Michael Gove is backing a ban on bee-killing pesticides. But it’s only a start | Hannah...

Discussion in 'News' started by The Guardian RSS, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. The Guardian RSS

    The Guardian RSS New Member


    Michael Gove is backing a ban on bee-killing pesticides. But it’s only a start | Hannah Lownsbrough

    Written by Hannah Lownsbrough

    At last, the environment secretary has stated his opposition to neonicotinoids. Now he needs to be brave, and confront the use of other poisonous pesticides
    There was good news this morning for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been calling on the government to endorse a ban on neonicotinoids, the main culprit for the precipitous decline in the world’s bee population. Michael Gove, the responsible government minister, has finally confirmed that the UK will support an extended ban against the use of these pesticides. It’s been a long time coming – and has taken years of effort from campaigners all over the UK. Make no mistake: this ban will do much to limit the damage done by these dangerous chemicals.

    Related: The evidence points in one direction – we must ban neonicotinoids | Michael Gove

    Related: UK will back total ban on bee-harming pesticides, Michael Gove reveals

    Continue reading...

    Since you’re here …

    … we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

    If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. Support the Guardian – it only takes a minute. Thank you.

    Walterp likes this.
  2. Jim75

    Jim75 Member

    I'd pay to not print the guardian if that helps
    bovrill, Refco, neilo and 4 others like this.
  3. Steevo

    Steevo Member

    Having read the glyphosate thread, and now this.....

    We, farmers, are made out to be the bad ones sometimes for not only using this stuff....but also for being the ones who jump up and down trying to save them when they are under threat as if we are trying to poison people.

    Part of me thinks stuff them. If they want to ban all of this.....it has the potential to hurt them a lot more than us, and we are the ones protecting them from the consequences of their actions and fighting their corner to keep food cheap etc. You can't win!

    Should our attitude change to "well you can ban these things if you want....but don't say nobody warned you about the unintended consequences" and let them deal with the situation they create. Oh, and the fact that they will still be eating the chemicals they "banned" but at a higher price now because they're being imported.
  4. Chris F

    Chris F Staff Member

    But you can still buy cigarettes, just to put it all in perspective, scientifically proven to kill you. In the world of Trump, never let facts or truth get in the way with political gain. But this is what the public out there believe. Scary.
    Steevo likes this.
  5. Robigus

    Robigus Member

    Sudbury, Suffolk
    Three questions arise:
    1. If scientific evidence of harm to bees through using neonicotinoids in non-flowering crops such as cereals and sugar beet were ever to be found would it be published?
    2. IF these products are so dangerous will the UK ban the import of agricultural products, and the foods produced from them, to "protect" the British consumer?
    3. How many more tonnes of foliar pesticide will now have to be used to alleviate the damage that these seed dressings would have prevented, and what will the unintended consequence of this ban be on non-target species?

    Two of the leading researchers in this field Ben Woodcock, an entomologist at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and Linda Field, head of Bio-interactions and Crop Protection at Rothamsted Research, both support a restriction of the use of neo-nics in flowering plants but neither support an outright ban because of the necessary increase in foliar application.
    Macsky and Steevo like this.
  6. Wooly

    Wooly Member

    Romney Marsh
    Welcome to the forum @The Guardian RSS .

    Hopefully reading the non alarmist threads on here may at least give you a different slant on some of your shockingly one sided articles that you print.

    As a Country we are extremely lucky to have such a choice of plentiful cheap food, grown by very few farmers to feed 70 million people.

    Once everything is banned, expect to pay considerable more for your food because we certainly won't be producing any where near enough.
  7. Steevo

    Steevo Member

    Not just that but those around you - general public, children, pets etc.

    Imagine the damage that smoking or engine emissions has on bees and other insects on a daily basis!
  8. farmerm

    farmerm Member

    I note they haven't been back since they set up the account or they have come back incognito.

