Quantcast

10 Things You Always Wanted to Know About Neonics

Pexels

By Daniel Raichel

As massive numbers of bees and other pollinators keep dying across the globe, study after study continues to connect these deaths to neonicotinoid pesticides (A.K.A. "neonics"). With the science piling up, and other countries starting to take critical pollinator-saving action, here's a quick primer on all things neonics:


1. What are neonics?

Neonics are neurotoxic insecticides, meaning they are pesticides designed to kill insects by attacking their nerve cells. Neonics permanently bind to nerve cells, overstimulating and destroying them. Insects poisoned with neonics often exhibit uncontrollable shaking or twitching, paralysis, and—eventually—death.

Neonics are also "systemic," meaning they dissolve in water and are absorbed by plants, making the plant itself—including its nectar, pollen and fruit—toxic. Neonics are often applied as a "drench" to a plant's roots, or as a coating on a plant's seed, which the plant then soaks up as it grows. The levels applied can often be so high that they make the plant toxic to insects for years after the initial treatment.

2. Where are neonics used?

Everywhere. Neonics are the most popular insecticides in the U.S. and can be found in lawn and garden bug sprays, flea and tick treatments for pets and livestock, and food grown in farm fields across the country. As this map* shows, the neonic imidacloprid is used just about every place that people grow crops. And that's just the tip of the iceberg—the map doesn't account for non-agricultural uses (e.g., golf courses, lawns, gardens) or the four other neonic chemicals also extensively used in the U.S.

3. Do neonics harm bees?

Absolutely. Neonics are designed to kill insects, and bees are insects. A large and growing body of research shows that neonic use is a leading cause of the massive bee die-offs around the globe that threaten our food security, agricultural economy and environment. Bees at risk include not only commercial honey bees, but the more than 4,000 species of native bees that live in the U.S., like the rusty patched bumble bee or the bees seen here in every color of the rainbow.

4. Do neonics harm other wildlife?

Yes. Neonic use has been shown to cause significant losses of aquatic invertebrates, a critical food source to birds and fish. Neonic use has also been linked with documented losses of bird and butterfly populations.

5. Do neonics contaminate our water?

Yes. Neonics can persist in soil for a long time, where rain or irrigation water easily carries them into surrounding lakes, streams or sources for drinking water. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has found that neonics contaminate waterbodies nationwide, often at levels that harm critical aquatic insects and other wildlife. That's no surprise given how wastefully neonics are often applied. For example, when neonics are applied as seed treatment, only about 5 percent of the pesticide is absorbed by the plant at best—the other ~95 percent stays in the soil. And with up to 100 percent of conventional corn and 50 percent of soybean seed now treated with neonics, it's not hard to guess how they keep ending up in our water.

6. Are neonics in our food?

Yes. Neonic residues are found in 86% of honey in the U.S. and also in blueberries, cranberries, peaches and other foods popular with kids and adults alike. Because neonics are actually inside the fruit, vegetables, and other foods we eat, they can't be washed off.

7. Is there concern that neonics may be harming our health?

Yes. Neonics attack parts of insect nerve cells that are similar to those found in humans, making researchers and health experts concerned that what's bad for bees could be bad for us too. In particular, emerging research suggests that exposure to neonics in the womb or early in life could be linked with developmental defects, including autism, heart deformations, muscle tremors, and memory loss.

8. What is our federal government doing about neonics?

Not much. Several years back, the U.S. EPA introduced the "bee hazard" icon and limited restrictions for some neonic products, but these baby steps have failed to stem massive bee and pollinator losses. EPA has also long been studying the impacts of neonics through its "registration review" process. Although these reviews could result in life-saving protections for pollinators, don't hold your breath—EPA just quietly pushed back the deadlines for their completion, and isn't expected to take needed action anyway while still under Trump and Andrew Wheeler's direction.

9. What have other countries done?

A: Other countries are moving to ban outdoor uses of neonics. In 2018, The European Union voted to completely ban all outdoor uses of three neonics, citing their impacts to honey bees. Canada recently followed suit, recommending that the country similarly phase out all outdoor uses of the same neonics in 3-5 years.

10. What should replace neonics if we limited their use?

For the most part, nothing. Neonics are often used where they simply aren't effective. In 2014, EPA found that neonic soybean seed treatments "likely provide $0 in benefits to growers," yet up to half of all conventional soybean seed is still neonic-treated. Other recent research shows neonics to be similarly ineffective on corn, yet up to 100 percent of conventional corn seed gets a neonic treatment. These uses account for the vast bulk of neonics entering the environment and—since they don't work—they don't need replacing. Agroecological practices—like diverse crop rotations, cover cropping, and introducing natural enemies of crop pests (AKA "good bugs")—can eliminate the need for other neonic uses. In those instances where an insecticide is needed, less harmful substitutes for neonics are available.

*This map is from 2014, the last year USGS included neonic-treated seeds in its annual pesticide survey (even though treated seed usage has not diminished since). To understand how massive treated seed use is, compare this map to the 2015 map, and see the world of difference for yourself.

