Roundup Weed Killer Could Be Linked To Widespread Bee Deaths, Study Finds (npr.org) 209
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A new study [published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin posit that glyphosate -- the active ingredient in the herbicide -- destroys specialized gut bacteria in bees, leaving them more susceptible to infection and death from harmful bacteria. Researchers Nancy Moran, Erick Motta and Kasie Raymann suggest their findings are evidence that glyphosate might be contributing to colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon that has been wreaking havoc on honey bees and native bees for more than a decade. They hope their results will convince farmers, landscapers and homeowners to stop spraying glyphosate-based herbicides on flowering plants that are likely to be pollinated by bees.
"No large-scale study has ever found a link between glyphosate and honey bee health issues," Bayer said in a statement, adding that the new study "does not change that." Bayer noted the study relied on a small sample of individual bees and that it does not meet regulatory research criteria on pesticides stipulated by international guidelines developed by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and other international organizations. Additionally, the company suggested it is "questionable whether the concentrations of the substance tested could at all be absorbed by bee populations in the open over a relevant period of time." According to the report in the journal, the researchers focused on honey bees and used "hundreds of adult worker bees from a single hive" and treated them with varying levels of glyphosate. Editor's note: In June, Germany's pharmaceutical giant Bayer purchased Monsanto, the company that developed Roundup.
"No large-scale study has ever found a link between glyphosate and honey bee health issues," Bayer said in a statement, adding that the new study "does not change that." Bayer noted the study relied on a small sample of individual bees and that it does not meet regulatory research criteria on pesticides stipulated by international guidelines developed by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and other international organizations. Additionally, the company suggested it is "questionable whether the concentrations of the substance tested could at all be absorbed by bee populations in the open over a relevant period of time." According to the report in the journal, the researchers focused on honey bees and used "hundreds of adult worker bees from a single hive" and treated them with varying levels of glyphosate. Editor's note: In June, Germany's pharmaceutical giant Bayer purchased Monsanto, the company that developed Roundup.
Can't bee true (Score:3, Funny)
Could it bee?
Re:Can't bee true (Score:4, Insightful)
Could it bee?
I think Bayer might make it a career limiting move for any scientist brave enough to attempt to find out.
Re: Can't bee true (Score:1)
Nah man, but the Illuminati will totally suppress this info. You've clearly been going to the wrong Alternative News sites.
Re: (Score:2)
You've clearly been going to the wrong Alternative News sites.
Which one would you recommend?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, did they also not make Zyklon Bee?
ba dum.....tish!!!
Stake through its heart. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think once we (at long last) manage to kill Bayer/Monsanto by whichever means, we'll have to drive a stake through its heart.
Such a disgusting monster.
Re:Stake through its heart. (Score:4)
I've been hearing nothing but shit about Monsanto for decades. Has this company done anything good?
Re: Stake through its heart. (Score:1)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't read.
It's not targeting bees. It's potentially worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
For once The findings have vastly worse implications than the headline. Namely, Round-up isn't poisoning the Bee's themselves it's impairing their symbiotic microbiome. You too have a microbiome, as does the every plant, the soil, and wasps too.
What's interesting here is that previous studies had found that ROund up did kill cells at high doses it wasn't the glycophase that was doing modt of it. It was the packaging "inert" ingredients many of which were detergent-like. It's not a surprise that detergents might harm isolates cells in high concentration.
this one finds the Glycophase itself harms some unknown bacteria that in turn makes the microbiome tank, and the bee's die.
That is a big deal. Much bigger deal than the previous findings.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's not targeting bees. It's potentially worse (Score:5, Informative)
Except it's not. It was a conclusion based on a group of 15 bees, which gave bees unusually large doses of glyphosphate, and found that the heaviest dose of glyphosphate had no statistically significant effects, unlike the mild dose. The data actually argues that we should give bees more glyphosphate in order to neutralize any effects.
