That these insectides are n only killing target pests, they are killing many beneficial species and destroying the base of e food cha. This has happened before. Are they the new ddt . We dont want to have an insecticide that kills things it shouldnt. Weve been somehow railroaded by Agrochemical Companies into relying entirely on their products. And i think we should be really concerned. It began th honeybees. In 2006, large numbers of worker bees began to abruptly disappear from honeybee colonies. Since then, beekeepers have been losing 30 or more of their hives annually, losses that are higher than normal. This phenomenon came to be called colony collapse disorder. New york state beekeeper jim doan saw it firsthand. Ive worked in bees for now 46 years, and so i know what normal looks like, and what weve seen over the last 6 or 7 years is not normal. Neybee ls has consuences f the ecomy. Onthird ofood proded in the u. Sdepends honeybe polination we are putting at risk several hundred billion dollars productvery yea its significanbecause th cro that are llinated a some of them that really add diversity and vitality to our et. Honeee loss have be linkedo multip factors ke pestides, hatat deadation,alnutritn, pathoge, and vaoa mite inftations. For pesticide manufacturer Bayer Crop Science, the issue is clear. Mt expertagree that the single greatest threat to honeee healtis the vroa mi, an invive bloosucking pet that bh direct pasitizesyoung anadult be and vectors bee diseases. Where varroa mites are absent or well controlled, honeybeesre thriving. But jim says he knows why his bees are dying. We had a multitude of neonics that were showing up in our bees. It doesnt take much to kill a bee. Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticide and coming on the scene in the 1990s. It is the fastestgrowing group of insecticides in the united states. For the companies that make them, neonicotinoids, or neonics, are big business. They bring in over 2. 6 billion a year in global sales. They are widely used as Seed Treatments, applied as soil drench, or sprayed onto foliage. In the u. S. , they are used on some 200 million acres of cropland, on almost all cn, canola, and half of all soybean crops, as well as many fruits and vegetables. They are used in home and garden products, often at concentrations that are far higher than those you will find in the agricultural sector. Millions of pounds of these insecticides are used in urban and suburban areas. And in urban areas were usually doing it to have the perfect rose or the nicest rhododendron or a lawn without any insect pests in it. Manufacturers argue the pestfighting power of neonics is indispensable to american agriculture. Without neonics, consumers would pay higher prices for food, farm exports wou be lessompetiti, and the u. Economy would suffer. In the 1940s, we had the organochlorine insecticides, such as ddt and endosulfan, and initially these pesticides were viewed as a miracle chemistry. We started using more and more of these as industrial agriculture took hold in the fifties, sixties, and, really, this is what Rachel Carson talked about in silent spring. Using all these insecticides was really leading to what she felt was a collapse of biodiversity. We wereilling thenderpinnin of, uh, of the food chain. By the 1970s, regulators were rushing to get these organochlorine pesticides off the market because of their persistence in the environment and their possib link with birth defects, cancers, eggshell thinning in birds, and other problems. Along in the late eighties and early nineties, really people started to think, well, we need something that is more targeted. We need chemicals that are not so broadly toxic to everythin and thats really where neonicotinoids came from. The idea was that these chemicals, although highly toxic to insects, are less acutely toxic to mammals, theyre less acutely toxic to fish. They also thought, what if we can target them inside the plant . If we can target them inside the plant, this is going to be better, because the animals outside the plant are not going to be affected. They became popular because they weresed as aystemic secticide,o you could apply it to the seed and it would just be put in e ground a the plant wod take iup as rows, eventually giving the Plant Protection from pests. Theyre found in the leaves, the stems, the roots, and the pollen and the nectar. And nobody really thought about that weak link, which was toxic pollen, toxic nectar, and toxic for a long time in these crops. Neonicotinoidsre nerve toxins fecting thnervous systeof organis. Bayer crop science says they are safe for honeybees. Honeybee health in north america began tdecline ma years bere neonitinoids were in use. Weve tested these products for many years, and in the field under real exposure conditions,hese pducts ar safeand we he lots o studs to sw that. Many sentists ose resech is not nded bthe peicide instry chaenge the