxalic acid as a varroa control is illegal. States where oxalic is illegal include Alabama, California, North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona and 4 others. You can review the list of states where oxalic is currently approved here: http://www.brushymountainbeefarm.com/Oxalic-Acid/productinfo/727/


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

libhart said:


> But how much time? How long does something exist and is studied and used before we can stop saying we don't know the "long term effects"? 5 years, 10, 15? They've already been around that long. Neonics have been in widespread use for 20 years now, or very close. What's the number when we can stop saying that?
> 
> I take this back to GE crops because that's such a mantra I hear. "We don't know the long term effects." They've been around for over 20 years. So when do we know the long term effects? Taken to extremes, does the founding generation of a product/technology not get to benefit from it, they only get to study it because they spend their whole lives testing it so the next generation then knows the long term effects?.


That is exactly the problem. Detractors always say keep testing until you prove that it is absolutely safe. I don't know what world some people are living in, but in a world such as this, a lot of people would be dead from disease. I have a feeling that there are a lot of anti-vaccers amongst the ban the pesticide movement.


----------



## Dave Burrup (Jul 22, 2008)

I don't know what world some people are living in, but in a world such as this, a lot of people would be dead from disease. I have a feeling that there are a lot of anti-vaccers amongst the ban the pesticide movement.

The antis are against everything that is not absolutely natural, but they are not perceptive enough to realize that natural includes disease, pestilence, and starvation along with a lot of dead people.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Individual states certainly _do_ have the power to stop use of a given pesticide, even if that pesticide has been approved for use by the federal EPA. For example, the US EPA has approved the use of oxalic acid as a varra pesticide. However, use of oxalic acid as a varroa pesticide has only been approved by 41 individual states as of this point. That means that in 9 states, applying oxalic acid as a varroa control is illegal. States where oxalic is illegal include Alabama, California, North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona and 4 others. You can review the list of states where oxalic is currently approved here: http://www.brushymountainbeefarm.com/Oxalic-Acid/productinfo/727/


Graham, you are correct. The issue with the FIFRA exemption has to do with the EPA's ability to control labeling not whether or not the states can ban the pesticide. Due to the exemption, the EPA can't force a labeling change on treated seed because there is no requirement for labeling at all.


----------



## Dmlehman (May 30, 2015)

libhart said:


> I'm not. I want action to be taken based on evidence, not fear. If large swaths of the population simply "believe" something even though the research evidence shows otherwise, I don't want companies to act on the "belief" over the actual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I want companies to prove their products are safe before they market them. The system we have is idiotic at best. Complete minimal testing, flood the market with questionable materials, poison everyone and everything and then whine that it is too expensive to rectify the situation.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

And should you be required to "prove _your honey_ is safe before you are allowed to market it?" :scratch:


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

zhiv9 said:


> Graham, you are correct. The issue with the FIFRA exemption has to do with the EPA's ability to control labeling not whether or not the states can ban the pesticide. Due to the exemption, the EPA can't force a labeling change on treated seed because there is no requirement for labeling at all.



That is a really, really good explanation. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Dmlehman said:


> I want companies to prove their products are safe before they market them. The system we have is idiotic at best. Complete minimal testing, flood the market with questionable materials, poison everyone and everything and then whine that it is too expensive to rectify the situation.


Define minimal testing. Do you have any idea the amount of testing it takes to bring a pesticide to market? Not sure why I am even intertaining your comments. Waste of my time.


----------



## libhart (Apr 22, 2010)

Dmlehman said:


> I want companies to prove their products are safe before they market them. The system we have is idiotic at best. Complete minimal testing, flood the market with questionable materials, poison everyone and everything and then whine that it is too expensive to rectify the situation.


That's sort of my point though. How do they prove that they're safe? What does that mean in real, describable terms (I'm genuinely asking)? The dose makes the poison. Everything will kill you in a large enough dose, salt, caffeine, even water. Drink enough water and it will kill you. So how exactly does anyone "prove" that something is safe. What does "safe" even mean. I'd encourage everyone to think about these questions when saying "prove that a product is safe".


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

libhart said:


> So how exactly does anyone "prove" that something is safe.


You can't and nobody ever will.


----------



## Richard Cryberg (May 24, 2013)

DrJeseuss said:


> I fully agree. I'm not sold on either side, but get edgy when people are so definitive in either direction. The research just hasn't given enough clarity yet, especially in terms of long term effect. Some mark of success needs to be agreed upon and worked toward. Maybe the product is ideal so long as it's used only in certain ways or with certain plants, etc. That needs worked out, scientifically, not politically. Unfortunately, funding always comes from a company after a profit, or an extremist watchdog organization. It's a shame the government is so easily swayed to the corporations on issues like this. The EPA in particular he become something of a joke when it comes to determining safety of chemicals, even allowing the maker to assert their own 'proof'. 'Well, we sprayed it on mice for a week and none died until a week later, so it should be safe on bees.'. Time will tell.


