Bugs Matter survey finds that UK flying insects have declined by nearly 60% in less than 20 years
Posted by Ian M on May 7, 2022, 10:20 am
Remember to take into account 'shifting baseline syndrome' - the insect population was already severely depleted when the study began in 2004. Don't know if the decline has been measured in the long-term... As ever, a dramatic illustration of the utter alienation of this culture from the wider ecology that the main interaction most people have with insects is scraping them off the front of the sealed metal boxes they hurtle around the country inside of. The image says it all:
Bugs Matter survey finds that UK flying insects have declined by nearly 60% in less than 20 years
Thursday 5th May 2022
A citizen-science survey, led by Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife, has found that the abundance of flying insects in the UK has plummeted by nearly 60% over the last 17 years; highlighting a worrying trend and the crucial need for insect-focussed conservation research, nationwide.
The 2021 Bugs Matter findings, which are published in a report released by Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife (Bugs Matter 2021 Full Technical Report), show that the number of insects sampled on vehicle number plates by citizen scientists across the UK reduced by a staggering 59% between 2004 and 2021. These findings are consistent with research which has widely reported declining trends in insect populations globally.
Insect counts differed across the UK, but there was no positive news for insects in any of our nations. England suffered the greatest decline with 65% fewer insects recorded in 2021 than in 2004. Wales recorded 55% fewer insects, whilst Scotland saw the smallest decline, still with 28% fewer insects in 2021 when compared to 2004 figures. Unfortunately, there were too few surveys conducted in Northern Ireland to analyse and draw conclusions. The observed declines are statistically significant and are indicative of a worrying pattern.
The Bugs Matter project, led by Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife, and supported by a number of other wildlife conservation organisations, is one of the UK’s few citizen science surveys of insect abundance that generates important data.
Inspired by the ‘windscreen phenomenon’ (a term given to the general observation that people are seeing fewer insects squashed on the windscreens of their cars today compared to several decades ago), Bugs Matter enlists the help of the public to monitor the health of the UK’s insect populations. The concept is simple: before making an essential journey in a vehicle, clean the number plate. After each journey, count the insects squashed on the number plate using a ‘splatometer’ grid, which is posted to you when you download the free Bugs Matter app. A photo and count details are submitted via the app.
Insects and other invertebrates are critical to a healthy functioning environment. They pollinate most of the world’s crops, provide natural pest control services, decompose organic matter and recycle nutrients into the soil. Without them, life on earth would collapse.
Counting insects not only gives an estimate of the abundance of insect life in our towns and countryside, but is also a measure of the health of our environment. Insects are essential to supporting and maintaining a healthy environment, so when their numbers fall that is an indication that nature is in trouble.
Insect numbers can also show where wildlife is recovering, and so Bugs Matter can be used to measure how the work of conservation organisations and others is helping nature’s recovery.
Download the Bugs Matter app to take part in this year’s survey, from 1 June to 31 August 2022. Taking part is quick, free and easy.
iOS App Store: Bugs Matter on the App Store (apple.com) Google Play: Bugs Matter – Apps on Google Play
The results from these ongoing surveys inform a growing requirement for conservation research, policy and practice targeted at insects in the UK.
Matt Shardlow, Chief Executive Officer at Buglife, said: “This vital study suggests that the number of flying insects is declining by an average of 34% per decade, this is terrifying. We cannot put off action any longer, for the health and wellbeing of future generations this demands a political and a societal response, it is essential that we halt biodiversity decline – now!”
Paul Hadaway, Director of Conservation at Kent Wildlife Trust, said: “The results from the Bugs Matter study should shock and concern us all. We are seeing declines in insects which reflect the enormous threats and loss of wildlife more broadly across the Country. These declines are happening at an alarming rate and without concerted action to address them we face a stark future. Insects and pollinators are fundamental to the health of our environment and rural economies. We need action for all our wildlife now by creating more and bigger areas of habitats, providing corridors through the landscape for wildlife and allowing nature space to recover.”
The Bugs Matter team thank everyone who took part in 2021 and hope that more citizen scientists will take part across the UK in 2022.
For more information and to take part in this year’s Bugs Matter surveys, please visit: Bugs Matter – Buglife To view the full report, please visit: The Bugs Matter Citizen Science Survey – Full Report To view the report summary, please visit: The Bugs Matter Citizen Science Survey – Summary Report
To help us raise vital funds, to run this citizen science initiative and help stop the extinction of invertebrate species, please donate today. Donations will allow us to run the survey as well as upgrade the official digital Bugs Matter smartphone app to include a virtual ‘splatometer’ for people to scan their vehicle number plates; digitally recording the number of insect ‘splats’ per journey.
Donate to Bugs Matter Want to find out what other actions you can take to help stop the extinction of invertebrate species? Why not sign up to No Insectinction; Buglife’s response to the current crisis – a prescription for healing our planet, by restoring our depleted and devastated insect populations.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
"Kidney Disease Results so Stunning They Quashed the Evidence
Since 1980, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — the world’s largest scientific society and publisher of several journals, including Science — has presented an annual award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to “scientists, engineers or their organizations, whose exemplary actions have demonstrated scientific freedom and responsibility in challenging circumstances.” As explained on the AAAS website:1
"The types of actions worthy of this award include acting to protect the public’s health, safety or welfare; focusing public attention on important potential impacts of science and technology on society by their responsible participation in public policy debates; or providing an exemplary model in carrying out the social responsibilities of scientists, engineers or in defending the professional freedom of scientists and engineers.
Some awardees have risked their freedom and even physical safety by their actions, while others have been honored for their advocacy and their leadership."
