BAN OF BEE-KILLING PESTICIDES IN EUROPE

By New Scientist staff and Press Association

Reproduced from  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167537-the-european-union-has-decided-to-ban-bee-killing-pesticides/

Campaigners have hailed a decision by European countries to bring in a near-total ban on pesticides linked to declines in bees as a “major victory”.

European Union member states have decided on a ban on the outdoor use of “neonicotinoid” pesticides, after an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) confirmed in February the dangers they posed to bees.

Use of the three pesticides is already restricted in the European Union on crops such as oil seed rape, because of the concerns they have “sub-lethal” effects such as harming the bees’ ability to forage and form colonies.

Member states have now endorsed proposals by the European Commission to completely ban the outdoor uses of the three active substances, meaning they can only be used in greenhouses.

However, how farmers replace the pesticides will be crucial, says Dave Goulson of the University of Sussex, UK. “If these neonicotinoids are simply replaced by other similar compounds such as sulfoxaflor, cyantraniliprole and flupyradifurone (all new systemic insecticides), then we will simply be going round in circles,” he says. “What is needed is a move towards truly sustainable farming methods that minimise pesticide use, encourage natural enemies of crop pests, and support biodiversity and healthy soils.”

Anti-bee chemicals

The EFSA assessment, which looked at the impact on wild solitary bees and bumblebees as well as honeybees, confirmed that most uses of the chemicals pose a risk to the insects.

Last year, UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove had said the UK would back a ban on the neonicotinoids, saying new evidence indicated the risk to bees and other insects from the chemicals was “greater than previously understood”.

Emi Murphy, bee campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a major victory for science, common sense and our under-threat bees. The evidence that neonicotinoid pesticides pose a threat to our bees is overwhelming.

“It’s great news that Michael Gove listened to the experts and backed the ban – he must now give farmers the support they need to grow food without bee-harming pesticides.”

Indoor use only

Antonia Staats, senior campaigner at Avaaz, which had led a petition backed by five million signatures to ban the chemicals, said: “Banning these toxic pesticides is a beacon of hope for bees.

“Finally, our governments are listening to their citizens, the scientific evidence and farmers who know that bees can’t live with these chemicals and we can’t live without bees.”

European Commission spokeswoman Anca Paduraru told reporters in Brussels that it was hoped the ban will enter into force by the end of the year.

She added that there would be exemptions for the indoor use of neonicotinoids.

“We are banning all outdoor uses, so under strict conditions they might still be used in greenhouses,” she said.

DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON FOLLOWS WITH A TENDENCY TO INCREASE

Reproduced and translated from www.imazon.org.br

Deforestation follows with a tendency to increase, according to the Bulletin of Deforestation (SAD) December 2018 disclosed in January by Imazon. In the first five months of the calendar, August to December 2018, 1,706 km2 of deforestation were detected, an increase of 79% compared to the same period last year. The tendency of deforestation is also validated by the data of the DETER (Real-time Deforestation Detection) of the INPE (National Institute of Spatial Research) monitoring system, according to chart below.

In the ranking of the States that most destroyed the forest, Pará State contributed 45% deforestation alerts registered in December 2018. Of the ten municipalities that were the most deforested in that month, seven are in Pará. Mato Grosso occupies the second place in the ranking with 35% of deforestation.

Indigenous Lands

Indigenous land (TI, Terras Indígenas) was the category of protected areas more deforested in December 2018. The Pará state concentrates most of the TIs more pressed by deforestation. The TI Cachoeira Seca do Iriri, located along the trans-Amazonian Highway, lost 8km2 and occupies the first position in the ranking. Another point of attention is the Yanomami indigenous land in Roraima, which has been threatened with cases of trespassing and land conflicts and occupies the seventh position.

Conservation units

The newsletter presents also the ranking of the 10 protected areas with the highest number of alerts of deforestation in December 2018. The Extractive Forest Rio Preto Jacundá and extractive reserve Rio Preto Jacundá, both in Rondônia state, are at the top of the list.

MORE MEAT EATEN WORLDWIDE!!!

Which countries eat the most meat? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47057341
(The whole repport may be accessed in the link above - BBC)

Meat production today is nearly five times higher than in the early 1960s - from 70 million tonnes to more than 330 million tonnes in 2017.

A big reason for this is that there are many more people to feed.
Over that period the world population more than doubled. In the early 1960s there were around three billion of us, and today there are more than 7.6 billion.
While population is part of the story, it doesn't entirely account for why meat production increased five-fold.
Another key factor is rising incomes.
Around the world, people have become richer, with the global average income more than tripling in half a century.
When we compare consumption across different countries we see that, typically, the richer we are the more meat we eat.

There are not just more people in the world - there are more people who can afford to eat meat.
We see a clear link with wealth when looking at patterns of meat consumption across the world.
In 2013, the most recent year available, the US and Australia topped the tables for annual meat consumption. Alongside New Zealand and Argentina, both countries topped more than 100kg per person, the equivalent to about 50 chickens or half a cow each.
In fact, high levels of meat consumption can be seen across the West, with most countries in Western Europe consuming between 80 and 90 kilograms of meat per person.
At the other end of the spectrum, many of the world's poorest countries eat very little meat.
The average Ethiopian consumes just 7kg, Rwandans 8kg and Nigerians 9kg. This is 10 times less than the average European.
For those in low-income countries, meat is still very much a luxury.
These figures represent the amount of meat per head available for consumption, but do not account for any food wasted at home or on the shop floor. In reality, people eat slightly less meat than this, but it's still a close estimate.
Middle-income countries driving the demand for meat
It is clear that the richest countries eat a lot of meat, and those on low incomes eat little.
This has been the case for 50 years or more. So why are we collectively eating so much more meat?
This trend has been largely driven from a growing band of middle-income countries.
Rapidly growing nations like China and Brazil have seen significant economic growth in recent decades, and a large rise in meat consumption.