This is really a joke as it simply illustrates a total lack of understanding of the whole registration process. If you are interested in finding out what happens if you cheat on EPA simply look up IBT labs or Don Craven. Short version - EPA makes sure it takes a long time to come to trial. After a few years of paying your bail bonds man and lawyers you no longer own a house a car or have a savings account as now your bail bonds man and lawyers own those things. During this period if you are real lucky you may get a part time job flipping burgers at Mickey Ds. Then there is the trial and you get fined, sent to prison and once you get out no one will ever hire you for anything more than flipping burgers but now it is at White Castle. If you do get a savings account again the courts will take it away to cover the fines you did not pay because you were flat broke by the time they sent you to prison. If you want to work in your profession your only choice is to leave the US as part of the agreement with EPA was you accepted a life time ban from doing any work on Ag products (or pharma products if you happened to run afoul of FDA). Your best bet is Mexico. The drug cartels generally have a few openings for chemists and toxicologists.

Now, how many of you want to cheat EPA?


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Nabber86 said:


> You can't and nobody ever will.


And there's the strategy many of the "anti" (whatever cause du jour) folks employ. You can't prove a negative. Rumors kick up, conspiracies that can't be proven otherwise take on a life of their own. Manufacturers are held to established testing standards. If they pass those testing standards the product can be sold until it's proven the product isn't what is was claimed to be. You can't change the testing per product half way through the process. Manufacturers have to take testing into account when they are doing a financial analysis on a potential new product. If there's a 20, 30, 40, or even 50 year test cycle that's suddenly employed before a product can be introduced... There's an innovation killer. But again, that's exactly what some (I believe many) of the anti's want.

In the big picture, those large companies must make money to survive, just like the rest of us. Cheat the EPA if you want but Richard Cryberg's story shows what happens when you do that.


----------



## lemmje (Feb 23, 2015)

Dave Burrup said:


> The antis are against everything that is not absolutely natural, but they are not perceptive enough to realize that natural includes disease, pestilence, and starvation along with a lot of dead people.


One of my pet peeves: In some's eyes everything man does is not natural. Are we not part of nature? A beaver builds a dam and it's natural. Man builds a dam and it is not natural? When did humans become alien to the world??


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

Dave Burrup said:


> I don't know what world some people are living in, but in a world such as this, a lot of people would be dead from disease. * I have a feeling that there are a lot of anti-vaccers amongst the ban the pesticide movement.*
> 
> The antis are against everything that is not absolutely natural, but they are not perceptive enough to realize that natural includes disease, pestilence, and starvation along with a lot of dead people.


You're bang on there. I am a member of MOFGA and there's a ton of them, anti-everything (and I won't get into the UFO and conspiracy nuts). Last year I happened to sit in on a presentation where a crowd of fruitcakes were so far off the deep end they were actively advocating a complete ban of *ALL* private property ownership so that the 'State' can exert total control of not only food production, but *all* manufacturing and even housing and wages...and having spent years of my life in the Army, dedicated to fighting Communism (retired involuntarily due to the cumulative total injuries sustained) I was completely appalled...there they were, growing right in my backyard. My wife had to drag me away because I was about to explode.


----------



## arnaud (Aug 2, 2009)

lemmje said:


> One of my pet peeves: In some's eyes everything man does is not natural. Are we not part of nature? A beaver builds a dam and it's natural. Man builds a dam and it is not natural? When did humans become alien to the world??


When the discussion goes there with some of those folks who care little about what the actual research is on the topic, but instead rely on emotions and confirmation bias, I make sure to point to them that _Apis mellifera_ is not an endemic species to North America, and was only fairly recently introduced. Technically, it is an invasive species, as it competes with native bee populations.

The discussion usually takes then an interesting turn.


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

How's this going to work for Disney and Six Flags etc.? 
Ever been to one of them total insect free regions? Took our daughter to Six Flags in St. Louis. The lawn....perfect and not a single bug sighted on the entire site. Gee I wonder what they use, when, and how much. I suspect they keep that a BIG secret just like Kraft Inc. won't discuss mice or mice fetuses in their salad dressing bottles or how they managed that problem after it reared it's ugly tiny little fetus head.


----------

