| Revision as of 08:38, 13 June 2014 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →discussion of Bayer-funded source: ce← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:19, 13 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,234,321 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}}. | ||
| (375 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) | |||
| == |
== 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. | |||
| – ] ] – 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) | |||
| :::{{u|EllenCT}}, one of the more recent reviews that's open access is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/pdf. I've read over other reviews passively without saving them, so when I get a bit more time I'd like to go back and summarize the secondary literature for this section. No one is denying neonics are toxic to bees, but that is very different than saying they are implicated in CCD as well. CCD is a behaviorial response, and not an acute toxicity (i.e. death), so that detail needs to be made distinct first. Right now we're associating neonics alone with the massive bee dieoffs due to CCD in the article, which is problematic as that isn't what's described in the literature. As for the two links you gave, could you tell me what discrepancy you're seeing? Either I missed something or something could be slightly misinterpreted because I'm not seeing anything particularly glaring between the two.] (]) 13:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The first corresponding author and the second of the four authors of are for-hire consultants, and the paper states that it was bought and paid for by the largest neonic manufacturer: "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." And how is it a systematic literature review? There is no review methodology. Only primary research agreeing with the paid-for conclusions are cited, and the paper refers to as a comprehensive review. That review reaches completely different conclusions: "laboratory studies described lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on the foraging behavior, and learning and memory abilities of bees...." The only thing the authors claimed to have reviewed systematically is "current and proposed methods for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees" but not the conclusions of those methods, likely because then they would not have been paid. They don't even fault the EFSA's methodology which resulted in the European ban. Attempting to present this source as a literature review raises serious questions relative to bias, neutrality, and the insertion of paid advocacy in to Misplaced Pages articles. As for the ''Forbes'' article, counts colonies which died ("Honey producing colonies are the maximum number of colonies from which honey was taken during the year. It is possible to take honey from colonies which did not survive the entire year.") and is apparently sourced to someone's Facebook page. At you explicitly recommend the use of imidacloprid above two other insecticides for a pest with which you are professionally involved. Do you understand how paid advocacy damages the quality of the encyclopedia? ] (]) 01:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Keep in mind we're talking about peer-reviewed journal articles here, not self-published industry statements. Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed. Peer-review works the same whether it's a university or industry person writing the paper. I started with the currently mentioned paper because it's one of the more recent reviews and offers a pretty standard commentary on what other literature is also saying. If you want to dispute the content then do so (we can do that at Misplaced Pages), but we shouldn't be chasing red herrings about funding source. However, your assumption of "paid for conclusions" is only that, an assumption, and it is going into original research territory. As for the Forbes, etc. comments, I see where the issue is now. CCD is leading to increased hive losses per year, but you have to remember that those hives are also being replaced (at much greater expense and difficulty than normal). Those two factors would be combined in a graph like that, so that's likely where your confusion is originating from. As for my sandbox page, if you had looked at the original articles in which I'm working on through the sandbox, you would see that I never recommend imidacloprid for anything. I originally started that sandbox as an attempt to merge two pages where one had too much information by copying each page and doing a rough merge before trying to consolidate information. I've been working on removing a lot of unneeded insecticide information over time on that page that previously made it read like someone was trying to sell the insecticides, so I'd suggest backing down on the pitchfork mentality and trying to manufacture biases on my part. We address content here on Misplaced Pages, not beat around the bush by trying to assume a bias to an editor when the evidence doesn't suggest it. If you want to discuss my professional involvement in EAB or entomology in general (I worked with control methods where insecticide use wasn't an option), I suggest bringing it to my talk page rather than derailing the conversation here. ] (]) 03:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|EllenCT}} Hi, EllenCT! Having read the critique of Yu's study, I think any discussion of it should include well-founded criticisms. I was concerned enough that I reverted my own addition of the material to CCD and support removing it here as well. Let's achieve a consensus here before edit warring the article. Therefore I didn't revert you. This is such a tendentious subject that we should be extra careful what claims we include. ] (]) 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you think Bayer's history of trying to astroturf and purchase regulatory approval through sponsored research should be included? Do you know of any ] sources which suggest neonics aren't implicated in CCD? ] (]) 06:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just