What would Rachel Carson say to this story? The business publications are an echo-chamber of headlines reading “procedural issues” were what made spirotetramat illegal to sell, while other blogs and newspapers focus of the press release’s spin (harm to bees). The monopoly market publications would like to tell their readers/advertisers that it wasn’t banned because of proven harm to the pollinators and ecosystems (the same ecosystems that support the damned economy in the first place), no no… it was banned because the EPA and BayerCrop Science broke the laws, a.k.a. “procedures,” and got busted!  Why don’t they say “legal issues lead to ban of pesticide” or “secret law breaking discovered, leads to pesticide ban” or “NRDC and Xerces were watching while we tried to sell poison without EPA/public approval and they blew the whistle on behalf of science and public laws designed to protect the People from the Corporation”? (see evidence of eco-chamber) This story reveals the fraud and deceit that is Bayer CropScience and revolving door EPA cronies. It’s so easy to sell their poison and bio-warfare in China and Brazil, because those countries don’t have public oversight like the U.S.A. has with the EPA - Environmental Protection Agency. It’s time to review and renew our appreciation and understanding of our EPA. This story is really about the Xerces Society and National Resource Defense Council forcing the EPA to follow its own rules and public protection “procedures.” Had it not been for them, the EPA and Bayer CropScience would have simply violated the law in secrecy and ineptitude, exactly what Bare CrapScience wants to see happen, IMHO.Important to note that well-known commercial beekeepers Dave Hackenberg (and Dave Mendes?) worked with Bayer CropScience to field test the effects of spirotetramat on honeybees in Florida.  Click image for PDF of report.Here’s a nice footnote from the Judge Cote’s ruling:

 It is undisputed that the plaintiffs have standing to bring this case.  See Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 339 (2d Cir. 2009) (“An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation ofthe lawsuit.” (citation omitted)).

Judge Pulls Pesticide After Finding Impacts on Bees Inadequately Evaluated by EPA(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2010) – A pesticide that could be dangerously toxic to America’s honey bees must be pulled from store shelves as a result of a suit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Xerces Society. In an order issued in December, a federal court in New York invalidated EPA’s approval of the pesticide spirotetramat (manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the trade names Movento and Ultor) and ordered the agency to reevaluate the chemical in compliance with the law. The court’s order goes into effect on January 15, 2010, and makes future sales of Movento illegal in the United States.“This sends EPA and Bayer back to the drawing board to reconsider the potential harm to bees caused by this new pesticide,” said NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo. “EPA admitted to approving the pesticide illegally, but argued that its violations of the law should have no consequences. The Court disagreed and ordered the pesticide to be taken off the market until it has been properly evaluated. Bayer should not be permitted to run what amounts to an uncontrolled experiment on bees across the country without full consideration of the consequences.”In June 2008, EPA approved Movento for nationwide use on hundreds of different crops, including apples, pears, peaches, oranges, tomatoes, grapes, strawberries, almonds, and spinach. The approval process went forward without the advance notice and opportunity for public comment that is required by federal law and EPA’s own regulations. In addition, EPA failed to evaluate fully the potential damage to the nation’s already beleaguered bee populations or conduct the required analysis of the pesticide’s economic, environmental, and social costs.Beekeepers and scientists have expressed concern over Movento’s potential impact on beneficial insects such as honey bees. The pesticide impairs the insect’s ability to reproduce. EPA’s review of Bayer’s scientific studies found that trace residues of Movento brought back to the hive by adult bees could cause “significant mortality” and “massive perturbation” to young honeybees (larvae). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America. USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. Yet bee colonies in the United States have seen significant declines in recent years due to a combination of stressors, almost certainly including insecticide exposure. “This case underscores the need for us to re-examine how we evaluate the impact of pesticides and other chemicals in the environment,” said Mr. Colangelo. “In approving Movento, EPA identified but ignored potentially serious harms to bees and other pollinators. We are in the midst of a pollinator crisis, with more than a third of our colonies disappearing in recent years. Given how important these creatures are to our food supply, we simply cannot look past these sorts of problems.”View the court decision here.Read Beyond Pesticides’ read factsheet: Pollinators and Pesticides: Escalating crisis demands action and Backyard Beekeeping: Providing pollinator habitat one yard at a time. See more information on threats to honey bees at NRDC.

