The
Obama-era policy, brought in after legal action from environmentalists, was
nixed per a memo from the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) deputy director
Greg Sheehan. As reported by the Guardian, he also said that the planting of GM
crops on wildlife refuges would also be permitted once more.
Until now,
very little agricultural activity was permitted on a handful of such refuges –
havens for biodiverse, ecologically important swaths of land. More than 50
national wildlife refuges will now be open to both – on a case-by-case basis –
in order to boost the agricultural sector’s efficiency and yields.
First, a
note about GM crops.
Thanks to
thousands of scientific studies and reviews, it’s become clear that GM crops are
of no more risk to people who consume them than those that have been grown
using conventional farming and breeding methods. The issue as to whether GM
crops can colonize land that wasn’t meant for them is a tad murkier, but recent
research is demonstrating that this is something we can handle.
You can also
debate the using of wildlife refuges for agriculture, although it certainly
seems to run counter to the motivation behind creating them as refuges in the
first place. What seems unequivocally concerning, however, is the rescinding of
the blanket ban on neonicotinoids. So – what are they, exactly?
As noted by
Chemistry World, these water-soluble anti-pest compounds are taken up by the
plant and dispersed throughout them. Neonics, as they are often referred to,
are popular thanks to their effectiveness against multiple pests, their
longevity, and over time become less toxic to mammals.
However,
it’s increasingly clear that neonics were harming bees, both wild bees and
honeybees. Although the direct cause of the problems is still being determined,
it’s suspected that neonics overstimulate their neurons, which can trigger cell
impairment, shutdowns, and even death. The more that bees are exposed to
neonics, the more vulnerable to them they become.
Data
suggesting that these all-important pollinators are being directly threatened
by neonics has been building for some time.
One
highly-publicized study in 2017 on the topic – the largest of this kind – was
widely interpreted as decisively evidencing this threat, even though the
underlying data showed a more mixed picture. Nevertheless, it stands among an
increasingly populous crowd of studies that more clearly point towards the
danger that bees face from neonics.
The European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was already becoming cognizant of this, but after
a 2017 review of more than 1,500 studies on clothianidin, imidacloprid, and
thiamethoxam – the three neonics of greatest concern – they doubled-down on
their conclusions.
This report
ultimately led to an EU-wide ban on these neonics just a few months ago.
Although this caused some to raise legitimate concerns about how to best to
deal with pests without these neonics, most scientists hailed the decision.
“The more we learn about the toxicity of neonics, the more apparent it is that pretty much any plant with nectar or pollen sprayed with these poisons is unsafe for bees,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. https://t.co/FCrNwzmdBi— Center for Bio Div (@CenterForBioDiv) August 4, 2018
It is
curious, then, that the FWS has gone against the grain. It’s worth noting that
their own website still contains plenty of pages like this one, which advocates
for agriculturalists to steer clear of neonics and other systemic pesticides.
Either way,
the decision seems to fit with the Trump administration’s zealous drive to roll
back environmental protections, almost always to favor industry. In this case,
we’d expect pesticide manufacturers to be over the Moon.
Post A Comment:
0 comments: