View Full Version : Neonicotinoids
Just when you think it's about as bad as it can get, some s**t-for-brains f**kwit in Westminster thinks it'd be a good idea to wipe out the insects.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/neonicotinoid-product-as-seed-treatment-for-sugar-beet-emergency-authorisation-application/statement-on-the-decision-to-issue-with-strict-conditions-emergency-authorisation-to-use-a-product-containing-a-neonicotinoid-to-treat-sugar-beet
Thank heavens we've left the EU and can now wreak carnage in our own green and pleasant land by reintroducing banned poisons to kill off the remainder of the bee population. Oh joy.
:smt076:smt076:smt076
Just when you think it's about as bad as it can get, some s**t-for-brains f**kwit in Westminster thinks it'd be a good idea to wipe out the insects.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/neonicotinoid-product-as-seed-treatment-for-sugar-beet-emergency-authorisation-application/statement-on-the-decision-to-issue-with-strict-conditions-emergency-authorisation-to-use-a-product-containing-a-neonicotinoid-to-treat-sugar-beet
Thank heavens we've left the EU and can now wreak carnage in our own green and pleasant land by reintroducing banned poisons to kill off the remainder of the bee population. Oh joy.
:smt076:smt076:smt076
I wrote to my MP (for what it's worth) a couple of weeks ago about this expressing my alarm - especially since BoZo had said we wouldn't use it - I know, I know - a Tory breaking his word, shocking.
Whilst I'm not defending the government, the EU have been a bit duplicitous about this too. They announced a ban a while back but didn't announce there were exceptions that could be applied:
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/07/08/bees-neonicotinoids-bayer-syngenta-eu-ban-loophole/
In that case, a plague on all their houses.
Red Herring
24-01-21, 04:17 PM
I listened to an interesting interview on the radio about this the other day. The basic facts presented were that a greenfly has decimated around 80% of the UK sugar production this year and this measure is necessary to halt this. Around 50% of the UK's sugar demand is home grown.
So the options were....
Reduce our sugar demand by around 40%.
Import more sugar to fill the gap.
Increase our sugar production five fold so we can carry an 80% loss of yield..........
Use the dreaded chemical......
I'm guessing you don't like the last option, so do you support one of the others or is there an alternative I've missed?
Grant66
24-01-21, 05:17 PM
I'm kind of liking the "use less sugar" option.
Sent from an S20 using Tapatalk with that kin cr4p blocked
I listened to an interesting interview on the radio about this the other day. The basic facts presented were that a greenfly has decimated around 80% of the UK sugar production this year and this measure is necessary to halt this. .....
Presumably that was as reported here?
https://www.ragus.co.uk/uk-sugar-beet-harvest-2020/
I'm kind of liking the "use less sugar" option.
Sent from an S20 using Tapatalk with that kin cr4p blocked
My guess is the less natural sugar would = more chemicals/additives as replacements.
Red Herring
24-01-21, 06:27 PM
Presumably that was as reported here?
https://www.ragus.co.uk/uk-sugar-beet-harvest-2020/
Not seen that and it does seem to rather suggest there isn't a problem....
I'm not an expert on this, I simply heard an interview about it on the radio whilst I was working in the garage the other day and the person explaining the case for the use of the chemical made a far better job of it than the person complaining about it. Now it may have been that it was an unfair match but one would like to think they wouldn't get away with exaggerating the problem to the extent that that linked article suggests?
Red Herring
24-01-21, 06:34 PM
https://www.ragus.co.uk/emergency-neonicotinoids-authorisation-uk/
But this report, from the same source as the one in the previous post seems to explain the circumstances and justifications.
Craig380
24-01-21, 07:43 PM
We obviously need more ladybirds, but not those foreign chlamydia-infected ones ;)
garynortheast
24-01-21, 08:17 PM
I'm kind of liking the "use less sugar" option.
Sent from an S20 using Tapatalk with that kin cr4p blocked
Me too.....
yokohama
24-01-21, 08:31 PM
I'm kind of liking the "use less sugar" option.
Sent from an S20 using Tapatalk with that kin cr4p blocked
The Government wouldn't like that! Where would that leave their 'sugar tax?'
Something our great leader was thinking about a couple of years ago to make us all fitter IIRC.
