24 Jun '14 16:37>
There was an article on the BBC website [1] saying that there is conclusive evidence that neo-nicotinoids are responsible, or at least partly responsible, for declining bee numbers. The seeds come coated with the insecticide, which is a bonus for farmers as it saves them spraying. The problem is that the insecticide is systemic in the plant, so in crops like rape if a bee collects pollen it then it will get some of the insecticide. Neo-nicotinoids are under a two year moratorium in the EU due to this, the National Farmer's Union opposes this saying that the results are all in laboratory settings and so the science is flawed. One of the insecticide manufacturers has funded their own research which says neo-nicotinoids do not affect bees - although there is an obvious risk of bias there.
If bee numbers collapse then we are in real trouble, as flowering plants would follow and we'd be looking at ecological catastrophe.
The E.U.'s move is precautionary, it was not made on complete evidence. This statement makes the claim that there is sufficient evidence to extend the ban indefinitely.
Insecticides a plant produces via genetic modification would also be systemic. This means that the insecticide would be in the human food chain and may have adverse effects for bees. So here's an argument for being wary about GM crops.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27980344
If bee numbers collapse then we are in real trouble, as flowering plants would follow and we'd be looking at ecological catastrophe.
The E.U.'s move is precautionary, it was not made on complete evidence. This statement makes the claim that there is sufficient evidence to extend the ban indefinitely.
Insecticides a plant produces via genetic modification would also be systemic. This means that the insecticide would be in the human food chain and may have adverse effects for bees. So here's an argument for being wary about GM crops.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27980344