because a corporation pushes bad science doesn't justify using more bad science to refute them. We should be purging WP of all of that and continue stumbling our way towards the light. ] (]) 17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Would you please answer my questions? ] (]) 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I based my agreement to remove the study based mostly on the fact that, as far as I can tell, the journal is of poor quality--it does not seem to be peer reviewed. Kingoffaces, that you would suggest that we look for sound and unbiased information from a review done by Bayer for its own product really does make me wonder if you are able to make non POV edits to this article. ] (]) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A journal with "Insectology" in the title would have a hard time making it to 67 volumes without peer review. If their hasn't figured out peer review, I bet they have a hard time getting their expenses approved. ] (]) 00:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Gandydancer, if you believe a peer-reviewed literature review is incorrect, then demonstrate how. Funding source is a pretty big red herring when it comes to the validity of peer-reveiwed scientific literature. Validity is based on content, not source. The whole point of peer-review is to fact check other scientists' statements. At our level as Misplaced Pages editors though, we would need to demonstrate that someone has brought up legitimate issues with the content of the study to call it an unreliable source. For more context on the Bulletin of Insectology though, it does state peer-review occurs (http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/Instructions%20for%20authors2.htm). ] (]) 03:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} are there any peer reviewed literature reviews which agree with the Bayer-funded primary source by commercial consultants which you suggested was a literature review? I have read your reply to me above and am unconvinced, but if you can show an actual literature review in agreement with your position, I am willing to reconsider. ] (]) 03:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|12}}{{u|EllenCT}}, first I highly suggest you review ] if you are not familiar with scientific research and sources we use at Misplaced Pages for scientific topics. We are discussing a secondary source here, not a primary one. Other reviews and highly cited primary literature: | |||
| * http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-013-0870-2. Attributes annual losses to pathogens and pests primarily, relatively little evidence presented for pesticides or neonics. | |||
| * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12112/abstract. The multiple stressor approach is given prominence. | |||
| * http://www.intertropi.ufam.edu.br/docs/ecosystem_services.pdf | |||
| * http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006481. Highly cited article explaining how CCD isn't due to a single factor. | |||
| * http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2010/03/m09176.pdf. "Most scientists agree that there is no single explanation for the extensive colony losses but that interactions between different stresses are involved." | |||
| *http://site.xavier.edu/Blairb/sustainable-agriculture-2/honey-bees/honey-bee-pathology-current.pdf. "Although the phenomenon "decline of honey bees" is far from being finally solved, consensus exists that pests and pathogens are the single most important cause of otherwise inexplicable colony losses." | |||
| We've covered a lot of ground here, so let me just re-clarify that we need to keep the scientific consensus in mind when editing on scientific research related topics. This needs to be kept in mind when referring to neonics and bee losses associated with CCD so that we don't give undue weight to the idea that neonics are the major cause. The second point I brought up was the 2014 Harvard study which you reverted back again without discussing. Currently, you are the only person on the talk page who is objecting to removing the study, but you are not addressing the issues brought up with it specifically at the beginning of this section with my conversation with Gandydancer. The use of primary literature, a very recently published study, and one that goes against current consensus violates multiple aspects of ]. The talk page consensus so far has been to remove it with these reasons in mind. How exactly are you proposing it be included with this in mind? Right now it seems like your edits are ignoring the talk page even though you mention it in your edits. We don't need to go into disruptive editing territory with this, but this is the second time I've asked you to address these issues before reverting. Maybe you were getting caught up in the larger conversation about the state of CCD research, but the largely separate Harvard study issue seems pretty cut and dry even if it is a smaller point. ] (]) 05:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Kingofaces, thanks for the info re peer review--this removes my major objection to including the study in question. It will take me some time to go through the reviews you have included but at a glance I did note that, for instance, in the final one (from 2010) the author claimed that the Israeli acute paralysis virus had been shown to be a marker in all CCD deaths in the US That statement jumped out at me because I have edited the CCD article for several years and was aware that this info was no longer current. Per our article: | |||
| :''In 2004, Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV), was discovered in Israel and at one time it was considered the cause of CCD. It was named after the place it was first identified; its place of origin is unknown. In September 2007, results of a large-scale statistical RNA sequencing study of afflicted and unafflicted colonies were reported. RNA from all organisms in a colony was sequenced and compared with sequence databases to detect the presence of pathogens. All colonies were found to be infected with numerous pathogens, but only the IAPV virus showed a significant association with CCD: the virus was found in 25 of the 30 tested CCD colonies, and only in one of the 21 tested non-CCD colonies.'' | |||
