Home Depot plants kill honeybees

[Tommy]

I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in Hattiesburg, MS have a tag in the top of the pot that states this plant is resistant to certain kinds of insects.  They contain Neonicotinoids and it states it is EPA approved.  What they don't say is that this pesticide is confimed by scientists to kill honeybees.  The manager wasn't particular concerned about it, nor was a customer who was loading up plants into her car.  Another person took their plants back and wanted a refund. I'm telling everyone I can to steer clear of Home Depot plants, and plants anywhere else that contain this pestiside.

[Michael Bush]

Honeybees will sting you right?  So why wouldn't you want to kill them?  ;)  Be glad they are at least labeling them.  They didn't use to.

[D Coates]

I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in Hattiesburg, MS have a tag in the top of the pot that states this plant is resistant to certain kinds of insects.  They contain Neonicotinoids and it states it is EPA approved.  What they don't say is that this pesticide is confimed by scientists to kill honeybees.  The manager wasn't particular concerned about it, nor was a customer who was loading up plants into her car.  Another person took their plants back and wanted a refund. I'm telling everyone I can to steer clear of Home Depot plants, and plants anywhere else that contain this pestiside.

Neonics are indeed scientifically confirmed to kill bees when they are directly fed it in syrup in high doses.  The trouble with that finding is, they don't normally directly eat it in the real world, even less in the high quantities of the test. 

What pesticide are you going to use instead of this?  How deadly to bees and other insects are they?  Do you expect everyone else to use the same too or are they going reach for the old school seven dust that'll kill just about any insect in comes into contact with?  Or will it be even worse stuff?  It's a slippery slope especially when pointing out scientific findings that only tell 1/2 of the story.

[ggileau]

I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in Hattiesburg, MS have a tag in the top of the pot that states this plant is resistant to certain kinds of insects.  They contain Neonicotinoids and it states it is EPA approved.  What they don't say is that this pesticide is confimed by scientists to kill honeybees.  The manager wasn't particular concerned about it, nor was a customer who was loading up plants into her car.  Another person took their plants back and wanted a refund. I'm telling everyone I can to steer clear of Home Depot plants, and plants anywhere else that contain this pestiside.

Neonics are indeed scientifically confirmed to kill bees when they are directly fed it in syrup in high doses.  The trouble with that finding is, they don't normally directly eat it in the real world, even less in the high quantities of the test. 



What pesticide are you going to use instead of this?  How deadly to bees and other insects are they?  Do you expect everyone else to use the same too or are they going reach for the old school seven dust that'll kill just about any insect in comes into contact with?  Or will it be even worse stuff?  It's a slippery slope especially when pointing out scientific findings that only tell 1/2 of the story.

So true! I'm certainly not smart enough to know all the answers but as you say about seven dust. What is the answer? Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. It seems as though that if neonics were that lethal that the Varoa mites would be in jeopardy as well, wouldn't the honey be virtually extinct in the farm belt?  Some studied say that the answer is in management of the colonies. I'm not trying to start a dispute but more like devils advocate. I'm always trying to look at both sides.

I do agree with Michael Bush and I tip my hat to The Home Depot for being up front with us. I understand the the company is sensitive to the concerns of Neonicotinoids. Most big companies could care less as long as they are following guidelines. They have my business.

[Kathyp]

and what were the plants?  if they are not plants that attract pollinators anyway, what difference does it make?  if i buy a box hedge and it's treated with something that kills the chewing pests, that's a good thing.  keeps me from having to spray the thing. 

i don't care that they caved to pressure and started labeling.  it's in the same category as labeling in the grocery store.  few people read, even fewer care, it makes the tree huggers happy.  as long as they don't label each leaf as they do  each tomato, i'm good with it.

[Tommy]

EPA Restricts Use of Pesticides Suspected of Killing BeesThe EPA has issued a moratorium on use of a type of pesticide theorized to be responsible for plummeting bee populations. Neonicotinoids are a class of common pesticides that recent research has pointed to as being harmful to birds, bees and other animals. The EPA previously approved their use, but outcry over the damage being done has caused the agency to reverse course while more studies are done. On Thursday, the EPA sent letters to people and companies that have applied for outdoor use of the pesticide, saying that new use permits won't be issued.

New uses of neonicotinoids will no long be approved "until the data on pollinator health have been received and appropriate risk assessments completed," the EPA letter reads. Existing permits to use them, however, will not be rescinded ? something wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with.