Report on Bee Mortality and Bee Surveillance in Europe

from http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/online/default.asp?Date=12/18/2009

AFSSA, the French Food Safety Agency completed a 218-page report on honey bee mortality and the ways that colony losses are monitored in Europe, December 8, 2009. The European Food Safety Authority commissioned the study and published the report. Initially, AFSSA set up a consortium of seven European bee disease research institutes in France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

The project covers 1) a description and critical analysis of surveillance programs that measured colony loss; 2) the collection and analysis of the epidemiological data sets on colony losses; and 3) a critical review and selection of relevant literature on the possible causes and risk factors of colony losses.

The researchers found that bee colony losses in Europe and the USA are multifactorial which include beekeeping and husbandy practices, environmental factors, biological agents as well as excessive use of pesticides. The interaction of these factors create stress, weaken bees’ defense system allowing pests and pathogens to kill the colony.

3.2.3.3 Chemical agents

The debate on chemical agents is mainly concentrated on the agrochemicals used for crop treatments. Neonicotinoids are the focus of the greatest interest in the literature (imidacloprid, clothianidin and fipronil); other publications just mention “pesticides” in general, but certainly with an implicit consideration of neonicotinoids (Figure 75). Scientists are clearly divided on the role of these pesticides, as illustrated in Table 14. Although no involvement of pesticides has been proven for colony losses or CCD, a significant amount of pesticide residues are frequently found in the studies analysing bees, pollen and wax, usually at sublethal levels. A question arises, therefore, about the possibility for a conjunction of chemical residues present in the hive at sublethal concentrations, which may produce a lethal effect or clinical signs affecting the ability of colony to survive. Several authors mention these pesticides as factors contributing to stress or weakening of colonies which, once again, may “open the door” to other causative factors.

3.2.3.2 Biological agents

A significant number of biological agents are reported to be involved in colony losses. Viruses are the biological agents most frequently mentioned (Figure 73). As more than 15 different viruses are known to infect bees, often without any clinical symptoms and since, co-infection with several viruses is not uncommon, they are the subject of much research. Due to their frequent presence, they are found in many colony losses cases where it is very difficult to determine whether they are at the origin of the losses, or just co-factors. Of the eight viruses mentioned in the literature, IABPV is the most frequently mentioned, and some scientists consider it as a “marker” of CCD in the United States (Figure 74). Varroa, Nosema spp and Acarapis woodi infections are the three other most commonly mentioned biological factors. Some scientists consider them to be causative factors in a certain amount of colony losses (for Nosema mainly in Spain). Others consider that they are co- factors, contributing to the stress of the colony or contributing to the “expression” of colony mortality as causative factor of death for a colony already weakened by other stress factors. This is why the factors “multiple infection” and “unidentified disease” appear in the assumptions made by the authors. All these hypotheses open the floor to a debate on possible treatments to prevent or cure these infections. This links together these biological agents with chemical factors and beekeeping practices because beekeeping practices and chemical treatments are used to control infections. The debate on the involvement of the various biological agents is clearly expressed in the author’s opinions summarised in Table 13 with a high rate of “possible involvement” and balanced reports between “unlikely” and “very likely”.

3.2.4 Conclusion and perspectives

The work package on literature review allowed the development of a specific methodology for literature search and analysis. The “priority 1″ references selected and reviewed validate the objectivity of the literature search which is expressed through the variability and the balanced topics included. The results of this work regarding risk and causative factors involved in colony losses have to be taken as a “snap shot” of the scientific community’s opinion as they are today; these are also “time sensitive”, and evolving due to the amount of ongoing research which will likely lead to new findings and a better understanding of the factors involved in the coming months or years.

To summarise this picture, common consensus amongst the scientific community about the multi-factorial origin of colony losses in Europe and in the United States (in the two aspects of this term: combination of factors at one place and different factors involved according to place and period considered) suggests the following factors are important, namely: beekeeping practices (feeding, migratory beekeeping, colony husbandry, treatments applied and so forth), environmental  factors (climate, available forage, biodiversity, etc.), chemical factors (pesticides) or biological agents (Varroa, Nosema spp, etc.) which together create stress, weaken bees’ immune systems that then allow pests and pathogens to kill the colony (e.g. one or several parasites, viruses, etc.).

