Misplaced Pages

Talk:Neonicotinoid: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:10, 23 May 2014 editEllenCT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,831 edits →Links to bee population decline: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:19, 13 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,262,434 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Chemistry}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Agriculture}}, {{WikiProject Environment}}. 
(407 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Chemistry|class=c|importance=low}}
{{Calm}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=c|importance=low|toxicology=yes|toxicology-imp=low}}
{{ITN talk|2 May|2013}} {{ITN talk|2 May|2013}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low|toxicology=yes|toxicology-imp=low}}
{{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High|sustainability=y}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=4320
| archiveprefix=Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=100000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| minarchthreads=1
| format= %%i
}}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}


== Human toxicity reviews ==
==Untitled==
That one section has a bunch of non-linking footnotes. Was this copy & pasted from somewhere else? ] 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Apparently from , copyvio. Deletion request would be needed. --] (]) 07:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


and are WP:MEDRS reviews which discuss human reproductive toxicity. ] (]) 23:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This page needs to talk more about the utility of neonicotinoid pesticides and less about colony collapse disorder. While this pesticide may well be a contributing factor to that problem, it would be unrealistic to not mention the other reasons for which this pesticide was developed. As things stand, this "softer" pesticide is less likely to have off-target effects on other beneficial predatory arthropods while still taking down the target pest. I don't have the time to dig up cites or add it to the article, but for anyone ambitious with a background in IPM... this would make a good quick project. ] (]) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


I see one use of the word "'''neonicontinoids'''". (Note the "n" immediately before the "t".) Is that the correct spelling of something different from "neonicotinoid" or an acceptable alternate spelling of "neonicotinoid" or just a misspelling? I suspect it's just a misspelling, but I'm not sure. So I want to ask before making an edit. This is in 7.1 Toxicity > Bees: "Two studies published in Nature provided further evidence of the deleterious effect of '''neonicontinoids''' on bees..."--] (]) 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem with the thinking that this material is safe is all in the minds of those who sell or use this material. Bee colonies pick up this material in "off target" plants that take this material up in the root systems, and pass the toxic mess on to the flowers and other tissues, including pollen and nectar which are in good supply in some of these off target plants. Fields when planted in the customary way of single spieces plantings like just almonds, grapes or whatever that take up the entire field and don't in any way have a holding spot or safe zone for off target spieces of both plants and insects are at risk of extreme buildups of destructive insects that ruin any chance of a profit from the field grower. Multi-crop plantings are the answer to single crop plantings. This will allow for a single row of many different kinds of food plants to be cultivated in the same spot but just in different rows in a alternating and mixing of the rows comes more insect diversity and a healthier product due to being bitten by that very insect. The plants make stress proteins and antioxidants to cope with insect pressure and increase the quality of the plants nutrient values when consumed. Keith Newton is a professional beekeeper in the United States of America. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== for Discussion: Removal of sentence ==
The noun phrase "a possible connection to Colony Collapse Disorder which is the result of honey-bee populations collapsing." doesn't make sense as written; it's like saying that cancer is the result of tumors. I will re-phrase it to "a possible connection to honey-bee Colony Collapse Disorder.", which says the same thing less confusingly. ] (]) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


I plan to remove this sentence currently in the section on "bees":
== This page needs work ==


"In general, however, despite the fact that many laboratory studies have shown the potential for neonicotinoid toxicity, the majority of field studies have found only limited or no effects on honey bees." ]]
I agree with Aderksen above and would like to begin improving the content on this page consistent with ] and WP's standards for ].