2019 Award Winners
In 2019, the AAAS was slated to present the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility award to two human health researchers who have published papers linking glyphosate exposure to chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) in Sri Lankan farmers:
Dr. Sarath Gunatilake,2 former chair of the health science department at the University of California, whose areas of expertise include occupational and environmental health research. Channa Jayasumana, Ph.D.,3 a faculty member of Medicine and Allied Sciences at the Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, who conducts research into nephrotoxins (kidney toxins) and the causes and treatments for chronic kidney disease.
Their paper "Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka?"4 was published in 2014, followed by "Simultaneous Exposure to Multiple Heavy Metals and Glyphosate May Contribute to Sri Lankan Agricultural Nephropathy,"5 and "Drinking Well Water and Occupational Exposure to Herbicides Is Associated With Chronic Kidney Disease in Padavi-Sri Pura, Sri Lanka,"6 in 2015.
In the third paper listed, the team found people who drank water from wells where glyphosate and heavy metal concentrations are higher had a fivefold increased risk of CKDu. Award Winners Are Both Outspoken Critics of Glyphosate
Both Gunatilake and Jayasumana have previously taken a strong stance against glyphosate-based herbicides, highlighting the dangers of herbicide adjuvants. In a 2018 Daily Mirror article,7 Gunatilake noted that adjuvants added to glyphosate-based herbicides “are 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate itself.” He went on to say:
“The point I’m trying to raise is that glyphosate without adjuvants is not very useful. Therefore, manufacturers have added these toxic chemicals into glyphosate and nobody is talking about them! Over the last 25 years, the pesticide industry had us hoodwinked by referring only to glyphosate and not to the adjuvants or additives included in these herbicides.”
Jayasumana, meanwhile, provided testimony8 at the yearlong International Monsanto Tribunal,9 which began December 2015, asserting that glyphosate use has resulted in ecocide.
In its February 4, 2019 press release,10,11 (which has since been removed from its website12), AAAS stated Gunatilake and Jayasumana “faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while working to determine the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world. Ultimately, their advocacy led to the culprit, an herbicide called glyphosate, being banned in several affected countries.”
Jessica Wyndham, director of the AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program, said:13
“To right a wrong when significant financial interests are at stake and the power imbalance between industry and individual is at play takes the unique combination of scientific rigor, professional persistence and acceptance of personal risk demonstrated by the two scientists recognized by this year’s award.”
Award Retracted Amid Controversy on Glyphosate’s True Danger
According to Gunatilake and Jayasumana, consumption of glyphosate-contaminated water may contribute to chronic kidney disease by facilitating the transport of heavy metals such as arsenic and cadmium into the kidneys.14
The AAAS award announcement incited a rash of criticisms by defenders of glyphosate, leading the AAAS to issue another statement just two days later, saying the organization is “taking steps to reassess the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, after concerns were voiced by scientists and members. This award will not be presented … as originally planned while we further evaluate the award selection.”
(Incidentally, AAAS CEO Rush Holt announced his retirement that same day.15) One outspoken critic was Kevin Folta — a pro-GMO University of Florida professor caught intentionally hiding his funding from Monsanto — who claimed that the pair’s 2014 paper merely "presented a hypothesis. There were no data. There were no experiments. It was a semi-well-crafted hypothesis that could be tested."16 In a commentary, GMWatch.org rebuts Folta’s claims, saying:
"Folta’s claim that there are ‘no data’ in the paper is false. There are plenty of data in this and the authors’ follow-up papers — from epidemiological and case-control studies, as well as geographical surveys — that support the idea that glyphosate herbicides should be withdrawn from use as a precautionary measure until they can be proven safe.
Are these data conclusive? No. They point to an association. It’s true that the link between glyphosate exposure and chronic kidney disease will always remain a ‘hypothesis’ until it is proven in controlled long-term animal feeding studies …
The truth is that they are unlikely to be done, due to the massive expense and the unwillingness of industry and governments to fund studies that could show that they were responsible for exposing people to poisons over many years."
Should an Award Be Revoked Based on Controversial Findings?
True, Gunatilake and Jayasumana’s theory is just one of dozens of hypotheses for what might be causing chronic CKDu.17,18,19 (Cadmium toxicity is on that list, though.) Overall, it doesn’t appear as though any one given influence can explain all, or even most, cases of CKDu, so the search for answers continues.
The problem with the AAAS’ revocation is that whether the research findings are absolutely “true” is not entirely relevant for this particular award. As tweeted by Jack Heinemann,20 a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, whose research topics include horizontal gene transfer, GMO risk assessment, conflicts of interest in research and sustainable agriculture:21
“Whether or not the link between glyphosate (or formulation) and kidney disease is right misses the point. A scientific freedom award is given for persecution. If you only give it for proven science, it would be delayed decades and it would only benefit those who persecute.”
Gunatilake and Jayasumana are relatively cautious in their own conclusions, describing the link between glyphosate and CKDu as follows:22
"A strong association between the consumption of hard water and the occurrence of this special kidney disease has been observed, but the relationship has not been explained consistently. Here, we have hypothesized the association of using glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the disease endemic area and its unique metal chelating properties.
The possible role played by glyphosate-metal complexes in this epidemic has not been given any serious consideration by investigators for the last two decades … Although glyphosate alone does not cause an epidemic of chronic kidney disease, it seems to have acquired the ability to destroy the renal tissues … when it forms complexes with a localized geo environmental factor (hardness) and nephrotoxic metals."