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

A fracking well looms over a residential area of Liberty, Colorado on Aug. 19. WildEarth Guardians / Flickr

A new multiyear study found that people living or working within 2,000 feet, or nearly half a mile, of a hydraulic fracturing (fracking) drill site may be at a heightened risk of exposure to benzene and other toxic chemicals, according to research released Thursday by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)

Read More Show Less
Pope Francis flanked by representatives of the Amazon Rainforest's ethnic groups and catholic prelates march in procession during the opening of the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region at The Vatican on Oct. 07 in Vatican City, Vatican. Alessandra Benedetti / Corbis News / Getty Images

By Vincent J. Miller

The Catholic Church "hears the cry" of the Amazon and its peoples. That's the message Pope Francis hopes to send at the Synod of the Amazon, a three-week meeting at the Vatican that ends Oct. 27.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored

The crowd appears to attack a protestor in a video shared on Twitter by ITV journalist Mahatir Pasha. VOA News / Youtube screenshot

Some London commuters had a violent reaction Thursday morning when Extinction Rebellion protestors attempted to disrupt train service during rush hour.

Read More Show Less
Some fruit drinks may appear to be healthier, but many can have high levels of added sugars. d3sign / Moment / Getty Images

By Kristen Fischer

Though the science has shown sugary drinks are not healthy for children, fruit drinks and similar beverages accounted for more than half of all children's drink sales in 2018, according to a new report.

Read More Show Less
Donald Trump attends the opening of Red Tiger Golf Course at Trump National Doral on Jan. 12, 2015 in Doral, Florida. Johnny Louis / FilmMagic

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney made two controversial announcements about the 2020 Group of Seven (G7) summit: it will be hosted at one of President Donald Trump's golf resorts in Miami and it won't feature any discussion of the climate crisis.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored

Farms with just one or a handful of different crops encourage fewer species of pollinating and pest-controlling insects to linger, ultimately winnowing away crop yields, according to a new study.

Up to half of the detrimental impacts of the "landscape simplification" that monocropping entails come as a result of a diminished mix of ecosystem service-providing insects, a team of scientists reported Oct. 16 in the journal Science Advances.

Monocrop palm oil plantation Honduras.

SHARE Foundation / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0​

"Our study shows that biodiversity is essential to ensure the provision of ecosystem services and to maintain a high and stable agricultural production," Matteo Dainese, the study's lead author and a biologist at Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, said in a statement.

It stands to reason that, with declines in the sheer numbers of insects that ferry pollen from plant to plant and keep crop-eating pests under control, these services will wane as well. But until now, it hasn't been clear how monocultures affect the number and mix of these species or how crop yields might change as a result.

Aiming to solve these questions, Dainese and his colleagues pulled together data from 89 studies cutting across a variety of landscapes, from the tropics of Asia and Africa to the higher latitudes of northern Europe. They tabulated the number of pollinating and pest-controlling insects at these sites — both the absolute number of individuals and the number of species — along with an assessment of the ecosystem services the insects provided.

In almost all of the studies they looked at, the team found that a more diverse pool of these species translated into more pollination and greater pest control. They also showed that simplified landscapes supported fewer species of service-providing insects, which ultimately led to lower crop yields.

The researchers also looked at a third measure of the makeup of insect populations — what they called "evenness." In natural ecosystems, a handful of dominant species with many more individuals typically live alongside a higher number of rarer species. The team found as landscapes became less diverse, dominant species numbers dwindled and rare species gained ground. This resulting, more equitable mix led to less pollination (though it didn't end up affecting pest control).

"Our study provides strong empirical support for the potential benefits of new pathways to sustainable agriculture that aim to reconcile the protection of biodiversity and the production of food for increasing human populations," Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, one of the study's authors and an animal ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, said in the statement.

The scientists figure that the richness of pollinator species explains around a third of the harmful impacts of less diverse landscapes, while the richness of pest-controlling species accounts for about half of the same measure. In their view, the results of their research point to the need to protect biodiversity on and around crops in an uncertain future.

"Under future conditions with ongoing global change and more frequent extreme climate events, the value of farmland biodiversity ensuring resilience against environmental disturbances will become even more important," Steffan-Dewenter said.

Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.

View of an Ivorian cleared forest at the edge of the 35.000 hectares Peko Mont National Park on Oct. 8, 2016. The Mont Péko National Park is located in the west of Ivory Coast where the forest officers fight with illegal immigrants to protect an exceptional flora and fauna, espacially dwarf elephants. SIA KAMBOU / AFP / Getty Images

Ivory Coast's rainforests have been decimated by cocoa production and what is left is put in peril by a new law that will remove legal protections for thousands of square miles of forests, according to The Guardian.

Read More Show Less
The Apusiaajik Glacier, as seen from Kulusuk village in East Greenland. Like most glaciers in Greenland, it's retreating rapidly, changing the local landscape year by year. Photo credit: Karin Kirk

By Karin Kirk

Greenland had quite the summer. It rose from peaceful obscurity to global headliner as ice melted so swiftly and massively that many were left grasping for adjectives. Then, Greenland's profile was further boosted, albeit not to its delight, when President Trump expressed interest in buying it, only to be summarily dismissed by the Danish prime minister.

During that time I happened to be in East Greenland, both as an observer of the stark effects of climate change and as a witness to local dialogue about presidential real estate aspirations, polar bear migrations and Greenland's sudden emergence as a trending topic.

Read More Show Less