They try to explain this away by arguing that maybe they were having some bias in capturing G-10 bees, well, because "bees exposed to glyphosate may exhibit impaired spatial processing"... without giving any evidence for or even a mechanism through which this could happen. What they wrote is literally the equivalent of writing re. humans "If you take some antibiotics that kill only a fraction of your gut bacteria, you're going to wander off in confusion and die". The whole study also contradicts the authors' previous work, which blamed CCD on antibiotics given by beekeepers.
The whole premise is kind of silly to begin with. Glyphosphate kills flowering plants. Bees adjust where they forage based on where flowers can be found. Bees are not going to have any interest whatsoever hanging around a field that's been sprayed with glyphosphate. Glyphosphate also does not stay on the surface; it's highly soluble and washes into the soil, where it binds tightly with soil particles.
But of course, the study said something negative about glyphosphate, so of course everyone covered it, in as apocalyptic terms as possible.
Re: It's not targeting bees. It's potentially wors (Score:2)
Thanks for that. I didn't have time to dive into the paper when I first saw this in the news. Figured they were probably playing games with the data but didn't want to jump to conclusions. You've saved me the trouble of going through it myself.
Re: (Score:1)
Glyphosphate also does not stay on the surface; it's highly soluble and washes into the soil, where it binds tightly with soil particles.
If it was used properly. Don't forget that Roundup is used after wheat is harvested to help dry it out. So it is sprayed onto the grain after harvesting and left on there with no rain or washing, as that would be the exact opposite of drying.
Also, look to countries in Europe where Roundup is not allowed and you see plenty of people who are gluten intolerant being able to eat bread again.
Also, don't forget that we have more bacteria in our bodies than we do human cells. So eating a bunch of stuff that kills
Re: (Score:2)
Roundup does not make rain stop falling.
This has to be a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
The time for a plant to visibly wither depends on the plant and the ambient temperature. But it arrests development relatively quickly; you're not going to have new flowers maturing on a plant that's been sprayed with roundup. And bees don't revisit flowers that have already been visited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know why parent got modded down, they're absolutely correct. People should read up on LD50 (median lethal dose) before recklessly modding down.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the fairy tale they'd want us to believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think even if we did away with a lot of the chemicals, the US could still easily feed itself, and that's all that matters to us you know.
I mean, if the famers can sell all their goods domestically, that's all we need to do, eh?
That's the way it was done in the past....
Re: Starve to death (Score:2)
maybe just to research chemicals being used and not use the harmful ones
Good luck watering your plants then. Bees definitely die when exposed to excess amounts of that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the glycophate that kills the "weeds" that some people ae deathly alergic to a harmfull or a usefull chemical?
Beyer / Monstanto is scared (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally big companies don't bother responding to scientific studies. The fact that they did in this case, attempting a character assassination to boot, suggests they are scared. They might even have their own internal data supporting such results.
If that is the case, I can barely imagine the multiple international class action suits that will follow. It will make the smoking debacle look small.
Re:Beyer / Monstanto is scared (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally big companies don't bother responding to scientific studies. The fact that they did in this case, attempting a character assassination to boot, suggests they are scared.
It's almost as though they were just hit for a $289 million jury verdict [nytimes.com] in the first of thousands of Roundup-gave-me-cancer lawsuits, and understand studies like this will be trial lawyer red meat in the follow-on cases. There's been a ton of research lately on the relationship between the microbiome (which this study suggests Roundup impairs) and cancer.
Re: (Score:1)
The lawsuit you cite is an excellent example - against your argument. It is profoundly anti-science, substituting emotion and fear for actual evidence. The plaintiff's alleged exposure cannot be responsible for his cancer, because the chemicals he was exposed in do not cause cancer at those levels. Even if he'd secretly taken to chugging the glyphosate by the bottle, it's unlikely he could have gotten cancer.
