While there are a number of factors likely contributing to the decline, such as habitat loss and disease, much research supports the idea that neonicotinoids, by impairing neurological functions, is contributing to the problem. But progress in curbing their use hasn’t followed as swiftly as many desire. The European Union, in 2013, placed a temporary moratorium on the pesticides while more research is conducted. The U.S., in contrast, has yet to make any sweeping restrictions on neonicotinoids — although the Fish and Wildlife Service is planning to eliminated them from protected lands, and several cities, including, as of yesterday, Portland, have banned their use on public lands. Last June, the White House established a task force to study the factors contributing to pollinators’ decline; advocates say the EPA’s actions may foreshadow broader recommendations for limiting the chemicals’ use.
In response to the move, a coalition of environmental groups was short on the praise for the EPA’s long-awaited action, insisting that a lot more needs to be done to protect pollinators, including placing a moratorium on existing products. “EPA has finally admitted it lacks the basic data needed to determine whether bees, other pollinators, or the environment will be adversely affected by neonicotinoids,” said Peter T. Jenkins, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, in a statement. “If EPA is unable to assess the safety of new uses, the agency similarly is not able to assess the safety of the close to 100 outdoor uses already approved.”
Keim and her colleagues have already been instrumental in revealing the dangers of online breast milk, with earlier findings that showed the prevalence of salmonella in a disturbing number of samples from the Internet. Many women might turn to milk-sharing websites if they don’t produce enough milk on their own or if they have adopted children. But Keim’s research highlights the need for other options that don’t include online classifieds of questionable intent.
As I’ve argued before, Chipotle’s real problem may be its insistence on perpetuating the myth that fast food meat can ever be sustainable, in the full sense of the term: producing meat in a system that exploits neither the animals nor the workers, and which refrains from threatening public health and the environment, is in many ways dependent on producing less of it.
First, the army of supporters that invaded the dining room for lunch every few weeks provided evidence that New Yorkers cared. “People actually showed up,” Moss said on Friday. “It was the first thing I’ve been involved with where people really showed up in large numbers, and politicians showed up.” Second, it demonstrated that widespread popular support (and even a message from Bill de Blasio) couldn’t stand up to the simple financial incentives of commercial landlording.
“I think people are noticing more and more what’s happening to the city,” Moss observed. “But they don’t seem to be aware that something can be done about it.” Around the world, nature is moving to the cities. “Ecological novelty pervades the urban environment,” says Michael Perring of the University of Western Australia. Gardens and cemeteries, abandoned industrial areas, transport corridors, and even suburban trash cans are all grist to nature’s mill. Sometimes cities provide specialist habitat. Buildings and bridges in cities from Budapest and Florence to Brussels and New York provide substitute cliff roosting sites for birds of prey such as peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus). For a decade now, I have enjoyed watching the fastest birds of prey in Europe swooping on city pigeons from their nests in the turrets at Chichester Cathedral on the southern coast of England. They seem to like it as well as their “proper” sea-cliff habitat.
More often, cities are irresistible food sources.