Honey Bees Attracted to Chemicals That Are Killing Them
Honey bees seem to be attracted to the chemicals that are killing them. based on experiments showing the bees preferred sugar water laced with chemicals known to cause problems for bees over sugar water alone. These findings published in the journal Scientific Reports suggest that herbicides and fungicides pose a greater risk to pollinators than previously assumed.
Scientists found that forager bees were drawn to the fungicide chlorothalonil and the herbicide ingredient glyphosate, found in Monsanto’s Roundup, at certain concentrations.” – Honey bees Love Chemicles That Are Killing Them
The nectar that a bee brings back to the hive will effect on the health of the entire colony. Insecticides have been shown to shorten the lifespans of exposed bees and disrupt organization of the hive. Past research shows that chlorothalonil can inhibit a fungal parasite called Nosema bombi that affects bumblebees. Glyphosate has been shown to potentially affect the ability of bees to navigate.
The bees are not only not avoiding this fungicide [chlorothalonil], they’re consuming more of it at certain concentrations. People assume that fungicides affect only fungi, but fungi are much more closely related to animals than they are to plants. And toxins that disrupt physiological processes in fungi can also potentially affect them in animals, including insects.” – May Berenbau
The bees in the study were given the choice between a plain sugar syrup and a sweet mixture blended with several fungicides and herbicides at different concentrations. There were also feeders with the sugar water mixed with naturally occurring chemicals.
Increased Tick Populations Linked to Decreases in Wildlife Populations
A healthy wildlife population is likely to slow the spread of diseases carried by ticks, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Conducted by researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara in Kenya, this study found that tick populations rose by 130 percent to 225 percent in areas where large wildlife was excluded. Drier areas were more likely to experience an increased tick population. Ticks are responsible for the spread of several different types of pathogens like babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, though the most reported and well-known of these is Lyme disease.
This study showed that large mammal conservation can reduce the abundance of some ticks, including in this case the abundance of ticks infected with pathogens that negatively impact the health of both humans and wildlife in the region…Finding this ‘win-win-win’ scenario in which conservation benefits both human health and wildlife health can, we hope, really motivate further conservation and ultimately help protect landscapes and wildlife health.” – Dr. Hillary Young, Assistant Professor of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
This study also tested captured ticks for disease-causing bacteria. The increase in tick population didn’t lead to a higher prevalence of diseases, but a larger tick population offers opportunistic pathogens a larger number of hosts. That could be one explanation for the rise in tick-borne diagnoses. Lyme disease cases have doubled over the last 30 years, and the Center for Disease Control reports that those numbers are underreported.
All signs point to the increase in tick populations and the diagnosis of tick-borne diseases continuing for the foreseeable future. Ticks are more prevalent in drier areas and can survive all year in warmer weather. Researchers found that they are also more populous in areas with decreased wildlife. Which means our current state of affairs will likely lead to optimal conditions for ticks. Higher temperatures, less wildlife…more Lyme for us?
EPA Is Allowing Use of Unapproved Pesticides – New Study
A report released by the Center for Biological Diversity reveals that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows the use of unapproved pesticides in the case of an emergency. The term emergency is defined in the dictionary as an unforeseen combination of circumstances. Looking at the instances of emergency approval from the EPA though, it’s clear the agency does not see it the same way. This loophole allows farmers to use deliberately unapproved or untested pesticides often without a public review or comment process, deliberating bypassing environmental and safety concerns.
It’s disgusting to see the EPA’s broken pesticide program bending over backward to appease the pesticide industry. These exemptions put people and wildlife at tremendous risk because they allow poisons to be applied in ways that would otherwise be illegal.” – Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney in the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program
The report particularly highlights sulfoxaflor, a pesticide that was banned for killing bees while still being approved for 78 emergency approvals over the past six years and affecting more than 17.5 million acres of farmland. This pesticide had actually been approved for spraying on cotton, but that approval was canceled by a judge in 2015. That reversal didn’t stop sulfoxaflor from being sprayed on cotton and bee-favorite sorghum through the emergency approval program. The EPA has yet to examine the effect this program has had on pollinators, though that isn’t anything we didn’t know.
