image credit: Don Hankins (Flickr CC)

The jury is in: common agricultural pesticides disrupt the navigation systems of honeybees and reduce the weight and number of queens in bumblebee hives.

Two separate studies showed strong links between pesticides and the epidemic disappearance of honeybees in the US and UK, known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

Experiments showed that honeybees died or failed to return to their hives in much greater numbers than expected. Bumblebees exposed to typical levels of pesticides saw their hives populations shrink by 10% versus hives not exposed. What’s worse is they almost lost their ability to produce new queens. Only queens live through the winter, so no new queens means no more bumblebee colonies.

From the Guardian:

The new research strongly links the pesticides to the serious decline in honey bee numbers in the US and UK – a drop of around 50% in the last 25 years. The losses pose a threat to food supplies as bees pollinate a third of the food we eat such as tomatoes, beans, apples and strawberries.

Germany, France and Italy have already banned certain suspect pesticides, but the UK and US governments want more proof – even now.

And of course the pesticide companies themselves either deny or minimize the significance of the new studies on CCD.

Read more in this article from the Associated Press.

photo by Jeremy Good (jmgmusic519 on Flickr CC)

We depend on honeybees to pollinate some 70 crops. Due to a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), honeybees, mainly in North America, are dying off at a shocking rate – 30% every year since 2006.

In the US, bee die-offs have qualified some beekeepers for disaster relief from the Department of Agriculture.

Though the exact cause, or causes, of CCD are murky – it has been attributed to parasites and satellite communication – the most obvious culprits are pesticides, specifically insecticides.

From the Guardian:

Of particular concern is a group of pesticides, chemically similar to nicotine, called neonicotinoids (neonics for short), and one in particular called clothianidin. Instead of being sprayed, neonics are
used to treat seeds, so that they’re absorbed by the plant’s vascular system, and then end up attacking the central nervous systems of bees that come to collect pollen. Virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn is treated with neonics. The chemical industry alleges that bees don’t like to collect corn pollen, but new research shows that not only do bees indeed forage in corn, but they also have multiple other routes of exposure to neonics.

The US EPA is apparently loath to regulate or ban the manufacture of pesticides, even those insecticides that have elicited strong warnings from scientists concerning their risk to honeybees.

The connection between pesticides and CCD would seem to put beekeepers at odds with growers, yet the fact is these industries depend on each other – and growers’ usage of pesticides may ultimately lead to their own failure.

Take the case of an Australian beekeeper Darren Thompson who lost some 80 hives containing 100,000 bees.

Thompson is quoted in Australia’s Sunday Mail:

The bees were actively foraging when the chemical was applied and the bees would have brought that back to the hive. As bees start grooming themselves back in the hive, the chemical can be spread from bee to bee. One affected bee can kill 10 bees. It has a domino effect. When you’ve been nursing bees throughout the year to build them up to full strength, well, it’s gut-wrenching.

Despite this, Thompson is reluctant to take legal action against the growers, whom he works closely with.

One bright light peeking out from the honeybee plight is the rise of amateur and urban beekeeping.

The Nebraska Radio Network reports that beekeeping is on the rise in the state. A $300 initial investment and a course in beekeeping are all you need to launch your own hobby or business, while at the same time contributing to local ecology, flower and food production.

Image Source: Flickr. By: MattJeppson.

This creature is mainly found in the Sierra Nevada area of California. They range approximately between 2 and 3 inches (5 and 7.5 cm) in size, have orange or yellow coloring on their underside, yellow or red coloring on their topside, and black or brown spots. They love sunny riverbanks, lake borders, and meadow streams; unfortunately, there aren’t many left to enjoy their former territory. In fact, in the past century, more than 90% of their population has died out. Estimated population size (for those located south of the Sierra Nevada) in 2003 was about 183 and they are currently known to inhabit only 7 or 8 locations.

It’s claimed that when they are handled, they smell like garlic, but I wouldn’t try to eat them—they are severely threatened by pesticide use. Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs are probably one of the worst hit species from windborne agricultural pesticides. A study conducted by Davidson and Knapp involved the surveying of 6831 bodies of water. The Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frog was found at 13% (about 888) of the surveyed bodies of water, along with introduced fish species (which also pose a threat, but will be discussed later). At a number of the locations, the fish were removed and unfortunately, the frogs in those bodies of water failed to survive.

