The United States’ Business as Usual Model often Takes Chances with the Environment — Sometimes in Subtly Dangerous Ways — Take the USDA and EPA’s Disingenuous Non-Response to Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder and Neonicotinoid Pesticides — an Insight into Our Frequently Shared Motivation to Conceal Worrisome Information

03 May 2013

Caveat — this essay will probably appeal to only to scientifically, environmentally, and analytically inclined readers

The rest will get caught by surprise, when the consequences of our (probably unwise) inaction catch us.

Theme — greed encourages us to ignore, suppress or deny information that would put limits on its ability to crush everything in its way

A recent and classic example of this “Run for Ignorant Denial” is North Carolina’s attempt to prevent scientists from providing the State with accurate predictions for sea level rise.

See, for example:

Alexander Glass and Orrin Pilkey, Denying sea-level rise: How 100 centimeters divided the state of North Carolina, Earth Magazine (21 April 2013)

Classic thought that is, I elected today to focus on a more subtle, but economically more important, example of how determined ignorance may not be an effective avenue to survival and comfort.

My more subtle example — honey bee colony collapse disorder

Colony collapse disorder hit the news in a big way this week, when the European Union decided to do something about it. And the U.S. didn’t.

The overall downward population of domestic bee populations has been alarming. Because large sectors of agriculture are significantly dependent on pollination by bees.

The US Department of Agriculture has noted that:

Historically, the U.S. had as many as 6 million colonies in 1947, with declines since that time to about 4 million in 1970 and 3 million in 1990.

Today’s colony strength is about 2.5 million.

Honey bee colonies have been dying at a rate of about 30 percent per year over the past few winters which leave virtually no cushion of bees for pollination.

© 2013 David Epstein, James L. Frazier, Mary Purcell-Miramontes, Kevin Hackett, Robyn Rose, Terrell Erickson, Thomas Moriarty, and Thomas Steeger — National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee, Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, US Department of Agriculture (02 May 2013, per News Release No. 0086.13) (PDF at page 5)

Survivors in affected hives are weaker and less capable of foraging for food. Which means that the pollinating side effect of their foraging is partially or fully lost to agriculture.

In the United States, European/Western honey bees (Apis mellifera) are allegedly responsible for pollinating more than $15 billion in agriculture. About 90 American crops depend on honey bees.

$15 billion isn’t going to impress many people — so why should we care?

The problem may be a whole lot larger than this — when the issue is expanded worldwide and to other possibly affected pollinating species.

Scientific subtleties complicate understanding collapse disorder mystery

Colony collapse disorder was first named in 2006. Since then, researchers have been trying to pin down what factors combine to cause it.

In the beginning there was not much of a threat to the plutocratic establishment, so colony collapse disorder simmered on the “way back” stove burner.

For example, after establishing that a parasitic mite (Varroa destructor) was a direct contributor to the problem, collateral suspects began to emerge.

Among these:

Two early suspects were invertebrate iridescent virus (Iridoviridae) and Nosema apis, which I mentioned, here, in October 2010.

Later, the spotlight fell on RNA viruses’ possible contribution to the malaise.

And then we wondered whether antibiotics used in hive maintenance were killing off symbiotic bacteria in the bees’ guts — which bees need to maintain immune system function.

But eventually entomologists stumbled upon a reasonably persuasive connection to “neonicotinoid” pesticide use — and all hell broke loose.

Real money was now at stake. And the scientific controversy became an economic and politicized one.

First — what are neonicotinoids?

Wikipedia explains what they are and why they might be concerning:

Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine.

The development of this class of insecticides began with work in the 1980s by Shell and the 1990s by Bayer.^[1]

The neonicotinoids were developed in large part because they show reduced toxicity compared to previously used organophosphate and carbamate insecticides.

Most neonicotinoids show much lower toxicity in mammals than insects, but some breakdown products are toxic.^[2]

Neonicotinoids are the first new class of insecticides introduced in the last 50 years, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world.^[3]

The use of some members of this class has been restricted in some countries due to evidence of a connection to honey-bee colony collapse disorder.^[4][5]

In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority stated that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied may be flawed.

Toxicologist/environmentalist Jennifer Sass added:

In the US the neonicotinoid insecticides are used as seed treatments for most corn and canola seeds grown in the US, and as a field treatment for most cotton, sorghum, and sugar beets, and about half of all soybeans.

The neonics are also used on most fruit and vegetable crops, including apples, cherries, peaches, oranges, berries, leafy greens, tomatoes, and potatoes.