| :''Recent research in 2009 has found that an indicator for an impaired protein production is common among all bees affected by CCD, a pattern consistent with IAPV infection. It is conjectured that Dicistroviridae, like the IAPV, cause degradation of the ribosomes, which are responsible for protein production of cells, and that this reduced ribosomal function weakens the bees, making them more vulnerable to factors that might not otherwise be lethal.[105'' | |||
| :I believe that this well demonstrates how quickly information is being added to our knowledge of the reasons for the dramatic bee decline that we are seeing. Misplaced Pages is for general readers, and I believe that when they read headlines such as "New study proves pesticides responsible...!!!" etc., they should be able to find a reference to the study in our encyclopedia with a more level-headed viewpoint that not only presents the study but also shows that it is one of many, and that its findings may conflict with other fairly well established current thinking that suggests that there seem to be several factors at work. This does not damage the reputation of neonics, but rather helps to keeps our readers current on accurate information. I will look at the other reveiws you have presented, but I, for one, have long believed that there is no one cause for CCD but rather a combination of factors. But the puzzle remains because of the manner in which the bees suddenly abandon the hive, etc., not just that they are dying. ] (]) 11:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I mirror your sentiments on the multifactor potential causes of CCD (which could include neonics even though we don't have good evidence of that quite yet). That is why I'm trying to be especially careful on how an already confusing topic for the general public is presented by avoiding giving weight to claims that it is from a single cause. It's tempting to want to include recent primary literature, but I don't see how we're in a position as editors to include the study in an article. Here are the main issues I'm seeing from SCIRS: | |||
| ::"While articles should be kept up to date by citing current literature, care should be taken to avoid ], focusing too much on new sources that have not yet been evaluated by the relevant community." | |||
| ::"Editors should be especially leery of citing papers making ] 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." | |||
| ::"Misplaced Pages does not apply any special emphasis to breaking news, but seeks an overall survey of the literature as it has been synthesized by the experts in a field." | |||
| ::Basically we're at a point where we cannot attribute weight to the study because it is recent and has yet to be commented on by sources we can use in the article. We can't give special emphasis to a primary source just because it's new. This is one of the hallmarks of when primary literature is not reliable and why we summarize secondary literature instead after the claims have been vetted by other experts in the field. I would entirely be in favor of including the study in a properly weighted statement based on secondary sources '''when''' they are available, but I have not been able to find any as of yet. Until we can satisfy the above guidelines though, I don't see how we could legitimately include the source without undue weight one way or another regardless of popular press attention. Some of those guidelines deal with issues assessing weight, but others are commenting on whether the source should even be used at all. Do you have any ideas on how to address these? ] (]) 16:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Do any reviews from the last four years include any statements which might imply that neonics are not a primary cause of CCD? I looked at all of them that I was able to access, and I don't think so (although the "mini-review" doesn't discuss pesticides at all, oddly enough.) If there are such statements, please quote them. ] (]) 03:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of the links I provided are in that timeframe, and the last two even have quotes specifically saying there isn't a single primary cause. I couldn't find an open access version of the first link, but all the others should be accessible. The reviews are not putting forth evidence that neonics (or anything else) are the primary cause. Until secondary literature is saying something is a primary cause, we cannot claim that, and must rely on the most recent statements of consensus. After some additional searching, it also turns out there was a workshop recently where bee researchers were summarizing the consensus: "Research into CCD and poor colony health has been unable to identify a unique causative agent but consensus is building that a complex set of stressors and pathogens can result in colony losses." (http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf). The document is long, but it summarizes what bee researchers are actually looking at for causes. Also from the EPA for additional summarization, "Current scientific consensus suggests that disease-carrying Varroa mites and other factors play more significant roles than do pesticides"(http://pesticides.supportportal.com/link/portal/23002/23008/Article/35119/Why-doesn-t-EPA-ban-the-neonicotinoid-pesticides). | |||