Apparently, research performed on the dead frogs from the areas with removed fish showed that the frogs had higher levels of pesticides in their tissue. Other research on amphibians in general shows that not only are pesticides dangerous in general, but they are also known to make the infected amphibian more vulnerable to disease.

One pesticide that poses the biggest threat to the Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frog is Atrazine. Atrazine is a very dangerous pesticide; so dangerous that it has to be specially regulated by the EPA and the State of California. Only those certified by the state are allowed to use this pesticide and only under specific conditions. The toxicity levels in this pesticide are known to cause groundwater contamination, kill birds and fish, and even cause illness in humans including: cancer, lung and kidney damage, congestive heart failure, muscle degeneration and more. If it can do all that damage to a large human, imagine what it could do to a tiny frog; especially considering that Atrazine takes a long time to break down in the environment.

It may shock you to learn that pesticides can actually take decades to completely disappear from the environment and there are frogs that live in places where pesticides have not been used in years, yet they still have pesticides in their tissue because they get it from their home environment. This also has a damaging effect on tadpoles and juvenile frogs.

The good news is people around the world are fighting to reduce (and perhaps eliminate) pesticide use. The bad news is, these frogs are also threatened by pollution, human intrusion/disturbance, climate change, drought, introduced fish species (mainly Trout), ultraviolet radiation (which affects the eggs and developmental process), and the nasty, infectious fungal disease, chytridiomycosis, which is notoriously known to kill amphibians—especially frogs.

To find out more about the Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (because there is far too much to write!), check out these links:

IUCN Red List
Wikipedia
The Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Site
AmphibiaWeb
Western Soundscape Archive (frog sounds)
Save The Frogs!
CaliforniaHerps
Center for Biological Diversity
Reptile Channel
Southern California Camping: Field Guide to Plants and Animals
Sierra Forest Legacy
New Hope for Endangered Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog

By Heidi Marshall

image credit: Greenpeace

Xintang, China is home to some 15,000 textile factories which produce 200 million pairs of blue jeans every year. The wastewater from these factories turns local rivers an unnatural shade of blue.

Residents of Xintang complain of health problems such as birth defects, breathing difficulties and skin rashes, but no serious studies have been conducted to link health maladies to pollutants from the textile industry.

Meanwhile, the cotton industry in India is being blamed for health problems linked to the toxic pesticide endosulfan. Pesticides are also believed to cause children’s hair to turn grey. But pesticides and cotton are huge industries in India, and under pressure from industry lobbyists, the government is reluctant to enact any bans.

See the following France24 video report for more:

Your clothes true colors

Additional resources:

CNN ­– China’s famed Pearl River under denim threat

Outlook India – Poison Earth

Greenpeace – Poisoning the Pearl (PDF)

photo by Zainub Razvi (Zainub on Flickr CC)

I’d choose paper bags for my groceries, but since plastic bags are offered for free in shops and said to be not that bad for the environment, it’s hard to resist them. What is more eco-friendly: plastic or paper shopping bags?

A: Neither.

We have been conditioned to believe that paper bags are eco-friendly.

Paper is made from trees, which are logged by clear-cutting methods. When the collected trees are dry, they are cooked into a pulp for many hours in a chemical mixture.

The pulp is then washed and bleached; both stages require thousands of gallons of clean water. Coloring is added to more water, and is then combined in a ratio of 1 part pulp to 400 parts water, to make paper.

–Colin Dunn of Treehugger

Apart from chemicals, electricity and huge amounts of water used in the process of producing paper bags, there is also significant fossil fuel based energy consumption in the transport of both the raw wood and final product.

The best thing that can happen to a paper bag after it’s been used is decomposition. Yet, biodegradable bags can be too thin and weak to carry your groceries and are often not even offered by supermarkets. If a paper bag does not contain an admixture of plastic, which supposedly makes it stronger, it can be recylcled. This proces usually demands using chemicals, such as bleach, to separate the fibres; and, again, great amounts of water to wash away ink and other impurities.

