bibliography and research data on neonicotinoids

Eastwind articles on neonicotinoid –
1. The Coconut Crisis
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/06/massive-infestation
2. The PCA-SAGIP-UPLB Syndicate Suppresses Organic Options
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/06/pca-uplb
3. Replies to PCA-SAGIP Statements
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/07/pcas-reply
4. Did PCA-SAGIP receive allowances from the chemical firm?
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/07/accupressure
5. 100,000 San Pablo Coco Trees chemicalized by PCA-SAGIP
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/07/pca-sagip-chem
6. ‘UPLB Mafia’ behind Coco-Chem?
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/07/uplb-mafia
7. Starkle will undermine food security by disrupting entire food chain
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/07/neonicotinoid
8. Save the Coconut Movement issues resolution in protest over banned chemical
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/08/save-the-coco
9. This article. Pangilinan blinks, revives use of chemical.
http://www.sisterraquel.com/2014/09/pan
 
37 million bees massacred by neonicotinoid gmo corn seeds
http://livefreelivenatural.com/37-million-bees-found-dead-elmwood-ontario-canada-large-planting-gmo-corn-seed-treated-neonicotinoid-pesticides/#sthash.6NwKsoKn.dpuf
 
Maderazo parasitoid
http://m.inquirer.net/newsinfo/?id=625972
 
Emil Javier PDI defends toxic chemical
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/1470f9d09f451427
 
Response to Emil Javier
http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/neonicotinoid-insecticides-zmgz14fmzsto.aspx#ixzz36fouJqeQ
 
Brief response to the Commentary “Science to the rescue of coconut industry”
This is in response to Dr. E.Q. Javier’s commentary “Science to the rescue of coconut industry” published in July 5th, 2014 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://opinion.inquirer.net/76268/science-to-the-rescue-of-coconut-industry
Insect outbreaks occur when new strains/species are introduced into areas where they have no or very few natural enemies. However, eventually nature corrects itself; biological control agents appear and multiply in sufficient numbers to control the invaders. But this new state of equilibrium can take years, and by then farmers would have suffered heavy losses.
Dr. Javier nailed it so to speak when he said that   “eventually nature corrects itself; biological control agents appear and multiply in sufficient numbers to control the invaders. But this new state of equilibrium can take years, and by then farmers would have suffered heavy losses.” This is really what happened in the case of CSI.
His example of the psyllid insect outbreak that damaged  ipil-ipil trees, took about four (4) years before  a new balance between the psyllid and its natural enemies took place. The outbreak of CSI started in 2009 and  it is on its 5th year . It is not  correct to call the situation that the “ pest is now still in outbreak” stage. Navasero et al,2014,  had reported that an efficient parasitoid has been documented to cause up to 80% parasitization  rate. Widespread recovery of damaged coconuts are already a common sights.
The immediate challenge he’s talking about should have been done 2 or 3 years ago not now that the balance of  nature  is already happening.
Yes, dinotefuran is the newest but not necessarily the safest and most promising among the neonicotinoids. The choice of dinotefural can be considered an arbitrary choice. There was no systematic evaluation of the different neonicotinoids. From the start, they focussed on dinotefuran. Evaluation of these insecticides should have been done much earlier. The pesticide industry is putting a big premium on preventing development of resistance. Rapid developments of resistance among neonicotinoids are extensively documented. In preventing development of resistance, the rule is not to expose two (2) generations of the pest. Based on the result of their study it takes 45 days before the residue of dinotefuran becomes undetectable in treated coconuts. The life cycle of CSI  is less than 30 days. This means from the time of treatment to the dissipation of dinotefuran in treated coconut  two generation of the pest is being exposed.
Neonicotinoids may not be toxic only to be pollinators but also on beetles and fly pollinators. Several formulations of neonicotinoids are registered and recommended for the control of houseflies and pest beetles of some crops.
For a truly scientific opinion on the CSI problem, the explanation of a national scientist entomologist who is still active and very much around should be sought.

 

Bibliography and Research Data on neonicotinoids
Midwest USGS study on neo
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3941#.U9PlK7FnCGU
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3941
A neonicotinoid brand name Starkle is now being used to contain a coconut tree infestation by the Coconut Scale Insect (CSI). The Philippines has about 170 million production coconut trees, minus the 33 million Yolanda or Haiyan destroyed, and minus the 2.1 million infected by the CSI.