Dave20046
24-01-21, 09:16 PM
The Government wouldn't like that! Where would that leave their 'sugar tax?'
Something our great leader was thinking about a couple of years ago to make us all fitter IIRC.
Aye, nothing to do with British Sugar's close links to the gov.
For what it's worth I too would choose less sugar than less bees.
Sugar is packed into so many things needlessly. When I make bread I put 0 sugar in it, 3% of warburtons product is sugar ... in fact I just did a quick google and you can all elect me soon : - 12 million loaves sold a day apparently (288million grams of sugar) and one news article I just read says adults across the UK consume 38 million grams of added sugar per day. No accounting for children or even if the article I read is anywhere near the mark for actual current supply, but I reckon if they were forced to stop creeping it into essential products up and down the country no one would notice and nature wouldn't disintegrate.
Grant66
24-01-21, 10:19 PM
My guess is the less natural sugar would = more chemicals/additives as replacements.
Disappointingly I think your probably right.
But as Dave(numbers) points out a lot of products add sweetness to substitute for actual food. Trying to have a sugar free diet is extremely difficult.
Sent from an S20 using Tapatalk with that kin cr4p blocked
In the US they put a tax on sugar cane imports which caused the price of sugar to rise. The companies switched to using high fructose corn syrup in everything because it's cheap. The human body cannot cope with large amounts of fructose it gets absorbed into the bloodstream and stored as fat, sucrose has to be broken down first, both are bad but fructose is worst.
It is often referred to as the Devil's Candy in the US: https://childhoodobesitynews.com/2013/06/05/is-hfcs-the-devils-candy/
Red Herring
25-01-21, 09:16 AM
So I'm getting the drift here that folk want the government to force the sugar industry to basically close down and reduce production, on the basis that this will force the population to eat less sugar........? This thread started with us being asked to write to our MP's so unless we want it to go straight into the bin marked loony mail we had better come up with a slightly more realistic proposal than that.
So I'm getting the drift here that folk want the government to force the sugar industry to basically close down and reduce production, on the basis that this will force the population to eat less sugar........? This thread started with us being asked to write to our MP's so unless we want it to go straight into the bin marked loony mail we had better come up with a slightly more realistic proposal than that.
No. Neonics kill pollinators, 95% of all plants on Earth need pollinators.
https://www.pollinator.org/pollinators#:~:text=Somewhere%20between%2075%25%20 and%2095,and%20more%20than%201200%20crops.
Here's the alternative:
https://chinadialogue.net/en/food/5193-decline-of-bees-forces-china-s-apple-farmers-to-pollinate-by-hand/
Red Herring
25-01-21, 10:38 AM
I don't dispute the need for bees (I've two hives at the bottom of my garden) but what's your proposal for avoiding using the chemicals?
I don't dispute the need for bees (I've two hives at the bottom of my garden) but what's your proposal for avoiding using the chemicals?
I wish I was clever enough to answer. It seems, to me, to be one of those short sighted decisions where profit is ranked higher than sustainability. Reduced crop yield versus famines through lack of pollinators. I don't know if there are any suitable alternatives but a quick search yielded this table. Do they work, are they cheap?
https://www.savehoneybees.info/images/documents/Chemical_and_non-chemical_alternatives_to_neonicotinoids.pdf
I think it's another one of those climate change kind of decisions - burning fossil fuels is a cheap way to supply energy but isn't sustainable for our survival yet one argument against fixing the problem was cost. Using an insecticide that may eradicate our essential crop pollinators with the argument against (not using them) being cost feels like deja vu.
We tend to put a price on everything except our long term future.
Red Herring
25-01-21, 01:18 PM
I wish I was clever enough to answer. It seems, to me, to be one of those short sighted decisions where profit is ranked higher than sustainability. Reduced crop yield versus famines through lack of pollinators. I don't know if there are any suitable alternatives but a quick search yielded this table. Do they work, are they cheap?
https://www.savehoneybees.info/images/documents/Chemical_and_non-chemical_alternatives_to_neonicotinoids.pdf
Is that what you put in your letter to your MP?
