Talk:Neonicotinoid

and are WP:MEDRS reviews which discuss human reproductive toxicity. EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I see one use of the word "neonicontinoids". (Note the "n" immediately before the "t".) Is that the correct spelling of something different from "neonicotinoid" or an acceptable alternate spelling of "neonicotinoid" or just a misspelling? I suspect it's just a misspelling, but I'm not sure. So I want to ask before making an edit. This is in 7.1 Toxicity > Bees: "Two studies published in Nature provided further evidence of the deleterious effect of neonicontinoids on bees..."--Kjs04032 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I plan to remove this sentence currently in the section on "bees":

"In general, however, despite the fact that many laboratory studies have shown the potential for neonicotinoid toxicity, the majority of field studies have found only limited or no effects on honey bees." [[this citation]]

While in 2015, perhaps this may have been a reasonable citation and sentence, nearing 2022, this generalization ("In general") now seems to take on an overly editorial ("however", "found only limited or no effects") tone on this controversial subject under great public scrutiny and very active research since then.

For example, the citation's latest reference was 2015 and was too early to include later research and review such as this 2017 article in Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.aam7470) or others.

Respectfully, Kshih (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is only a single study, and I don't see anything we could use to contradict the statement about the majority of studies. They would require a review or meta-analysis type approach. KoA (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. Apologies for not being more clear and providing more. Good point. I was just providing a single prominent study as a characteristic example.

So, here's at least one more updated review that does point to how the Cornell's previous review seems out of date and does not include an updated understanding coming from a more extensive body of research than existed at the time. In particular, it compiles a far amount of more current research (to 2019): https://www.mass.gov/doc/neonics-scientific-literature-review-december-2019/download

Perhaps I can cite this document as an update and reword this sentence all together?

I'll see if I can find something even more recent than 2019.

In particular, my main objection to the existing sentence is that it seems to mischaracterize current state of understanding and has a "voice" that speaks as if current; not the citation it uses.

Simply, it is misleading to the reader.

Thanks for your comment.

Kshih (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

First, please WP:THREAD your comments. You were already aware that removal didn't have consensus here, so you should not have gone and removed it anyways.

Secondly, a letter from Industrial Economics, Inc. isn't exactly a reliable source, and it doesn't really contradict the 2015 source anyways. Usually we want peer-reviewed sources, but at the least, a university source like the Cornell one is decent here. If there are sources that actually do contradict the actual text, then those should be discussed here. In general though, honeybees are fairly resistant to neonicotinoids overall (in the relative sense), so much of the focus nowadays is on wild pollinators that do have higher susceptibility and risk.

Overall, the field hasn't developed such a smoking gun for honeybees at least. There's still plenty of recent review articles that talk about issues in study design with many of these studies: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00218839.2018.1484055. If there is a sea-change in the literature, then the reviews will reflect that if/when that happens. KoA (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 •

Kshih: I think you will want this: López-Uribe et al 2020

I certainly will not agree with the other editor that your source is entirely unreliable and does not contradict the 2015. It is not peer reviewed however and so we should prefer something else. It was commissioned by a political body and so could be written to pander to their bias. López-Uribe is much better. (89) in Berenbaum & Calla 2021 probably supports toxicity also. You will have to read carefully here if you want to talk about A. mellifera: A lot of what I find is about wild bees instead.

I haven't read all of this I have just looked quickly so I have no conclusions. Overall I find only a few pieces of evidence for actual toxicity and a few for A. mellifera having effective CYPs for neonics (for another example Matsuda et al 2020). This is a politically pressured subject and seems to be moving rapidly, recently. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spmg98 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HL02378 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Article for creation: Flupyrimin. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)