Former AAAS President Is Now Biotech Shill
While it may seem cynical to cry foul at every turn, industry influence and conflicts of interest have become so commonplace these days that it simply cannot be ignored. In a recent tweet, science journalist Paul D. Thacker23 (who also had a hand in writing the Open Payments Act, which mandates the disclosure of compensation from the pharmaceutical and medical industry) noted:24
“If you ever worried that science was being warped by corporate interests, this backpedal by AAAS in giving an award to pesticide researcher [sic] should lay that to rest. Answer seems to be ‘yes.’”
In a series of tweets, Thacker also points out links between former AAAS president Nina Fedoroff and the biotech industry, which has become well-known for pressuring medical journals and other organizations to revoke and discredit undesirable research and/or journalism.25
In 2015, Fedoroff, a plant molecular biologist, joined the OFW Law firm — which lobbies for the agrochemical industry — as senior science adviser for agriculture policy, global food security and government affairs.26
On its website in 2022, OFW plainly states that Fedoroff advises on “issues of agriculture, particularly the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO).”
To see how she now promotes herbicides for these crops, you need look no further than some of the glowing, feel-good articles she’s written about the so-called pluses of GMO crops, such as one she wrote for Genetic Literacy Project in 2020.27 It’s clear she’s fully on-board with GMO crops as well as the poisons they need to grow.
She was also present at the 2017 release of "Little Black Book of Junk Science,"28 a book by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a chemical industry front group that I’ve written about on several occasions, and was a chosen speaker at a GMO Answers symposium cosponsored by Scientific American in 2016.29,30
Curiously, the “Little Black Book” is still available on different book sales sites such as Amazon, but has been removed from the ACSH website, as evidenced by the dead link for reference 27 in my sources list at the end of this article.
GMO Answers was created by the PR firm Ketchum, which works on behalf of the Council for Biotechnology Information31 to improve the public image of GMOs. U.S. Right to Know has previously called attention to a video ad in which the firm talks about how it doubled positive GMO coverage using online social media monitoring.32 AAAS Has ‘Mixed Record on Public Interest Issues’
Considering how strong professional ties can be, even when officially severed, it doesn’t seem farfetched to suspect Fedoroff’s association with AAAS and the agrochemical industry might have an influence. GM Watch also notes:33
"The AAAS has a mixed record when it comes to public interest issues. In 2013 the AAAS’ board of directors issued a statement opposing the labeling of GM foods in the U.S. … The AAAS was at the time chaired by Nina Fedoroff, who has close ties to the GMO industry.
But in an incident that showed that the AAAS is not monolithic but contains scientists who do not toe the GMO lobby’s line, a group of scientists and physicians that included many long-standing AAAS members condemned the AAAS board of directors’ statement as ‘an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make informed decisions.’
They pointed to evidence showing that Roundup, the herbicide used on most GM crops, could pose risks that consumers might reasonably want to avoid. Sadly, the AAAS board seems more likely than its membership to have the power to decide on the fate of the award that was to be given to the Sri Lankan scientists."
Latest GMO Monopoly Driven by Fear
While glyphosate-based herbicides still dominate the global market, rapidly mounting weed tolerance has led to the introduction of dicamba-based herbicides and a new crop of genetically engineered (GE) plants designed to withstand it. Dicamba is an incredibly potent toxin, and dicamba drift damaged or destroyed an estimated 3.6 million acres across the U.S.34 between 2016 and 2017 alone.
This included not only fields growing nondicamba-resistant crops but also trees. In response, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed some restrictions on dicamba usage. For instance, special training is required to apply the herbicide, and its application is prohibited when wind speeds are greater than 10 mph. Farmers are also asked to assess the risk that spraying could have on nearby crops, as well.
Despite this, reports of damage from dicamba drift continued through 2018. What’s worse, many farmers reported feeling they have no choice but to buy Monsanto-Bayer’s GE dicamba-tolerant seeds, or else they risk having their crop destroyed by dicamba drift from their neighbors.
Randy Brazel, a soybean grower, told NPR35 he had little choice but to switch to dicamba-tolerant soybeans after one of his neighbors called saying he was making the switch. NPR writes:
"[D]icamba fumes from fields of Xtend soybeans have curled up the leaves of sycamore trees and millions of acres of traditional soybeans across much of the Midwest and South. Brazel wasn’t willing to take the risk of that happening to his crops.
He canceled his entire order and bought the new dicamba-tolerant soybeans instead. ‘Then I have to get on the phone and call every other neighbor and say, ‘Listen, I did not want to do this. But I am going to be forced to go dicamba.’ Well, then that forces all those neighbors to call all their neighbors. And eventually what you have is a monopoly,’ he says."
In some parts of the U.S., protecting your crop from dicamba damage from neighbors is part of the sales pitch for the dicamba-resistant Xtend soybeans, NPR reports. In response to this mounting pressure to switch or lose your farm, a lawsuit has been filed against Monsanto on behalf of farmers, arguing the dicamba-tolerant seeds violate antitrust law.
As noted by NPR, “The lawsuit claims that the company understood that the risk of drifting dicamba could drive competitors out of the market.”
Bayer (which bought Monsanto in May, 2018) asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, but in 2020, a jury not only ordered a $265 million judgment against Bayer,36 but a U.S. appeals court also blocked them from selling any more dicamba.37 Subsequently, in May 2021, Bayer set aside $300 million to cover multiple farmers’ claims and their attorneys’ fees.38
That hasn’t ended Bayer’s plans for dicamba, however, as in March 2022, a federal district court judge in Arizona ordered the EPA to file a report on its dicamba investigations by May 15, 2022, in answer to a request by the Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity to “vacate the registration of three dicamba herbicides: XtendiMax (Bayer), Engenia (BASF) and Tavium (Syngenta).”39 Substantial Amounts of Glyphosate Found in Food
The sad fact of the matter is, if you’re eating nonorganic foods, especially processed food, then you’re eating glyphosate on a regular basis. Farmers apply nearly 5 billion pounds (over 2 billion kilograms) of glyphosate to farm crops each year, worldwide.40 Approximately 300 million pounds are applied on U.S. farmland.
