Europe is not exactly a big fan of GMO crops, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_in_t... and yet they're seeing similar insect population collapses as in the US.

EU agriculture is also pesticide and insecticide heavy and only getting worse lately. Another problem (in Eastern Europe) is the use of banned chemicals, usually imported from Turkey or China. How do I know?

1. I used to keep bees for ~20 years. Saw a gradual decline in population ~5 years ago and now they are all dead. Same for most of the people in my community, except a few of them that do kind of "industrial" beekeeping, which requires lots of attention and is not feasible for a hobbyist.

2. When I asked some of the smaller farmers in the area why this is happening, they told be about the illegal imports that many are doing to stay competitive.

3. Tried complaining to authorities several times in the past. Whether out of negligence or corruption, they simply don't care.

Lots of non-GMO and Organic farmers use stuff that's just as bad as round up. They're kidding themselves if they don't think they are. Nature is full of quite deadly chemicals not made by man, but the "eco farmers" complete ignore that and act like "natural" pesticides are safer than man-made ones.

I'd guess that that monoculture, pesticides and fertiliser make up the bulk of the insect problem.

However, in terms of potential for unforeseen catastrophe, I'd leave GMO in the list. Our understanding of how small genetic changes can affect ecosystems in unintended ways is far, far from thorough. W don't even understand how small genetic changes affect us, never mind a biome filled with biomes.

Catastrophe is probably too strong a word, but I agree with the main idea here. The folks worried about human health effects are barking up the wrong tree. The risks (if there are any) are probably ecological, not medical.

Millions of acres of monoculture are not particularly insect friendly, independent of what exactly you grow there.

Round Up is a defoliant, it's unlikely to have anything to do with an insect apocalypse.

Also while Round Up is probably (over)used, particularly in corn harvesting where it's sprayed to ease harvest and thus is more likely to end up in food products, in normal use it seems to be as safe as a chemical can be. Banning it is very likely to result in other chemicals being used, and they're unlikely to be as safe.

Ah yes, because insects have nothing to do with leaves... And glyphosate is the only chemical in it.

Wait, neither of those are actually true, are they?

Let's have a goo at the top three search results for "round up effect on insects"...

> "The chemical compound glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, can weaken the immune systems of insects, suggests a study from researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health"

> "The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, does not affect insects in the same way it impacts plants, but it does kill insects, either directly -- as in the case of a small number of honeybees in Monsanto's research -- or as a consequence of killing weeds."

> "Glyphosate—the most widely used herbicide globally—inhibits melanin production, which could have wide-ranging implications in the health of many organisms, including insects. ... Glyphosate also increased the burden of the malaria-causing parasite Plasmodium falciparum in A"

This doesn't seem like such an "unlikely" candidate to be playing a role to me.

It's not a defoliant. It's a systemic herbicide. It kills all plants through to the roots. It's not used to ease harvesting, it's used to kill all the other plants in the environment around the plant that has been engineered for resistance, to boost yields.

The harm to insects comes primarily from the lack of biodiversity and lack of flowering plants.

That article is overflowing with problems big enough to drive an apocalypse through.

It's a Gish-gallop of codswallop.

It's laughable, and I scorn the author with all my heart. He's a stooge.

Since it's rude to say things like that without examples - and I resent you for making me spend more time on that article - he says things like:

> While Sánchez-Bayo was claiming that “almost half of the [world’s insect] species are rapidly declining,” the data documented declines for about 2,900 species, a tiny fraction (less than one-10th of one percent) of the insect species on Earth.

Jeeze, he only documented a decline in _2,900_ of the insect species on Earth. How could he not document all 3 billion +, what a lazy guy [/s].

Seriously?!

In the next paragraphs, you can see how differently he treats research that supports his view, praising it's author's for "welcoming criticism", even though their paper was criticised for the very same issues and more.

At times he criticizes researchers for not using more data, at times he admits that more data is needed, and then he says that there's "no evidence" of decline based on one study that he admits was widely criticised - for the same issues, and more, as he berated Sánchez-Bayo for.

I had a quick look at this guy's Twitter and he's abusing Greenpeace and organic farming, while defending the use of pesticides and in particular glyphosate.

SO I LOOKED INTO THAT, AND GUESS WHAT:

"Jon Entine is the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, a key partner in Monsanto's public relations efforts to ..."

The guy is a fucking stooge. A straight up Monsanto stooge: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/blog/2019/september/jon-entin...