One of the conditions for the approval of an emergency pesticide petition is “loss of pesticide,” wither through insects developing resistance or regulatory agencies canceling the pesticide. This is also known as the EPA doing its job. Yet the agency is more than willing to undermine its previous decisions and credibility. When will we be left with the bill for these shortcuts…or has it already arrived.
Nestle Has Been Extracting Millions of Gallons of Water Without Proper Permits, Says California
Nestle, the company whose Chairman has famously stated that water is not a human right, has been extracting an average of 62.6 million gallons of water a year from the San Bernardino National Forest without proper permits, according to the California State Water Board. This extraction has occurred from 1947 to 2015 for the company’s Arrowhead bottled water. The two-year investigation came after complaints concerning Nestle’s diversions were registered during California’s recent drought, and regulators have found that the company was taking water in excess of the roughly 8.5 million gallons of water it has a legal permit for. Victor Vasquez, a senior water resource control engineer in the board’s water rights division, says that
…current operations do not appear to be supported by rights to the diversion or use of water exceeding 26 acre-feet…Any diversions in excess of that amount may be unauthorized,” adding that the company “must limit its appropriative diversion and use of water to 26 (acre-feet per year) unless it has evidence of valid water rights to water within the permitting authority of the State Water Board and/or evidence documenting the extent of additional water claimed to be percolating groundwater.”
Nestle traces its claim to the water in Strawberry Canyon to a 150-year-old claim by David Noble Smith, whose property later became the Arrowhead Springs Hotel. The State Water Board has recognized that claim to the spring water, though they want statements referring to unauthorized diversions within 30 days. They’re also giving the company 60 days to submit a compliance plan and an additional 90 days for an investigation and monitoring plan.
In their thirst to claim the bottled water market, Nestle has encountered pushback from environmental groups. This is not the company’s only bottled water brand, and the North America division of the Nestle Water company had 4.5 billion dollars in sales last year. It’s clear why Nestle Chariman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe doesn’t water guaranteed public access to water – it cuts into his profits.
Governments are brainstorming for ways to combat the devastating environmental effects of factory farming, and several countries in Europe are calling for a tax on meat. No other industry involves the most pressing environmental and health issues of today, like GMOs, increased greenhouse gases, the destruction of natural habitats, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, quite like factory farming. Even worse, the meat and the corn and soy that feed them are on the receiving end of a massive amount government subsidies. Our government pays nearly 38 billion dollars a year to hasten the death of our eco-system and ourselves.
Yet meat is still powerfully entrenched in cultures worldwide, and the likelihood of a completely vegan or even vegetarian world is not high. 84% of vegetarians and 70% of vegans return to eating meat at some point in their lives. Our current carnivorous habits are not sustainable. Is a meat tax the way to fix it?
The Danish Ethics Council started with a call for a tax on beef. That measure was passed by the council and is now scheduled for government consideration. While beef causes 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, more than chicken and pork, the council has plans to extend the proposed tax to other red meats.
The United Kingdom
Several studies in the United Kingdom have resulted in a national conversation likely to result in meat taxes within the next 10 years. Analysis from Glasglow University and Chatham House, an international thinktank, indicate that public would see government intervention in this issue as a positive. According to Laura Wellesley from Chatham House, lead author of the research,
Governments are ignoring what should be a hugely appealing, win-win policy…The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.”
The survey analysis also found that many were surprised to learn of government subsidies for meat production, particularly in the large amounts given by the U.S. government.
Germany already has a tax of 7 percent on animal products. The German federal environment agency has expressed a desire to raise that number to 19 percent, in order to keep with the Paris climate accords. Consumers would be the ones to pay this fine, although the agency has suggested that the estimated 5.2 billion euro tax revenue would lower consumption taxes on other food items.
My Opinion: We Pay to Produce It, Now We Pay to Eat It…?