There are hundreds - thousands - of studies over the past decades showing this. That's why it's
That is ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're likely to get a more educated jury pool in San Francisco, where that trial was held, than in a lot of other parts of the country, but even with that jurors usually don't have the background to really be able to evaluate the science. Both sides in a case like this generally put up scientific experts that come to exact opposite conclusions on things like causality, so jurors often have to base their decision on higher-level factors like who they think is more credible and what outcome they think is mo
Re: (Score:3)
> just hit for a $289 million jury verdict [nytimes.com] in the first of thousands of Roundup-gave-me-cancer lawsuits
I know a guy who has been warning for years about Roundup and its cancer-effects on humans (and killing of bees that pollinate our food). His name was Alex Jones (and colleagues) but the Monsanto-sponsored companies like Apply, Google, Facebook, etc have banned him from speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not an expert in pesticides and bees. However, as a person with a biology background, this seems like it could be a big deal.
(a) It is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and so will likely get a fair amount of additional attention
(b) Pollinators are currently getting a lot of attention because they are so involved in food production, and humans like to eat. Hence there is funding for research.
(c) Microbiome research is a hot topic, seems like a feasible explanation to colo
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly like saying "it's cold here, I thought the earth was getting hotter."
There's professional beekeepers trying to keep bees alive in general, but comparatively to decades ago total bee population is down everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
They have responded to other research as well. You don't need to lie you know.
But Bayer does need to lie, since they haven't changed appreciably since they were working for the third reich.
Modifing to target wasps instead (Score:2)
Any way we can get roundup to also kill all the wasps?
I know we are not supposed to kill wasps, as they are pollinators and help to control insects, but holy hell do I hate them more than nearly anything else.
Plus, they do eat honey bees. And at least honey bees don't just sting you out of spite like those little dick heads do.
This summer was especially bad. I had two wasp traps... just the little green cups they fly into and cannot get out again.
In one weeks, there was AT LEAST 400 wasps. Both cups were ne
Re:Modifing to target wasps instead (Score:4, Funny)
This summer was especially bad. I had two wasp traps... just the little green cups they fly into and cannot get out again. In one weeks, there was AT LEAST 400 wasps. Both cups were nearly full. I have no idea where they all came from.
Please tell me where you live so I never accidentally move there.
Re:Modifing to target wasps instead (Score:5, Interesting)
I know we are not supposed to kill wasps, as they are pollinators and help to control insects
Actually, most wasps in North America - especially more northern states - are not pollinators. They are predators but they don't pollinate anything. And being as they are not limited in their ability to sting (as most bees are) they can be a much more significant threat to humans. In other words, fire away. Get the wasp killer from your local big-box store and go to town. Generally the sites where wasps (especially the exceptionally common paper wasp) build their nests are not attractive nesting sites for any kind of bee, so the collateral damage is generally pretty low.
The exception to the non-pollinating wasps are the wasps that pollinate figs (this is actually why figs are never vegetarian - you can't eat a fig without eating wasp eggs). If you live someplace where figs cannot grow, there is almost no chance that the wasps in your area pollinate anything.
Re: (Score:3)
As a general rule, wild figs contain wasp pollinators. Most F. carica (domestic / common fig) cultivars, however, are parthenocarpic. Sorry to ruin that for you ;)
That said, while the fruits are parthenocarpic, they're not apomictic. They don't contain viable seeds. If you have a fig that contains viable seeds, even if it's of a parthenocarpic cultivar, it very likely contains a fig wasp.
Re: (Score:2)
They stated, "figs are never vegetarian - you can't eat a fig without eating wasp eggs". Actually, by far most figs that people eat are vegetarian, and contain no wasps or eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the sites where wasps (especially the exceptionally common paper wasp) build their nests are not attractive nesting sites for any kind of bee, so the collateral damage is generally pretty low.
Wish that were completely true.
The sites that are good for artificial homes for mason bees, leaf-cutter bees, and several other solitary (non-hive-living) bee types (under overhangs for rain shelter, east-side for quick wake-up/warm-up at dawn) are also the preferred sites for many kinds of wasps. (The bees
Re:Modifing to target wasps instead (Score:4, Interesting)
Certain species of wasps do feed on plant nectar as bees do. As such, they compete with bees for food resources. In some cases, they attack bee hives. And since they are much less efficient pollinators than bees, I'm siding with the bees.
