# Beekeepers suing EPA



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I got the same notification from "Catch the Buzz".

I wish them luck. They are taking on a bureaucracy that is backed by Monsanto.


----------



## AJ Farms (Nov 22, 2011)

here in Ontario Syngenta is playing bee health commercials on the radio saying they are working towards helping maintain bee health and if youre interested in bee health to work with them


----------



## julysun (Apr 25, 2012)

Bees don't stand a chance against the Pols and the Chemical guys!


----------



## Coffee_Bee (Feb 3, 2013)

Maybe they should get their facts straight and ally themselves with beekeepers that don't have a lot of baggage and integrity issues. All it does is draw attention for the wrong reasons, serving as a distraction from real issues and facts.
Some people will believe anything.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Coffee_Bee said:


> Maybe they should get their facts straight and ally themselves with beekeepers that don't have a lot of baggage and integrity issues. All it does is draw attention for the wrong reasons, serving as a distraction from real issues and facts.
> Some people will believe anything.


 :thumbsup:


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

"The coalition, represented by attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS), seeks suspension of the registrations of insecticides that have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees known as colony collapse disorder (CCD)."

The above was copied from the article from Catch the Buzz.

Notice it says "repeatedly identified as"...

I would be interested in seeing the sources of this identification.

It seems some don't get it. Bayer is not being sued. The EPA is. And they are not being sued for neonics. they are being sued for failure to protect pollinators. Not nearly as hard a case to make. So I am wondering just what 'Facts" the above have in mind.

If you can't take out the crook. take out the crooks network. Make his friends his enemies is even better.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

If it weren't for suing the EPA, there would be times when we didn't have a functional administration. They're charged with performing certain tasks, and they ought to perform them and that includes properly testing and certifying pesticides. If they didn't do the work then they should be sued regardless of the product or its effects. This is government being accountable to citizens and laws.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Except in the real world that is not how it works with government regulatory organizations. They get their funding from the industry that they are regulating. I doubt if the EPA, FDA, FCC, etc. has the ability to perform the test required. That money has to come from industry. The system works pretty well until you have a monopoly or a company that is so large that they become a dictator. If the Monsanto's and Bayer's of the world were chopped up like the phone company was we would have far less problems with protecting citizens. Competition would keep them honest and they wouldn't have the influence that they do on our government.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Love the opening sentence:



> U.S. environmental regulators are failing to protect honeybees and their role in pollinating important food crops, and should immediately suspend use of some *toxic insecticides tied to the widespread deaths of the bees*, a lawsuit filed on Thursday charges.


----------



## davo (Feb 26, 2013)

Acebird said:


> Except in the real world that is not how it works with government regulatory organizations. They get their funding from the industry that they are regulating. I doubt if the EPA, FDA, FCC, etc. has the ability to perform the test required. That money has to come from industry. The system works pretty well until you have a monopoly or a company that is so large that they become a dictator. If the Monsanto's and Bayer's of the world were chopped up like the phone company was we would have far less problems with protecting citizens. Competition would keep them honest and they wouldn't have the influence that they do on our government.



Ok. So what is stopping us from putting real scientists in the EPA who can design testing parameters which would give us real safety information, to be handed off to the chemical companies to carry out the actual research and publication?

"Here's what you need to prove in order for us to allow you to market this chemical." instead of ... "Whatever research will cost you the least and give you the most favorable conditions is good enough."

We need chemicals to be tested for long term low-dose toxicity, multi-generational testing to determine reproductive impacts and genetic damage, as well as acute toxicity (which is usually the only thing required).

The EPA doesn't have the resources to carry out this research, but the conglomerate chemical companies do. They might not if they were broken up into smaller companies.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Companies stand to gain nothing by putting a faulty product out in the market place. The bad PR as well as laibility issues require that they do a reasonably good job of testing products. Nothing can be tested to the point where there is absolutely no risk, especially when you are dealing with something as variable as a natural ecosystem. No amount of testing will satisfy certain populations of green types who would like to see all chemicals banned. I have my hives adjacent to large areas of corn and soybean production and those hives fare as well as the ones in town. I think contaminated comb from our own chemicals has a lot to do with our problems. Clean up your own front yard before you go pointing at your neighbors.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

hilreal said:


> Companies stand to gain nothing by putting a faulty product out in the market place.


Except money.



hilreal said:


> I think contaminated comb from our own chemicals has a lot to do with our problems.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were unbiased research to tell us?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

davo said:


> They might not if they were broken up into smaller companies.


 You could bust up Bayer and Monsanto 10 times and still have plenty of research funding.
It is not that the EPA doesn't have scientist or highly educated people, the EPA has no reason to develop a marketable item. That is what companies do. The EPA is suppose to verify and approve that what a company did to develop a safe product is correct. There is a lot of trials and misfires along the way in developing ANY product. You want a company to do this not a government agency.
The only pit fall to this not working well is size or power where the company is "too big to fail" for instance. Then it dictates to the government and everything that was safe with the system now isn't.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Wouldn't it be nice if there were unbiased research to tell us?