Neonicotinoids are also applied to cereal grains, rice, nuts, and wine grapes. (see report on Yale Enviro360 here)

(see MotherJones report here and science data from USGS scientists here and from Purdue Univ scientists here)

Jennifer Sass, EU protects bees, but US protects pesticide-producer profits, Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog (02 May 2013)

The bee-neonicotinoid connection started to surface when . . .

Researchers recognized that colony collapse disorder bees were having trouble navigating to their food sources and then back home to their hives.

Because nenicotinoid pesticides affect insect neural function, scientists looked to see whether these pesticides might be negatively affecting the bees:

Although sublethal levels of neonicotinoids are known to disrupt honeybee learning and behaviour, the neurophysiological basis of these effects has not been shown.

Here, using recordings from mushroom body Kenyon cells in acutely isolated honeybee brain, we show that the neonicotinoids imidacloprid and clothianidin, and the organophosphate miticide coumaphos oxon, cause a depolarization-block of neuronal firing and inhibit nicotinic responses.

These effects are observed at concentrations that are encountered by foraging honeybees and within the hive, and are additive with combined application.

Our findings demonstrate a neuronal mechanism that may account for the cognitive impairments caused by neonicotinoids, and predict that exposure to multiple pesticides that target cholinergic signalling will cause enhanced toxicity to pollinators.

© 2013 Mary J. Palmer, Christopher Moffat, Nastja Saranzewa, Jenni Harvey, Geraldine A. Wright, and Christopher N. Connolly, Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees, Nature Communications 4 (1634), doi:10.1038/ncomms2648 (13 March 2013) (at Abstract) (paragraph split)

This jargon can be translated into . . .

Neonicotinoids prevent or partially prevent bee brain neurons from firing.

In essence, even at sub-killing doses, these pesticides make bees “dumber” than they need to be to keep themselves fed. Combining pesticide chemical categories of makes the problem worse.

As another study put it:

The experiments reported here show that prolonged exposure to field-realistic concentrations of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid and the organophosphate acetylcholinesterase inhibitor coumaphos and their combination impairs olfactory learning and memory formation in the honeybee.

Using a method for classical conditioning of proboscis extension, honeybees were trained in either a massed or spaced conditioning protocol to examine how these pesticides affected performance during learning and short- and long-term memory tasks.

We found that bees exposed to imidacloprid, coumaphos, or a combination of these compounds, were less likely to express conditioned proboscis extension towards an odor associated with reward.

Bees exposed to imidacloprid were less likely to form a long-term memory, whereas bees exposed to coumaphos were only less likely to respond during the short-term memory test after massed conditioning.

Imidacloprid, coumaphos and a combination of the two compounds impaired the bees' ability to differentiate the conditioned odour from a novel odour during the memory test.

Our results demonstrate that exposure to sublethal doses of combined cholinergic pesticides significantly impairs important behaviours involved in foraging, implying that pollinator population decline could be the result of a failure of neural function of bees exposed to pesticides in agricultural landscapes.

© 2013 Sally M. Williamson and Geraldine A. Wright, Exposure to multiple cholinergic pesticides impairs olfactory learning and memory in honeybees, Journal of Experimental Biology 216 (10): 1799-1807, DOI: 10.1242/jeb.083931 (15 May 2013) (at Abstract) (paragraph split)

Expanding the implications of these findings

It’s not just honey bees. Neonicotinoids also harm bumble bees.

From the journal, Science:

We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the laboratory to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions.

Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared with control colonies.

Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world.

© 2012 Penelope R. Whitehorn, Stephanie O’Connor, Felix L. Wackers, and Dave Goulson, Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production, Science 336 (6079): 351-352, DOI: 10.1126/science.1215025 (20 April 2012) (at Abstract) (paragraph split)

It should be obvious that regional populations of bumble bees cannot lose 85 percent of their queens and still maintain their numbers.

Add in historical evidence for declining wild bee populations — in a probably representative region in Illinois

The following study found that only one-half of bee species, which had once been present in the Illinois study region in the late 19^th Century and the 1970s, were still there today.

And only about one-quarter of historically occurring pollinator-plant interactions were still occurring.

Pollinator specialists have largely died out, leaving generalists to do lower quality (meaning less effective) work.

See:

Laura A. Burkle, John C. Marlin, and Tiffany M. Knight, Plant-Pollinator Interactions over 120 Years: Loss of Species, Co-Occurrence, and Function, Science 339 (6127): 1611-1614 (29 March 2013)

Make an ecological inference based on the below findings

An international research team recently wrote that:

We found universally positive associations of fruit set with flower visitation by wild insects in 41 crop systems worldwide.

In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with flower visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed.

Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively; an increase in wild insect visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation.

