Friday, January 24, 2014





Tobacco ringspot virus; Forestry Images




Manoj Samanta said...

I thought they already blamed sophisticated pesticides for it.


"Early in 2013, the European Food Safety Authority issued a declaration that three specific neonicotinoid pesticides pose an acute risk to honeybees, and the European Commission (EC) proposed a two-year ban on them.[85] David Goulson, who led one of the key 2012 studies at the University of Stirling said that the decision "begs the question of what was going on when these chemicals were first approved." The chemical manufacturer Bayer said it was "ready to work with" the EC and member states.[86] In April 2013, the European Union voted for a two-year restriction on neonicotinoid insecticides. The ban will restrict the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam for use on crops that are attractive to bees. Eight nations voted against the motion, including the British government which argued that the science was incomplete.[87]"

Anne Buchanan said...

Well, the problem with the neonicotinoid explanation is that it doesn't explain CCD in many instances. And, the ban is not nearly long enough for resulting data to reveal much of anything. (We blogged about this at the time.) I think CCD is another example of the scientific method flailing about in a sea of complexity. It's just like trying to understand, say, the rise in asthma in rich countries starting in the 80's. It seems like there must have been some simple environmental change with an obvious effect, but 'the' cause is still unfound.

rk said...

Wonder about your thoughts on this from today's NYT

Gather from what I've read in your very interesting posts that scientists don't really know enough to actually pinpoint a genetic bullet against a particular "pest"

Anne Buchanan said...

I think it's a never ending arms race. It's certainly possible, at least in theory, to develop a genetic bullet against a particular pest and RNAi is as good a way to do this as any. But, the pest will evolve resistance, and the race will start all over again. That's probably the way it has to be, but it's a short term fix.

And there will be economic and social sequelae -- this is another way in which farmers will become dependent on Monsanto, and high-tech agriculture. But it's not even clear that the varroa mite is the major problem with colony collapse disorder. It may be one of the straws that breaks the camel's back, but it may not be. As with all the other 'causes' of CCD, I'm betting there are colonies that haven't been infected with the mite that have still died out. So, Monsanto will create a dependency on this technology that may not even be effective.

I think better to revisit this when CCD is understood. It may turn out there are low tech solutions, as it's turning out there are for weed and other pest problems. But Monsanto isn't going to invest in those.

rk said...

"... this is another way in which farmers will become dependent on Monsanto, and high-tech agriculture."

Agreed; anything to ensure a captive market.