America is much more attached to its meat products than Europe. The average American eats 200 pounds of meat a year, and for that American to be eating healthy (as it pertains to cancer and heart disease) levels of meat, those 200 pounds need to be reduced by two-thirds. But would Americans be so gung-ho about meat if they knew they’re actually paying an extra 8 dollars in hidden costs (healthcare, subsidies, and environmental degradation) for each Big Mac?
Here’s an idea…rather than tax consumers and charge them twice, slowly pull subsidies away from corporations running businesses contributing to climate change. This likely won’t happen, as the U.S. government cares about businesses, not people. Maybe if businesses weren’t so short-sighted, they would realize that people with more money buy more products.
In our current iteration, a meat tax in the United States is more likely to leave poor people without the funds or the knowledge for proper nutrition. Replacing everything meat with a version of tofurky isn’t sustainable or healthy either. In our school systems, we need real health and real food education that includes gardening.
On the other hand, if the tax happens, and it does promote awareness and reduced meat consumption, we’re not going to be too angry.
Trump’s EPA Says Glyphosate Not Carcinogenic To People
The Environmental Protection Agency released a draft assessment report this week that concludes glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, contradicting findings from both the World Health Organization and the State of California. The EPA is not the only organization to oppose the link between glyphosate and cancer, agricultural giant Monsanto being the most vocal critic of the WHO’s findings. The president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, Gordon Stoner, was pleased the EPA panel “confirms exactly what we’re saying: that agencies across the world say glyphosate is safe and the IARC report is a flawed analysis…”
The wheat industry is particularly invested in this assessment, as they are among the farm groups who have joined with Monsanto to sue the State of California. As a part of its Proposition 65 initiative, California will be labeling all glyphosate products as cancer-causing by July of 2018. The lawsuit is an attempt to halt a measure guaranteed to negatively impact several industries like farming and gardening.
Business as Usual
If you’re a group currently suing a government agency claiming that your product does not cause cancer, it must be a relief to hear another government agency conclude that it probably doesn’t. For Monsanto, there wasn’t really a question. Since the release of glyphosate in 1974, upper-level management at the EPA has ignored or reversed studies that found issues with the herbicide. Monsanto emails recently released in regards to a different court case confirm that EPA employee Jess Rowland deliberately squashed an investigation into glyphosate around the same time that the WHO released its findings.
Monsanto is currently in the middle of a merger with German company Bayer AG, which will give them an unprecedented amount of control over the food supply. But they don’t even really need it. The necessary United States government agencies have been trained to put Monsanto first, even to the point of doing the company’s dirty work for them. Rather than issuing press releases with new studies or data reviews concerning glyphosate, the EPA has only now begun monitoring glyphosate in food. The USDA and the CDC don’t even bother. The new “findings” from the EPA are unlikely to change that anytime soon.
GM crops will continue to be banned in Britain after Brexit, says Michael Gove
Michael Gove, Britain’s environment secretary, indicates that food made from genetically modified organisms will continue to be banned in the United Kingdom after Britain leaves the European Union. The US is expected to push for more GM-based foods to be sold in Europe.
The U.S. is putting Britian under intense political pressure drop the ban on GM foods after Brexit. In twenty years European Union scientists have deemed 40 GMO crops safe; but only a GM version of maize is grown, (grown in Spain for animal feed).
Mr Gove was asked by The Telegraph if GM food is more likely to be sold in the UK after Brexit, and if he would eat “chlorine-washed chicken,” which the US wants to export to the UK. He replied: “No and yes,” but then hastily, unsuccessfully, he attempted to cover for his admission, saying “but probably in whichever order you prefer”.
Earlier this month the US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (Trump appointee) said that food regulations are among several “landmines” that may impede negotiations with the new trade deal. He said complying with EU food standards on GMOs and chlorine-washed chicken is problematic with trade negotiations. Mr Ross said that restrictions imposed by the EU were “really not science-based”.
We’re huge trading partners with each other and our economies are in many ways more similar to each other than either of us is to most of Europe.”