While in 2015, perhaps this may have been a reasonable citation and sentence, nearing 2022, this generalization ("In general") now seems to take on an overly editorial ("however", "found only limited or no effects") tone on this controversial subject under great public scrutiny and very active research since then.
For starters, I'd like to suggest following the sort of topic headings used for ], another pesticide chemical, that focus on encyclopedic content for the chemical(s). I believe it's consistent with the ] to have the fundamental facts about the chemical take precidence over speculative content and inadequately researched scandals widely broadcast in the blogosphere and mass media. From ]:


For example, the citation's latest reference was 2015 and was too early to include later research and review such as this 2017 article in Science () or others.
<blockquote>While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections.</blockquote>


Respectfully,
Also, from ]:
] (]) 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
:This is only a single study, and I don't see anything we could use to contradict the statement about the majority of studies. They would require a review or meta-analysis type approach. ] (]) 02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


::Ah yes. Apologies for not being more clear and providing more. Good point. I was just providing a single prominent study as a characteristic example.
<blockquote>Accidents and incidents occur all the time. While their scale and magnitude may merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages on grounds of notability, that such an accident has occurred is not sufficient justification for inclusion in the context of an article about chemicals...To reiterate, if such accidents are sufficiently notable, they should have their own article (e.g. discussion in ], not in ]).</blockquote>


::So, here's at least one more updated review that does point to how the Cornell's previous review seems out of date and does not include an updated understanding coming from a more extensive body of research than existed at the time. In particular, it compiles a far amount of more current research (to 2019): https://www.mass.gov/doc/neonics-scientific-literature-review-december-2019/download
The topic headings I propose are as follows: Intro, History, Active Substances, Use, Mode of Action, Toxicity, Environmental Hazards and Risk Mitigation, References, External links


::Perhaps I can cite this document as an update and reword this sentence all together?
Thoughts --] (]) 20:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


::I'll see if I can find something even more recent than 2019.
== Did CCD continue where neonicotinoids were discontinued? ==
Since France, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia suspended the use of neonicotinoids, it should be feasible to find results of ] losses in those areas. However, my lack of familiarity with the governments and languages of those countries has made it difficult for me to find the official statistics. The closest I've got so far is which mentions the bans but doesn't report the resulting statistics. Does anyone know where to find those? ] (]) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


::In particular, my main objection to the existing sentence is that it seems to mischaracterize current state of understanding and has a "voice" that speaks as if current; not the citation it uses.
Aha! A little more digging and an email exchange found including university researchers and beekeepers who all say their neonicotinoid ban completely halted their CCD losses. I am certain this should be included in the article, but I hope to track down peer reviewed reports if possible. ] (]) 01:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


::Simply, it is misleading to the reader.
== Two new articles in ''Science'' implicate neonicotinoids in colony collapse disorder ==


::Thanks for your comment.
From magazine tomorrow:


::] (]) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
:"Five years ago, bees made headlines when a mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder decimated honey bee colonies in parts of the United States. Now bees are poised to be in the news again, this time because of evidence that systemic insecticides, a common way to protect crops, indirectly harm these important pollinators. Two field studies reported online this week in ''Science'' document problems. In exposure to one such chemical leads to a dramatic loss of queens and could help explain the insects' decline. In another insecticide interferes with the foragers' ability to find their way back to the hive. Researchers say these findings are cause for concern and will increase pressure to improve pesticide testing and regulation."
:::First, please ] your comments. You were already aware that removal didn't have consensus here, so you should not have gone and removed it anyways.


:::Secondly, a letter from Industrial Economics, Inc. isn't exactly a reliable source, and it doesn't really contradict the 2015 source anyways. Usually we want peer-reviewed sources, but at the least, a university source like the Cornell one is decent here. If there are sources that actually do contradict the actual text, then those should be discussed here. In general though, honeybees are fairly resistant to neonicotinoids overall (in the relative sense), so much of the focus nowadays is on wild pollinators that do have higher susceptibility and risk.
More popular treatment summarization is . ] (]) 23:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


