# Petition to suspend neonicotinoids in NJ



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Back in August Governor Christie sent some letters to member of the NJBA thanking them for their essential work with honeybees. I thought to take this and run with it and ask the Governor for his help in suspending what I believe is wreaking major havoc with our honeybees; neonics. Poland, Italy, Germany, Spain and France all have banned or decreased use of these chemicals that are highly toxic to honeybees because beekeepers banned together and rallied to their ministries to ask them to. If NJ could be the first state to do this, perhaps the rest will follow. We will present this at our NJBA winter meeting where the Governor is scheduled to attend. There are several petitions to the EPA from various beekeeping and other groups to ask for a ban on the neonic registration. I figure if we ask for a suspension, we may get it! Thank you for any help with our petiton and you may want to start your own in your state. If anyone does, post it and I will sign as many petitions that anyone posts to suspend these chemicals! 

http://www.change.org/petitions/gov...use-of-neonicotinoid-pesticides-in-new-jersey


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i don't know that much about neonics, but do you think randy oliver has got it all wrong?

under his "New Items" is "The Harvard Study on imidacloprid and CCD
Updated May 1 2012"

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

and this one,

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/a-new-large-scale-trial-of-clothianidin/

again, i wish i knew more, but i have always considered randy oliver a reputable source.

in my opinion, the jury is still out.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

squarepeg said:


> i don't know that much about neonics, but do you think randy oliver has got it all wrong?.


I dont. Randy formulates his opinions and logical conclusions from scientific data. His assessments always seem to pass the logic test based on my beekeeping experiences.


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

Dave Hackenberg reminded folks at MOFGA's Common Ground Fair that the neo-nics will soon be off patent and the next generation of pesticides introduced. I'm troubled by a lack of clear evidence against the neo-nics and think our attention should largely turn to what's coming next.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

Also, sadly, when Monsanto purchased Beelogics they also bought a few beekeepers along with it.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

In EU, after banning the chems, the bees rebounded. Sweet and simple practical science.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

not really, unless causality was proven. bees are rebounding here too.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm still waiting for a defining study that implicates neonics. So far that has not happened except for talc contamination when planting corn. Beekeepers would do well to control varroa, nosema and maintain strong hives. That's the solution IMO. I never want to go back to the old pesticides when hundreds of hives were wiped out with the single pass of a crop duster.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

honeylove said:


> Also, sadly, when Monsanto purchased Beelogics they also bought a few beekeepers along with it.


easier posted than proven


----------



## Andrew Dewey (Aug 23, 2005)

honeylove said:


> In EU, after banning the chems, the bees rebounded. Sweet and simple practical science.


In some places yes, in some places no. Not the simple proof it might have been.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

What really bothers me is when the hypothesis that people start with is that any thing involving a large chemical company is guilty until proven innocent and then chooses only the facts that fit such an hypothesis. A further corollary, sadly, is also to question the integrity of anyone who chooses to be employed by said companies under the assumption that they are surely corrupt as well. Why not let the main body of scientific data drive your opinions instead. Sigh....sad but not surprising.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

It's not surprising because of historical precedent.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

it may turn out that neonics end up being a part of what is sure to be a multifactorial cause for colony collapse.

like i said, the jury is still out, and my approach will be to proceed with eyes and mind wide open.

each of us has to do what we think is right.

i'm not about to embarrass myself by petitioning my legislators on an issue that i don't have the facts about.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> easier posted than proven


all you have to do is look in posts regarding beelogics you will see who has served on their advisory board.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

I am not twisting anyone's arm here and whoever says bees are rebounding, well, that makes me happy. Perhaps these districts have started limiting the use of these pesticides. Many studies point to neonics, to me, this makes sense. If anyone would like to support our petition to help the honeybees, thank you. We have far too many toxic chemicals out there to be doing anyone any good.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

honeylove said:


> Perhaps these districts have started limiting the use of these pesticides. Many studies point to neonics, to me, this makes sense.