Figure78. Factors involved in colony losses

Questions remain about the sequence of events that lead to colony mortality, and future studies should be designed and conducted to address this:

- There are many inconsistencies in the ways in which “colony losses” are defined. Up to 17 different definitions for CCD in the literature. This means that involved persons may not always be referring to the same phenomenon, and this creates confusion when trying to explain the origin of what has been identified in the field. The described pathology is varied, with authors/using the same descriptions for different sets of circumstances. A specific study should be undertaken to clearly categorise and quantify the various expressions of colony losses in the field. This study will be closely linked to the strengthening of surveillance systems;

- High concentrations of pesticides have rarely been identified in relation to colony losses (CCD in USA and winter colony losses in Europe) although acute events of pesticide toxicity are well described during the production season (and clearly differentiated from CCD and winter colony losses). However, the questions of possible synergistic effects of various pesticides and the effect of chronic exposure to sublethal doses of pesticides remains, and requires further investigation;

- Biological agents such as parasites, viruses or bacteria, alone or in combination, have clearly been identified as important factors in colony losses. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of knowledge about the exact mechanisms and/or interactions involved, that must also be addressed;

- Even though the multifactorial origin of colony losses is well acknowledged, the respective role of each factor as a risk or causative agent is unknown, and no hierarchy of relative threat posed by each one has been established. These matters require further investigation using appropriate epidemiological studies (case control and longitudinal studies).

Conclusion

This bee surveillance project sought information on both the prevalence of honey bee colony losses, and the surveillance systems respectively in 27 European countries. Through a standardised questionnaire, each of the surveillance systems collecting these data was evaluated. In addition, a thorough literature search of the existing databases, as well as relevant grey literature about causes of colony losses was completed, and the literature evaluated.

The main conclusions from project activities can be summarised as follows:

• General weakness and high variability of most of the surveillance systems in the 25 systems investigated;
• Lack of representative data at country level and comparable data at EU level for colony losses;
• Common consensus of the scientific community about the multifactorial origin of colony losses in Europe and in the United States and insufficient knowledge of causative and risk factors for colony losses.

From these finding the consortium makes the following recommendations:

1. Implementation of a sustainable European network for coordination and follow-up of surveillance, and research on colony losses to underpin monitoring programmes;

2. Strengthen standardization at European level by harmonization of surveillance systems, data collected and by developing common performance indicators;

3. Build on the examples of best practice found in existing surveillance systems on communicable and notifiable diseases already present in some countries;

4. Undertake specific studies that build on the existing work in progress to improve the knowledge and understanding of factors that affect bee health (for example stress caused by pathogens, pesticides, environmental and technological factors and their interactions) using appropriate epidemiological studies (case control and longitudinal studies);

5. The set up of the coordination team at European level. This is a crucial issue and the coordination team should be organized in such a way so as to ensure its sustainability and to enable effective surveillance programme activities at the European level.

Complete report attached and also here: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/27e.htm

When their link breaks, download the PDF here: Scientific Report on Bee Mortality and Bee Surveillance in Europe

“If the EPA had sufficient concern about harm to bees that they would insist on other studies, it seemed unwise to approve it anyway and ask for research after the fact,” says Aaron Colangelo, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The EPA’s job is to make a decision about whether a chemical is safe or not.”

Colangelo envisions a similar scenario in coming years. The EPA has announced it will review clothianidin and other chemicals in the same family, but not until 2012. In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping the agency from approving the insecticides for use on new crops based on existing policies. In the end, Colangelo has little confidence the federal agency will bring a hammer down on the agribusiness giant. The EPA, he explains, often keeps its test results confidential for proprietary reasons at a company’s request. As a consequence, it’s unclear where gaps or discrepancies occur until a company makes a disclosure similar to Bayer’s.

“They’re not making decisions about whether the pesticide can be put on the market based on impacts to bees, no matter how much evidence of harm there is,” Colangelo says. “The EPA will just approve it anyway and put a warning label on the product.”

Halting the sale of pesticides, though, would be no mean task. Over 120 countries use imidacloprid under the Bayer label on more than 140 crop varieties, as well as on termites, flea collars and home garden landscaping. And the product’s patent expired a few years ago, paving the way for it to be sold as a generic insecticide by dozens of smaller corporations. In California alone, imidacloprid is the central ingredient in 247 separate products sold by 50 different companies.