:::Overall, the field hasn't developed such a smoking gun for honeybees at least. There's still plenty of recent review articles that talk about issues in study design with many of these studies: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00218839.2018.1484055. If there is a sea-change in the literature, then the reviews will reflect that if/when that happens. ] (]) 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
And NYT. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/science/neocotinoid-pesticides-play-a-role-in-bees-decline-2-studies-find.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::{{bullet}}
::: Kshih: I think you will want this:
:::I certainly will not agree with the other editor that your source is ''entirely'' unreliable and does not contradict the 2015. It is not peer reviewed however and so we should prefer something else. It was commissioned by a political body and so could be written to pander to their bias. López-Uribe is much better. (89) in probably supports toxicity also. You will have to read carefully here if you want to talk about ''A. mellifera'': A lot of what I find is about wild bees instead.
:::I haven't read all of this I have just looked quickly so I have no conclusions. Overall I find only a few pieces of evidence for actual toxicity and a few for ''A. mellifera'' having effective CYPs for neonics (for another example ). This is a politically pressured subject and seems to be moving rapidly, recently. ] (]) 27 November 2021 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology==
:Thanks for the studies and the NYT article. Here is another source: . This entire article needs a lot of editing to include recent information. IMO, the German bee kill incident information should be cut back since it was an accident and it is well known that bees die when exposed to a large amount of these (or almost any) pesticides. I will work on the article when I have time. ] (]) 13:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Georgia_Southern_University/Toxicology_(Fall_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-08-10 | end_date = 2022-12-08 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)</span>
in a Harvard School of Public Health study. ] (]) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


==Where do they come from?== == Article for creation ==
It like to see commentary about the source of neonicitoids both how they were developed (are they based on an existing natural molecule?) and how they are manufactured.
] (]) 22:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


Article for creation: ]. ] (]) 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
== Edits to lede ==


== Effects on more complex animals ==
to the lede was, despite good intentions of the editor, an oversimplification of the facts, as well as perpetuation of some slightly misinformed publications. (meta note: is there a better way to link to a diff?)
I added the following section, which seems quite germane but it was deleted in its entirety.
:Rodents exposed chronically or acutely to neonicotinoids suffer major damage to their nervous systems, likely due to impairment of their ] mechanisms. Laboratory studies showed that such major neurological damage resulted both when the exposure occurred during the ]nic period and when the exposure occurred during adulthood. Impairments to cognitive ability and to memory were observed. Neonicotinoid exposure at an early age was shown to impair neuronal development, with decreases in ] and induced ]. Adult exposure induced neurobehavioral toxicity and resulting changes in ]s.<ref>Carmen Costas-Ferreira and Lilian R. F. Faro, International Journal of Molecular Science, , 2021 Aug 22(16): 8413, Published online 2021 Aug 5</ref>] (]) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
:I agree that removing this is unjustified. I don't understand what Nangaf meant by <code>Needs better integration with existing sections</code>. ] (]) 24 December 2022 (UTC)
::I will restore this section unless Nagraf or someone else responds soon with a substantive reason for wholesale deletion.] (]) 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks for bringing it to talk. I can't remember exactly what my original objection was, but on second glance I don't have any problem with the material or where it was in the article. ] (]) 06:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Will do.] (]) 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
"neonicotinoids block a specific neural pathway that is more abundant in insects than warm-blooded animals" copied from here:

Edit: That was probably paraphrased from here: , which specifically states it hasn't been updated since 1996 and may be out of date.

This statement is simply false, and it shows up on every neonicotinoid-related page I've looked at.

I am trying to clarify information about the basis of insect specificity (including potential mammalian toxicity) while also adding information about why they were needed (organophosphate and carbamate extreme toxicity). I hope this addresses some editors' concerns.