Nuke the wasps.
Wow, two troll mods (Score:2)
Who knew that big chem has shill moderators?
Re: (Score:3)
Wasps are beneficial insects. They hunt other insects, including insects that threaten crops. They will not sting you unless you aggravate them.
Sometimes you aggravate them just by existing. Once, wasps made a nest under a plant in my yard, and then whenever you'd water they'd get angry and come out looking for victims. Another time they made a nest over the back door and then they would dive-bomb my head and often get stuck in my hair when I walked outside. So really, that's bollocks.
Re: (Score:3)
(1) Stop watering the plant and drowning the wasps, and they will stop attacking you.
(2) I've had wasp nests under the roof of my house. They don't ever bother me, because I ignore them.
(3) I'm more scared of Africanized honeybees than wasps. Those suckers don't just sting. They kill.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Stop watering the plant and drowning the wasps, and they will stop attacking you.
Uh, no. The plant needs water. They don't get to decide where things go in the yard.
(2) I've had wasp nests under the roof of my house. They don't ever bother me, because I ignore them.
This isn't about you, narcissist.
(3) I'm more scared of Africanized honeybees than wasps. Those suckers don't just sting. They kill.
Africaphobia is sad.
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes you aggravate them just by existing.
The rest of this post describes ways that would aggravate them by doing something... But the first part is still accurate. I've literally sat outside reading and had a wasp come over and sting me. I also remember a time when I was little and climbing on monkey bars. I got on top and was sitting there waiting on a friend. A yellow jacket just flew up, went in a few circles, then flew straight at me to sting. Sometimes they are just jerks.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of this post describes ways that would aggravate them by doing something...
By doing something that I was doing before they moved in and built a home where it conflicted with me? No. That's because they did something. I was doing what I had been doing for years. That's like saying that if someone throws a brick in front of your car and you hit it and smash your front valence that it was because you were driving.
Re: (Score:2)
They will not sting you unless you aggravate them.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Or unless by "aggravate them", you mean "exist in the same space with them". I've been stung several times in my life completely at random by wasps, always before I had any clue they were there, like standing around on a soccer field or something - obviously nowhere near their nest and not doing anything that would threaten them. On the other hand, I've *never* been stung by a bee of any sort.
Obviously, given this has happened only a few times in my entire life, it's true that they n
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Wasps are great if you want to keep worms out of your apples. During years or high wasp activity (largely due to a warm preceding winter), the apples and other fruit are fantastic. Other years they are basically inedible due to the number of parasites.
I get that people hate wasps but they really are not that bad. Ecologically, they are great at preventing insect populations from going out of control and harming crops.
Re: (Score:1)
That's racist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Any way we can get roundup to also kill all the wasps?
That's racist.
Actually, it would be phylumist..
you win the WHOOOOOSHHHH of the month award.
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived in the same house for 20 years. Until the last 5 years, we NEVER had a problem with wasps. In the last 5 years it's been a real annoyance. We have to do a weekly wasp patrol and the odds are about 50-50 we find a starter nest of 5-10 "cells". We've been going through 1-2 full cans of wasp spray per summer, and I think we might have gone through 1 can in the previous 15 years.
One of my clients is a country club and I asked the maintenance guys about wasps. They told me they normally go throu
Re: (Score:2)
At least here in Germany, the conditions were perfect for wasps this year. Last year was actually a near record low, but due to the long hot and importantly..dry summer, the wasps were able to multiply like maniacs.
We typically have a week of sun then rain for a bit and repeat. This year was almost no rain.
So, it was a record high for wasp productions.
Amazingly, they changed the law this year to forbid killing large amounts of wasps. I find that amazing considering that while yes, they do have their niche i
Re: (Score:2)
Wasps are considered an endangered species, that is why they are forbidden to be killed under normal circumstances.