fety of onics, sayg that evelow leve of exsure can afft the abily of honbees to communicate and can suppress their immune system, making them more susceptible to viruses and varroa mites. The effects of these pesticides on the bees is manyfold. It affects reproduction. The navigational ability of the bees is impaired. They cant find their way home. If th can find theiway home, theyant ring resrces back to the hive, the hive gets depleted of worker bees and forager bees, and the hive just crashes after that. And its not only honeybees that are affected. Were seeing broadscale decline in really important pollinators, like our bumblebees. Perhaps 30 of our bumblebees are in decline, and a quarter of them at risk of extinction in the near future. David goulson, a scientist based in the united kingdom, looked into how neonicotinoids affect bumblebees. We wanted to know what would happen to a bumblebee nest that was next to a field of a flowering crop like canola that had been treated as a seed dressing with a neonicotinoid. So we simply took bumblebee nests and we either gave them healthy food for a fortnight or we gave them food that wed added, um, neonicotinoids to to mimic the exact concentrations that would be in the pollen or nectar they gathered from treated or [indistinct] crop. And then we put the nests outside. They then had to forage for themselves. They had to fly into the landscape and bring back food. We compared how well the nests did that were either treated or not treated. And the effects were really astonishing. We found that the control nests, the ones eating healthy food, grew faster, got much bigger. Compared to the treated nest, the treated nest produced 85 fewer new queens than the healthy, the control nest. If thats happening with wild nests, which theres no reason to believe that it wouldnt be, then that means that the following spring, there are going to be 85 fewer queen bees starting new nests, which youd imagine could have huge knockon longterm effects if thats happening every year. And its not only pollinators at risk. In june 2014, the task force on systemic pesticides, an independent group of scientists from 15 nations, found that neonics and the pesticide fipronil also harmed birds, amphibians, reptiles, as well as terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Earthworms, vital for soil productivity, are especial vulnerable. Neonics affect their tunneling behavior and sperm quality. Jeanmarc bonmatin of the National Center for scientific resech in fran, was one the lead authors of the groups findings. [speaking french] the Task Force Says systemic pesticide contamination is so widespread that the diversity and stability of the worlds ecosystems is at risk. The task force based its findings on an analysis of 800 peerreviewed reports, the most comprehensive review of the scientific literature on systemic pesticides to date. When asked to comment, Bayer Crop Science said the task force only looks at worstcase scenarios, and that studies under realistic field conditions show that systemic pesticides do not harm honeybees, birds, or other wildlife. The main concern with neonics is that they have such a high toxicity to a broad range of invertebrates, terrestrial and aquatic. They are extremely persistent and extremely mobile. And you put those 3 conditions together and youre talking about removal of a large segment of the invertebrate community. Tyre aumulating the soiltheyre drawup by heerow plas, by ees growing inarmlan and so. D so sentially ything thats livi in farmnd is beinslowlyoisoned althe time. The other thing that has me out is that theyre much more water soluble than everyone was led to believe. This means that when they get into the ground with water, they move readily in across the environment. They are now found routinely in stream samples as well as well samples across the united states. Birds like swifts and swallows depend on insects as a food source. If insects are killed in their breeding ground, usually a body of water, birds are deprived of food. The concentrations of the neonics in our waterways are sufficient to kill the aquatic invertebrate life on which these birds depend. In canada, where neonicotinoids are widely used on crops, dr. Christy morrissey is also finding high levels of wetland contamination. She focuses her research in canadas breadbasket, the prairie pothole region of saskatchewan, where Agricultural Land is laced with potholes, small temporary ponds fed by snowmelt and rain. In 2013 we found up to 90 of the ponds that we sampled in spring, even before the farmers were out seeding, had detectable levels of neonics in them. But our peak concentrations occurred after seeding, not surprising, particularly after rainfall events, at levels that were, you know, upwards of, uh, 3 parts per billion, which is well known to affect Aquatic Insects. With over 40 of the cropland in canadas prairies treated with neonicotinoids, the impact