Testing has revealed 70% of Americans had detectable levels of glyphosate in their system in 2016; between 1993 and 2016, the glyphosate levels in people’s bodies increased by 1,208%.41 A recent investigation by journalist Carey Gillam42 revealed Roundup has been found in virtually all foods tested, including granola and crackers.
The Health Research Institute Labs (HRI Labs) has also conducted glyphosate testing, finding the chemical in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.43 Other foods typically contaminated with glyphosate include grains, legumes, beans, orange juice and wine.
HRI’s testing also revealed people who eat oats on a regular basis have twice as much glyphosate in their system as people who don’t (likely because oats are desiccated with glyphosate before harvest). Meanwhile, people who eat organic food on a regular basis have an 80% lower level of glyphosate than those who rarely eat organic. Glyphosate May Affect Your Health in Several Ways
Glyphosate actually has a glycine molecule as part of its structure (hence the “gly” in glyphosate). Glycine is a very common amino acid your body uses to make proteins. Laboratory investigations by research scientist Anthony Samsel found that glyphosate becomes part of animal proteins and particular the collagens which form 25% to 35% of our bodies structural proteins.
Samsel and his coauthor senior scientist at MIT, Stephanie Seneff, also believe your body can substitute glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA into peptides and proteins, which results in damaged peptides and proteins being produced.
Glycine also plays a role in quenching inflammation, and is used up in the detoxification process. As a result of glyphosate toxicity, many of us may not have enough glycine for efficient detoxification. According to research published in the journals Entropy in 2013 and in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry in 2017, the main toxic effects of glyphosate are related to these facts that it:44,45,46
Inhibits human digestive enzymes leading to malabsorption with numerous health consequences. Glyphosate was found by Samsel contained with purified digestive enzymes pepsin, trypsin and lipase. Further analysis by high performance liquid chromatograph of lipase found glyphosate to chemically bond and irreversibly inhibit this enzyme.
Hormone-sensitive lipase in humans is responsible for lipid hydrolysis and cholesterol ester hydrolysis. Impaired function has been linked with atherosclerosis, obesity and type 2 diabetes among others Inhibits the shikimate pathway, found in gut bacteria in both humans and animals Interferes with the function of cytochrome P450 enzymes, required for activation of vitamin D in the liver, and the creation of both nitric oxide and cholesterol sulfate, the latter of which is needed for red blood cell integrity Chelates important minerals, including iron, cobalt and manganese. Manganese deficiency, in turn, impairs mitochondrial function and can lead to glutamate toxicity in the brain Interferes with the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine, which results in shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate Disrupts sulfate synthesis and sulfate transport
Glyphosate also disrupts, destroys, impairs or inhibits:47
The microbiome, thanks to its antibiotic activity Sulfur metabolism Methylation pathways Pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism
How to Test Your Glyphosate Level
The chemical has also been linked to an increased risk of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer.48 Considering the possible dangers of glyphosate, it would make sense to minimize your exposure, and if you have high levels already, to take steps to detoxify it.
HRI Labs has developed home test kits for both water and urine, and if you have elevated levels, you can drive out the glyphosate by taking an inexpensive glycine supplement.
Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt of the Academy for the Healing Arts and Neural Therapy, recommends taking 1 teaspoon (4 grams) of glycine powder twice a day for a few weeks and then lowering the dose to one-fourth teaspoon (1 gram) twice a day. This forces the glyphosate out of your system, allowing it to be eliminated through your urine."
"Detoxifying Your Body from Glyphosate Exposure
There are a number of different studies that claim that glyphosate accumulates in the bones, intestine, spleen, liver, muscle and kidney.
avoid using Roundup and other similar products avoid consumption of GMO foods which are directly contaminated with glyphosate avoid animal products such as milk or meat for which GMO foods were used to feed the animals eat organic foods as much as possible avoid living in areas where glyphosate is applied use infrared sauna for sweating out toxins consume probiotic foods and probiotic supplements to repopulate the microbiota which glyphosate destroys eat organic foods rich in sulfur and manganese
A study published in the December 2014 issue of the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology found that the oral application of certain natural substances were able effectively reduce urinary levels of glyphosate. 7 The researchers used a combination of the following substances:
fulvic acids humic acids activated charcoal bentonite clay sauerkraut juice
The study used Schleswig Holstein cows suffering from symptoms of chronic botulism. They were fed sequentially with 400 g/animal charcoal daily for 4 weeks (weeks 1-4 of the study), 200 g/ animal charcoal (weeks 5-10 of the study), 200 g charcoal and 500 ml Sauerkraut juice/animal (weeks 11-14 of the study), 120 g/animal humic acids (weeks 15-18 of the study) 200 g charcoal and 100 mL Aquahumin/animal (weeks 19- 20 the of study), or 100 g charcoal and 50 mL Aquahumin (weeks 21-22 of the study) followed by 4 weeks without any supplementation.
There was a significant reduction of glyphosate in urine following supplementation with a combination of 200g charcoal plus either 500 mL sauerkraut juice or humic acid.
They concluded that a charcoal-sauerkraut juice combination and humic acids reduced glyphosate excretion by urine and led to the improved health of animals. 8
An interesting study from October 2010 published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Technology investigated the mechanism of action of liver cells exposed to glyphosate and possible protection by precise medicinal plant extracts.
Glyphosate, in the form of the Monsanto product Roundup, is able to provoke intracellular disruption in hepatic (liver) cell lines at different levels, but a mixture of specific medicinal plant extracts can protect to some extent human cell lines against this toxin.