To get killed by wasps, there need to come several circumstances together, e.g. being highly allergic.
I doubt we had many human killed by wasps in the last 20 years ... so only ones I remember are idiots that drink them *deliberately* with their drink.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt as you like, but on average, 16 people are killed by wasps each year.
5 were killed in one day during the summer fest in Munich this summer..though that was the hornet variety, which is still a wasp.
This year will be above 20 people.
Re: (Score:2)
Due to allergies, yes.
There are only two ways a wasp or hornet can kill you, either you are allergic, or you get a sting into the throat or tongue and suffocate.
Easy solution in both cases: leave the wasps/hornets alone and they ignore you.
In completely unrelated news (Score:4, Insightful)
Monsanto has announced their first GM, roundup resistant bees. Available soon. /s
German company acqires Monsanto (Score:2, Insightful)
and suddenly the research that proves it's harmful after all start to pop up. What a coincidence.
Roundup has been a target forever (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
According to the above wiki article Bayer's patent on glyphosate expired in 2000 and other companies jumped on the bandwagon and released their own pesticides using it so it's possible that it just had to reach enough critical mass for it to appear - but it was used so widely in crops which will sometimes hire bee colonies to pollanize the fields that I'd be surprised it didn't come up earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
You can say the phenomenon was first reported in 2006, but you cannot say that it started in 2006. It's like saying that Alzheimer's disease didn't exist until Aloysius Alzheimer identified it in 1901.
According to your source, there were already reductions in feral bees, but those reductions had been attributed to other factors.
Re:Skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
According to your source, there were already reductions in feral bees, but those reductions had been attributed to other factors.
Yeah, as far back as 1869 and 1906 - long before glyphosate was invented. The term was coined in 2006 because the rate of loss had nearly doubled - some 40 years after the introduction of glyphosate and following a period of nearly 20 years of near stable populations but had already been assigned a name "disappearing disease" back in 1965 - 5 years before the introduction of glyphosate. (From same source)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it suggests that some boundary condition event had occurred, not that the phenomenon magically st
Re: (Score:3)
Again, it suggests that some boundary condition event had occurred, not that the phenomenon magically started in 2006. A true skeptic would say, "it was first observed in 2006". A shill would say, "it started in 2006". I'm just trying to help you use more precise language.
Why - by using a no-true-skeptic would use those words? C'mon. The entire hype for this problem comes because of the introduction of the term for a phenomena that's been known for 100+ years. This entire article, thus, uses imprecise language and you're quibbling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
jumped on the bandwagon and released their own pesticides
Glyphosphate is an herbicide, not a pesticide. And as far as reaching a 'critical mass', it really can only be used on crops that are engineered to be resistant to it. Or it will kill the crops as well. As for home use; it tends to be applied where everything in an area needs to be killed prior to planting desirable plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Fequently a field is treated with glyphosphate to kill everything, after 2 weeks the desired crop is planted, then after a week or 2 the crop has germinated, then the field is treated with pre-emergent herbicides are applied to keep any weed seeds from germinating for about 6 months.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps the use of Roundup has increased dramatically with the creation of Roundup-resistant crops?
Why do we still love this stuff? (Score:2, Interesting)
The parent post is bullshit (Score:2)
Glyphosate isn't used on flowering plants (Score:5, Insightful)
This headline and the comments it has created have me scratching my head. I and other farmers use a fair amount of glyphosate but I can't think of any time I'v seen it used on flowering plants. Glyphosate use is fairly staggering in quantity but nearly all of that is used on glyphosate-resistant crops to control weeds, and this by definition must be done when the crop and weeds are very small. In other words, weeks or months before flowering. If glyphosate were sprayed on a crop that was flowering it would abort flowers and destroy yield, if not making the plants very sick. So it wouldn't make any sense for a farmer to use glyphosate in this way to begin with. Something smells funny.
By the way we also have our own bees that we use for pollinating a glyphosate-tolerant crop.