I'm sorry if you think I might be trolling you on this, that's not my intention, but few things wind me up more than armchair experts telling people they shouldn't be doing something if they are unable to make a sensible, realistic and achievable suggestion as to an alternative. There is no doubt in my mind that as a population we need to be investing more into ways of reducing our impact on this planet, unfortunately we live in a capitalist environment where the majority are more interested in what is best for them, rather than their compatriots or decedents......
...This thread started with us being asked to write to our MP's so unless we want it to go straight into the bin marked loony mail we had better come up with a slightly more realistic proposal than that.
I appreciate your comments, RH, and adding a bit of balance.
I started the thread basically as a selfish venting of spleen. There are online petitions for anyone who feels moved to act in that way.
My real anger is that such "emergency authorisations" are being issued on the basis of "in case" rather than "to solve". This is an authorisation for the use in 2021, which hasn't happened yet (much), based on a possible problem which may arise if climatic conditions suit the spread of the yellow peril. That's tantamount to "normal practice". It's a bit like making the govt emergency powers for the pandemic the normal situation, just in case something else happens at some time. Emergency powers for normal circumstances, thin end of a very big wedge.
The cost/benefit analysis for using neonicotinoids would have to be outstandingly compelling to offset the quite possible risk of eliminating an already seriously depleted and challenged bee population. I can't help feeling that an awful lot of folk really do not appreciate the situation threatening bees and the essential role they play, as indeed do so many insects. The majority of life on this planet is made up of insects, they are critically essential, we wipe them out at our own peril. Just search for decline in insect population.
I (and others) have noted the dramatic reduction in insect population over the last few years. I rode from the Midlands to the south of France* last year (in July when it was possible) and over the whole 700mls or so the front of the bike collected a few dozen insects. Ten years ago it would have been absolutely plastered with them. This is serious. That's why neonicotinoids have been (notionally) banned in the EU, even if they do then circumvent the ban with emergency authorisations.
* - yes I know the CO2 footprint of it, but I haven't contributed to population growth which is far more damaging.
redtrummy
25-01-21, 02:18 PM
Yep I am sure we have all noticed our visors don't need a clean as often as they used to. In 2019 we visited the Lyn Peninsula in the van, on arrival home the front of it looked like an insect extermination machine - it was covered, like stepping back in time. I am very tolerant to all insect life in the garden, and how do they pay me? By having a nip here and there where ever there is bare skin.
I used to write to my MP with the thought that he would listen, then came the time I was asking him to consider not allowing a foreign takeover of one of the UK's last large engineering firm - in the National interest. He quoted Tory policy, told me that he totally agreed with me, then voted along party lines anyway. Hypocrite.
In a subsequent email, I mentioned, in passing, that all Tories are untrustworthy and he took exception to that and said he would no longer respond to my emails unless it was an actual need.
I have no idea whether he even reads my emails or has them deposited straight into the junk folder.
Since then my emails have become... err, shall we say a little more critical of the government.
I have absolute confidence that nothing I have said or will say to my MP makes any difference whatsover when all he does is vote along party lines and that's depressing.
It's still cathartic (for me) to rub his nose in the government's failures since they're coming so fast and so often, recently. So, I'll keep emailing. :)
Dave20046
26-01-21, 09:40 AM
Is that what you put in your letter to your MP?
I'm sorry if you think I might be trolling you on this, that's not my intention, but few things wind me up more than armchair experts telling people they shouldn't be doing something if they are unable to make a sensible, realistic and achievable suggestion as to an alternative. There is no doubt in my mind that as a population we need to be investing more into ways of reducing our impact on this planet, unfortunately we live in a capitalist environment where the majority are more interested in what is best for them, rather than their compatriots or decedents......
My post was defiitely tongue in cheek however reflecting on it's instant dismissal, why shouldn't an industry feel an impact from a (human led) circumstance rather than our wildlife? I don't think we should accept that just because we live in a capitalist world, it won't last much longer with that attitude.
I reckon we could use 40% less sugar and people would barely notice, and I'm not necessarily talking about taking sweet things off the shelves. It's all the overly processed crap with needlessly added refined sugar.
Red Herring
26-01-21, 04:32 PM
Actually Dave your suggestion was absolutely spot on in identifying the long term solution, both in terms of resolving the insecticide issue and problems with human health. Unfortunately such measures take years to bring into effect, they are all about influencing lifestyle and public perception/education.
