The report goes on: "This analysis provides evidence that US soybean
growers derive limited to no benefit from neonicotinoid seed treatments in
most instances."
Hmmm. But at least they're better for farmers than no pesticide at all?
Nope: "Published data indicate that most usage of neonicotinoid seed
treatments does not protect soybean yield any better than doing no pest
control."
Ouch.
One poll found that 45 percent of respondents reported finding non-treated
seeds "difficult to obtain" or "not available."
The EPA notes that in recent years, US farmers have been planting on
average 76 million acres of soybeans each season. Of those acres, an
average 31 percent are planted in seeds treated with neonics—that is,
farmers buy treated seeds, which suffuse the soybean plants with the
chemical as they grow. So that's about 24 million acres of neonic-treated
seeds—an area equal in size to the state of Indiana
<http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total>.
Why would farmers pay up for a seed treatment that doesn't do them any
good, yet may be doing considerable harm to pollinators and birds? The EPA
report has insights: "data from researchers and extension experts ...
indicate that some growers currently have some difficulty obtaining
untreated seed." The report points to one small poll that found 45 percent
of respondents reported finding non-treated seeds "difficult to obtain" or
"not available."