Taraxacum officinalis (Dandelion) Arctium lappa (Burdock root) Berberis vulgaris (Barberry; the active ingredient in barberry is berberine) Chelidonium majus (Greater celandine)
Based on the scientific studies to-date, there are a number of natural substances that have shown positive results in detoxifying and reducing the toxic effects of glyphosate exposure.
Foods
Raphanus sativus (Radish)
Probiotic foods and supplements
Sauerkraut and sauerkraut juice
Minerals
Sulfur (Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM)) Manganese Fulvic acid Humic acid RESTORE GUT HEALTH
Charcoal and Clay
Activated charcoal Bentonite clay
Herbs
Taraxacum officinalis (Dandelion) Rhamnus frangula (Alder buckthorn) Raphanus sativus (Radish) Carduus marianus (Silybum marianum; milk thistle) Arctium lappa (Burdock root) Berberis vulgaris (Barberry; the active ingredient in barberry is berberine) Chelidonium majus (Greater celandine)" https://www.agentnateur.com/blogs/agent-tips/how-to-detoxify-your-body-from-glyphosate
"Glyphosate’s primary use involves killing weeds, but it was first patented as a metal chelator (remover) because it binds to minerals (like calcium) to clear them out of pipes. That’s great for pipes, but not for people who need essential minerals to stay strong and healthy.
The herbicide also causes a devastating impact on our internal ecosystem. It kills off beneficial bacteria (probiotics) while giving dangerous pathogens a competitive edge. Research indicates that glyphosate creates and speeds up antibiotic resistance in disease-causing bacteria such as salmonella and E. coli.
In its central role, glyphosate is the most widely used agricultural pesticide in the world, but it’s often combined with other toxic herbicides including:
That’s why the vast majority of our conventional food supply is contaminated with glyphosate, almost always along with other toxins. And as we’re finding, these dangerous combinations spell disaster for our personal and planetary health. Glyphosate Toxicity: The Many Dangers
Glyphosate poses an enormous health risk because of our constant exposure. And though each instance of contact with glyphosate may seem small, they all add up — especially since this everyday toxin “tricks” your body into storing it, by mimicking other essential nutrients.
That puts you at higher risk for many troubling health issues, including:
Deficiencies in essential minerals such as manganese and iron that can lead to diabetes, dementia, and anemia symptoms Overgrowth of pathogens in the gut (dysbiosis or “leaky gut”), which disrupts immune function and increases inflammation, putting you at risk for dozens of chronic diseases Disruption of vital biochemical processes (like detox methylation), which can lead to toxin overload, autoimmune disease and cancer Reduced neurotransmitter production, which can cause depression, anxiety, and cognitive decline
Since glyphosate contamination is extremely difficult to avoid, you need to defend yourself against it every day. Pesticides Taint Most Foods
Most plant foods sold in the U.S. come bathed in pesticides. According to the USDA, more than 225 different pesticides can be found on fruits, vegetables, and grains commonly consumed in the U.S. (See the Dirty Dozen list for more details.) Even organic foods are not always spared, since pesticides like glyphosate and others can find their way into organic farms via wind drift or other means.
Glyphosate itself contaminates hundreds of the most common foods. Even though each food may contain only trace amounts of glyphosate, those traces add up to an oversized daily dose. Here’s just a small taste of foods that contain glyphosate in popular brands:
Granola bars Bottled orange juice Rolled oats 100% whole grain pasta Hummus
While it may seem impossible to avoid glyphosate and other pesticides, there are things you can do to protect yourself and your family from the harm these toxins can cause. Emphasizing organic foods and products is an important first step. Even though organic produce may still contain some pesticide or toxin residues, levels will be far lower than conventionally-grown items.
There’s also a new, independent certification that manufacturers can obtain to verify products as glyphosate-free. While still in the early stages, this new certification may be something to keep an eye out for, as awareness about the dangers of glyphosate continues to climb. Protect Yourself from Glyphosate Toxicity
There are several things you can do to minimize — and even eliminate — glyphosate contamination, but the most important is to protect your body with natural defenders. That way, as we are chronically exposed to glyphosate, our bodies can safely deal with it before long-term damage is done.
The most effective glyphosate defense team includes:
Citrus pectin: A soluble fiber known to detoxify heavy metals and clear cholesterol through its superior binding powers
Alginates (purified from kelp): Proven to protect against pesticide toxicity and effectively remove heavy metals and toxins
Glycine: An amino acid needed to create glutathione — a powerful detoxifier and antioxidant that also protects the liver against toxicity. Interestingly, the body can mistake glyphosate for glycine during protein synthesis, tricking it into storing toxic glyphosate in tissues and organs. By supplementing with extra glycine, we can prevent glyphosate from being stored, enhance glutathione activity, and help support healthy protein production.
The top glycine-rich sources include collagen and bone broth, but it’s also found in legumes, meat, dairy, poultry, eggs and fish. Even some fruits and vegetables contain glycine, like spinach, cabbage, kale, bananas and cauliflower.
Gingko biloba: An ancient herb found to be a powerful protector against glyphosate toxicity
Organic Iceland kelp: A rich source of protective minerals including iodine, which prevents the absorption of radioactive ions and toxic pesticide halogens like fluoride, bromide, and chlorine
Probiotics and prebiotics: Needed to restore beneficial gut bacteria killed off by glyphosate
In my practice, I recommend a targeted detox formula with these detox binders, to safely remove glyphosate and other agricultural toxins, prevent them from being stored in the body, and support thyroid, GI health, and other areas.