In a statement, the EPA says that before banning a pesticide, it “must find that an ‘imminent hazard’ exists. The federal courts have ruled that to make this finding, EPA must conclude, among other things, that there is a substantial likelihood that imminent, serious harm will be experienced from use of the pesticide.” The EPA did not clarify what is meant by “imminent hazard” and why the death of honeybees does not qualify.

As Mussen points out, though, a few million dead honeybees may be the cost of doing business. “If they didn’t register products that were toxic to honeybees, there wouldn’t be a lot of products on the market that were available for pest control.”

All the more reason to start taking the world’s most ubiquitous insecticide off the market and invent a safer one, argues Walker, of the National Honeybee Advisory Board. “It’s on every golf course, it’s on every lawn. It’s not just an agricultural product. There’s really not one part of our lives it’s not touching.”

What does LD₅₀ mean? What about TLV?

LD₅₀ stands for Lethal Dose 50. It is the amount of a material that, when administered to a population of animals or insects at the stated level, will be lethal for 50% of the population tested. For example and LD₅₀ of 0.015 ?g / bee means that 15 trillionths of a kilogram will kill 50% of the bees that are exposed. The LD₅₀ is established during safety testing conducted during product development. (return to What Has Been Found)

TLV, or Threshold Limit Value, on the other hand, is an occupational exposure level frequently printed on the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) or label of a product. It is the maximum level to which a person can be safely exposed to that product when in use in accordance with the personnel protective equipment described on the label. The level is the amount believed a worker can be exposed day after day for a working lifetime without adverse health effects. The TLV does not relate to the amount that can be safely ingested as TLV values are typical inhalation or skin exposure related.

MORE GREAT DETAILS about CCD and pesticides: http://montcobee1.farming.officelive.com/CCDUpdate.aspx

Mysterious Bee Deaths Strike Central Valley
http://www.valleyvoicenewspaper.com/vvarc/2007/february212007.htm

By Steve Pastis

February 21, 2007 - San Joaquin Valley - A mysterious ailment is killing off bees in Tulare County and across the country. Given the name “Colony Collapse Disorder,” the new disease has wiped out bee colonies in 21 states so far.

The loss of bees in the Central Valley is expected to have a negative impact on crops such as avocados, cherries, plums, alfalfa seeds, pomegranates and kiwi. The bee shortage may hit almonds the hardest during the time of year when half of the country’s commercial bees are brought into the state to help launch what should become a $1.4 billion dollar harvest. Even more bees will be needed over the next few years as California almond production is expected to expand to more than 750,000 acres by the year 2010.

“I’ve lost over 2,000 bees over the last two months,” said David Bradshaw, owner of Bradshaw Honey Farms in Visalia. He had about 4,200 bees but is now down to less than 2,000.

Recently, he was visited by research teams from Pennsylvania State University and the University of Montana. The teams took samples to study and dissect more…

From the National Resources Defense Council - Tell the EPA to protect honey bees from a toxic pesticide

Bee pollination is responsible for about one-third of the food we eat, helping to produce about $15 billion worth of crops in the United States every year. But honey bee populations are in serious decline, with devastating losses caused by factors such as colony collapse disorder, parasites and pesticide exposure.

Even though the EPA classifies the pesticide imidacloprid as highly toxic to honey bees, it nevertheless approved its use in 1994. France banned several uses of imidacloprid in 1999 over concerns about its effects on bees, but here in the United States imidacloprid is still used heavily on many crops pollinated by honey bees, including broccoli, blueberries, carrots, grapefruit, cucumbers and avocados.

Although the EPA is currently reviewing its approval of imidacloprid as required by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, the agency’s work plan lacks many important details on how it will assess risks to bees. In addition, the EPA has put the review on an unreasonably slow timetable, with a final decision not expected until 2014. In the meantime, high-risk uses of imidacloprid will continue, threatening honey bees as well as other important pollinators.

The EPA is accepting public comments on this phase of the project through March 17, 2009.

What to do

Send a message, before the March 17th comment deadline, telling the EPA to protect honey bees and other pollinators from high-risk uses of imidacloprid by strengthening its plans for risk, toxicity and exposure assessments.