Please post links to these studies which point to neonics. Also, to my knowledge there is no district in the US that has "started limiting the use of these pesticides."


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

you are right Andrew. What is coming next? I am sure they have a whole new arsenal of even more toxic stuff to throw at them.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

honeylove said:


> all you have to do is look in posts regarding beelogics you will see who has served on their advisory board.


true enough, but that's a very good thing. besides, i think we're talking about bayer and neonics here. beelogics wasn't producing neonic last time i checked.

if your unsubstantiated insinuations are directed at randy oliver because he provided expertise and was involved in the beelogics work, i fail to see the connection.

as far as the joint u.s./canadian study that is in progress, three cheers for the investigators for bringing someone like randy on board.

it's a free country, and i respect your right to express your concerns as you see fit. 

nothing personal here, i don't even know you. it is one of my pet peeves when i see people jumping on a bandwagon because it's....popular?

hence the screen name, squarepeg.


----------



## honeylove (Nov 6, 2009)

camero7 said:


> Please post links to these studies which point to neonics. Also, to my knowledge there is no district in the US that has "started limiting the use of these pesticides."


 a

my town and several towns in my area are not using pesticides in public parks school grounds and other areas. guess what? it works. FOlks need to get on board with less is more, less toxins, less problems in our environment. THese pesticides are designed to do one thing, KILL and clothianidin, by the way, was never supposed to even be widely used. It's a shame our legislatures are not looking out for us, but for votes and who gives more $$$ to thier campaign. The EPA has long ago forgotten what it once stood for . As Dave Hackenberg says, the environmental WHATEVER!


----------



## danmcm (May 23, 2012)

As far as studies on this... there were several this year.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/neonicotinoids-bee-collapse/

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029268 summerized here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112112722.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112112722.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314170511.htm


Now this is just the ones I have read from this year there are studies from as far back as 2008 done in america that show this as "a cause" ... Germany and other contries that have banned these chemicals did so for a reason and they had some studies as well as public support but chemical companies are big and have cash so do you think these cash strapped countries would place ban without some studies and facts. Watched a video where politicians were made to go to a sunflower field that had been treated by groucho and actually see the damage see the bees dead on the flowers and in front of the hives.

I have seen enough large companies be it petroleum, drug, or farm chemical do whats best for them and out and out lie that I wouldn't trust a study funded by someone that will profit from that studies findings in any field.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

dan, sorry i didn't have time to read all of the 'studies' you cited.

i did look at the first one, which is not a study at all, but an article talking about a study.

a quote from the 'article',

"The phenomenon is described in two new studies published March 29 in Science. While they don’t conclusively explain global bee declines, which almost certainly involve a combination of factors, they establish neonicotinoids as a prime suspect."

i think the state of affairs at this time is still that nobody 'knows'. being suspect does not equal knowing.

the responsible approach would be to wait for the proof.

the joint u.s./canadian study, which randy oliver discusses in the second link of my post #2, describes what may be the best attempt yet to show causality.

there are no promises that this will be the final answer, the end all to end all, but hopefully it will help us by some way providing a piece to a very complex puzzle.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I am not going to get into a "battle of goggle links " its just important to point out what we know and what we dont know. We know that there was an incident where malfunctioning planters exhausted toxic talc into the air and killed nearby bee hives. Thats old news and has been beaten to death because yes neonics kill insects that is what they are designed to do, but they arent designed to be used in that manner. What has never been proven by any study is that seed treated with neonics results in killing bees that work those plants months later. No direct link or "smoking gun" has ever been established showing that these bees bring back a toxic pollen or nectar that kills bees or shortens their life spans. I am open to the possibility that some link may be proven at some time in the future or that it may be a causitive agent when combined with other bee treatments applied by beekeepers but until that time I will withold judgement. Here is something that I can say with absolute certainty though. We operate thousands of hives in an area that has seen drastic increases of plantings of these crops over the past decade and I have not seen a deterioration of our bees during this time. The past two years have seen record plantings of neonic treated seeds in our area. If I had seen corresponding losses in our bees I would be among the most vocal in asking why this is happening. But our bees are better than they have ever been. Perhaps the pre-neonic days when foliar spraying routinely devastated our bee hives with a spray that simply killed any insect that happened to be in the field is just too fresh in my mind. In any case these are my real world experiences and I find them more significant than the arguments put forward by those who seem to insinuate that because they have a fundamental distrust of a particular company or industry that it therefore follows that all products that they produce must therefore be bad and that any evidence to the contrary are of course just predictable lies.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

