The Problem

PESTICIDES cause significant bird mortality each year. Of the five billion pounds of pesticides that are applied worldwide each year, 20% are used in the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2004). Our assumption that because these pesticides are licensed by the federal government their use is automatically safe, is unfounded. One well known estimate (Pimentel & Acquay, 1992) suggested that more than 670 million birds are directly exposed to pesticides each year on U.S. farms alone, 10% of which - or 67 million birds - die as a result.

Repeated exposure to some pesticides can also lead to sub-lethal effects such as decreased breeding success. These effects are hard to detect but nevertheless can produce dramatic species declines over time. Such was the case with DDT, which nearly wiped out several bird species in the U.S., including the Peregrine Falcon and Brown Pelican, by thinning the shells of their eggs to the point where they broke before hatching.

Approximately 40 pesticides still used in the U.S. are documented to have caused bird die-offs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the government agency responsible for regulating pesticides) has recorded more than 1,700 incidents of bird kills - many including hundreds of individual birds - attributable to pesticide use. In many cases the pesticides concerned were used completely legally. These incidents likely represent just the tip of a huge iceberg.

Progress is being made to remove the deadliest pesticides to birds from the market. Unfortunately, many of these same chemicals continue to be used overseas where they remain legal and continue to harm birds as well as coming back to U.S. store shelves in the form of toxic residue on food.

The Solution

In response to continuing pesticide-related bird kills throughout the Americas and a paucity of information and action on the issue, American Bird Conservancy established the Pesticides & Birds Campaign in 1998. The Campaign mission is to reduce the exposure of wild birds to hazardous pesticides, and to better define when, how, and to what degree specific pesticides pose risks to birds. Strategies include developing and supporting scientific research; improving regulatory, evaluative and monitoring frameworks; engaging the public and other non-profit organizations in the issue; serving as an information and advocacy hub; and, when necessary, working to cancel registrations of the most dangerous pesticides.

BACK

 
Vanishing Bees: Victims of Industrial Agriculture

OVER the past 30 years, honeybee populations have plummeted 50%. Many factors are contributing to the decline including systemic pesticides, varroa mites and Nosema Disease”but the greatest threat to the bee’s survival may be the industrial agriculture model that promotes pesticides and monocropping.

When we read about colony collapse disorder we are hearing about the problems confronting commercial bee-brokers. Natural pollination by wild, resident honeybees and other beneficial insects was the norm only 30 years ago. But natural pollination is no longer possible where traditional habitats have been replaced by weedless, laser-leveled acres planted to a single crop. In California’s Central Valley, vast industrial spreads ”artificially maintained by synthetic nitrogen inputs, herbicides and insecticides”are no longer hospitable to native bees, wasps, butterflies or other wildlife.

In May, following the mass deaths of bees and other insects, Germany’s Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) suspended use of eight pesticides after it was found that the bees were killed by clothianidin, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Eldado and Poncho pesticides. BVL also suspended use of four of Bayer’s imidacloprid-based pesticides: Antarc, Chinook, Faibel and Gaucho. Products containing neonicotinoids like imidacloprid and clothianidin account for much of Bayer’s annual agrochemical profits. France’s Comit Scientifique et Technique has declared the chemical a significant risk to bees.

As wild pollinators were increasingly forced off the land, Big Ag turned to domesticated bees. When up to 90% of U.S. commercial bee colonies went into a tailspin last winter, desperate growers paid premium prices to air-freight one billion guest worker’s bees from Australia to pollinate U.S. fields and orchards.

Commercial honeybees are the insect world’s equivalent of migrant labor. Trucked thousands of miles from one field to another, these bees are forbidden to forage on their own. They are only released to service a particular crop of apples, peaches, oranges, melons and when they do, they are inevitably exposed to a range of chemical residues. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has identified 58 pesticides that are highly toxic to bees, including aldicarb, diazinon and malathion.

It might be more accurate to call commercial colonies œprison colonies. Trucked from state to state, these captive bees are force-fed a diet of high fructose corn syrup and soy protein poor substitute for pollen. This cheap, high-fiber, low-protein, junk-food bee feed is derived from genetically modified corn that has been engineered to contain Bt’s bacterial insecticide.

And now more of the honeybeesnative œhomeland in the prairies of the Midwest”historic vistas of pollen-rich asters and goldenrods are set to be plowed under and monocropped to make corn ethanol to fuel America’s automobiles.

There is an alternative. “This country has 4,500 species of native insects that are potential pollinators, Gina Covina writes in Terrain magazine. On the East Coast, where farms are much smaller, more diverse, and broken up by uncultivated land, native insects account for up to 90% of crop pollination. In Costa Rica, studies have shown coffee yields increase 20% when crops are grown within a kilometer of a forest. In Canada, canola yields increased on farms that preserved 30% of the land as natural habitat.

Fortunately, Covina notes, Scientists are quick to recolonize formerly dead areas hedgerows, windbreaks, wetlands, woodlots. But the survival of Earth bees will require a fundamental transition from the industrial agriculture model to the biodiverse ecological model.

BACK

 
Afghanistan: 'Muddling through’ how long?

ASKED in November 2003 whether the United States would "finish the job" in Afghanistan, Sen. John McCain responded "I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq...but I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making then in the long term we may muddle through in Afghanistan." Tragically , "muddling through" is just what America is doing in Afghanistan.

According to the New York Times, a new National Intelligence Estimate to be released in November "concludes that Afghanistan is in a 'downward spiral' and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban's influence there." The report will be "the most comprehensive American assessment in years on the situation in Afghanistan." According to americanprogressaction.org, “In addition to the problem of cross-border attacks launched by militants in neighboring Pakistan, and inefficiency and corruption in the Afghan government” and "the destabilizing impact of the booming heroin trade, which by some estimates accounts for 50 percent of Afghanistan’s economy." quoting intelligence officials, it said, Afghanistan produces the most opium in the world.

India must think about its own relations with the present regime in Afghanistan and just not be lackey of the Americans and the NATO.

A Center for American Progress report, “the United States and the international community initially made great strides to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda and stand up the Afghan government following the invasion in October 2001...the situation has dramatically deteriorated since 2005." The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area and now support a growing Afghan insurgency. "Although the current administration has portrayed Iraq as the central front of the 'global war on terror,'" the report states, "Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan remain the central battlefield." The website Long War Journal reported in August that "Afghanistan experienced 18.4 attacks per day in 2008, compared to 12.4 in 2007," with "the eastern provinces bordering Pakistan's tribal areas account[ing] for seven of the remaining top nine most violent provinces." Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of some 60,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, reported that roadside bomb attacks -- "the largest casualty-producing event in Afghanistan" -- are up 30 to 40 percent over last year. Reports "confirm that the current U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is desperately off-course and suffering from a lack of resources, policymaker attention, and clear, presidential-level direction."

Americanprogressaction.org also asserted that unfortunately, "as the Taliban and other militants have gained strength, America has dropped more bombs, killing more civilians." A report from U.S. Central Command released on Wednesday concluded that a strike in August had "left 33 civilians dead, including at least 12 children," but that "U.S. forces acted in legitimate self-defense in launching an air assault against Taliban militants." The Afghan government has continually protested the high civilian death toll from air strikes. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said that the death of innocent civilians in these attacks could seriously undermine efforts to fight terrorism. Karzai told the U.N. General Assembly in August that the deaths hurt "the credibility of the Afghan people's partnership with the international community." Minimizing civilian casualties is key to a successful counterinsurgency effort, which is one reason air strikes are poorly suited to counterinsurgency.

Currently, the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan have had to over-rely on air power because of the over commitment of troops and resources to Iraq. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen said in July "I don't have troops... to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq." Anger over Iraq has also made NATO allies reluctant to step up their assistance.

According to americanprogressaction.org, “It's clear that many U.S. military leaders understand that Afghanistan is in crisis. In August, former Iraq commander and current Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus admitted to the New York Times that "the trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction, and I think everyone is rightly concerned about them." McKiernan has "called for four more combat brigades" to deploy to Afghanistan. In August the Pentagon announced the addition of "12,000 to 15,000 additional U.S. troops... possibly as soon as the end of this year, with planning underway for a further forces buildup in 2009." McKiernan told the Washington Post that Afghanistan requires a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last years."

Describing his approach in a speech Wednesday to the conservative Heritage Foundation, Gen. Petraeus said that "reaching out to insurgent groups...was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies" like Al Qaeda. Petraeus believes that success in both Afghanistan and Iraq will require political, not military, solutions, and has stressed "the concept of reconciliation." "You cannot kill or capture your way out of an insurgency that is as significant in size as was the one in Iraq, nor, I believe, as large as the one that has developed in Afghanistan," he said.

BACK