&#8211; ] ] &#8211; 05:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Chemistry - Error in Picture ? ==

In the picture comparing ] with ], the nicotine molecule looks like a ]. "true nicotine" does NOT contain a quaternary amine! So this seems to be not correct!? ] (]) 04:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:The structures are correct. Because nicotine is a base, at physiological pH it will be protonated. It will exist as the ammonium cation (though it is not a quaternary amine). -- ] (]) 13:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::To ''protonate'' an Amine means the same. The ] core ''is'' an ] (I'm usually using ] for protonating Amines. But '''I don't believe''' that ''in-vivo''-conditions like ''"in neutral aqueous solution"'' are basic enough for that - (with exception of ] - they do not need protonating agents): there are many in-vivo Amines like ] or externally Amines like ], if when these are being protonated, they will fail to act in usually manner - (some works like ] instead!)..... ] (]) 15:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Quaternary amines and protonated amines are different. Quaternary amines have no hydrogen atoms on the nitrogen (they are not protonated) - they have only alkyl/aryl groups on the nitrogen atom. Sodium hydroxide cannot be used to protonate an amine. Amines are basic and often protonated in neutral aqueous solutions and biological media. The pharmacology of amines will at times be dependent on whether they are protonated or not; and certainly some amines will exert a pharmacological effect only in the protonated form. -- ] (]) 16:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

== What health precautions are possible for people with nicotine allergies? ==

I don't see anything on this in the article. ] (]) 20:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

== Offering up this story for editors to use as possible source material for a future edit ==

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/arable/neonicotinoids-pose-low-risk-to-bees-defra-studies-show/54485.article
Title - Neonicotinoids pose 'low' risk to bees, Defra studies show
Given the topicality of this subject it is good to have as much information as possible. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: needs to get through peer review, but even then, it's the honeybees suffering from CCD, not bumblebees. ] (]) 21:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

== USA-centric ==

I posit that this page could be improved with a more international approach to regulation status. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Nithiazine ==

...seems to be removed from the list of currently commercialised neonicotinoids.<br>
While nithiazine is not practicable as a agricultural insecticide, it is still in use as an insecticide ''per se'', primarily in some fly baits (e.g. the product "QuikStrike" fly bait, possibly others).<br>
While this may appear to be a niche use product and quite possibly, the market value of nithiazine sold per year is nowhere near those mentioned in the table, it shouldn't be only mentioned in passing by as the lead structure which served the developement of the whole class, being of "academic interes only".<br>
As long as it is manufactured and commercialised, it should be noted as such, notwithstanding its niche position compared to other nicotinyls. Cheers,--] (]) 14:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

== One-sided? ==

This article makes it seem like there's a scientific consensus that neonics are a/the problem in bee health, since it (at length) spells out the research linking neonics to bee deaths. That doesn't seem to be the case -- for instance, cites plenty of scientific research saying that neonics aren't the problem. I have no stake in this, but I'm suprised a wikipedia article is so one-sided on what seems to be a contentious issue. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I agree. It also seems to suffer from ] issues too in some areas, namely overusing primary sources that are subject to being exploratory studies that can be easily overstated. I'm an entomologist who works with pesticides, but don't have any stake in the bee side of things, so I'll keep this article tagged to see if I can work up some of the scientific consensus end of things if I get some time in the future. ] (]) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

:The graphs in that article are not consistent with ]. ] (]) 00:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

== Links to bee population decline ==

I recently removed the Journal of Insectology reference from this section. I noticed other issues with this section as well, but figured I'd mention it here since I won't have time to edit the section more in-depth for a bit. Remember to be mindful of ] where we should try to avoid citing primary scientific literature as those studies have not been replicated. Currently this section reads as a synthesis of primary research, and our job as editors is not to do that, but to summarize the current scientific consensus, which this section doesn't really seem to be addressing so much. We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/full