Pesticides and environmental toxins represent a daily problem that require daily solutions—especially since our levels of exposure are on the rise. Supporting your body with safe, natural detoxifiers offers the best defense against glyphosate along with other pesticides and toxins, with additional protective benefits for long-term health and wellness." https://draxe.com/health/glyphosate-toxicity/
I soak my non-organic root vegetables in a heaped desert-spoonful of baking-powder (often organic -irony-), for at least half an hour, then rinse them off before cooking, it works well (none of that; “I’ve just toxified myself” taste).
An internal cleanse using aloe to hydrate, cleanse and prep. the body for the maximum efficiency of a zeolite application
Quote; “Zeolite is a natural volcanic mineral, which was created when ash and lava from volcanos chemically reacted with sea waters. This resulted in a cavernous compound with a very strong “cage-like” structure and negative charge. Zeolite is one of the very few natural minerals that are negatively charged by nature. This means that it works like a magnet to attract positively charged toxins and heavy metals from your body. The structure of zeolite is very porous, which traps these toxins and heavy metals as the zeolite circulates through the body.” To avoid testimonial I won’t give the link, suffice to say you get what you pay for.
Nb. The zeolites I use are alkaline and, therefore, most suitable for use with a “bitter” (“bitter aloes”), such as aloe vera…I recommend taking the zeolite in some water (I use an “implosion” device on my domestic supply I would otherwise recommend using a mineral water), with ph. 7 (neutral), or higher this keeps the body alkaline biased during absorption. Take the zeolite in the water an hour or more after washing down the filleted aloe gel with the same water (and remaining hydrated). Try to do this on an empty stomach, failing this wait at least 1.5hrs after meals before initiating the protocol, do not take any form of active B12 (incl. from supplements or food additives), on the same day (aloe contains an “inactive” B12 that is antagonistic to the active form).
As ever, a dramatic illustration of the utter alienation of this culture from the wider ecology
Quite. And, our technology gives us immense power to instrumentalise, manipulate and try to control the world whilst failing to understand we are part of that world, not separate from it and superior to it, and that, in consequence, what we do to the world we do to ourselves.
Some of the longer-term & older research mentioned in this 2020 paper, reporting on their findings from light and suction traps across the UK between 1969-2016:
Are insects declining and at what rate? An analysis of standardised, systematic catches of aphid and moth abundances across Great Britain James R. Bell, Dan Blumgart, Chris R. Shortall First published: 04 March 2020
Abstract
Although we have known anecdotally that insects have been declining in Great Britain for more than 100 years, insect declines have only been statistically estimated over the last 20 years. Estimation of the rate of those declines is still hotly debated, fuelled by a lack of standardised, systematically collected data. More than 24 million individual moths and aphids collected from 112 light traps and 25 12.2 m suction-traps, respectively, were analysed using mixed models. Our objective was to estimate the long-term trends in both groups based on annual totals recorded every year between 1969 and 2016. The models showed that two paradigms existed: Over 47 years, long-term linear trends showed that moths had declined significantly by −31%, but short-term trends indicated that there were periods of significant decline and recovery in most decades since the 1960s. Conversely, despite aphid annual totals fluctuating widely, this group was in a steady state over the long-term, with a non-significant decline of −7.6%. Sensitivity analysis revealed that moth trends were not driven by a group of abundant species, but the sign of the overall aphid trends may have been driven by three of the most abundant species. The spatial extent of moth trends suggests that they are extremely heterogeneous. Uniquely, moth declines were different among several habitat types, with robust significant declines found in coastal, urban and woodland habitats, but notably not in agricultural, parkland and scrubland habitats. Conversely, aphid trends showed spatial synchrony extending to 338 km, albeit with local variation.
Introduction
Recently, there has been a flurry of insect decline papers. Leather (2018) has expressed some bemusement as to why Hallmann et al. (2017) and Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys (2019) had received widespread media attention, given that insect declines have been apparent for decades. Indeed, nearly 50 years ago, Taylor stated that there had been a dramatic decline in moth populations between 1940 and 1960 (Taylor, 1974). Even earlier, Ford (1945, 1955) stated that many moths and butterflies had become scarce after the 1850s. Although neither of these studies report a rate of decline, they are indicative of widespread and dramatic change in both the 19th and early 20th century moth populations. Recently, insect declines have received rigorous analyses of historical time series. Conrad et al. (2006) echoed Taylor's concerns, highlighting a decline in two-thirds of Britain's larger moth species between 1968 and 2002. A re-analysis of more recent data (1968–2007) showed that 37% of the 337 species decreased by at least 50%, although those declines were largely clustered in southern Britain (Fox et al., 2013). Negative trends were shown for native bees in both Britain and the Netherlands (Biesmeijer et al., 2006) and Brooks et al. (2012) reported declines in British carabid populations of 28–52%. Both Warren et al. (2001) and Thomas et al. (2004) also showed declines in the distribution of butterflies, the latter study by as much as 74%. Butterflies are one of the best studied groups and it is estimated that their abundance globally has declined by 35% over 40 years (Dirzo et al., 2014) with potentially steeper declines in the Netherlands, estimated using non-standardised techniques (van Strien et al., 2019). Even though we appear to have compelling evidence of declines, Thomas et al. (2004) asserted that we know very little about the state of insect populations beyond Europe and North America. This geographical bias has emerged as a major issue in recent global assessments (Simmons et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2019).
The Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys (2019) paper that reviewed declines and the associated media stories are not without their critics, highlighting many issues around geographical, taxonomic and methodological biases that have purportedly undermined both the peer review process and insect conservation efforts (Leather, 2018; Cardoso et al., 2019; Mupepele et al., 2019; Saunders, 2019; Simmons et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2019; Wagner, 2019). Yet, at the level of Insecta, many scientists would agree anecdotally that insect declines have happened in their lifetime, at least in many parts of the world (McCarthy, 2015: Vogel, 2017; Janzen & Hallwachs, 2019), and instead the dispute is likely around the rate rather than the existence of a decline for most groups.