 

Colony collapse disorder
http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572
EU ban
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html
EU ban 2
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/neonicotinoid-pesticides-are-a-huge
Global moratorium syngenta bayer
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/15/ban-neonicotinoids-another-silent-spring-pesticide-moratorium
“Worldwide contamination, indiscriminately wiping out wild animals, including those on which farming depends: these are the findings of an analysis of 800 scientific papers,”
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
“The neonicotinoid imidacloprid is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world.[3] The neonicotinoid family includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam.”
Eight neonicotinoids from different companies are currently on the market.[8]
Name
Company
Products
Turnover in million US$ (2009)
Imidacloprid
Bayer CropScience
Confidor, Admire, Gaucho, Advocate
1,091
Thiamethoxam
Syngenta
Actara, Platinum, Cruiser
627
Clothianidin
Sumitomo Chemical/Bayer CropScience
Poncho, Dantosu, Dantop
439
Acetamiprid
Nippon Soda
Mospilan, Assail, ChipcoTristar
276
Thiacloprid
Bayer CropScience
Calypso
112
Dinotefuran
Mitsui Chemicals
Starkle, Safari, Venom
79
Sulfoxaflor
Dow Agrosciences
Transform, Closer
N/A
Nitenpyram
Sumitomo Chemical
Capstar, Bestguard
8
+
“Most neonicotinoids are water-soluble and break down slowly in the environment, so they can be taken up by the plant and provide protection from insects as the plant grows. During the late 1990s this class of pesticides, primarily imidacloprid, became widely used. Beginning in the early 2000s, two other neonicotinoids, clothianidin and thiamethoxam entered the market. Currently, virtually all corn that is planted in the Midwestern United States is treated with one of these two insecticides (and various fungicides). Most soybean seeds are treated with a neonicotinoid insecticide, usually thiamethoxam.”
ERGO RESIDES IN ENVI LONG TERM, AND SPREADS EASILY AS WATER SOLUBLE. USED IN MIDWESTERN US CORN, SOYBEAN – TO BLAME FOR CANCER EPIDEMIC USA.
+
US EPA grants conditional reg while under review, can take 15 years
+
WAR BETWEEN CHEMICALS AND ENVI
“The study was supported by COPA-COGECA, the European Seed Association and the European Crop Protection Association, and financed by neonicotinoid manufacturers Bayer CropScience and Syngenta. The report looked at the short- and medium-term impacts of a complete ban of all neonicotinoids on agricultural and total value added (VA) and employment, global prices, land use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the first year, agricultural and total VA would decline by €2.8 and €3.8 billion, respectively. The greatest losses would be in wheat, maize and rapeseed in the UK, Germany, Romania and France. 22,000 jobs would be lost, primarily in Romania and Poland, and agricultural incomes would go down by 4.7%. In the medium-term (5-year ban), losses would amount to €17 billion in VA, and 27,000 jobs. The greatest income losses would affect the UK, while most jobs losses would occur in Romania. Following a ban, the lowered production would induce more imports of agricultural commodities into the EU. Agricultural production outside the EU would expand by 3.3 million hectares, leading to additional emissions of 600 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.[37]
When the report was released, a spokesperson for the Soil Association, which has been working to ban neonicotinoids in the UK, commented that since the report was funded by Bayer Crop Sciences and Syngenta, “it was probably unlikely to conclude that neonicotinoids should be banned”. The spokesperson further stated: “On the one hand, the chemical companies say we risk the additional costs to farmers amounting to £630 million. On the other, the possible cost of losing pollinating insects is thought to be worth three times as much (£1.8 billion*) to UK farmers.”[38]
Dinotefurn
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-044312_01-Sep-04.pdf
“The endocrine system refers to the collection of glands of an organism that secrete hormones directly into the circulatory system to be carried toward a distant target organ. The major endocrine glands include the pineal gland, pituitary gland, pancreas, ovaries, testes, thyroid gland, parathyroid gland, hypothalamus, gastrointestinal tract and adrenal glands.”

 

Endocrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system

 

US EPA REVIEW OF DINO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinotefuran
“Its mechanism of action involves disruption of the insect’s nervous system … In order to avoid harming beneficial insects such as bees, it should not be applied during bloom … In July of 2013, the state of Oregon temporarily restricted the use of dinotefuran pending the results of an investigation into a large bee kill.”
+
“In March 2012, the Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network, Beyond Pesticides and a group of beekeepers filed an Emergency Petition with the EPA asking the agency to suspend the use of clothianidin. The agency denied the petition.[17] In March 2013, the US EPA was sued by the same group, with the Sierra Club and the Center for Environmental Health joining, which accused the agency of performing inadequate toxicity evaluations and allowing insecticide registration based on inadequate studies.[17][18] The case, Ellis et al v. Bradbury et al, was stayed as of October 2013.[19]
%d bloggers like this: