Landscape & Irrigation

38 April 2016 Landscape and Irrigation www.landscapeirrigation.com STAYING CURRENT ILLUSTRATION ABOVE ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/SMARTBOY10 threat to honey bee health. Other contributing factors were identified as habitat changes and a reduction in foraging areas, which led to decreased nutrition. The most recent APHIS National Honey Bee survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seems to substantiate the MDA findings, and also points to the varroa mite as the chief culprit in CCD incidences. The APHIS research focused on known bee viruses, parasites, pests and pesticides. It found an extremely high varroa mite presence in numerous samples. To detect the presence of pesticides, the researchers sampled bee bread (which is pollen stored in the colony by bees) for 174 different known pesticides. Miticides, used directly on hives to control varroa mite growth, were found in more than 50 percent of the samples. By comparison, detectable levels of imidacloprid were found in only 2.2 percent of hives tested and all were at sub-lethal levels. So which side is right and which side is wrong? That question is very difficult to answer. Both sides seem to rely on scientific evidence in building their cases, but both also reach very different conclusions. Further complicating the issue is the tendency of environmental activists to dismiss any research that calls into question the connection between neonics and pollinator harm. Indeed, during testimony provided during the Maryland hearing, the head of Beyond Pesticides, one of our country's leading proponents for banning pesticide use, cautioned the members of the Environment and Transportation Committee that any science referenced by those testifying against the bill was likely tainted because it was paid for by parties associated with the chemical industry. So what does all this mean for our country's landscape professionals? Like Maryland, many other jurisdictions are expected to consider measures to regulate neonicotinoid pesticides. Some call for outright bans, some restrict residential use, some call for neonics to be reclassified as a restricted-use chemical, and some call for signage similar to what is displayed on cigarette packages. The one common thread is that, in each instance, proponents of such bans are making claims of indisputable scientific fact, when it appears that is far from the case. In order to act prudently, it is important for decision makers to hear both sides of an issue prior to taking action. Fortunately, in Maryland, strong industry representation was able to counter many of the claims made by those who advocate banning neonics. So that our nation's legislators fully understand the complexities of CCD, it is important that landscape professionals respond in similar fashion when hearings are held in their state or town. By actively participating in the political process, the practitioners of our industry can help ensure that both sides of the story are heard before important decisions that can impact their profession and their communities are made. LI Paul Mendelsohn is vice president of government relations at the National Association of Landscape Professionals. Recently, the state of Maryland's House Environment and Transportation Committee held a meeting to hear public comment on legislation to further regulate neonicotinoid (neonics) pesticides. The standing-room-only hearing was packed with people who were on hand to provide their opinion. On one side were those that favored the ban: bee keepers, in full bee-keeping garb; environmental activists; a toxicology specialist; and several others who are convinced that neonicotinoids were the primary cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a phenomenon where a majority of the worker bee population goes missing, dies off, or abandons the hive. Witness after witness provided testimony indicating that the preponderance of scientific evidence pointed to neonics as the primary cause of CCD. Those testifying stated that more than 60 percent of the Maryland commercial-hive population suffered from colony collapse in the last year. According to proponents for the bill, the systemic nature of neonics causes it to saturate roots, stems and plants, and, thus, bees take in lethal doses of the pesticide when gathering nectar from treated plants. Nearly all of them focused on a singular closing message: follow the science and the committee members would conclude that neonics were not just a cause, but the major cause for CCD. Next, those present to oppose the bill had their time at the microphone. This group included lawn care professionals, arborists, nursery owners, and other professional users. It also included the testimony of an official from the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) and an entomologist from the University of Maryland. All of them stated that the connection between neonics and dwindling pollinator populations is spurious at best. The witness appearing on behalf MDA countered the claim regarding the more than 60 percent incidence of CCD in Maryland hives. Contrary to previous claims, the MDA witness testimony indicated that there was not a single case of CCD that had been verified by the state's investigators. Further, she stated that in a random sampling of Maryland hives conducted last summer by the University of Maryland, only three samples collected had measurable amounts of neonics present, and all three of those were trace amounts that fell substantially short of what is considered to be even a sub-lethal dose. MDA's research indicated that varroa mite invasion was by far the most prevalent Neonic Battles Loom Large ■ BY PAUL MENDELSOHN Both sides seem to rely on scientific evidence in building their cases, but both also reach very different conclusions.

• Cover