| ::Since you didn't respond to the earlier question, I just want to reiterate the comments about the 2014 Harvard study to make sure there aren't edit wars in the future on it. Can you address the guideline issues I mentioned above with the source? You've shown opposition to removing the source, but haven't addressed the justification for removing it yet after multiple requests, so I just want to make sure that gets addressed if you're still in opposition.] (]) 05:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ellen, IMO the most obvious reason to doubt that neonics are solely responsible for CCD is the fact that they are widely used in Australia but they don't have CCD down there. So in that sense, it seems to me that King's assertion that a new primary study should not be used to refute the existing state of information on the causes of CCD (that it appears to be a combination of factors) seems sound to me. Incidentally, in a similar incident of a few years ago a new study came out that was widely (and purposely) splashed across the news headlines with a caption of (something to the effect of) "Military and scientists find the cause of CCD!!!". Some new piece of military technology was used in the study. As I suspected, the researcher was looking for gain from his "new discovery", as was revealed through investigation within a few weeks time. In short, as I'm sure you know, researchers are looking for attention and bold claims can get that. (I'm not saying that this researcher was looking for attention, just that it was one small study that purported to have found the cause of CCD.) ] (]) 11:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That reason is interesting, but most of Australia isn't arable, so the ecology of neonic metabolites and the symbiotic and parasitic organisms are substantially different. I am not opposed to saying that a combination of causes is involved, but I am concerned about the desire to permanently remove a study which is already corroborated in essentially all of the secondary literature other than what Kingofaces43 has produced. ] (]) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} are you implying that there is no secondary literature saying neonics are a primary cause? ] (]) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ellen, that is the current scientific consensus among the secondary literature that there isn't a single primary cause. This has been repeated and demonstrated multiple times, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go at this point. As for your above comment, can you cite this apparent sources corroborating the study? I'm not aware of any secondary literature doing so as the study is so recent, which is why using the source violates the guidelines I mentioned above that you still haven't addressed. There currently aren't any citations to the study in Web of Science, Google Scholar, or Scopus. Since we've established what the scientific consensus is, and shown that the 2014 Harvard study is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages under its guidelines without any direct challenge to those specific issues, is it safe to assume at this point you don't have any additional information to add that would change those points? If not, then cite it so we can discuss it (which should have been done a long time ago instead of blowing up the talk page). ] (]) 02:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Which of the reviews already cited in the article do you consider properly secondary and peer reviewed? ] (]) 04:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|EllenCT}}, again please address the questions I posed above and cite sources so we can move ahead in some direction. Right now you're just asking tangential questions that aren't going in any particular direction. If you don't have anything additional to contribute to the article then just say so. ] (]) 06:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Here are reviews which state that neonics are clearly primary causes of CCD, the first few of which are already cited in the article: , , , ("clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid ... appear the most toxic to bees"), ("Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse. The limited available data suggest that they are likely to exhibit similar toxicity to virtually all other wild insect pollinators. The worldwide production of neonicotinoids is still increasing. Therefore a transition to pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoids is urgently needed for the sake of the sustainability of pollinator ecosystem services."), and the very recent article has a relatively lengthy introductory review section, and states, "residues of pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides pose the highest risk by contact exposure of bees with contaminated pollen." | |||
| :::::::{{Ping|Kingofaces43}} do you contend that there are any peer reviewed literature reviews which state that neonics are ''not'' a primary cause of CCD? ] (]) 09:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{u|EllenCT}}, none of the above sources indicate that neonics are a primary cause of CCD, nor do they refute the current scientific consensus mentioned in the other papers. Some even reaffirm that the current consensus is the multiple cause approach without a single primary cause. I'm not sure where you're pulling the idea from that they're saying neonics are the primary cause. Maybe you're misreading the articles? If you've got a particular definitive statement you're basing your assumption off of it could be helpful to post it here so it can be clarified. ] (]) 15:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Asked at ]. ] (]) 07:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === Effects on bees === | |||
| For a band-aid approach that avoids the scientific consensus issue (which I'm not sure what's even being argued about anymore after rehashing it so much), I've changed the title of this section to "Effects on bees". This should remove potential confounding of toxicity, sublethal effects, etc. with CCD where it isn't suggested, and fits the content better since the section is discussing the general effects on bees (decreases in population are not particularly addressed by the sources). That should remove my undue weight concerns without much fuss. What's left is to address the use of mostly primary sources when the available secondary literature should do a much better job, but I'll leave that task open to someone else for the time being until I get an inkling to work on this page a bit more. ] (]) 00:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I am copying the discussion back from ] below. ] (]) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding , are the following sources sufficient to establish that ]s are a primary cause of ] in ]s? | |||