With that in mind, any thoughts on how to improve this section? At some point I'd like to rewrite the section according to what the secondary literature actually says so far, but that likely will mean a lot of material being changed in this section, so I figured I'd see if anyone else had points they think should be addressed here before that happens.] (]) 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{u|Gandydancer}} reverted the recent edits, so I'm continuing the conversation in this section. The question was whether ] applies here, or at least its rules on primary literature. I cited MEDRS since that page does a good outline of determining reliable sources in scientific research, but it is generally applicable to most areas of scientific research. However, this same policy is found in ] if you want. The key problem here is that primary research often produces spurious results. That's why we rely on secondary sources to describe scientific consensus instead of just listing a bunch of primary research findings as the section now does (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_%28natural_sciences%29#Summarize_scientific_consensus). In this case the study goes against the current scientific consensus that neonicotinoids aren't the sole cause of CCD and would require a secondary source supporting the study. At the moment I don't see any reason why this study should be included as it conflicts with some of our rules in the careful use of primary scientific literature (at the current time at least). Any thoughts on how you'd like to deal with this issue with those general guidelines in mind or questions specifically on what the issue is? Thanks.] (]) 03:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

::I reverted only one section, the one in which you cited WP:MEDRS in your summary. IMO, it would be best to not bring MEDRS into this discussion. As you know, many new studies have been published recently such as the finding that the talk being used was found to contain surprisingly large amounts of neonics and that it was being blown onto nearby areas, the finding that contanimation was more persistent than previously thought, that there was a cumulative effect not previously considered, etc. I believe that it is important to keep our research up to date and it is my understanding that primary research may be used, if used appropriately. ] (]) 13:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Careful use is why I'm suggesting to not use the source. MEDRS or SCIRS cannot be excluded here because we are specifically citing scientific research. Here's an excerpt from SCIRS that might help: "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it relevant. Many ideas are proposed and disregarded in the context of scientific discourse. If an idea is cited by a small minority of researchers, but rejected or ignored by the majority of researchers in a field, it should receive limited weight according to its acceptance; ideas held by a tiny minority of researchers need not be reported in our articles, except in articles devoted to these ideas. Very new papers should be used sparingly until enough time has passed to make this assessment - there is no deadline." Also, "Editors should be especially leery of citing papers making exceptional claims until the relevant community has evaluated the evidence. If a result is cited only by the research group originating the claim and ignored by the rest of the field, it should probably not be included even if present in a review authored by the group. Blogs by relevant subject matter experts may be useful in talk page evaluation of the relevance of very new results, though they should rarely be cited themselves. . ." We're basically at the point right now where we have a new study that contradicts consensus, and hence has been criticized by informal sources appropriate for a talk page to assess if the source is suitable, but nothing quite yet for a article citable source. These two pages summarize the general response of the entomological community so far, but since this is a rather recent publication, we need to give ample time for a more formal review source if we want to use the study here (http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/study-claims-colony-collapse-disorder-caused-insecticides and http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/). The main criticisms so far have been experimental design issues, and some being serious toxicology design flaws which could be stemming from none of the authors being an entomologist. Until that information makes it to citable sources for us (or information contradicting it), it would appear this source fails the guidelines for using primary literature at this moment in time.] (]) 14:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

