Page 4 - 2015 Winter Gazette

Neonicotinoids, introduced in 1993, largely
Bee All You Can Bee:
Pollinator Safety With and
Without Neonics
By Rick Yates, GGSPro Technical Services
Manager; and Tami Van Gaal, GGSPro
Technical Specialist
Growers at every point along the production
trail, from young plant producers to retail
sales outlets, are considering the same
question: Will they use neonicotinoid
insecticides to control pests or purchase
plants that have already been treated with
them this year? Some are concerned that
neonics pose a greater risk to bees than
other commonly used insecticides. Others
are responding to the widespread public
perception that this is indeed the case,
even if they aren’t convinced themselves.
Some growers are simply working to meet
the requirements of their customers.
As of this writing, some national retailers
have instituted policies requiring neonic-
treated plant material to be labeled stating
that fact beginning January 1, 2015. Addi-
tionally, certain cities have banned neonics
and at least one state has enacted labeling
requirements. Taken together, these activi-
ties have led some young-plant growers to
take the step to be neonic-free in order to
satisfy varied grower requirements.
4
GGSPro began an in-depth investigation
into the topic of bee health more than a year grown indoors (no direct exposure risk),
and a half ago. Our review of the literature
made it clear that threats to bee health are
many and varied, with pesticide exposure
being just one piece of the puzzle. However,
we all need to recognize that improper use
of many insecticides has the potential to
harm bees; bees are insects after all! We
have outlined our position in bulletins and
previous Griffin Gazette articles, so this
discussion will have a different emphasis.
Threats to bee health are many and varied,
with pesticide exposure being
just one piece of the puzzle.
replaced organophosphates, carbamates
and, to a lesser extent, synthetic
pyrethroids in growers’ pesticide cabinets.
The development of these products was
driven by a need for effective options with
a more environmentally friendly profile. The
neonics provide benefits over these older
products both in terms of efficacy and
generally lower toxicity. Many of the older
products lacked specificity: They are very
harmful to beneficials and other non-target
organisms instead of just the target pest.
Additionally, many of these products have
succumbed to pesticide resistance over
the years. Simply rolling the clock back
is not a safe alternative for bees and will
not reduce our pesticide use. Instead, we
need to take a responsible position to use
our tools wisely for safe and effective pest
control.
Different factors play into product choices
for pest control, including the target pest,
the crop on which the product will be used,
REI limitations, need for immediate knock
down, need for OMRI products, desire
for a soft product option, BCA compat-
ibility, spray history, etc. There are also
times when bee safety plays a factor in the
decision.
Bee toxicity should be a strong concern for
crops produced outdoors where bees have
contact with the crop. Growers should also
consider exposure risk from spray residue
or systemic activity for crops which are
but will be moved outdoors (residual expo-
sure risk). Since the length of residual bee
toxicity is typically not known, flowering
crops that will be moved outside within four
weeks of treatment should be treated with
products that do not present a residual ex-
posure risk.
GGSPro has developed Bee Safety Codes
to help growers make sound decisions and