Visitation by wild insects and honey bees promoted fruit set independently, so pollination by managed honey bees supplemented, rather than substituted for, pollination by wild insects.

Our results suggest that new practices for integrated management of both honey bees and diverse wild insect assemblages will enhance global crop yields.

© 2013 Lucas A. Garibaldi, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, Rachael Winfree, Marcelo A. Aizen, Riccardo Bommarco, Saul A. Cunningham, Claire Kremen, Luísa G. Carvalheiro, Lawrence D. Harder, Ohad Afik, Ignasi Bartomeus, Faye Benjamin, Virginie Boreux, Daniel Cariveau, Natacha P. Chacoff, Jan H. Dudenhöffer, Breno M. Freitas, Jaboury Ghazoul, Sarah Greenleaf, Juliana Hipólito, Andrea Holzschuh, Brad Howlett, Rufus Isaacs, Steven K. Javorek, Christina M. Kennedy, Kristin M. Krewenka, Smitha Krishnan, Yael Mandelik, Margaret M. Mayfield, Iris Motzke, Theodore Munyuli, Brian A. Nault, Mark Otieno, Jessica Petersen, Gideon Pisanty, Simon G. Potts, Romina Rader, Taylor H. Ricketts, Maj Rundlöf, Colleen L. Seymour, Christof Schüepp, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Hisatomo Taki, Teja Tscharntke, Carlos H. Vergara, Blandina F. Viana, Thomas C. Wanger, Catrin Westphal, Neal Williams, and Alexandra M. Klein, Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance, Science 339 (6127): 1608-1611 (29 March 2013) (at Abstract) (paragraph split)

Translated, this means that wild pollinators are far more important to agricultural productivity than honey bees are.

A reasonable and concerning inference

Neonicotinoid pesticides are probably giving domestic honey and bumble bees serious woes.

What if this category of pesticides is similarly impacting wild pollinators — which the above cited study found so critical to global agricultural productivity?

In view of the preponderance of this evidence, the European Union acted — against heavy contrary industry lobbying — but the United States did not

From its 29 April 2013 press release:

The European Commission will in the coming weeks adopt a proposal to restrict the use of 3 pesticides belonging to the nenicotinoid family (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam) for a period of 2 years.

Main elements of the Commission's proposal to Member States:

The proposal restricts the use of 3 neonicotinoids (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam) for seed treatment, soil application (granules) and foliar treatment on bee attractive plants and cereals.

In addition, the remaining authorised uses are available only to professionals.

Exceptions will be limited to the possibility to treat bee-attractive crops in greenhouses, in open-air fields only after flowering.

The restrictions will apply from 1 December 2013.

As soon as new information is available, and at the latest within 2 years, the Commission will review the conditions of approval of the 3 neonicotinoids to take into account relevant scientific and technical developments.

Animal Health and Welfare, Bees & Pesticides: Commission goes ahead with plan to better protect bees, European Commission (30 April 2013)

In contrast, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blew the pesticide evidence off in the revealingly entitled publication that I referenced above:

Any time someone references “stakeholders,” they are predictably talking primarily about money and the influence of money.

Three lines in the USDA’s press release (referencing the Stakeholder report) give these agencies’ intentionally narrow reasoning away:

The parasitic Varroa mite is recognized as the major factor underlying colony loss in the U.S. and other countries.

There is widespread resistance to the chemicals beekeepers use to control mites within the hive.

New virus species have been found in the U.S. and several of these have been associated with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

© 2013 USDA Office of Communications, News Release No. 0086.13 — USDA and EPA Release New Report on Honey Bee Health, United States Department of Agriculture (02 May 2013) (at section entitled Key findings include — Parasites and Disease Present Risks to Honey Bees) (paragraph split)

Lost, in their intentionally obtuse non-reasoning, is the scientific consensus that:

(a) multiple factors have combined to make bee immune systems susceptible to attacks by the parasitic mite

and

(b) the bees’ inefficient foraging and map-following probably reflects more than just a parasite’s depredations.

In keeping with these agencies’ shared denial of the most probabilistically likely Reality, their solution to colony collapse disorder is also a narrow one. It depends on making purely technological “improvements” that will keep industry-based profits coming in, even if those solutions turn out not to be successful fixes to the dying pollinator problem:

U.S. honeybee colonies need increased genetic diversity.

Genetic variation improves bees thermoregulation (the ability to keep body temperature steady even if the surrounding environment is different), disease resistance and worker productivity.

Honey bee breeding should emphasize traits such as hygienic behavior that confer improved resistance to Varroa mites and diseases (such as American foulbrood).