::::I read the info at the blogs and it sounds to me that you are correct -- thanks. I'll revert myself. ] (]) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} are you serious? This article and the literature is filled with corroboration, and the only sources arguing otherwise have been repeatedly exposed for abusing astroturf. I am restoring the passage. Also, do you have a conflict of interest because neonics are used against a pest which you eradicate professionally? ] (]) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{u|EllenCT}}, we've already demonstrated that the article is not suitable for Misplaced Pages at this current time under ]. Are you familiar with the guidelines we use at wikipedia for scientific sources specifically? I find it difficult to keep the source when multiple guidelines aren't fulfilled in this case. Do you have specific comments on the content Gandydancer and I discussed above? Remember we need to address content here, so please address the above conversation if you really think your revert was justified. Otherwise, please don't revert edits already agreed upon in a talk section without discussing them further. On the larger topic of this section being primary literature, our job is to summarize scientific consensus, and we primarily need secondary sources (i.e. reviews). We cannot just list a string of primary sources because if we start trying to string together multiple primary sources into a summary, that constitutes original research. All in all, I'd invite you to address specific content if you have something to add. As for a potential COI, please remember that we address content first here on Misplaced Pages. The things I've mentioned in my conversation with Gandydancer stand regardless of my background and need to be addressed. That being said, I do not work with neonicotinoids, so there isn't any conflict of interest. To the contrary, my current line of work discourages overusing neonics in certain pest systems, and I'm working additionally from a beneficial insect and integrated pest management approach where we tend to recommend limiting the use of insecticides. I work in the toxicology of insecticides, but not marketing or recommending them.] (]) 04:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm the editor who added the paragraph on this study today and got reverted. I thought I had accurately presented what the study said, in a way that did not reject the consensus, although the multi-factorial thesis is not really presented that way in the WP article, either. I had not realized that this study was controversial nor had I read this talk page. If I had, I would have discussed before editing the article. Of note, I added the same material to ]. More broadly, the whole secondary source policy is clearly observed only occasionally across WP. I wonder if some kind of rethink is in order. Many editors display a strong impulse to present the latest info. Is there some way to do so that doesn't mislead the audience? ] (]) 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:No problem, it's sometimes easy to miss discussions when it's relatively new material. This study is actually quite controversial in the entomological world because many entomologists are criticizing the study design and the claims being made. However, it's too early for a formal citable source of article quality to really be available as a review on the study, but that's why ] rather strongly discourages the use of primary sources like this at this point in time. We do have enough information for a talk page though to indicate the study is dubious if you've read the links in my conversation above with Gandydancer. At this point in time, the study conflicts with multiple areas of ], so I don't see any way or reason why it should be included '''at this time'''. Improper use of primary sources is actually a big problem across Misplaced Pages. When coupled with very recent studies, it often gives undue weight to a study that experts have not had a chance to comment on and verify in sources appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Guidelines for scientific sources (] and ]) outline this problem with primary sources rather well, and that's why secondary sources are recommended instead, and primary sources should be used in support of those secondary sources. While we can use primary sources in certain cases, we do need to be mindful of the guidelines that specifically point out when they aren't appropriate, even if we just describe what the study says (recent primary literature can often be incorrect). What a lot of editors run into problems with is not realizing that simply listing a bunch of primary studies in a section like we currently have now goes into original research territory. It's definitely tempting to use primary sources (as a scientist on my part especially too), but it is not our job as editors here to synthesize primary literature, or mention those that run against scientific consensus until we have evidence that consensus has changed.] (]) 01:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} if there are any literature reviews supporting the contention that neonics are not toxic to bees or implicated in CCD, then please cite them. How do you explain the discrepancy between ] and ? ] (]) 05:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:19, 13 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neonicotinoid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
In the newsA news item involving Neonicotinoid was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 May 2013.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChemistry Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Toxicology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconAgriculture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnvironment: Sustainability High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sustainability task force.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Human toxicity reviews

and are WP:MEDRS reviews which discuss human reproductive toxicity. EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I see one use of the word "neonicontinoids". (Note the "n" immediately before the "t".) Is that the correct spelling of something different from "neonicotinoid" or an acceptable alternate spelling of "neonicotinoid" or just a misspelling? I suspect it's just a misspelling, but I'm not sure. So I want to ask before making an edit. This is in 7.1 Toxicity > Bees: "Two studies published in Nature provided further evidence of the deleterious effect of neonicontinoids on bees..."--Kjs04032 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

for Discussion: Removal of sentence

I plan to remove this sentence currently in the section on "bees":

"In general, however, despite the fact that many laboratory studies have shown the potential for neonicotinoid toxicity, the majority of field studies have found only limited or no effects on honey bees." ]

While in 2015, perhaps this may have been a reasonable citation and sentence, nearing 2022, this generalization ("In general") now seems to take on an overly editorial ("however", "found only limited or no effects") tone on this controversial subject under great public scrutiny and very active research since then.

For example, the citation's latest reference was 2015 and was too early to include later research and review such as this 2017 article in Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.aam7470) or others.

