Insecticiden

Ya en 2013 la EFSA emitió sus conclusiones sobre la peligrosidad de estos insecticidas para las abejas cuando utilizados en el tratamiento de semillas, lo que ha llevado a que se restringiese su uso en toda la Unión Europea, lo que fue un avance considerable. Más que confirmado. Confirmadísimo. La semana pasada la Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria (EFSA) publicó un nuevo estudio que confirma una vez más la peligrosidad de tres insecticidas neonicotinoides (el imidacloprid y la clotianidina, producidos por Bayer, y el tiametoxam, producido por Syngenta) para las abejas. La conclusión es clara: “riesgos elevados fueron identificados o no pueden ser excluidos” cuando estos insecticidas son fumigados sobre los cultivos.

Nach Ansicht der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) stellt das Spritzen von neonikotinoidhaltigen Pflanzenschutzmitteln zur Blattbehandlung ein Risiko für Bienen dar. Das ergibt sich aus den vergangene Woche veröffentlichten Bewertungen der für Bienen bestehenden Risiken durch Clothianidin, Imidacloprid und Thiamethoxam. Berücksichtigt wurden dabei alle Anwendungen mit Ausnahme der Saatgutbehandlungen und von Granulat. Für die Fälle, in denen die Bewertung abgeschlossen werden konnte, ermittelte die EFSA entweder hohe Risiken oder will Risiken zumindest nicht ausschließen. In den übrigen Fällen sorgten Datenlücken für den Verzicht auf ein abschließendes Urteil.

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 introduced new criteria for the approval of pesticide active substances, including hazard based exclusion criteria with regard to certain classification criteria, environmental concerns, and endocrine disrupting properties. The Regulation specifies criteria for substances with carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction properties (CMR), Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and substances that are persistent, bioaccumulable and toxic (PBTs) including those very persistent and very bioaccumulable. The Regulation also calls for specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties, and pending the adoption of these criteria, enacts the so-called ‘interim criteria’, based on classification considerations and ‘toxic effects on the endocrine organs’. Since 2014, EFSA has published 15 Conclusions on new active substances and 26 on applications for renewal that explicitly summarise the assessment of potential endocrine effects under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. For 24 active substances, including 3 microbial pesticide active substances, the available information has not led to the detection of specific concerns, however in the case of two substances EFSA has recommended additional studies to confirm this conclusion. Hazard or risk based concerns have been identified from the available information for 15 substances.

Neonicotinoids are a new group of insecticides, and little is known about their toxicity to nontarget freshwater organisms an potential effects on freshwater ecosystems. The aim of this study is to establish the acute toxicity and histopathological effects of thiamethoxam-based pesticide on the gill tissue of Gammarus kischineffensis. In this study G. kischineffensis samples were exposed to 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 mg/l of commercial grade thiamethoxam for 96 h. The 24, 48, 72 and 96 h LC50 values were determined as 75.619, 23.505, 8.048 and 3.751 mg/l respectively. In histopathological study the individuals were exposed to 0.004, 0.04 and 0.4 mg/l thiamethoxam concentrations for 14 days. The results showed that the most common changes at all doses of thiamethoxam were vacuolization and hemostatic infiltration in the gill tissue of G. kischineffensis.

Center for Food Safety's (CFS) report, “Water Hazard: Aquatic Contamination by Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the United States,” shows widespread water contamination with neonicotinoid insecticides and threatening a range of aquatic invertebrates including crabs and insects. In particular, the report draws attention to the use of neonicotinoid seed coatings, up to 95 percent of which ends up in the environment, not the crop. Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticide known to have acute and chronic effects on honey bees and other pollinator species and are considered a major factor in overall bee population declines and poor health. The report examines representative case studies from Maryland, Iowa, and California, each of which is experiencing widespread neonicotinoid contamination exceeding recommended standards as determined by leading experts in aquatic species toxicology. The report also highlights contamination elsewhere, including New York, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin. It describes the key roles of irrigation and field drainage and discusses the growing risks to aquifers, vulnerable wetlands and the valuable wildlife inhabiting those areas, such as migratory birds and sport fish.

“Reading the emails make(s) me want to throw up” tweeted the Food Babe after reading a lengthy series of them posted online by the NY Times on Sept 5th. The emails in question result from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and are posted in the side bars of a front-page article by Times reporter Eric Lipton (“Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show”). The article is highly disturbing, but, as the Food Babe implied, the Times buried the real story. The real scoop was not the perfidy and deceit of a handful of individual professors. Buried in the emails is proof positive of active collusion between the agribusiness and chemical industries, numerous and often prominent academics, PR companies, and key administrators of land grant universities for the purpose of promoting GMOs and pesticides. In particular, nowhere does the Times note that one of the chief colluders was none other than the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

„Beim Lesen der E-Mails haut es mich einfach in die Luft", twitterte ‚Food Babe‘ nach dem Lesen einer langen Reihe von E-mails, die die New York Times am 5. September ins Netz gestellt hatte. Die betreffenden Mails resultierten aus einer Anfrage im Rahmen des „Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)“ und wurden zu einem frontseitigen Artikel, den Times-Reporter Eric Lipton geschrieben hatte ("Food Industry Enlisted Academics in GVO Lobbying-Krieg – das zeigen E-Mails" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-i… ) in einer On-line-Seitenleiste publiziert. Was am Artikel aber stört und was auch ‚Food Babe‘ stillschweigend hinnimmt, ist, dass die NY-Times die wahre Geschichte verbirgt. Der Renner war nicht nur die Perfidie und der Betrug von einer Handvoll von einzelnen Professoren, sondern der tatsächliche Renner aus den E-Mails war, dass darin der Beweis der aktiven Absprachen der Agrarindustrie und der chemischen Industrie mit zahlreichen und oft prominenten Wissenschaftlern, PR-Unternehmen, und Schlüssel-Administratoren der Agro-Universitäten zum Zweck der Förderung von GVO und Pestiziden offen gelegt wurde. Insbesondere publiziert die NY Times nirgendwo, dass eine der Haupt-Verschwörer kein anderer als der Präsident der „Amerikanischen Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften (AAAS)“ war.