English

A study published Tuesday points to pesticide use as the single most important indicator of grassland bird declines in the U.S., raising long held concerns over wildlife impacts. Researchers in the UK and Denmark have studied why grassland birds have declined faster than birds in any other biome – many linking declines to pesticide use– but similar research had not been conducted in the U.S. Proposed causes have ranged from: larger fields, the rise of uniform crop monocultures, the loss of native and natural habitat, the increase in autumn sowing and finally, the increase to fertilizer and pesticide inputs. Authors Pierre Mineau, PhD., senior research scientist on pesticide ecotoxicology with Environment Canada, and Melanie Whiteside sought to determine to what extent grassland bird declines were linked to agrochemical use in the U.S. The results show that bird decline are, in fact, most correlated to pesticide use, rather than the intensification of crop production.

A CLAIM that present proposals 
to ban neonicotinoid insecticides and introduce onerous new regulations on other chemicals up for approval could lead to a complete loss of investment by major chemical companies was made yesterday. Mike Bushell is the principal scientific advisor with Syngenta, the Swiss-based chemical company currently embroiled in a battle to retain the use of one of its major pesticides used in the treatment of oilseed rape seed. He was adamant that no-one would invest in any future programme of insecticide approval if new regulations came in. "Any new product with even moderate toxicity to bees would require an incredibly expensive field programme using thousands of beef hives. It would be impossible and impractical to run such a programme and nobody would invest in it,” he said. He believed that much of the current furore over the future use of neonicotinoids was ideologically driven by those who wished to remove all crop protection products from the market.

A team at the University of Dundee studied more than 600 colonies across the country in 2011-12. Of 274 colonies examined in the east of the country, 58, or 21 per cent, failed. By contrast, just 14 of 286 colonies failed in the west – a smaller decline of about 5 per cent. Lead researcher Dr Christopher Connolly, of the university’s division of neuroscience, said: “What we do have in the east and not the west is intensive agriculture. “It could be that the lack of natural habitat is the cause. It may be that bees and other pollinators may not be getting such a balanced diet. In the west, it’s largely wild crops that they are feeding on, such as trees, heather and gorse. It could be that the intensive agriculture and intensive levels of pesticides are contributing to the failure of the bees." However, even within the east, there were marked differences in death rates. Colony losses in parts of Fife were as high as 30 per cent and the Tweed Valley figure stood at 19 per cent. Edinburgh recorded losses of less than 6 per cent last year. A further study led by Dr Connolly analysed colony failures over winter across the country. Of 89 colonies that had fed on oilseed rape, 27 failed, a death rate of 30 per cent. By contrast, 13 out of 82 colonies which had not fed on oilseed rape died – a smaller failure rate of 16 per cent. Dr Connolly believes nicotine-based pesticides, neonicotinoids, may be contributing to the deaths of bees feeding on the crop, which is more commonly grown in the east. He said: “All oilseed rape is treated with neonicotinoids, you can’t buy it without it being pre-treated with neonicotinoids. Although it’s a legal requirement for farmers to record what pesticides they use on their crops, and when, that information is never gathered and stored in a central store. It’s not available to anybody. That information is missing and that is what I’m pushing for. If we can’t even learn from our mistakes, what hope have we got?”

Concerned with the dramatic decline of 17 species of birds that nest in Connecticut and eat only insects caught while flying, Connecticut Audubon Society today called for a multi-agency program of research and assessment along with immediate remedies such as cuts in pesticide use and the creation of man-made nesting sites. The recommendations and action plan are contained in the Connecticut State of the Birds 2013 report, “The Seventh Habitat and the Decline of Our Aerial Insectivores.” Released annually since 2006 by Connecticut Audubon Society, Connecticut State of the Birds has become the leading research-based assessment of conservation conditions in the state. The 17 species – known as aerial insectivores because they eat bugs on the wing – include beautiful and well-known birds such as Barn Swallows, Whip-poor-wills, Common Nighthawks, Chimney Swifts, Purple Martins and Tree Swallows. They are suffering from a long-term population decline that, if unchecked, threatens their survival. The report also contains an article about a similar decline in Connecticut’s bat population, which is also entirely reliant on aerial insects.

CropLife America (formerly known as the American Crop Protection Association) is the industry lobbying group financed by what are known as the “Big 6”: Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF and Syngenta. These six global corporations have acquired 74 percent of the global pesticide market and 49 percent of the proprietary global seed market—not to mention apparent controlling interest in the EPA. The Big 6 business model is deviously simple. They sell seeds and pesticides—seeds coated with their insecticides (such as Bayer’s Ponchotreated corn) and seeds biologically engineered to grow crops impervious to their herbicides (such as Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans). To no one’s surprise, last year the Big 6 contributed $21.5 million of the $45 million spent on the “No on 37” disinformation campaign that successfully defeated California’s Proposition 37, which would have required that genetically engineered food be labeled. These days, CropLife America and its Big 6 backers are busy presenting themselves as the true friend of honeybees. On CropLife’s “Protecting Our Pollinators” webpage, the reader learns that “bees are responsible for more than just honey; the list of crops that bees help grow is extensive, and includes grapes, strawberries, avocadoes, and cucumbers.” As for the disappearing honeybee? CropLife explains: "Many of the recent studies which attempt to link neonicotinoid pesticides to [honeybee colony collapse disorder] CCD fail to recreate practical in-field solutions of pollinator exposure to pesticides or pollinator behavior, and ignore the many possible threats that bees face. Scientific literature examining the potential causes of CCD is incredibly varied and will need additional research. So what can you do to save honey bees and other pollinators? CropLife encourages people to go out and plant flowers. “I compare that to planting buffalo grass to bring back the buffalo,” says beekeeper Tom Theobald, who for 38 years has been a beekeeper in Boulder County, Colorado. “If we don’t have the bees, it doesn’t matter how many flowers we plant.”