To do this go to: http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/nrdcaction_030409

UPDATE 3/14/09 - The Greenwich Post newspaper reported in 2008 that McNitt’s honey testing “found no trace of another insecticide called Imidacloprid“… Jim McNitt commented on my first post, however, that Eliza just won again this year two top Life Science prizes at the 2009 Connecticut Science Fair for her continued research on pesticides in honey (read his blog). Most notably, he writes that she in fact did find imidacloprid in her testing. “This year, Eliza used HPLC to examine pollen, beeswax, beebread and dead bees gathered from the Arboretum hive for traces of imidacloprid… Her work confirmed the presence of high levels of imidacloprid both in the hive and on the extremities of the Arboretum honey bees.” So, what’s the story behind the story, here? Why did the newspaper report the contrary? Did last year’s research methods differ from this year’s? Was there a sudden spike in imidacloprid usage near the Arboretum study location in the past year? Stamford, CT is a place of wealth and immaculate lawns. It would be nice to see a survey of the gardeners and home owners about what products they put on the lawns. Do they use any of those recently banned in Canada? Would the local garden supply shops provide stats on sales of certain products for local research purposes? Mr. McNitt says’s he’ll send me the link to her research PDF for us to post here. I can’t wait. Thanks for keeping us posted. [his response and link is here : McNitt 2008 Research.pdf] (Photo by Frank LaBanca)

• What are the possibilities of other high school students around the country sending samples to Greenwich High School for testing?
  
• Could there be a continuing research program set up there?
  
• What are the costs to the school for conducting the tests?
  
• Is it complicated to test using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) technology?

Looks to me like future students at Greenwich High could expand on McNitt’s research and follow in her award-winning footsteps. They have a great research location, ability to survey properties within a 4 mile radius of the hives and perhaps even discover and map the places where the bees are picking up imidacloprid, down to the product name. The next test in the Greenwich High School CCD Research Program should be of the water supply, an often overlooked source of contamination - bees drink water and use it to cool the hive! Science teacher Andy Bramante may need some TA’s, too. - DNR

http://www.jimmcnitt.com/Site2/Blog/Entries/2009/3/13_And_the_winner_of_the_2009_Connecticut_Science_Fair_Is…..html

———————

3/13/09 - Just yesterday I posted some 2008 news about this young woman, and today I see she’s more scientist researcher than film maker! If there’s any high school that would have its own advanced Spectroscopy and Chromatography technology, it would be Greenwich High School. Lucky girl. I’m waiting for Eliza to send me the link to her research (use comment)… Congratulations! You deserve a full ride to college. (Stick with the hard sciences ;)) -DNR

Mar 12, 2008
Greenwich High student wins science competition
http://www.acorn-online.com

Eliza McNitt, a Greenwich High School junior, captured top honors at the 45th Connecticut Junior Science and Humanities Symposium for an original research project that traced the migration of pesticides through the production of southwestern Connecticut honey.

In addition to a $1,000 scholarship and letter of recognition from Gov. M. Jodi Rell, McNitt will represent Connecticut at the National Junior Science and Humanities Symposium at Orlando, FL, in May. The symposium program is sponsored by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force in an effort to encourage original scientific research at the high school level. Courtney Fogwell, a GHS senior, was selected as a National Symposium alternate for her project analyzing the environmental impact of artificial-turf playing fields.

Eliza and Courtney were among 13 state finalists who made oral presentations before an audience of more than 300 fellow science students, parents, teachers, and jurors at the University of Connecticut in Storrs on March 10. Both students were mentored by GHS science teacher Andrew Bramante.

“While extensive work has been done on the presence of residual insecticides on fruits and vegetables, there has been little significant scientific research on residual pesticides in honey,” Mr. Bramante said in a release. “Eliza came to me with her project on the first day of class. I almost fell off my stool when I heard it.”

Eliza says that the topic was indirectly inspired by her grandfather, a chemical engineer, who is fastidious about washing and peeling fresh produce.

“If there are insecticides on an apple,” Eliza said. “It made me wonder if they could also be present in honey.”

She found an ideal controlled research environment at the Bartlett Arboretum in Stamford, which maintains an apiary in the middle of its 30 acre property. James Kaechele, arboretum education director and beekeeping specialist Andrew Cote´ made honey samples available along with detailed records of pesticide applications.

Eliza tested the arboretum honey using advanced Spectroscopy and Chromatography technology that had been donated to the GHS science program.

“I was incredibly fortunate to able to perform my own analysis,” she says. “GHS has equipment that you can’t even find in most colleges.”

Her tests revealed the presence of a component of the pesticide Neem Oil — which is widely used in organic farming. Neem Oil is made from the fruits and seeds of Neem, an evergreen tree common in India, and is not thought to be harmful to mammals, birds or bees.