Respectfully, Kshih (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is only a single study, and I don't see anything we could use to contradict the statement about the majority of studies. They would require a review or meta-analysis type approach. KoA (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes. Apologies for not being more clear and providing more. Good point. I was just providing a single prominent study as a characteristic example.
So, here's at least one more updated review that does point to how the Cornell's previous review seems out of date and does not include an updated understanding coming from a more extensive body of research than existed at the time. In particular, it compiles a far amount of more current research (to 2019): https://www.mass.gov/doc/neonics-scientific-literature-review-december-2019/download
Perhaps I can cite this document as an update and reword this sentence all together?
I'll see if I can find something even more recent than 2019.
In particular, my main objection to the existing sentence is that it seems to mischaracterize current state of understanding and has a "voice" that speaks as if current; not the citation it uses.
Simply, it is misleading to the reader.
Thanks for your comment.
Kshih (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
First, please WP:THREAD your comments. You were already aware that removal didn't have consensus here, so you should not have gone and removed it anyways.
Secondly, a letter from Industrial Economics, Inc. isn't exactly a reliable source, and it doesn't really contradict the 2015 source anyways. Usually we want peer-reviewed sources, but at the least, a university source like the Cornell one is decent here. If there are sources that actually do contradict the actual text, then those should be discussed here. In general though, honeybees are fairly resistant to neonicotinoids overall (in the relative sense), so much of the focus nowadays is on wild pollinators that do have higher susceptibility and risk.
Overall, the field hasn't developed such a smoking gun for honeybees at least. There's still plenty of recent review articles that talk about issues in study design with many of these studies: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00218839.2018.1484055. If there is a sea-change in the literature, then the reviews will reflect that if/when that happens. KoA (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 •
Kshih: I think you will want this: López-Uribe et al 2020
I certainly will not agree with the other editor that your source is entirely unreliable and does not contradict the 2015. It is not peer reviewed however and so we should prefer something else. It was commissioned by a political body and so could be written to pander to their bias. López-Uribe is much better. (89) in Berenbaum & Calla 2021 probably supports toxicity also. You will have to read carefully here if you want to talk about A. mellifera: A lot of what I find is about wild bees instead.
I haven't read all of this I have just looked quickly so I have no conclusions. Overall I find only a few pieces of evidence for actual toxicity and a few for A. mellifera having effective CYPs for neonics (for another example Matsuda et al 2020). This is a politically pressured subject and seems to be moving rapidly, recently. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spmg98 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HL02378 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Article for creation

Article for creation: Flupyrimin. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Effects on more complex animals

I added the following section, which seems quite germane but it was deleted in its entirety.

Rodents exposed chronically or acutely to neonicotinoids suffer major damage to their nervous systems, likely due to impairment of their neurotransmitter mechanisms. Laboratory studies showed that such major neurological damage resulted both when the exposure occurred during the embryonic period and when the exposure occurred during adulthood. Impairments to cognitive ability and to memory were observed. Neonicotinoid exposure at an early age was shown to impair neuronal development, with decreases in neurogenesis and induced neuroinflammation. Adult exposure induced neurobehavioral toxicity and resulting changes in neurochemicals.NYCJosh (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that removing this is unjustified. I don't understand what Nangaf meant by Needs better integration with existing sections. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I will restore this section unless Nagraf or someone else responds soon with a substantive reason for wholesale deletion.NYCJosh (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to talk. I can't remember exactly what my original objection was, but on second glance I don't have any problem with the material or where it was in the article. Nangaf (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Will do.NYCJosh (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. Carmen Costas-Ferreira and Lilian R. F. Faro, International Journal of Molecular Science, "Neurotoxic Effects of Neonicotinoids on Mammals: What Is There beyond the Activation of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors?—A Systematic Review", 2021 Aug 22(16): 8413, Published online 2021 Aug 5
Categories: