General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: i'm just going to POST THIS AS LOUD AS I CAN and crush all arguments-MONSANTO=root of all evil. [View all]farminator3000
(2,117 posts)that a scientific study is more than a single data point.
you claim-
Actual data-- rather than scaremongering-- suggest that the primary impact would likely be economic, not catastrophic, and confined to specific agriculture sectors. Those dependent upon managed pollination services, for example, as well as the honey industry.
but that is not what the NIH study says at all- as i posted before-
Key Results
The expected direct reduction in total agricultural production in the absence of animal pollination ranged from 3 to 8 %, with smaller impacts on agricultural production diversity. The percentage increase in cultivated area needed to compensate for these deficits was several times higher, particularly in the developing world, which comprises two-thirds of the land devoted to crop cultivation globally. Crops with lower yield growth tended to have undergone greater expansion in cultivated area. Agriculture has become more pollinator-dependent over time, and this trend is more pronounced in the developing than developed world.
Conclusions
We propose that pollination shortage will intensify demand for agricultural land, a trend that will be more pronounced in the developing world. This increasing pressure on supply of agricultural land could significantly contribute to global environmental change.
i read that to say 'even a small decline in bees alone could cause people to starve', not 'bees don't really matter'
the effects are more than financial- not just pollinator services and the honey industry, but genetic diversity, survival of ecosystems, and food shortages.
i disagree with his opinion, and yours. i prefer the FAO's own analysis of their data.
and the problem with big M goes way beyond bees!
i don't think you could possibly say, for instance, that a 'teminator gene' would be safer than healthy bee populations