The fact that Eliza found no trace of another insecticide called Imidacloprid may have implications in the search for a cause of the mysterious syndrome known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in which worker bees abruptly disappear. CCD is considered a serious threat to the pollination of food crops in the United States and Europe.

“Imidacloprid is under investigation as a contributing factor in CCD,” she said. “The fact that it is not present in the Arboretum honey could suggest that it is killing or disorienting worker bees so they cannot return to the hive.”

The topic will be something she’ll tackle in her next GHS science project. [see McNitt’s followup here]

This blog gets a fair amount of traffic, and this commentary on “colony collapse disorder” from a well-known pollination broker in California deserves attention. Also interesting is to read what he had to say about the idea of “beekeepers receiving government subsidies” almost 10 years ago in 1999. This topic is current again in the news.

–DNR

http://www.beesource.com/pov/traynor/bcdec2008.htm

DECEMBER, 2008 issue BEE CULTURE

Joe Traynor

The following is distilled from the reams of disparate dispatches from the CCD front. I have tried to condense this mass of information into a coherent whole. None of what follows is original — all has been expressed in one form or another by others.

When CCD first came on the stage in 2006-2007, a number of possible causes entered the stage at, or close to, the same time:

Drought in many areas
Difficulty in controlling varroa mites
Nosema ceranae (believed to be widespread since at least 2006)
Decreased bee pasture + increased corn acreage
Chemical buildup in comb
Neonicotinoid pesticides

A good argument can be made for any one of these as the main, or sole cause of CCD; a better argument for a combination of two or more. If only one of the above had occurred, it would have been much simpler to either designate or eliminate it as the cause of CCD.

Based on field reports, CCD can devastate a given apiary in a short period of time, sweeping from one end to the other, leaving previously populous colonies with only a handful of bees and a queen. Since rapid decline of an organism (consider, as many have, a honey bee colony to be an individual organism) is typical of a pathogen, current thinking is that a pathogen, either N. ceranae or a virus (or a combination of both) is the basic cause of CCD.

If a virus causes CCD, is it a new “super” virus, or one of the known bee viruses – Kashmir, DWV, APV et al. — or perhaps a mutation of a known virus to a more virulent form? We don’t know, but assuming that a virus causes CCD allows us to speculate on remedial measures.

Consider other CCD-like problems in humans and plants:

In each of the above instances, the Target can withstand the Vector in the absence of the Pathogen – mosquitoes are a minor concern to us if they don’t harbor a pathogen; without a READ THE REST…

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2009) The Ontario government is set to announce sweeping new regulations that will prohibit the use of 85 chemical substances, found in roughly 250 lawn and garden products, from use on neighborhood lawns. Once approved, products containing these chemicals would be barred from sale and use for cosmetic purposes.

On November 7, 2008, the Ontario government released a proposed new regulation containing the specifics of the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act, passed last June. Then, Ontario joined Quebec in restricting the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides but environmental and public health advocates said then that the new law preempted local by-laws and actually weakens protections in some municipalities with stronger local protections. There are over 55 municipalities in Canada where the residential use, but not sale, of pesticides is banned. The prohibition of these 85 substances is the latest step in this Act. The proposal contains:

• List of pesticides (ingredients in pesticide products) to be banned for cosmetic use
• List of pesticide products to be banned for sale
• List of domestic pesticide products to be restricted for sale. Restricted sale products include those with cosmetic and non-cosmetic uses (i.e., a product that’s allowed to be used inside the house but not for exterior cosmetic use), and would not be available self-serve.

The 85 chemicals to be prohibited are listed under “Proposed Class 9 Pesticides” of the Act. Among the 85 pesticides banned for cosmetic use include commonly used lawn chemicals: 2,4-D (Later’s Weed-Stop Lawn Weedkiller), clopyralid, glyphosate (Roundup Lawn & Weed Control Concentrate), imidacloprid, permethrin (Later’s Multi-Purpose Yard & Garden Insect Control), pyrethrins (Raid Caterpillar & Gypsy Moth Killer), and triclopyr.

However, golf courses and sports fields remain exempt. The use of pesticides for public health safety (e.g. mosquito control) is also exempt. The proposed regulation would also allow for the use of new ‘notice’ signs to make the public aware when low risk alternatives to conventional pesticides are used by licensed exterminators, such as the use of corn gluten meal to suppress weed germination in lawns.