Search a little, it's out there and has been posted on this site multiple times.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Coffee_Bee said:


> Maybe they should get their facts straight and ally themselves with beekeepers that don't have a lot of baggage and integrity issues. All it does is draw attention for the wrong reasons, serving as a distraction from real issues and facts.
> Some people will believe anything.


Very well said, Coffee Bee.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

This is from Randy Oliver's site:


Germany: “As expected, the results show that pollen [from 210 hives sampled over 3 years] is contaminated with a plethora of chemical substances originating from the agricultural practice of using pesticides but also from the apicultural necessity of using acaricides… Accordingly, no relation between contamination of pollen and colony development or winter losses could be demonstrated in the course of the project although special emphasis was put into this aspect” [13].
France: “Several cases of mortality of honey bee colonies (varying from 38 to 100%) were observed in France during the winter of 2005-6. In order to explain the causes of these mortalities, a case control study was conducted on a limited area, together with a larger survey in 18 other apiaries located in 13 sites over the entire country…No pesticide residues of agricultural origin were found in the samples of beebread, beeswax, honey and dead honey bees, with the exception of imidacloprid…found in one apiary [and] not considered to be able to cause honey bee acute mortality” [14].
France: “A 3-yr field survey was carried out in France, from 2002 to 2005, to study honey bee … colony health in relation to pesticide residues found in the colonies… No statistical relationship was found between colony mortality and pesticide residues” [15].
Italy: “The data obtained from the winter 2009-2010 inspections were used as the basis for chemical analyses on bee and wax samples, to test for residues of organophosphate, organochlorurate, carbamate and neonicotinoid pesticides, but no significant presence of these substances was detected” [16].
Spain: “The present data [beebread samples from 12 apiaries] are in agreement with studies showing no negative effects of seed-treated crops. Some pesticide residues were found here, in particular several varroacides and insecticides, but no significant differences were observed between the different sunflower crop samples and those from the sites of wild vegetation. This fact not only implies environmental contamination but also supports the theory that, most of the time, inadequate [read that “unapproved”] treatments are the main source of residues that might weaken bee colonies and make them more sensitive to other factors” [17].
Spain: “This study was set out to evaluate the pesticide residues in stored pollen from honey bee colonies and their possible impact on honey bee losses in Spain. In total, 1,021 professional apiaries were randomly selected… A direct relation between pesticide residues found in stored pollen samples and colony losses was not evident accordingly to the obtained results” [18].
Europe (thorough review): “Currently there is no clear evidence from field based studies that exposure of colonies to pesticides results in increased susceptibility to disease or that there is a link between colony loss due to disease and pesticide residues in monitoring studies” [19].
USA (CCD Descriptive Study): “This study found no evidence that the presence or amount of any individual pesticide occurred more frequently or abundantly in affected apiaries or colonies” [20].
USA (2012 CCD Progress Report): “When pesticides are viewed in aggregate on a national scale, residues of pyrethroids …pose a threefold greater hazard to bee colonies than neonicotinoids, based on mean and frequency of detection in pollen samples and relative acute toxicity. The synthetic pyrethroid detected in the highest quantity and frequency in honey bee colonies that is used by beekeepers to control Varroa mite is tau fluvalinate” [21].
USA (Stationary Hive Project) : “We did not find any relationship with any of our measures of pesticide contamination and colony loss rate at the apiary level for either 2009 or 2010” [22].


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Apparently they have enough facts, at least enough to bring them to court.

Imagine what this will mean if they are found liable.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Apparently they have enough facts, at least enough to bring them to court.
> 
> Imagine what this will mean if they are found liable.


Who's being brought to court? EPA This is nothing but a publicity grab. This has nothing to do with actually proving Monsanto or Bayer have done diddle as the facts still haven't been proven.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Coffee_Bee said:


> Maybe they should get their facts straight and ally themselves with beekeepers that don't have a lot of baggage and integrity issues. All it does is draw attention for the wrong reasons, serving as a distraction from real issues and facts.
> Some people will believe anything.


What do you mean?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Apparently they have enough facts, at least enough to bring them to court.
> 
> Imagine what this will mean if they are found liable.


And how many bees have you lost to the neomics? You need to demonstrate losses to collect.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Do y'all think we might aught to be careful about suing the EPA or anybody? Are we going to find ourselves w/out farmers that allow us to use their land?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Do y'all think we might aught to be careful about suing the EPA or anybody? Are we going to find ourselves w/out farmers that allow us to use their land?


Good question! I suspect the biggest complainers are those who don't have bees or bee losses. I have bees beside field corn. No problems to date. I have no complaints about neonics. I remember the organophosphates and the crop dusters. Maybe the complainers and the litigiousness should revisit those days!