"If EPA is unable to assess the safety of new uses, the agency similarly is not able to assess the safety of the close to 100 outdoor uses already approved," said the Center for Food Safety's Peter Jenkins in a statement criticizing the EPA's actions. Other organizations of beekeepers, environmentalists, and farmers echoed the sentiment.

Though it isn't calling an end to all uses of neonicotinoids, the EPA says in its letter that it is taking the problem seriously: "EPA considers the completion of the new pollinator risk assessments for these chemicals to be an agency priority."


This Video Player Requires JavaScript. It has come to our attention that the browser you are using is either not running JavaScript or out of date. Please enable javascript and/or update your browser if possible.

[Tommy]

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-pesticides-bees-biologist.html

For the beekeepers who would like to know the 2nd half of the story about what neonicontinoids does to the bees, soil, birds, water and aquatic life, go here for more info. And for the people that don't care about it or that is smarter than me no comment needed . Thank you. And have a nice day.

[Kathyp]

ah yes....the "theory".  the THEORY!!!!!

I LOVE THE theory.  everything should be based on it....or one.  what we eat, what we do, how we do it, when we do it........

[D Coates]

Theory vs. Reality

A son comes in and asks his dad for the difference between theory and reality.  The father asks him to separately ask his mother and his sister if they'd have biblical relations with any man for $1,000,000.  Both the mother and sister separately debate the pros and cons and both decide that their respective answer was "yes."  The son reports to the father his findings. 

The Dad pauses and replies, "In theory, we're multimillionaires.  In reality, we've got a couple freelance orgasmatitions living under our roof."   

Theory is exactly that.  It's unproven and can be molded to fit whomevers agenda.  If it's a good theory, then it'll end up being proven eventually but until then I don't make any life decisions on it.  To this point the neonic/bee issue is merely another theory that appears to have trouble getting any traction in real word scientifically based studies.  Without any quality supporting documentation it's still getting publicity because there's a bit of the tree hugger, anti-"Big-Ag" agenda being pushed here too.

I'm a huge outdoors person.  I hunt, fish, bird watch, camp, works bees and basically just love being outdoors.  But of course wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with the decision to not rescind.  They make their money from pointing out the next "epidemic" or "environmental catastrophe" and how your donations will help stop XYZ.  The day they're ALL happy scares the heck out of me.  We'll be living in mud huts practicing hunter gathering food acquisition techniques if some of those groups had their way.

The link posted had this link attached at the bottom of the page http://phys.org/news/2012-09-pesticides-proven-guilty-honeybee-declines.html#nRlv  The headline reads, "Pesticides not yet proven guilty of causing honeybee declines, new study says."

[ggileau]

Theory vs. Reality

A son comes in and asks his dad for the difference between theory and reality.  The father asks him to separately ask his mother and his sister if they'd have biblical relations with any man for $1,000,000.  Both the mother and sister separately debate the pros and cons and both decide that their respective answer was "yes."  The son reports to the father his findings. 

The Dad pauses and replies, "In theory, we're multimillionaires.  In reality, we've got a couple freelance orgasmatitions living under our roof."   

Theory is exactly that.  It's unproven and can be molded to fit whomevers agenda.  If it's a good theory, then it'll end up being proven
eventually but until then I don't make any life decisions on it.  To this point the neonic/bee issue is merely another theory that appears to have trouble getting any traction in real word scientifically based studies.  Without any quality supporting documentation it's still getting publicity because there's a bit of the tree hugger, anti-"Big-Ag" agenda being pushed here too.

I'm a huge outdoors person.  I hunt, fish, bird watch, camp, works bees and basically just love being outdoors.  But of course wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with the decision to not rescind.  They make their money from pointing out the next "epidemic" or "environmental catastrophe" and how your donations will help stop XYZ.  The day they're ALL happy scares the heck out of me.  We'll be living in mud huts practicing hunter gathering food acquisition techniques if some of those groups had their way.

The link posted had this link attached at the bottom of the page http://phys.org/news/2012-09-pesticides-proven-guilty-honeybee-declines.html#nRlv  The headline reads, "Pesticides not yet proven guilty of causing honeybee declines, new study says."

Amen! It is why I like to play devils advocate. What you state holds true for everything from race relations to global climate change. Jackasses make make a ton of money promoting the negative issues.

[Tommy]

This is an update to the post you put on here that is dated 09-2012.  The info below is from the same website as your post.  Read and take away what you want to from this.  If anyone has a more updated version of this, I would love to see it.

Pesticides harm more than bees, says biologist's study

Jun 14, 2013 by Maggie Clune



Pollinators such as bumblebees might not be the only wildlife affected by neonicotinoids, says new research.