on Aquatic Insects and the animals that rely on them for food could be significant. Dr. Morrisseys study is the first to look into this issue in canada. We have a field study thats trying to understand how neonicotinoids potentially get into wetlands and whether or not they affect aquatic invertebrates, which are the base of the food chain for all kinds of other wildlife species, and in particular, birds. So were trying to link these 3 different things, um, from thefrom the pesticide on the field to the wetlands to the bugs, and ultimately to the birds. Weve found that neonicotinoids across the board have a range of toxicity for the different insect species. But for a certain group, and particularly the mayflies and the midges, these species are extremely sensitive to neonicotinoids. The chicks, the young birds, need that supply of insects. As do the, uh, the female birds, the hens, when theyre laying their eggs. They need that high protein source. And theres some critical points in birds life where insects are key and critical. And if thethe amount, the availability of insects is reduced, it has been shown that that affects reproduction. So we put nest boxes up in different sites, some that are uncontaminated, that have no Pesticide Use and in sites that are more agriculturally intensive that have extensive use of neonicotinoids. Morrissey is only a year and a half into a 4year study, but is already starting to see some alarming effects. The birds are lower body mass or got poor body condition at some of these agriculturally intensive sites. So we know that there is some link or some correlation between how well the birds are doing in terms of their physiology and their health and their body condition and how many bugs or how abundant the bugs are. And that seems to relate well with the, uh, presence and levels of contamination in these ponds. There have been few studies to date on how neonics affect ocean life. This is an area of specialization for dr. Craig downs, and what he is learning is troubling. For example, imidacloprid can affect crab larvae as low as 50 parts per quadrillion. It affects their mitochondria at this level, so that its a mitochondrial poison. It can affect their muscles. If the mitochondria are damaged in the muscles, it can cause paralysis. It also causes immune suppression in these crabs. Meaning that they are much more susceptible to bacterial infections and fungal infections when coexposed with imidacloprid. Craig downs also studies the impact of imidacloprid on sea urchins. Neonicotinoids cause dna damage in sea urchin sperm as low as 500 parts per trillion. It causes developmental abnormalities as low as 5 parts per trillion. It means that theyre a mutagen. Um, it means theres a direct threat to the reproductive fitness of the entire biodiversity of marine environments. If you have damage to sperm or if you have damage to eggs, the next generation will not be as fit or might not come into existence at all. Um, so it threatens sterility. The Mesoamerican Reef stretches 700 miles from the northern tip of mexicos yucatan peninsula to honduras. Its home ta wide dersity of mare life. D dr. Dos foun it is ontaminad with nenicotinos largelas a rest of runf from agrictural fids. 8 yearago, a cal reef ganismwidsurvey w conducd to meare themount ofesticidethat cou be fou in at lst 22 ral reef orgasms, rging fm corals queen cch to a mber of ral reefishes. At we dicovered s that o of all e sampl that weollected 68 of thsamples at we collected were contaminated with imidacloprid. 53 of the samples we collected were contaminated with fipronil, which is another systemic pesticide. So the level of contamination on a coral ref, especially the secondlargest barrier reef in the world, is pretty disturbing. If neonics harm animals, what about people . In human surrogates like rats and mice, neonics are linked to a wide range of disorders. And in human blood studies, they are linked to dna damage and cell mutations. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection agency are really supposed to be, um, managing these insecticides in a way that causes minimal harm to humans and other animals. Starting in the 1990s, Agency Scientists were raising red flags about the mobility, the persistence, the toxicity of these neonic products, incding the effects on pollinators and other wildlife. Epa documents show Agency Scientists knew imidacloprid is highly toxic to songbirds, aquatic invertebrates, and honeybees as early as 1993. Yet epa allowed imidacloprid on the u. S. Market a year later. Afr decades exposure,he consequences epa scientists once warned about are now confirmed by the task force on systemic pesticides. And unfortunately, these chemicals are often, and i would say most of the time, released before there is adequate information tohow whethethey are harmful in the environment. I think neonicotinoids are a prime example of that. Epa assesses risk posed by pesticides