# University Student Seeking input on Neonics



## Back in the saddle (Mar 11, 2013)

My daughter is a second year student in Environmental Science at Carleton University in Ottawa. She is doing an assignment and has chosen a subject related to beekeeping. Naturally, I have registered my OWN thoughts but she and I both agreed that in order to get the best results she would post her questions here and analyse the results. So, Here is what she asks:

The precautionary principle is prevalent in Environmental Law. This principle emphasizes the duty of society to prevent harm, by whatever means possible, regardless of if there is conclusive evidence as to the cause. At the brunt of this discussion is neonicotinoids. There are varying opinions as to if the use of neonicotinoids should be banned, or partially banned, within the Agricultural Sector. Potential links between neonicotinoid usage and Colony Collapse Disorder were the centre of a debate that lasted many years (and many may argue continues to be ongoing). Although, opinions are shifting, and people are now lead to believe that Varroa Destructor and viruses associated with heavy infestations may be the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. This change in opinion begs the question: is precautionary principle a good rule of thumb within Environmental Science and Policy? Should it be innocent until proven guilty or vice versa? Should neonicotinoids be limited, or banned, albeit the correlation between the former and Colony Collapse Disorder is not definite?


----------



## Kcnc1 (Mar 31, 2017)

The principal seems ridiculous. “Regardless as to proof of cause?” Seems faith based to me, and I believe we should leave all faith based ideas or actions out of public policy. Demonstrate enough reasonable proof, them make a decision. Sometimes we risk replacing one religious based system with another and do not even realize it.


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

I don't think neonics cause CCD. Nor caused it when CCD _was_ happening, which is no longer even though neonics are still in wide use.

Are neonics problematic for honeybees, perhaps in a minor way, mostly because they go hand in hand with intensive monocropping which is bad for honeybees. I think they are more likely to cause more significant problems to other insect species, and indeed, even up and down the whole food chain because of their persistence in the environment, but that's another story.

The main issue I see is what would replace neonics (and what did they replace among other pesticides). Would those chemicals be even worse in the long run? 

There are no free lunches.

Nancy


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

Back in the saddle, there is a great book on this, called Pollinator Protection, A Bee and Pesticide Handbook by Carl A. Johansen & Daniel F. Mayer. You can get it on Amazon. As for CCD as Nancy mentioned above I don’t believe it (neonics) was a big part of that. CCD is still around though. More research has been contributed to this, including nosema cerana, which wasn’t that well known 10 years ago. Also, IMHO I don’t think anything you said sounded “faith based” as was mentioned.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

Whats missing from this thought is the consequences of the "precautionary principal, particularly related to neonics. These new pesticides REPLACE one that were destroying water and very well know to be deadly to bugs and people at alarming numbers. There is the part they avoid mentioning. The also fail to tell you of the consequences of not heaving good pesticide control, which is higher food cost, and many more acres farmed to create the same amount of food. If the principal mentioned is applied to its full extent, then technology and advancement stop. It is quite literally impossible to prove anything is "100%" safe for everyone and everything. the links of neonics to CCD are completely bogus, simple truth CCD is gone, and Neonics use is still rising. Teach your Daughter to look closely at the whole AG picture before deciding who to change the world. The picture is a LOT more complex than a few bees and butterflies.


----------



## Kcnc1 (Mar 31, 2017)

Cloverdale;1602515) Also said:


> cloverdale, I’m curious what is belief in something without facts? “Regardless of proof of cause”
> 
> you may may be confusing “faith” with what you think of as a religious dogma, but it applies here too. And should be understood as the same.


----------