Previous multi-species studies on insect groups including moths, butterflies, hoverflies and carabid beetles showed that while most species are declining, there are subsets of species within each group that are increasing (Warren et al., 2001, Brooks et al., 2012, Fox et al., 2013) or at least remaining stable over time (Biesmeijer et al., 2006; Shortall et al., 2009; Hallmann et al., 2020). Even after the widespread habitat destruction during World War I, it is perhaps surprising that butterflies and moths saw a reversal in fortunes, although there are exceptions (Bretherton, 1951). Whilst it is rarely recognised or cited that insects may profit as a result of environmental change (Bell et al., 2015; Herrera, 2019, Boyes et al., 2019, Macgregor et al., 2019), it adds a dimension to the question of whether insects are declining and if so at what rate, because it suggests that to answer such a question will be dependent on the species or group studied, ignoring other likely important covariates such as habitat, spatio-temporal issues, statistical methodology and sampling intensity and bias, for example (McKinney, 1999; Cardoso et al., 2019; Mupepele et al., 2019; Simmons et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2019).
The ‘rate debate’ has been fuelled because of a lack of standardised data (Saunders 2019; Didham et al., 2020; Montgomery et al., 2020). To accurately capture the underlying trend in the rate of change requires simultaneously and repeatedly sampling populations with standardised devices (New, 1998). Since 1964, the Rothamsted Insect Survey has been at the forefront of the insect declines research, exploiting the longest standardised terrestrial insect time series in the world, reporting on population change in aphids, moths, ladybirds, wasps and general insect biomasses (Taylor, 1974; Conrad et al., 2002, 2004, 2006, Fox et al., 2006; Conrad et al., 2007; Woiwod & Gould, 2008; Shortall et al., 2009; Fox et al., 2013; Comont et al., 2014; Bell et al., 2015; Lester et al., 2017; Martay et al., 2017; Coulthard et al., 2019; Dennis et al., 2019; Fox et al., 2019; Macgregor et al., 2019). In this article, we build on this extensive knowledge and present an analysis of the likely scale of moth and aphid population linear and non-linear trends over Great Britain and, how rates of change vary according to habitat and spatial scale.
[Methods, Results omitted - see link if interested]
Discussion
Our research showed that the annual count of moths in Great Britain is in significant decline, estimated to be −31% according to the long-term linear trend and in precise agreement with Conrad et al. (2004, 2006) and close agreement with Fox et al. (2013). A new insight has been gained from the non-linear models produced in this article, highlighting periods of significant decline and recovery in all decades except the 1980s. The non-linear trend supports the findings of MacGregor et al. (2019) who demonstrated that moth biomass increased from 1967 to 1982 and started to decline only after the early 1980s. It is beyond the scope of this article to unpick the causes of these short-term trends, but it would seem unlikely that climate alone is responsible. After all, the 10 warmest years since 1884 have all occurred since 2002 and, between 1981 and 2010, the temperature was 0.9°C warmer compared to 1961–1990, with much less severe winters (Kendon et al., 2019). These conditions should broadly favour moths and yet the analysis here showed a decline. Fox et al. (2013) showed that trends varied among regions, citing southern Britain where moth decline was the steepest (−40%), implicating land use changes more than climate. Indeed, Dieker et al. (2011) inferred that this was likely the case for alpine moths, where land-use changes exceeded the impact of climate change; it has also been argued for agricultural invertebrates too (Ewald et al., 2015). Against this, it must be noted that we found no evidence of moth declines in agricultural habitats, a similar result to aphid trends in that habitat. This study appears to contrast with Seibold et al. (2019) who found that invertebrates in grassland habitats were declining at a faster rate than woodland. The two studies are not strictly comparable; in our 47-year study, grassland is found within more general farmland and parkland habitat types, compared to a decade's worth of monitoring using discrete 50 m habitat plots in the Seibold study. Importantly, we have demonstrated that shorter time periods can show great variability that linear models alone may not capture.
Anecdotally, butterflies and moths have been in a period of decline for more than 150 years in Great Britain, casually linked by naturalists (Ford, 1945; Bretherton, 1951; Ford, 1955) and scientists (Taylor, 1974; Conrad et al., 2004, 2006; Woiwod & Gould, 2008; Fox et al., 2014) to changes in land use. This assertion is justified, given the dramatic change in agriculture in post-war Britain, which now represents 72% of the land area (Defra, 2019). The decline in moths may have been most severely felt when, during the 1950s, Britain went through an agricultural revolution that saw widespread mechanisation and routine organochlorine insecticide and inorganic fertiliser use (Robinson & Sutherland, 2002). These developments led to the demise of fallow in rotational agriculture and a dramatic increase in field size. Booming agriculture saw the reduction in both extensive low-input cultivation and non-cropped habitats and it is these changes in particular that were implicated in moth population declines cited above. Nevertheless, whilst agricultural intensification has been given special mention by these and other authors, it alone does not explain fully why moths are declining in semi-natural environments, where other pressures, such as light pollution, urbanisation and disturbance may also play a part, particularly in southern Britain. The problem of implicating these and other drivers in a formal statistical test is limited because of the absence of high-quality long-term land use and environmental data. What we are able to observe, in lieu of land use and environmental data, is that there are clear differences in the rate and direction of change between habitats, which may also explain the lack of spatial synchrony that suggests high variation locally between sites. We found that moths recorded in coastal, urban, woodland, mixed and moorland habitats were significantly different from zero, but only coastal, urban and woodland habitats showed declines over time (Table 1). Surprisingly, agricultural habitats do not report a decline, but this may be because moths in this habitat have already lost those species at greatest extinction risk during the period of dramatic landscape change during the 1950s. This is an area of current interest, which requires manipulative experiments to unravel how moth populations in agricultural habitats can be understood.