© 2013 USDA Office of Communications, News Release No. 0086.13 — USDA and EPA Release New Report on Honey Bee Health, United States Department of Agriculture (02 May 2013) (at section entitled Key findings include — Increased Genetic Diversity is Needed) (paragraph split)

After giving us those indicators of their business as usual attitude — the USDA and EPA tacitly admitted that the European Commission is correct

Get this bit of disingenuous stupidity:

Federal and state partners should consider actions affecting land management to maximize available nutritional forage to promote and enhance good bee health

and

to protect bees by keeping them away from pesticide-treated fields.

© 2013 USDA Office of Communications, News Release No. 0086.13 — USDA and EPA Release New Report on Honey Bee Health, United States Department of Agriculture (02 May 2013) (at section entitled Key findings include — Poor Nutrition Among Honey Bee Colonies) (paragraph split and underline added)

Notice that these complacent (non)regulatory agencies buried the admitted pesticide connection in the press release section having to do with “Nutrition among Honey Bee Colonies”.

Most of us would not think to associate “nutrition” with toxicology. Unless one assumes that foolishly feeding on toxics in due to the bees’ stupidity — and that they need to be educated to look for food in more hospitable places.

An analogy might see the Centers for Disease Control advising children not to dine on lead-based paint because it makes for a nutritionally poor meal.

The absurd illogic of the USDA/EPA perspective

Both agencies agree that we want bees to pollinate our crops.

But, simultaneously, the EPA and USDA advise us “to protect bees by keeping them away from pesticide-treated fields.”

Some of these, presumably, are exactly the same crops that we want the bees to work on.

Even if the pesticide-laded crops are not those that we need pollinated, just how are we going to train bees not go into them?

Also unaddressed is the liberty question implied by routinely telling some farmers that they cannot plant certain crops adjacent to some other crops:

(a) for no “better” reason than that the agencies say so

and

(b) in preference to directly regulating the trouble-making pesticides in the first place.

The European Commission’s probable reasoning — the Union’s precautionary principle

Undoubtedly underlying the European Commission’s (internally disputed) decision is the Union’s constitution-based adherence to the Precautionary Principle:

Which I once discussed at length (in relationship to mad cow disease) — here,

and

more briefly (in regard to BP’s Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill) — here.

The philosophical difference between the European Commission and the United States

The European Commission prefers to be cautious when facts point to looming danger. The burden of proof, regarding safety, lies with the industry that is proposing to implement something new or continue with something that is probably causing trouble.

The United States, on the other hand, prefers to let harms accumulate and burden the environment, until no resort is left but to regulate them.

Obviously, both governance philosophies hold risk:

Europe’s by hindering technological progress and entrepreneurship.

And the United States’ by externalizing so many costs that the environment groans under the burden.

Who is right? — The answer has to do with proportionate harms

My guess is that the European Commission may be taking the wiser route in the neonicotinoid instance.

I say this because humanity is completely dependent on the biosphere’s ability to continue producing food. Take away insect pollinators’ ability to make this happen, and many us are going to be pretty much screwed.

Under circumstances in which potentially very significant ill is preponderantly possible, the Precautionary Principle — which Americans like to deride — becomes more persuasive.

In essence, Europe is running an experiment in which it will regulate some pesticides, so as to forestall anticipated larger future negative consequences.

The United States is doing the reverse.

Cynically put, American decision-makers are gambling that nothing noticeably bad will happen, until long after they are out of office and ensconced in new lobbying jobs, wherever those might be.

The United States is, in this instance, free-loading on Europe’s back:

If Europe’s pollinators make a comeback, the United States can consider regulation.

But if Europe’s good bugs don’t come back, we can say, “Told ya so!”

The scariest risk, of course, is the one illustrated by the Illinois wild bee study

What if American business as usual kills off so many pollinating species that they can’t come back?

Recall that the global study found that wild pollinators’ efficiency and productivity cannot be replaced, even if we magically overcome colony collapse disorder in domesticated bees.

The obvious parallel with climate change

I predicted some time ago that the world is not going to do anything effective about humanity’s contribution to global warning:

We ain’t gonna be here to feel its effects.

And who really cares about them down-the-road kids we ain’t even met?

The same is true of the pesticide conundrum:

With gobs of bucks to be made today, why worry about a bunch of supposedly helpful bugs dyin’ tomorra?

It’s them poor folk who’s gonna starve.

The moral? — Greed is always the enemy of care

When culture veers too far into narcissistic materialism, it threatens its own survival.

We are not good a dealing with uncertainty. Even when aspects of that uncertainty are visibly out there, waiting to “git” us.

PeteFree.com