| :, , , ("clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid ... appear the most toxic to bees"), ("Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse. The limited available data suggest that they are likely to exhibit similar toxicity to virtually all other wild insect pollinators. The worldwide production of neonicotinoids is still increasing. Therefore a transition to pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoids is urgently needed for the sake of the sustainability of pollinator ecosystem services."), and the very recent article has a relatively lengthy introductory review section, and states, "residues of pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides pose the highest risk by contact exposure of bees with contaminated pollen." Attributes annual losses to pathogens and pests primarily, relatively little evidence presented for pesticides or neonics. The multiple stressor approach is given prominence. ; Highly cited article explaining how CCD isn't due to a single factor. "Most scientists agree that there is no single explanation for the extensive colony losses but that interactions between different stresses are involved." "Although the phenomenon "decline of honey bees" is far from being finally solved, consensus exists that pests and pathogens are the single most important cause of otherwise inexplicable colony losses." | |||
| If not, what is the best characterization? ] (]) 07:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tough question to get an answer to. I am sure there are references out there that emphatically argue that they are the main problem or that they are not an important cause, you have to try to take the sum of the literature into account. If it was clear that nicotinoids were the problem they would have been banned by now. If it was clear that they were not a problem, there would be no discussion. So some nuance would seem to be required. | |||
| ::The EFSA review does not seem to make any sweeping statements along these lines, but I really only scanned it. It seems to be more of a review as to whether specific uses are problematic. | |||
| ::abcbirds seems to be an advocacy group. That paper can be used, but I would avoid it as a source for sweeping statements. Again, I just scanned it. | |||
| ::The third and fourth are behind paywalls, and the abstracts don't seem to me to draw sweeping conclusions. Wiping out bee colonies presumably requires both toxicity and exposure, so papers that address both issues should get more weight than those that just say "toxic". | |||
| ::Dunno if my 30 second scans of these papers are really helpful, but my best guess is that there is a lot of suspicion but no smokinig gun yet. This shows the other side of the issue a bit. There's a paragraph in the conclusions that basically says "bad in the lab, no good field studies" whatever that means. Good luck. ] (]) 11:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ellen, it's starting to seem like the main issue here is that you're misunderstanding what colony collapse disorder is and doing inadvertent original research because of the misunderstanding. You're seeing some research into toxicity and maybe implying that means CCD? I can't be sure, but that was what I was trying to figure out on the talk page. I'd gladly continue the conversation there if you need more clarifications. Insecticide toxicity and CCD are two different things that at this point are not connected in the peer-reviewed research (attempting to connect the two at this point would be ]). We need to be careful that we don't make claims not made in the sources, and neonicotinoids being a primary cause is not supported by review articles I've pulled up, or by sources you're providing either. We've discussed multiple secondary peer-reviewed sources that show the scientific consensus with none pointing a finger primarily at neonics, so it's starting to seem like trying to advocate for a single cause is getting into ] territory when discussing scientific consensus. | |||
| :For anyone else reading this, the main issue we've been butting heads on is that no citation has been given in the secondary literature that actually says neonicotinoids are a primary cause of CCD. Ellen had provided some of the sources above, but those sources don't back up the claim that neonics cause CCD. This seems like it should be a cut and dry issue considering we have multiple sources specifically stating that the scientific consensus runs contrary to the view Ellen is attempting to advance. I've been asking for a specific reliable source that refutes the current consensus, but I haven't seen anything that specifically does that yet. ] (]) 14:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Having flipped through several of the papers EllenCT mentions, I aree with Formerly 98 and Kingofaces43. ] (]) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Am I just seeing things, or does devote several paragraphs directly linking neonics with colony collapse? It's open access and a recent review. ] (]) 04:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From the above source, "None of these individual signs is a unique effect of neonicotinoids, other causal factors or other agrochemicals could produce similar signs, which complicates the establishment of a causal link." and especially, '''"Scientific research appears to indicate no single cause explaining the increase in winter colony losses."''' Your source directly contradicts the statement you are trying to make. The article primarily deals in '''toxicity''' to bees, potential pathways of exposure and avenues for further research, not CCD directly, which again is where it seems your confusion is coming in. In the future I suggest carefully reading sources before making claims about what they say. I don't like to bring ] into the conversation usually, but if there is something you don't understand