Having said that in theory we could do it overnight, simply remove all the items with sugar off the shelves. Unfortunately the population would kick up, get rid of whoever was responsible, and bring it back. The same applies to any manufacturer, they act unilaterally, people stop buying their produce, another manufacturer fills the void......
The only way to reduce the use of sugar is to reduce the demand for it, in much the same was as we have managed the tobacco industry.
Dave20046
27-01-21, 01:25 PM
Actually Dave your suggestion was absolutely spot on in identifying the long term solution, both in terms of resolving the insecticide issue and problems with human health. Unfortunately such measures take years to bring into effect, they are all about influencing lifestyle and public perception/education.
Having said that in theory we could do it overnight, simply remove all the items with sugar off the shelves. Unfortunately the population would kick up, get rid of whoever was responsible, and bring it back. The same applies to any manufacturer, they act unilaterally, people stop buying their produce, another manufacturer fills the void......
The only way to reduce the use of sugar is to reduce the demand for it, in much the same was as we have managed the tobacco industry.
Tobacco industry was exactly what I was thinking of comparison wise but didn't want to be the first one to say it!
Regarding armchair commentators, I think where practical it would help if when decisions are made (especially when potentially harmful to the population/the reversal of a previous pledge) publicising some insight into options assessed and the reasoning would appease the masses. Obviously you don't want to add too much administerial burden but it would probably mean MP's could remove the bin they carefully place under their letterboxes and no longer have to stride over it everytime they leave the building.
In Sheffield where corrupt officials have been busy coining it in for quite a while, there was a scandal when the council sold the City's trees (almost literally). They negotiatied a 'self governing' contract with a private company, there was a fee for each stage of tree maintenance - the most lucrative for the contractor being, felling. Needless to say, with money to be made, they tried felling every tree in Sheffield; it took campaigners a shed load of FOI requests to look at the judgement process and uncovered there was 0 assessment of other options available to them i.e a tree needed a little pruning , their action was felling it. A tree had disturbed a curb stone, rather than spending 10 mins replacing the curbstone which would last many more years, they felled the tree. And so on. There were a load of protests and the programme mysteriously stopped, looks like it wasn't needed all along. The cynics were right from the start, no one has faith that decision makers have actually appraised all options and made the right decision and I think clarity would help.
this was known about years and years ago. the sugar tax was not just about raising revenue it was about less consumption of sugar to preserve the beets farming. iir scotland is the uk's biggest producer of sugar beets so its going to affect them more than anybody. the uk is not the only producer there are plenty country's in the eu... oohhh wait we are not friends with them anymore...
remember potato blight.......
Dave20046
28-01-21, 11:17 AM
remember potato blight.......
That's not something we talk about here in England :smt105
iir scotland is the uk's biggest producer of sugar beets
Sugar beet hasn't been grown in Scotland for 50 years, they are just now talking about its re-introduction. The sugar beet that used to be grown there had a higher sugar content because of the long daylight hours. Climate change is one reason they are talking about it making a return.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/sugar-beet/plan-for-sugar-beet-to-return-to-scotland#:~:text=Sugar%20beet%20could%20return%20t o,producing%20sugar%20for%20human%20consumption.
Most sugar beet is grown in the East Midlands and East Anglia. There was a British Sugar plant (refinery?) in Peterborough. They dump the slurry into settlement ponds and since the production takes place in the winter the ponds don't ferment. We had one mild winter and the stench in Peterborough was incredible.
That's not something we talk about here in England :smt105
even more so in Ireland..
Sugar beet hasn't been grown in Scotland for 50 years
i stand corrected ;)
Dave20046
28-01-21, 07:56 PM
even more so in Ireland..
That's what I meant - pretty sure the English shat all over the paddys on that one.
SV650rules
29-01-21, 09:19 PM
Didn't potato blight happen because all the potatoes were same variety, with no diversity to give a chance that some varieties would not be affected. The same thing happens with diseases and lack of diversity in most things in nature. The very wet climate in Ireland is also not really suitable for growing potatoes because it gives the blight ideal conditions, drier areas with lighter soil like east of England are much better, or Idaho in USA.
drier areas with lighter soil like east of England are much better, or Idaho in USA.
or Fife in Scotland.. tatties and berries... if you think you have a hard job try picking tatties when its raining.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.