(Phys.org) ?Soil organisms, aquatic life and farmland birds may all be harmed by neonicotinoid insecticides, according to a new study by University of Sussex biologist Professor Dave Goulson.



Neonicotinoid insecticides have been in the news because of growing concern that they are linked to serious declines in bee species ? resulting in a two-year EU ban in April 2013 of three neonicotinoids commonly used in Europe.



But Professor Goulson's study ? 'An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides'1 ? published this week (Friday 14 June 2013) in the Journal of Applied Ecology and which draws together data from diverse sources including the agrochemical industry's own research, reveals that harm to bees may be just the tip of the iceberg.



Neonicotinoids are mostly applied as seed dressings, intended to be absorbed by the crop, but well over 90 per cent of the active ingredient goes into the soil and leaches into groundwater, where it persists for years.



Data from agrochemical manufacturer Bayer on the persistence of neonicotinoids in soil are made widely available for the first time in Professor Goulson's study. The data first came to light during investigations by the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee.



According to the data neonicotinoids, if used regularly, accumulate in soil to concentrations far higher than those that kill bees, posing a risk to soil invertebrates and soil health.



Professor Goulson says: "Any pesticide that can persist for many years, build up in soil, and leach into waterways is likely to have effects far beyond the pest insects it intends to target. This is particularly so when the pesticide is highly toxic to non-target organisms. For example, less than one part per billion of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid in streams is enough to kill mayflies."



The study also highlights risks for grain-eating birds such as partridge, which need eat only a few neonicotinoid-treated grains of crop to receive a lethal dose.



This latest evidence calls into question the effectiveness of the recent two-year EU moratorium on use of some neonicotinoids on flowering crops. Professor Goulson says: "Neonicotinoids will still be widely used on cereals, so the broader environmental impacts are likely to continue. Given the longevity of these compounds, they would be in our soils for years to come even under an absolute ban, so two years is far too short to produce any benefit, even if there were any clear plan to monitor such benefits ? which there is not. It is entirely unclear what this two-year moratorium is meant to achieve".



Professor Goulson also draws attention to the lack of publicly-available evidence on the effectiveness of neonicotinoids. He says: "Studies from the US suggest that neonicotinoid seed dressings may be either entirely ineffective or cost more than the benefit in crop yield gained from their use. We seem to be in a situation where farmers are advised primarily by agronomists involved in selling them pesticides."

[Michael Bush]

>"...harm more than bees..."

I think we need to be concerned about the effect on people... but no one seems to care about that.

[D Coates]

>"...harm more than bees..."

I think we need to be concerned about the effect on people... but no one seems to care about that.

I concur, but until there's believable evidence, I'm one of those who doesn't care.  There are plenty of actual known things that adversely affect me and my family that I focus on.  The theories?  Nope, my life is too short to worry about the "what ifs" and I ignore them.

Tommy, I find it interesting that of your 6 posts 4 of them are on neonics.  When it's questioned as to what plants are these treatments are on and do they attract bees, it's ignored.  When the claims are shown to have serious questions, it's ignored.  When it's pointed out that an attached article to one you linked reads, "Pesticides not yet proven guilty of causing honeybee declines, new study says", it's ignored.  Then what's quoted are "findings" of how neonics could be affecting other species and how more time is needed to see if the UE ban is going to be effective (i.e. there's no evidence it's working but let's keep doing it).  Isn't a "lack of publicly-available evidence on the effectiveness of neonicotinoids" what he laments?  Yet, if he had his druthers he'd ban neonics.  (i.e. there's no evidence it's working but let's ban it)

I also find his insinuation that farmers are too stupid to know if they need neonics and they're only doing what the agronomists are telling them to somewhat insulting.  Farmers are independent business people.  They make their own decisions and are a heck of a lot more in touch with what makes them money and what doesn't than Professor Goulson.  I grew up with many farming families and if there was one thing I learned from them it's, if they don't need it they don't buy it, if it doesn't make them money they don't do it.  They're also very smart.  Dumb farmers don't stay farmers.

Going back to "Home Depot plants kill honeybees".  It appears no more so than my car heading down the highway.  But it appears that's not the axe being ground here.

[Tommy]

 426 days Business It's estimated that between $20 billion and $30 billion in American agriculture production depends on honey bees and other pollinators.
 Home Depot, Lowe's Swarmed by Bee ActivistsBy Mark Koba

It's estimated that between $20 billion and $30 billion in American agriculture production depends on honey bees and other pollinators.It's estimated that between $20 billion and $30 billion in American agriculture production depends on honey bees and other pollinators.
Home Depot and Lowe's are under fire for selling pesticides that some believe are partly to blame for killing billions of the nation's honey bees.

Petitions with thousands of signatures are being delivered to the home-improvement retailers this week, demanding they stop selling the pesticides?called neonicotinoids?along with any plants in the stores that have been treated with them. Neonicotinoids are the most widely used class of pesticides in the world.

"There's a growing body of science indicating that the pesticides are a key factor in recent global bee deaths," said Lisa Archer, director of the food and technology program at the environmental group, Friends of the Earth.

Archer said her group, which is leading the petition effort, tested plants for sale at Lowe's and Home Depot and more than half had the pesticides. She said because there were no labels on the plants or pesticides that they could be harmful to bees, consumers were left in the dark about the dangers.

Home Depot was aware of the pesticide issue before the petition effort began, said Ron Jarvis, vice president of merchandising and sustainability at the retailer.

"We've been in contact for months with several environmental groups about neonicotinoids," Jarvis told CNBC by phone. "Now we've been in contact with Friends of the Earth."

Jarvis said Home Depot has been working on an alternative to neonicotinoids for some time and several of the retailer's suppliers are already using the replacements.

Lowe's has not made any public statements or responded to meeting requests from Friends of the Earth, said Archer. (Calls to the company's corporate offices were not returned in time for this story.)

First published February 14 2014, 8:29 AM
    Mark Koba Mark Koba is a senior editor at CNBC.com. Topics for his feature story writing include the business of politics, health care, employment and the economy.

Before working at CNBC.com, he spent 11 years at Bloomberg LP, where among various duties, he was program producer for the award-winning "Bloomberg Small Business" television show.

Koba's background includes a decade of news writing and show producing at CNN, E! Entertainment Television, ABC's "World News Now," "Good Morning America" and CBS' "This Morning."
... Expand Bio

[Kathyp]

Ah yes.  Friends of the Earth. 

I would venture a guess that a rather large amount of agricultural production depends on it not being eaten by insects. 

Let me share something with you that might explain why many of us are not happy to jump on every bandwagon of the "environmentalists". 

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259

There are a number of links in this if you care to do further research.  To this day, the accepted narrative is wrong, and this action is held up as a great success for the environment.  In reality, it was a great and needless tragedy for millions of people.....but hey, those environmentalists....they meant well, didn't they?

[D Coates]

I noticed this weekend that all the plants in the garden center at my local Home Depot in ...

Just happened to notice?  But then all of these quotes start showing up that conveniently mentioning Home Depot and Lowes and deeper in a petition drive.  Is this what's been driving this "discussion" all along?  Trying to gin up a "ground swell of support" to support a anti-neonic petition drive on Beemaster?

Quotes from Koba and his resume' of working for CNBC, CNN and CBS et. al. merely means he knows how to work the media system.  "Friends of Earth"... wholly molly...  there's a bastion of socialist tree huggers.  Quotes from these characters don't prove diddle.  Petitions?  They mean even less.  "Sign this if you want to save the Honeybees!"  Almost everyone would sign this because it's the cause de jour without even reviewing what it's actually about much less reviewing the research and understanding other implications.

[D Coates]

As long as folks are quoting stuff here's the findings of a recent study on how imidacloprid (a type of neonic) affects honeybees.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118748