about scientific research/literature in general or this particular topic at hand, I'm definitely willing to explain things further (although we've mostly beaten the horse dead on the article talk page) as it's starting to seem like the main issue here. It'd be better to have those conversations at a relevant talk page though and not on a noticeboard. For the purpose of this noticeboard though, we've pretty soundly determined by discussion here and back at the article talk page that the sources we're discussing are not appropriate for the statements you are trying to make. Is it safe to assume the matter is settled for the purposes of this noticeboard?] (]) 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Absolutely not! Where have I ever suggested that there was only one cause involved? The extent to which you are cherry-picking passages most favorable to your (is it fair to say pro-neonic?) position indicates some serious editing problems to me. Do you believe the following passages from support the assertion that neonics are a primary cause of CCD? | |||
| ::::::"Neonicotinoids exhibit a toxicity that can be amplified by various other agrochemicals and they synergistically reinforce infectious agents such as Nosema ceranae which together can produce colony collapse." | |||
| ::::::"All viruses and other pathogens that have been linked to colony collapse have been found to be present year-round also in healthy colonies . That colonies remain healthy despite the presence of these infectious agents, supports the theory that colony collapse may be caused by factors working in combination. Farooqui has analysed the different hypotheses provided by science '''when searching for an explanation of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Research points in the direction of a combination of reciprocally enhancing causes. Among those, the advance of neonicotinoid insecticides has gained more weight in light of the latest independent scientific results''' ." | |||
| ::::::"There is a linear relation between log daily dose and log time to 50% mortality . In experiments with honeybee colonies, similar long term chronic effects have indeed been found with typical times of 14–23 weeks to collapse 25–100% of the colonies exposed to imidacloprid-contaminated food at 20 μg kg−1 and 80–120 days for 1 mg kg−1 dinotefuran and 400 μg kg−1 clothianidin ." | |||
| ::::::"At low concentrations of neonicotinoids, sublethal effects can occur. Sublethal effects involve modifications of honeybee behaviour and physiology (e.g., immune system). They do not directly cause the death of the individual or the collapse of the colony but may become lethal in time and/or may make the colony more sensitive (e.g., more prone to diseases), which may contribute to its collapse." | |||
| :::::What evidence, if any, do you believe exists in the secondary peer reviewed literature supporting the contention that neonics are not a primary cause of CCD? ] (]) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ellen, we had been discussing on the article talk page this whole time that there is not a primary single cause of CCD, but that they're on the list of potential multi-factor causes (but nothing that reproducibly has been shown to actually cause it yet). This has been mentioned multiple times, but you've been in contention with that statement whenever we've discussed it. If you haven't been in contention with that and are somehow thinking something entirely different was being argued, you've severely misinterpreted the scope of the statements being made there and the general direction of the section. This is a highly nuanced topic where the statements you are currently trying to make are quite different than what the sources you cite are actually saying (i.e. confounding toxicity and actual CCD). I highly suggest re-reading the article talk page conversation before posting there because it seems like there's some disconnect about what we were actually discussing. Either way, for the purposes of this noticeboard, the question of reliability of sources seems to have been answered. Let's make to remember the scope of this noticeboard and keep to the reliability of sources. If there are other questions on content or what is being discussed at the article, it's better to post at the article talk page instead. ] (]) 23:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I have copied the discussion back from ] above. Do you believe that a consensus exists that neonics are ''a'' primary cause of CCD? Do you have any evidence that any of the other possible causes are likely more substantial causes? ] (]) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ellen, we have already established in this conversation that the consensus is that there is no primary cause of CCD. The whole point of this conversation was that you cannot attribute a single cause to CCD since the consensus is that there is a combination of factors occurring. All your questions have already been answered in this talk page in the multiple reviews provided. Instead of consistently rehashing questions, I suggest rereading the discussion again. | |||
| :At this point, you're editing in contrary both the information provided on the this talk page and that on the reliable sources noticeboard. This is getting into disruptive editing territory, especially ] and ] by making claims not found in the sources. Please be wary of this when making edits. ] (]) 04:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, what issue is there with changing the name of this section? You said no evidence was provided, yet I clearly stated that the content isn't entirely tied to population declines. "Effects on bees" is a much broader title that encompasses things like sublethal effects, behavior, risk, etc. that may not necessarily be tied to population decreases. I'm not seeing how this would be contentious at all, but instead opens up the section for more information. ] (]) 04:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == discussion of Bayer-funded source == | |||