gotta love that tag line jim!


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Still waiting for a peer reviewed study that indicates that neonics kill hives in the real world, not a lab study. I agree totally with Jim's post. Neonics are an insecticide and kill insects. Last I knew bees were an insect. But I have hives beside corn fields that use treated seed and they are doing great. As long as the farmed doesn't start using talc when planting I feel my bees are safe. Might point out that Mike Palmer has bees in high corn areas and he reports no problems either.


----------



## danmcm (May 23, 2012)

“Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production.” By Penelope R. Whitehorn, Stephanie O’Connor, Felix L. Wackers, Dave Goulson. Science, Vol. 335 No. 6076, March 30, 2012.

Krupke CH, Hunt GJ, Eitzer BD, Andino G, Given K (2012) Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29268. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029268

Andrea Tapparo, Daniele Marton, Chiara Giorio, Alessandro Zanella, Lidia Soldà, Matteo Marzaro, Linda Vivan, Vincenzo Girolami. Assessment of the Environmental Exposure of Honeybees to Particulate Matter Containing Neonicotinoid Insecticides Coming from Corn Coated Seeds. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012; : 120217095058002 DOI: 10.1021/es2035152


They are of course quoted Squarepeg within the article sorta of a more readable format (but since we didn't make it past the first) and I did say in my last post in quotes no less that this was "a cause" my oppinion from reading many studies. 

Cam- bee were collected from around hives in Ag areas this with lethal levels of neonics thats not in a lab. Is that conclusive well hives are made of bees and bees die when exposed but lets study it for a few more years... honesty Im not in a high agriculture area (hay and corn mostly)it limits my hives and limits my exposure. I have talked to many farmers and several that I have talked to feel that the corn they grew forty years ago gave them a better profit than the Bt- round up ready treated corn they are pushed into growing as they older varities are not offered.

Jim great point. Didn't mean to google up links about studies others said haven't happen or offer a decenting oppinion sometimes I forget what these forums are really for.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

dan, my apologies. i went back and saw how you had "the cause". i misunderstood.

barry calls this healthy and spirited debate, hopefully we can all learn from it.

definitely no offense intended, and nothing personal.


----------



## Boone (Jul 21, 2011)

I signed it.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

danmcm said:


> “Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production.” By Penelope R. Whitehorn, Stephanie O’Connor, Felix L. Wackers, Dave Goulson. Science, Vol. 335 No. 6076, March 30, 2012.
> 
> Krupke CH, Hunt GJ, Eitzer BD, Andino G, Given K (2012) Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29268. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029268
> 
> ...


Since bumblebees nest in the ground for the most part it makes sense that they would be more exposed to any pesticide than honey bees who only forage on the flowers. Particularly if the corn was planted with air planters and talc dust. Of course with the older spray insecticides they would all die.

I personally believe there is a small effect on hives from neonics. But it is hard to measure and hives continue to thrive. Better now than in the bad old days of spray and crop dusting.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

As a general note, the response of "Show me the study" implies that said studies exist. When so much research is funded by the large companies themselves, it skews things. Monsanto, Bayer, etc, are unlikely to fund studies that would find their products at fault. Research funded by government and beekeeping groups can't compete. It just isn't a level playing field. Big companies act only in the interests of profitability and their shareholders. "Business ethics" is an oxymoron more often than not.