In yards and around homes also, glyphosate is typically not sprayed on glowering plants. Why would it be? You wouldn't use glyphosate to remove dandelions from your lawn for example (if you do, you're in for a very dead lawn).
This study is highly problematic for this reason. The findings may well be true about toxicity to bees, but if glyphosate isn't used typically on flowering plants or weeds, then the study is somewhat pointless, if interesting. Certainly it cannot inform any policies over the use of glyphosate, except to urge that it not be used on flowering plants, which it already isn't.
In the end, however, those calling for the end of glyphosate will probably get their wish as over-use of glyphosate is rapidly ending the effectiveness of that chemical. And everyone will end up paying for that in increased food costs.
Re: (Score:1)
That's part of the reason Roundup is used before cutting silage. After ~21 days, the grass is done with productive grow and anything after is wasted on the buds. Spray cuts the waste growth back before cutting and tends to keeps the grass dryer/easier to cut. Also kills budding weeds.
I know this because farmers here (Ireland) are addicited to roundup and basically the local co-op knows more than the pr departmen
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh. They definitely don't do that here. We have no Roundup ready forage crops here thank goodness. Keep that stuff out. That and Roundup ready wheat.
As for pr, Everything has a cost. That's what people don't realize. There's a cost to using herbicides and there's a cost to not using them. You can say I'm BS ing all you want but I see the effects good and bad on my fields day to day and month to month and year to year. There are things that worry me greatly (fungicides) and things that don't (Roundup).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Where do they spray roundup on the corn to make it dry down. normally it drys down naturally in the fall. no need to waste money spraying it on the corn then.
PS I grew up on a farm.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't like (Score:3)
Why does Bayer simply go into defense-mode and try to dismiss the study all together? At the least, for PR, they should be a bit more receptive and let people know that, you know, bees are good [reference.com], that they would like to make sure their product doesn't kill them off en mass, that they may throw even just a *tiny* bit of cash toward research, and maybe, just maybe, adjust their product(s) to maybe counter these possible negative impacts of using Roundup.
It's not just that (Score:2)
Why are so many people trying to ban Neonics?
Look up when the patent expires on them: 2019.
What if I told you they have not been found to cause colony collapse disorder (CCD) but antifungals are that also take out the immune system leaving to the host prone to infection it could normally fend off.
It's not just the bees, this is happening to amphibians, bats, coral and in some cases man. Next time somebody tells you a gas or heat is killing corals... go look up the necropsy. No it is not, it's the damn antif
No large-scale study (Score:2)
"No large-scale study has ever found a link between glyphosate and honey bee health issues," Bayer said in a statement
I am certain Monsanto paid for such a study, with the hope of a no-link outcome that could be used in PR campaign. And the outcome was probably bad enough that they make sure it would not be published.
Flawed study that is misquoted (Score:2)
There is a lot to take issue with in terms of this study, starting with the dosage.
Hundreds of adult worker bees were collected from a single hive, treated with either 5 mg/L glyphosate (G-5), 10 mg/L glyphosate (G-10) or sterile sucrose syrup (control) for 5 d, and returned to their original hive. Bees were marked on the thorax with paint to make them distinguishable in the hive. Glyphosate concentrations were chosen to mimic environmental levels, which typically range between 1.4 and 7.6 mg/L (24), and may be encountered by bees foraging at flowering weeds.
That last conclusion is extremely suspect. Concentrations as high as 5mg/L glyphosate are basically never found except in groundwater sources except for a few days after a significant overspray. It never gets into nectar anywhere near that level. Not only does glyphosate degrade over time, but the plants which take it in never bring it all the way up to the flowers. It kills them instead. That's what it's supposed to do.
Furt
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It may, or it may not. Salt and vinegar are both very good at killing plants, but I do like my chips!
And it doesn't look like this study proves much.
Re: (Score:1)
It may, or it may not. Salt and vinegar are both very good at killing plants, but I do like my chips!