prior to their release on the market. Safety studies are typically conducted and paid for by pesticide manufacturers on their own product. Epa says its decisions are informed by the best science available. In addition to studies by manufacturers, epa scientists review pesticide studies from peerreviewed scientific journals and data from a wide variety of sources when they are available. But studies on pesticide safety that come out after a pesticide is on the market may not be evaluated by epa until a pesticide comes up for review, a process that can takas lo as 15 yea. Farmers like drew stabler of laytonsville, maryland say that neonics can be used safely and are indispensable to their business. Well, i think that any product thats on the market has been tested and proven to do a job, and we ha faith in that process. Myself as a farmer, ive been farming 50, 60 years. Ive been lucky enough to make a living doing what i like to do. A we try to use everything thats been tested and approved and recommended at certain times and how much. We do that both for the benefit of the environment and the benefit of our pocketbook. You keep hearing about extra people in thworld that need to be fed, so we cant back off on what our production abilities are. We feel we have to keep improving our production abilities. And some of these products will contribute to that. He reason that were worried about neonicotinoids specifically is because theyre being used at an unprecedented scale. Essentially, it seems to me the agrichemical industry has persuaded everyone that they need these products as an insurance against a pest outbreak in their crop. But actually, most of the time these pests arent there. So youre insuring against something which is never gonna happen. They have a real impact on natural enemies of the crop pests. We can cause secondary pest outbreaks because these chemicals are so efficient at killing the predators and the parasites of the crop pests. Perhaps 70 of the neonicotinoids used on soybeans in a Seed Treatment are not needed. Theres no pest that theyre controlling. So if we just use them only when they were needed, we could eliminate insectide use over millions of acres. Many people would say we need pesticides to grow thfood to fe the growi world, the human population, and that maybe its a Necessary Evil to sacrifice some wildlife along the way. Fine. So you then look to see, to try to weigh up the damage that neonicotinoids seem to be doing against the benefit we get from them in terms of increased crop yield. And amazingly, it turns out theres virtually no evidence that theyre actually effective. So there have been a whole sway of studies, particularly from north america, come out in the last year or two where theyve simply grown crops with and without seed dressing and find that they get exactly the same yield without the seed dressing as they do with it. Some actions are being taken curb the use of neonics. In europe, he European Union banned 3 neonics for a period of two years in 2013. The ban targets neonics used on plan and cereals attractive to pollinators. In the united states, the saving americas pollinators act was introduced in congress in 2013. Earl blumenauer was one of the sponsors of the bill. What were attempting to do with this legislation is blow a whistle. Stop moving forward with the products within the next 6 months that has this potential exceedingly damaging effect and prohibit their use until were able to follow through on the research to prove that theyre safe. But congressional action is unlikely any time soon. In 2014, neonics were banned by the cities of eugene, oregon and spokane, washington on municipal property. The u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced plans to ban neonics from all wildlife refuges by 2016. And the white house launched an initiative to strengthen federal action to improve Pollinator Research and to protect pollinator habitat. There are things that we cant control or not easily regulate, things like climate change, even habitat loss are things that we cant control. But things like pesticides we can. Well, nature is pretty good at fixing itself. But then that assumes that youre going to remove the pressures that were putting on it now. We depend on all these things. We depend on bees to pollinate our crops, on worms and other organisms that live in soil to keep the soil healthy and so on. If we wipe them all out, then ultimately, well wipe ourselves out. 10 16 17 10 16 17 [captioning made possible by democracy now ] amy from pacifica, this is democracy now the situation from a humanitarian standpoint is a catastrophe. We have something cluster million cases of cholera made by the end of the year, the whole General Public Services is really disintegrating in yemen. Amy in yemen, the u. S. Backed saudiled war has sparked the worst cholera outbreak in modern world history. Well speak with California Democratic congressmember ro