The production of plastic bags, which releases toxic compounds, requires less energy and water than the production of bags made of paper. But their consumption is still significant, and their seeming advantage is marred by the bags’ long-term impact on the environment.

According to this BBC News article:

Made of polyethylene – more commonly known as polythene – they [plastic bags] are hazardous to manufacture and are said to take up to 1,000 years to decompose.

Tons of plastic travel all over the world, polluting soil and water.

Hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, whales and other marine mammals die every year from eating discarded plastic bags mistaken for food. Turtles think the bags are jellyfish, their primary food source. Once swallowed, plastic bags choke animals or block their intestines, leading to an agonizing death.

Read more in the Myth: Plastic Bags are Free article on reusit.com.

When plastic bags break down [...] plastic debris acts like a sponge for toxic chemicals soaking up a million fold greater concentration of such deadly compounds as PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of the notorious insecticide DDT)

–reusit

Photo by Travis S. (Flickr CC)

According to the U.S. EPA, manufacturing new plastic from recycled plastic requires two-thirds of the energy used in virgin plastic production.

As for the decomposing of so-called biodegradable plastic bags, it appears it’s not that simple. Some of them are partly made from biodegradable materials such as cornstarch, but also contain petroleum.

Bioplastics, although 100% biodegradable, are often made from GMOs and their producers use large amounts of pesticides and fertilizers to grow them. Furthermore, bioplastics can’t be decomposed at home – they require a certain humidity and high heat to break down.

To read more about the advantages and disadvantages of bioplastics, go here.

Do you think shopping bags are free? Don’t get fooled by the clever marketing – nothing is free in this system! You will find the cost of the plastic bag you just put your groceries in on your bill – hidden in the price of your food.

The best solution is to have your own re-usable bag always with you, ideally made from natural fibers like bamboo, hemp or organic cotton. You might even make one yourself.

If you have any questions about environmental issues or anything else relating to the site and topics we cover on Greenfudge, just Ask Joanna.

photo by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (Wikimedia Commons)

Poor bees. We steal their honey, enslave them in order to pollinate apple orchards and then have the audacity to go berserk if one of them lands in our Frappuccino.

Oh yeah, it also turns out we’re probably poisoning them with pesticides, causing their numbers to drop dramatically.

The decline of the European honeybee – known as Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD – could in turn spell disaster for the future of monoculture crops, such as fruits, nuts, vegetables, flowers, seeds, beans and spices.

A new study has linked common pesticides with CCD, spurring environmental groups into a new effort to ban neonicotinoid pesticides.

From an article in the Guardian:

The acceptable limits are based mainly on short-term tests. If long-term studies were to be carried out, far lower concentrations may turn out to be hazardous. This explains why minute quantities of imidacloprid may induce bee decline in the long run.

–study author Dr. Henk Tennekes.

New EU rules will require pesticide companies to provide more data on long term risks to bee health, but the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has said it will not restrict the use of neonicotinoids, as some other European countries, such as Germany, have done.

Besides their intrinsic value to monoculture farming, bees have other uses. Emissions control experts at Germany’s Dusseldorf airports use a large bee colony to measure air quality.

Since bees’ take in air, water and flower nectar from a 3km radius, their honey can be used to judge the air quality in that area, including jet fuel and hydrocarbons levels.

Watch this video report from Reuters for more:

Bees monitor air at German airport

Used under license from Shutterstock.com

Malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases remain a serious threat in many poor communities around the globe; fogging entire towns and neighborhoods used to be the normal practice to prevent this. That method is not only expensive and outdated; it is also impractical because it is off-target and widespread spraying makes most mosquitoes more resistant to the pesticide. Insects, wildlife and other domestic animals also remain at risk from exposure to pesticides due to fogging.

More contemporary and targeted pesticide application methods have been developed throughout the years. One such method is using pyrethrin-soaked bed nets to protect sleeping children. Although proven effective, prohibitive costs still make it inaccessible to low-income households.

Another experiment with promising results is the use of carbamate-impregnated polypropylene. This “sheeting” material is hung against the interior wall surface where mosquitoes prefer to alight. Using this method along with the bed nets has been proven effective especially against more pyrethroid-resistant mosquito breeds. Read the full article here

By Maria Belgado