| This source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/pdf has been disputed by {{u|EllenCT}} above, and by herc at ] in the "Questions about deletions" section. Just wanted to give my thoughts. | |||
| * Primary/Secondary? The source is characterized by both and (click on publication types) as a "review", and if you read it, it reviews the problem of colony collapse disorder, the neonic pesticides, studies of their toxicities and relationship to CCD, and what is going on in the regulatory world. It is a review - the journal has this in its "Focus" header; "Focus" is "a regular series intended to sharpen understanding of current and emerging topics of interest to the scientific community." In other words, a series of reviews. | |||
| * Quality of journal? The . Not the highest impact (2.6) (source ) but OK. | |||
| * Currency? This secondary source is very recent, and includes 5 papers and events from as recent as 2013. In a hot field like this, that is very valuable. | |||
| * Content wise, the review is a high quality toxicology discussion. That is my opinion and WP still lacks guidance on sources for toxicological content (something I intend to address one day) so the point and my opinion on it, is worth pretty much nothing in a debate about whether to use the source, and how. But I wanted to note it. | |||
| * Funding/Independence? The source says "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division" The question of how to use this secondary source in light of the funding the authors (2 consultants and 2 academics) used - the question EllenCT has raised (to say it kindly), is a bit more interesting, as there are arguments based on guidelines and essays, to be made on both sides of the issue. | |||
| ** ] - a guideline - explicitly says "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, '''funding sources''', or conclusions." (emphasis added). | |||
| ** On other hand, the essay (weaker than a guideline), ] says "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example. An interest in a topic may be either positive or negative. ...If Misplaced Pages is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Misplaced Pages, and should be of the standard described in ]. Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources. This requirement for independent sources is so as to determine that the topic can be written about without bias; otherwise the article is likely to fall foul of our vanity guidelines." | |||
| ** With respect to the latter, my sense is that WP:INDY is meant to apply to something that (for example) Bayer produced directly and posted on its website. That would clearly run afoul of WP:INDY. Ditto if this were written by consultants and posted on Bayer's website. Next step down, let's take the case of if the article were directly authored by Bayer scientists, but published in a peer reviewed journal. Someone could make an argument about WP:INDY there, but the peer-review aspect makes that weaker. In this case, we have two consultants and two academics, who were funded by Bayer (not possible to tell if they asked Bayer for funding, or if Bayer solicited them) to do the work of synthesizing the research and writing the manuscript.. and who submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal, which accepted it. There are two layers between Bayer and the article. Questions can still be raised under INDY, but the argument to exclude is very much weaker under WP:INDY; one could make a reasonable argument to give it less weight and to have the content be clear that content sourced from this say that it comes from "a peer reviewed, review article funded by Bayer" .... This is kind of an ugly, fuzzy middle ground where you can have "interested" parties on any side of a given issue - what if it were two consultants and two academics funded by the Pesticide Action Network, let's say, and published in a peer-reviewed journal? Is there a strong argument to exclude that under INDY or to require attribution? And the really really ugly fuzzy middle of 2 academics with a long history of advocacy on one side or another, funded by the NIH? Even harder to apply INDY there, but one could argue it. Fuzzy. | |||
| * When I add all that up, especially this being a hot field with many people thinking about it - right now I ~think~ this is an OK source to use, and should be given equal weight to other reviews that are roughly as recent. (my thinking may change! I am interested in what others have to say on this) My sense is that there will be plenty more reviews that will come out, and this one will be replaced with other, more current ones, in a reasonable amount of time. That is how things work in WP on hot, science-based topics. I don't know that it is worth making a big fuss over, in light of the analysis above, and in light of the fact that it will soon become outstripped by newer reviews and will be replaced. Happy to discuss. If there is continuing disputes over this, we should take the source and proposed content based on it, to RSN and get community input. ] (]) 08:37, 13 June 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. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | Please 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. |
 | A news item involving Neonicotinoid was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 May 2013. |  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
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.
- Kshih (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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
- 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
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- C-Class Chemistry articles
- Low-importance Chemistry articles
- WikiProject Chemistry articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- C-Class toxicology articles
- Low-importance toxicology articles
- Toxicology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class Agriculture articles
- Low-importance Agriculture articles
- WikiProject Agriculture articles
- C-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- Sustainability task force articles