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

This might give you an idea what they find out in Europe

http://www.gesundebiene.at/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Neonicotinoide-in-bees.pdf


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Axtmann said:


> This might give you an idea what they find out in Europe
> 
> http://www.gesundebiene.at/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Neonicotinoide-in-bees.pdf


quotes from the above paper that stand out to me:

During the last years a loss of overwintering bee colonies
was noticed. Although identification of the causes of this
disappearance is difficult, it was argued that reduced bee
health might be initially caused by the chronic exposure to pesticides. So far only two studies have been conducted in this context for neonicotinoids. Using 8 honeybee colonies, Faucon et al. (2005) demonstrated that chronic exposure during the summer season (33 days) to 0.5 and 5.0 lg l-1 imidacloprid in saccharose syrup did not affect the overwintering abilities of honey bees. Similarly, spring assessment of colony development (brood, worker biomass and colony health) was not affected in overwintered colonies
that had foraged on flowering canola grown from seed
treated with clothianidin at 0.4 mg kg-1, representing the
highest recommended rate (Cutler and Scott-Dupree 2007).
In conclusion, these studies demonstrated no long-term
effects on honeybee colonies of environmentally relevant
concentrations.

In general, the few reported residue levels of neonicotinoids in nectar (average of 2 lg kg-1) and pollen (average of 3 lg kg-1) were below
the acute and chronic toxicity levels; however, there is a
lack of reliable data as analyses are performed near the
detection limit. Similarly, also the levels in bee-collected
pollen, in bees and bee products were low.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

camero7 said:


> quotes from the above paper that stand out to me:
> 
> During the last years a loss of overwintering bee colonies
> was noticed. Although identification of the causes of this
> ...


Yeah, a lot of data to absorb there. Layman that I am, my take is that it was a pretty thorough study with no real "smoking gun" type of conclusion.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> Yeah, a lot of data to absorb there. Layman that I am, my take is that it was a pretty thorough study with no real "smoking gun" type of conclusion.


Actually I believe it demonstrated that there is no measurable effect of neonics in "real world" situations. The only time they could find any negative effects was when they fed it to the bees in syrup. Not a real world test. My observations of my hives beside several corn fields shows no problems so far. One of my best yards for honey production.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I am really looking forward to the results of the Bayer study that Randy Oliver has reported on. It sounds like a really well thought out trial that reflects how many hundreds of thousands of colonies are currently managed. Allowing Brett Eide as well as Randy to be involved really gives it credibility. No one has more at stake in bee health than the Eide operation. Regardless of what some people may think of them the Bayer's and Monsantos of the world, profit driven though they may be, would much prefer their products to be safe if for no other reason than to minimize the possibility of class action lawsuits against them.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

France has been re-thinking the ban for awhile as they saw no noticeable improvement after the ban. What's Monsanto have to do with neo-nics? Monsanto makes one herbicide if you didn't know and does not manufacture any pesticides. Beeologics was a technology aqcuisition and has nothing to do with bees. Sometimes you need to do some digging to get to the real facts and I for one would like to see some well thought out studies done as well, but it seems only people trying to prove what they think is right have been publishing recently and their experimental designs are jokes.

How long did that study done in 2005 last?


----------



## DBeeCooper (Apr 28, 2010)

From what I understand of this, the problem so far is that approval was given by the EPA for this chemical to be used in this application, before the appropriate studies were completed. Kinda backwards it seems?! And this stuff persists in the soil for quite some time, so if it turns out to be an unacceptable use, what about all that contaminated soil?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

DBeeCooper said:


> From what I understand of this, the problem so far is that approval was given by the EPA for this chemical to be used in this application, before the appropriate studies were completed. Kinda backwards it seems?! And this stuff persists in the soil for quite some time, so if it turns out to be an unacceptable use, what about all that contaminated soil?


Here is an excellent paper on persistence of neonics in soil and water:
http://www.farmlandbirds.net/sites/default/files/JEIT-D-12-00001.pdf


----------