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the chronic sublethal effects on whole honey bee colonies subjected to worse-case scenarios as well as normal dietary exposure (5μg/kg) to imidacloprid. We used spiked diet patties placed within colonies to deliver continuous direct exposure over multiple brood cycles to imidacloprid residues that were generally higher than levels found in bee-collected pollen and nectar under field conditions. Our results provide evidence that imidacloprid exposure doses up to 100 μg/kg had no significant effects on foraging activity or colony performance during and shortly after 12 weeks of exposure. However, several colony performance endpoints showed dose-response patterns, particularly higher Varroa infestations with increased dose, though not all patterns were statistically significant. The major finding was the higher rates of queen replacement and resulting broodless periods during the late summer in colonies exposed to 20 and 100 μg/kg of imidacloprid, which led to weaker colonies going into the winter. These exposure regimes sublethally affected colony health and significantly reduced overwintering success. However, the question remains as to whether doses of 100 or even 20 μg/kg exposed for 12 continuous weeks realistically represent imidacloprid residues in bee-collected food under agriculture settings. In certain field situations, residues of imidacloprid can reach or exceed 100 μg/kg in pollen of treated crops during several weeks of flowering [35] or in guttation droplets exuded from treated corn seedlings [45,46]. However, it is uncommon for honey bees to be exposed to these doses for extended periods. Furthermore, bees generally forage on different water and floral sources simultaneously and not all sources will contain residues; thus their foraging behavior tends to reduce the concentration of imidacloprid in food stored in the colony. The within-hive fate experiment demonstrated that imidacloprid residues of 100 μg/kg in diet patties or 20 μg/kg in sucrose syrup became diluted or non-detectable due to the processing of beebread and honey and the rapid metabolism of the chemical by bees. Given the weight of evidence presented here, we conclude that chronic exposure to imidacloprid at the higher range of field doses (20 to 100 μg/kg) in the pollen of certain treated crops could contribute to reduced overwintering success but the most likely encountered field doses of 5 μg/kg, especially relevant for seed-treated crops, have negligible effects on honey bee colony health. Currently there is wide agreement that sublethal exposure to imidacloprid can cause adverse effects on honey bees in laboratory studies [77] but no evidence that this widely used insecticide is the major stressor causing colony declines. Our findings agree with a causal analysis by Staveley et al. [37] that judged neonicotinoid pesticides to be an unlikely sole cause of colony declines. Finally, this study makes evident the importance of conducting risk assessment studies on honey bee colonies over longer periods to reveal the chronic sublethal effects on queen health and bee behaviors that can ultimately impair colony performance

[MDavid]

As long as folks are quoting stuff here's the findings of a recent study on how imidacloprid (a type of neonic) affects honeybees.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118748

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the chronic sublethal effects on whole honey bee colonies subjected to worse-case scenarios as well as normal dietary exposure (5μg/kg) to imidacloprid. We used spiked diet patties placed within colonies to deliver continuous direct exposure over multiple brood cycles to imidacloprid residues that were generally higher than levels found in bee-collected pollen and nectar under field conditions. Our results provide evidence that imidacloprid exposure doses up to 100 μg/kg had no significant effects on foraging activity or colony performance during and shortly after 12 weeks of exposure. However, several colony performance endpoints showed dose-response patterns, particularly higher Varroa infestations with increased dose, though not all patterns were statistically significant. The major finding was the higher rates of queen replacement and resulting broodless periods during the late summer in colonies exposed to 20 and 100 μg/kg of imidacloprid, which led to weaker colonies going into the winter. These exposure regimes sublethally affected colony health and significantly reduced overwintering success. However, the question remains as to whether doses of 100 or even 20 μg/kg exposed for 12 continuous weeks realistically represent imidacloprid residues in bee-collected food under agriculture settings. In certain field situations, residues of imidacloprid can reach or exceed 100 μg/kg in pollen of treated crops during several weeks of flowering [35] or in guttation droplets exuded from treated corn seedlings [45,46]. However, it is uncommon for honey bees to be exposed to these doses for extended periods. Furthermore, bees generally forage on different water and floral sources simultaneously and not all sources will contain residues; thus their foraging behavior tends to reduce the concentration of imidacloprid in food stored in the colony. The within-hive fate experiment demonstrated that imidacloprid residues of 100 μg/kg in diet patties or 20 μg/kg in sucrose syrup became diluted or non-detectable due to the processing of beebread and honey and the rapid metabolism of the chemical by bees. Given the weight of evidence presented here, we conclude that chronic exposure to imidacloprid at the higher range of field doses (20 to 100 μg/kg) in the pollen of certain treated crops could contribute to reduced overwintering success but the most likely encountered field doses of 5 μg/kg, especially relevant for seed-treated crops, have negligible effects on honey bee colony health. Currently there is wide agreement that sublethal exposure to imidacloprid can cause adverse effects on honey bees in laboratory studies [77] but no evidence that this widely used insecticide is the major stressor causing colony declines. Our findings agree with a causal analysis by Staveley et al. [37] that judged neonicotinoid pesticides to be an unlikely sole cause of colony declines. Finally, this study makes evident the importance of conducting risk assessment studies on honey bee colonies over longer periods to reveal the chronic sublethal effects on queen health and bee behaviors that can ultimately impair colony performance

My analogy...eating fast food daily may not kill you but your general health will decline which may result in fewer winters above ground; But do not fear as nobody eats fast food daily.

[Maggiesdad]

I knew a troll named Tommy once... he smoked a lot and got lung cancer. 

[MDavid]

I knew a troll named Tommy once... he smoked a lot and got lung cancer. 

LoL...good one...you have "A" point...after all the bees are old enough to make their own dumb descisions...no need to outlaw tobacco...