    "There was good news this morning for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been calling on the government to endorse a ban on neonicotinoids, the main culprit for the precipitous decline in the world’s bee population." Thats a fact is it...
    Steevo likes this.
  9. ZXR17

    ZXR17 Member

    South Dorset
    So @The Guardian RSS , with your recent post regarding the proposed ban on " dangerous chemicals " used by UK farmers you will of course now encourage the hundreds of thousands of campaigners to push for a ban on ALL produce imported into the UK which are produced using these chemicals.
  10. spin cycle

    spin cycle Member

    north norfolk
    this:)....nuff said(y).....i'd add i'm past caring what they ban....because if they 'keep putting straws on the camels back' they'll have more to worry about than not enough of the right lettuces in m&s
    Steevo likes this.
  11. neilo

    neilo Member

    I’m wondering if there’s a church of ‘Guardiantology’, much like the cult of Scientology, but with Monbidickhead as the guru?:scratchhead:

    The paper certainly seems to fervently believe in some pretty outlandish ideas, without looking at whether there are many facts to back them up. The more outlandish the better it seems, so long as the faithful readership continue to lap it up.:facepalm:
    An Gof and nonemouse like this.
  12. Kiwi Pete

    Kiwi Pete Member

    Owaka, New Zealand
    It almost makes you wonder if farmers will ever wake to the fact that food production is actually possible without being a slave to the widely adopted and popular monoculture model....

    Despite the emotive nature of these stories that sell newspapers, and the cries of farmers being misrepresented and misunderstood, there seems to be a global reluctance to admit that it's the monoculture model at fault for this reliance on substances that will be picked off, one by one, for political gain.. Screenshot_20171113-122447.jpg

    Abandon monoculture :)
  13. An Gof

    An Gof Member

    I once had a rep working for me that tried to put his daily newspaper, The Graniaud, on his expenses when staying away.
    I never approved it, if he had taken The Telegraph I might have let it slip through :D
    His wife was a teacher ......... enough said :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
    neilo likes this.
  14. llamedos

    llamedos Staff Member

    Oop North ish

    These RSS feeds are not set up by the owner of the feed (in this instance the Guardian) they are simply a feed linked to the forum news section by @ ChrisF and auto post.
  15. Wooly

    Wooly Member

    Romney Marsh
    ............so not fake news, but fake members !?! :facepalm: :stop: :whistle:
    Jim75 and farmerm like this.
  16. neilo

    neilo Member

    So is @Chris F just trying to wind everybody up by selecting THAT publication's feed?
  17. llamedos

    llamedos Staff Member

    Oop North ish
    Please do not shoot the messenger.
    I have more holes than a colander.
  18. DrWazzock

    DrWazzock Member

    I'm just about at that point as well. When they ban "sprayed on" pesticides after the neonic ban we will see shortages and sky high prices for any manky old produce. When their broccoli and other veg is swarming with beetles and caterpillars, that's if they can get any at all, then they no doubt they will be satisfied that they have achieved their aim of putting the needs of nature before the needs of humans. It's a type of fascism.
    spin cycle likes this.
  19. DrWazzock

    DrWazzock Member

    And the most ironic thing is that as produce becomes scarce and dear, I will become even wealthier than I am now, while the poor won't be able to afford to eat.

    Nice one all you lefty socialist guardian reading organic nut eating bunny hugging badger cuddling twits.
  20. shakerator

    shakerator Member

    pesticides are a petrochemcial byproduct.

    to use oil based fuels to travel around, heat our homes, service our infrastructure involves a lot of refining. The by products of this refining make their way into plastics, clothes, pharmaceuticals and agrochemcials. It is all part of the oil age industrial cycle. To have one without the other makes no sense. I.e, it is more wasteful from a resource utilization point of view to live a jet set lifestyle with nice car, and heated house and eat "organically" because you are not using the byproducts.

    If you want to live in a deindustrialized world then you should drop all the benefits that go with it. Then you can ban whatever you like :)

Share This Page