And it doesn't look like this study proves much.
How many decades did it take for the public summary of scientific consensus to admit that tarring your lungs was shortening your life span? And where are we with regard to climate change? I mean, if we deny evolution in our schools, what's to keep us from denying other environmental consequences?
These are new findings against global player financial interests. They will not influence political decisions in the next 25 years, just the amount of bribes paid out.
Re: You don't Say? (Score:2)
They won't influence anything at all. People who already believed that glyphosate was teh eeeebil will continue to believe it. Those who don't believe it will read the paper and realize it doesn't change anything. In the end this study will change nothing whatsoever.
Re:You don't Say? (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't necessarily follow.
I know more about mosquito control, since I worked in that industry for decades, but in that field the common pesticides are chosen because they have low toxicity for non-target species and low potential for bioaccumulation because once deployed in the environment they break down rapidly into non-toxic byproducts. I assume that herbicides are approved using similar criteria.
Now herbicides are targeted at the plant kingdoom, and bees are in the animal kingdom. Glycophosphate in particular targets a metabolic pathway that is found in plants and fungi, but not animals. That tells you exactly zero about whether it's harmless to animals; it might kill animals in a completely different way. You have to conduct tests.
Tests show that glycophosphates have a high LD50 (i.e., low toxicity) for animals, but that's acute toxicity. It takes a lot of Roundup to kill an animal outright, but that doesn't mean it can't affect the animals behavior and reproduction in ecologically disruptive ways. If you exposed all humans to a drug which was harmless but made men impotent, human populations would crash even if the drug had an infinitely high LD50.
If this sounds complicated, that's because it is. But that's no reason to throw our hands up in the air and assume everything will be OK. At this point nobody's in any position to state anything definitive about the impact of glycophosphates on bees; this study has successfully opened a question we don't have an answer for yet. But if we study this problem, we'll get a definitive answer. Either way some people might not like that answer, but at least it's a rational basis for making policy.
Might result in adjusted guidelines pre-proof (Score:3)
Yes, it opens the question. But because the question is opened, and on the thin evidence there is, I think we're likely to see revised guidelines on how Roundup is to be used so as to minimize honeybee exposure to it.
I.e., don't spray on flowering plants that bees are actively visiting. I don't think this is a crippling restriction (or much of a practical restriction even) on Roundup, so it may be a slam-dunk guideline revision even though the evidence is shaky.
--PM
Re:It's in everything. (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't have any problems finding weedkiller without it - glyphosate kills grass, so there's a whole line of "safe for your yard" products without it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Is there a responsible way to use Roundup?"
YES
There is no support for it doing ANY harm in using it on and around non-flowering plants (weeds) on which bees and insects don't visit. So for YARD weeding, Roundup is probably just fine (and should NOT be banned).
Spilling it on the ground will typically cause no harm either, since it goes inactive very quickly. And if it got into good/flowering plants, it would KILL them. Bees don't visit dead plants, either.
The major problem is the industrial-scale use
Re: (Score:2)
I found glyphosate was the only active ingredient that worked on my weeds, so went with that.
Not Roundup though. I'm never directly giving Monsanto a cent of my money.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of plants that are the intended taget for 2, 4-D Amine herbicides are becomong very resitant to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's in everything. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just plain wrong. I could find triclopyr-based products rather easy. There's also picloram-based products.
After looking at them all though, I ended up going with glyphosate. For what I was doing, it seemed about as dangerous as the other herbicides.
I still have a bottle of the concentrated stuff, which I use only as a stump killer. To be fair, I'd rather be exposed to people using herbicides like me - directly applied to the plant via brush, no spraying, no broad application - than like my neighbors, who spray it across their yards because front lawns are supposed to look like golf courses.
Re: (Score:2)
> but ended up buying Roundup because it was on a special offer as a result of the negative press.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush! You're not supposed to tell the people what's actually in our non-diary creamer.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there's some Mosanto product that kills parasites that we could try on them.
Re: (Score:1)