The prohibition, once passed, would likely take effect in mid-April. Stores would be forced to remove banned products from their shelves or inform customers that the use of others is restricted to certain purposes. Residents must then dispose of banned products through municipal hazardous waste collection, and use restricted products for only prescribed purposes. Errant users would first receive a warning, but fines would later be introduced.

By 2011, stores will be required to limit access to the pesticides, keeping them locked behind glass or cages and ensuring that customers are aware of limitations on use before taking them home.

In light on impeding legislation to restrict pesticide use, the Canadian division of Home Depot announced on April 22, 2008 that it will stop selling traditional pesticides in its stores across Canada by the end of 2008 and will increase its selection of environmentally friendly alternatives. Other garden supply and grocery stores have already stopped selling certain pesticides in Ontario.

This proposed prohibition would have the most impact on 2,4-D, the most popular and widely used lawn chemical. 2,4-D, which kills broad leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive abnormalities. A recent petition filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and supported by Beyond Pesticides calls for the cancellation of 2,4-D, its products and its tolerances in the U.S.

Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (Round-up) and permethrin have also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans. Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) phenomena. The health effects of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides show that: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 15 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 24 with neurotoxicity, 22 with liver or kidney damage, and 34 are sensitizers and/or irritants.

Reference: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/news/2009/030401.php

World View Radio Show 03/02/2009

“Eighty percent of the world’s crop plants depend on pollination. The fewer bees pollinating fields, the lower the yield from every acre of food crops we eat. Without bees, our food will disappear. The mass disappearance of bees, first reported in 2006, is referred to as colony collapse disorder or (CCD).

Dr. Gabriela Chavarria is Science Center Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a research associate at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. She’s a leading expert on pollinators.“

WBEZ Radio Chicago: http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=32496

NRDC Forced to Sue to Get Public Records on Bee Mystery

EPA Buzz Kill: Is the Agency Hiding Colony Collapse Disorder Information?

NRDC Forced to Sue to Get Public Records on Bee Mystery

WASHINGTON, DC (August 18, 2008) – The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit today to uncover critical information that the US government is withholding about the risks posed by pesticides to honey bees. NRDC legal experts and a leading bee researcher are convinced that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evidence of connections between pesticides and the mysterious honey bee die-offs reported across the country. The phenomenon has come to be called “colony collapse disorder,” or CCD, and it is already proving to have disastrous consequences for American agriculture and the $15 billion worth of crops pollinated by bees every year.

EPA has failed to respond to NRDC’s Freedom of Information Act request for agency records concerning the toxicity of pesticides to bees, forcing the legal action.

“Recently approved pesticides have been implicated in massive bee die-offs and are the focus of increasing scientific scrutiny,” said NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo. “EPA should be evaluating the risks to bees before approving new pesticides, but now refuses to tell the public what it knows. Pesticide restrictions might be at the heart of the solution to this growing crisis, so why hide the information they should be using to make those decisions?”

READ REST: http://anarchyapiaries.org/hivetools/node/28

The Co-op today became the first UK supermarket to ban the use of a group of pesticides implicated in billions of honeybee deaths worldwide.

It is prohibiting suppliers of its own-brand fresh produce from using eight pesticides that have been connected to honeybee colony collapse disorder and are already restricted in some parts of Europe.

The Co-op said it will eliminate the usage of the neonicotinoid family of chemicals where possible and until they are shown to be safe. The Co-op has over 70,000 acres of land under cultivation in England and Scotland, making it the largest farmer in the UK. Since 2001, it has already prohibited the use of 98 pesticides under its pesticide policy.

Simon Press, senior technical manager at the Co-op group said: “We believe that the recent losses in bee populations need definitive action, and as a result are temporarily prohibiting the eight neonicotinoid pesticides until we have evidence that refutes their involvement in the decline.”

Laboratory tests suggest that one of the banned chemicals, imidacloprid, can impede honeybees’ sophisticated communication and navigation systems. It has been banned in France for a decade as a seed dressing on sunflowers. Italy, Slovenia and Germany banned neonicotinoids last year after the loss of millions of honeybees. And the European Parliament voted earlier this month for tougher controls on bee-toxic chemicals.

Read rest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/28/bees-coop-pesticide