Neonicotinoids should no longer be used on crops which attract bees and other pollinating insects, the RSPB says, in a call for the Government to support a proposed EU ban on the three most common neonicotinoid substances. The intervention of the million-member society comes after a mounting tide of evidence indicating linkages between the use of the chemicals, made by the agribusiness giants Bayer and Syngenta, and collapses in colonies of honey bees and bumblebees. More than 30 separate scientific studies in the last three years have shown adverse effects on insects from neonicotinoids, which are "systemic" insecticides, meaning they enter every part of the target plants – including the pollen and nectar which bees harvest. In January, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a scientific opinion recommending that the three main substances – imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam – should not be used on crops attractive to bees. RSPB agricultural policy officer Ellie Crane said yesterday: "We've been reviewing the science for a long time, and scientists are telling us that neonicotinoids might be killing bees.

“I thought I’d give you a ‘behind-the-scenes’ look into the death of my bees in California. I started out last spring in the Midwest with 3,150 healthy bee colonies; of which 992 still survive, and most of those are very weak. More than 2,150 of my valuable bee colonies are now extinct.” A Midwestern beekeeper friend has earned his living as a migratory bee-farmer for almost 40 years; his son represents the fourth generation of this family to enter the beekeeping business. For most of those decades, the practice of migratory beekeeping was relatively trouble-free; the bees were not harmed by being trucked around America; there was no warning of impending disaster. All of that changed with the coming of the new systemic pesticides, the neonicotinoids. During summer in the Midwest, colonies build-up on pollen from maize, and dandelions while gathering nectar from soybeans, alfalfa, clovers and linden trees. Sadly, the maize and soybeans are seed-treated with systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, which emerge later, in the pollen and nectar, to poison the bees. To make matters worse, later in the season, those same crops are sprayed with additional: fungicides, herbicides and insect-growth-regulators (IGRs). Combined with the systemic neonicotinoids, these react ‘synergistically’, to produce a witches’ brew of poison that is far more toxic than any pesticide on its own.

Current U.S. seed laws and policy have veered far from President George Washington’s vision of seeds and farming for this country. Seed and plant patent and intellectual property (IP) schemes not only ensure that a farmer is “obliged to buy his Seeds,” but also cause hardship through loss of autonomy, harassment, and litigation for farmers throughout the U.S. and across the globe. In the last few decades, the U.S. has led a radical shift toward commercialization, consolidation, and control of seed ownership. Three agrichemical firms—Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta—now control 53 percent of the global commercial seed market. The top ten seed firms, with a majority stake owned by U.S. corporations, account for 73 percent. This shift has fundamentally changed farming in the U.S. Instead of continuing the historical tradition of farmers having full access to seeds that they have cultivated over centuries, agrichemical corporations now own the sine qua non of farming—indeed, the irreplaceable element of all food—seeds. This report recounts the history of seed and plant breeding and intellectual property policies in the U.S. and outlines how the current intellectual property regime has resulted in seed industry consolidation, rising seed prices, loss of germplasm diversity, and the strangling of scientific inquiry. It then documents lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by the largest agrichemical companies in the world against U.S. farmers for alleged infringement of seed patents. Finally, the report provides policy options that can help protect farmers and food resources as well as generate seed innovation and research through fair access to seeds and other resources.

In the oceans, ubiquitous microscopic phototrophs (phytoplankton) account for approximately half the production of organic matter on Earth. Analyses of satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing, but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends. Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of approximately 1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures. We conclude that global phytoplankton concentration has declined over the past century; this decline will need to be considered in future studies of marine ecosystems, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation and fisheries.

The European Butterfly Indicator for grassland species is based on 3,000 transects in national butterfly monitoring schemes in fifteen countries all over Europe. The indicator shows that since 1990, butterfly populations have declined by almost 70%, indicating a dramatic loss of grassland biodiversity. Of the seventeen species in the indicator, ten have declined in Europe and two have remained stable. For five species the trend is uncertain. The main driver behind the decline of grassland butterflies is the change in rural land use: agricultural intensification where the land is relatively flat and easy to cultivate, abandonment in mountains and wet areas, mainly in Eastern and Southern Europe. The implementation of the Natura 2000 areas will be most beneficial in the intensified parts of Europe, especially Northwest Europe, whereas the support of High Nature Value farmland is vital to stop abandonment, especially in Eastern and Southern Europe.