Conversely, aphids do not share a decline phase in the same way as moths, but instead are broadly stable between 1969 and 2016 (−7.6%) according to the linear trend. Our analysis using annual counts with a negative binomial distribution is a more comprehensive analysis for detecting the rate of change than Bell et al.'s (2015) previous assessment. In that study, Bell et al. (2015) showed a moderate non-linear significant increase overall using log annual counts in a Gaussian model framework. Clearly, aphids display a great deal of interannual volatility and transforming the response is not without its merits, especially considering the wide confidence intervals produced from linear trend modelling with a negative binomial distribution in this article (i.e. −32%, 22%). To compare and provide an independent perspective, the evidence from the field is that summer aphid populations in cereals have declined over 40 years (Ewald et al., 2015), in agreement with our current study that showed a significant decline in three major cereal pests. It is perhaps surprising that no significant short-term trends were highlighted in the non-linear model, given their status as a primary target for insecticides and the propensity for aphid populations to outbreak over wide areas. But it is likely that the exponential growth of aphids, particularly those aphids associated with cereals and beans that reach extreme numbers during peak infestation, would have been averaged out in this analysis by other species that do not reach outbreaking levels (Bell et al., 2015). What remains consistent between the few studies that have examined aphids over long periods of time, is that whilst a linear trend is informative for broad statements about trends, aphids are fundamentally volatile within- and between-years. Extreme variance suggests that we should think of aphids as a ‘special case’ for which the concept of outbreak with interannual variation is perhaps more appropriate paradigm. That said, aphids are remarkable for their migration which produced broadly spatially synchronous regional trends in this study, albeit with a high degree of local variation.
Implicating the causes of a broadly stable trend in aphids does raise similar issues to that discussed for moths. For example, although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) do provide a very coarse regional measure every few years (Defra, 2019), annual records of insecticide use are absent at the spatial (i.e. 5 km scale) or compound (i.e. aphicides) resolution needed. The CEH Land Cover maps have now been updated to include pesticide usage (Jarvis et al., 2019) and show potential. But, at present, the series is limited to 2012–2016, which precludes its use in this study. Ewald et al. (2015) has shown that insecticide usage has driven down some of the beneficial insect groups as well as aphids. As foliar applications of pyrethroids and seed-treated clothianidin were applied in nearly all arable fields at least once per annum in recent years, it is perhaps unsurprising that the three cereal pest species studied separately here have declined. Although, with the withdrawal of neonicotinoid treated seed mandated for all crops sown in autumn 2019, including non-flowering ones, it is expected that the annual count of aphids should rise if no other effective check on populations is found. Other drivers of change, such as host plants, have been modelled for migrating aphids (Bell et al., 2012b). These data can, at best, only provide information on how widespread hosts are, not necessarily how locally abundant they may be, which is needed. We know from Bell et al. (2015) and Ewald et al. (2015) that weather and climate determine the long-term trends in the number of aphids, but even here increasing accumulated degree days has shown only to produce small, positive changes in annual counts over decades with substantial unaccounted variation. Clearly, to untangle these drivers will require finely tuned individual species models.
We are confident of both the sign and rate of change reported here exceed the requirements given by Wauchope et al. (2019), in that we present long-term, standardised, regularly sampled data and report confidence intervals around our modelled trends. We are also confident that the reported declines in moths are not driven by changes in the commonest species as grouping ‘dominant’ and ‘uncommon’ species separately found no significant difference in the sign or rate of change. In aphids however, there is evidence that the three most common agricultural pest species (R. padi, R. oxyacanthae and S. avenae) are showing significant long-term population declines, possibly because of control measures. This was not true for less common aphid species, which had a stable population trend over time. The implications for insect declines research is profound. The decline in insects is being felt across trophic levels and one of the major concerns is the potential impact on insectivorous birds. Aphids and moths both form important components of the bird diets (Wilson et al., 1999; Holland et al., 2006; Holland et al., 2012). Møller (2019) showed that Danish barn swallows, house martins, and sand martins decreased significantly over a 20-year period, linking the decline to the availability of insects. Bowler et al. (2019) showed that declines in insectivorous birds was most strongly felt in agricultural habitats, particularly grasslands, that caused bird communities to be dominated by diet generalists. On the North American continent, similar patterns are apparent (Fitzgerald et al., 2014; Michel et al., 2016). In Canada, chimney swifts (Chaetura pelagica) have been linked to insect community change over a 48-year period using dietary reconstruction methods. The study showed that chimney swifts are in decline due to widespread use of the pesticide DDT in the 1960s, which correlated with a significant change in prey and therefore nutrients (Nocera et al., 2012). Further, an isotope analysis of Eastern whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) over ~130 years found some evidence of a shift in diet away from higher trophic level insect prey (English et al., 2018). Clearly, more research is needed to examine species diversity and community composition, concentrating at the field level over long periods of time and measuring covariates like weather, insecticide usage, landscape and habitat change. Insect decline science is limited by funding, but the arguments are compelling and include known-knowns, such as the link between aerial insect numbers and insectivorous birds. Other aspects are much less well understood, such as the displacement of insect numbers and the consequences for trophic mismatching, and the homogenisation of insect communities that increasingly include diet generalists and common eurytopic species. Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
on May 7, 2022, 10:20 am