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Mark, not a prayer. farmers would never link the removal of pesticides from the market to beekeepers. Most would never realize the product was removed. In all likely hood the product would be reformulated and still marketed under the same name anyway. Keep in mind company's spend a fortune to get a name recognized.

How many people are aware that after being originally developed produced and market. Armour all was sold to another company that completely changed what is in the bottle. You cannot even buy the original Armour All today.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> Do y'all think we might aught to be careful about suing the EPA or anybody? Are we going to find ourselves w/out farmers that allow us to use their land?


I wish there was a "like" button on this forum !


----------



## dnichols (May 28, 2012)

Very slippery slope!:s


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

camero7 said:


> This is from Randy Oliver's site:
> 
> 
> Germany: “As expected, the results show that pollen [from 210 hives sampled over 3 years] is contaminated with a plethora of chemical substances originating from the agricultural practice of using pesticides but also from the apicultural necessity of using acaricides… Accordingly, no relation between contamination of pollen and colony development or winter losses could be demonstrated in the course of the project although special emphasis was put into this aspect” [13].
> ...


I'm not sure who Randy Oliver works for, or what his bias is, but this is mostly a load of bunk. I've spent the day reviewing the reports that you have quoted here.

The Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Europe "studies" were nothing more than studies to see if enough pesticides had accumulated in the hives to be testable. None of those "studies" had any intention of showing any link to colony collapse, and if anything are being used completely out of context in order to "prove" that there's "no evidence." The fact that countries that haven't seen CCD in the numbers we have in the U.S. (many of these countries having already banned many of the pesticides and fungicides that we still have legalized in the U.S.) means that these studies mean absolutely zilch. That Randy Oliver is quoting them as any sort of "proof" or lack thereof is not only incredibly bad "science" but on the verge of outright falsification of information.

Let's then take a look at the three that actually came from studies in the United States:

The first study (found here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006481) is my favorite. 
The quote by Mr. Oliver taken from the study is as follows: "This study found no evidence that the presence or amount of any individual pesticide occurred more frequently or abundantly in affected apiaries or colonies." A carefully worded statement to be sure, but the truth is, it didn't even need to be that carefully worded. By looking at the pesticides that were _tested for_ (found in Table 9.) you'll see that, curiously, the very pesticides that are getting the finger pointed at them (neonicotinoids) are suspiciously _absent_. Let me make this very clear. They did not even TEST for the pesticides that are the most likely culprit for CCD. They did, however, confirm what other tests have shown, that the bees (having had their immune systems weakened by "something") show an increase in viral or bacterial infection. 

This becomes even more ****ing (for Mr. Oliver) with the "USA (2012 CCD Progress Report)" quote, which is taken completely out of context of the actual report (which can be read here: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/presentations/usda_ccdprogressreport2012.pdf. 

The quote SEEMS to indicate that the pyrethroids are a "larger threat" than the neonicotinoids when in fact, this is a case of "look at my left hand so you can ignore what my right hand is doing." While they are finding higher CONCENTRATIONS of the medications that the bee keepers apply directly to their hives (um... duh?) than they are of the pesticides used on crops, this has absolutely zero indication that this means the neonicotinoids are somehow "safer." Let me show you another quote from this _very same_ report: "In particular, exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust from abrasion of certain pesticide-treated seed (e.g., corn) during spring plantings appears to have negative effects on individual honey bees in experimental (laboratory and field) settings." Despite this report having been put together by the USDA and the EPA, two groups that (call me a conspiracy theorist) have a history of suspect practices anyway, from allowing Monsanto and its untested GMOs to run wild, to the EPA who is even listed in the lawsuit - they still had to admit that testing had shown that the pesticides from "pesticide-treated seed" (this is most likely the neonicotinoid coated seeds from the marriage of Monsanto and Bayer being referenced) _did, in fact, show negative effects_. Yet Mr. Oliver chose to ignore THIS quote, and instead take one that paited a rosier picture out of context.

Finally, there's the "USA (Stationary Hive Project)" (found here: http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/DrummondCAPcolumnDec2012.pdf) 
To say that this study was "bad science" would be the understatement of the year. It appears to be a project that was put on by a bunch of fifth graders. (They claim to be from a college, but I really hope this isn't what's passing for "science" now days.) No controls, no blind studies, HUNDREDS of confounding variables, NO actual "colony collapse disorder" indicators, and a grand total of 210 hives studied in 7 locations. (a total of 30 hives per site over the span of 3 years). The bees were dumped in as packages in 2009, and then they just watched them die out as they did nothing *at all* to treat/prevent ANY sort of parasites. All the while having the amateur students do the "inspections" of the hives, even in the middle of winter! Then when the vast majority of the hives didn't survive the winter, they tried to use this as a datapoint? There's not even a mention in the "study" as to whether or not they harvested honey from the bees, or how much they had going into the winter! Quoting this "study" at all makes me seriously question Randy Oliver's motives.

Particularly in the light of two REAL studies being done that HAVE shown a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and CCD, (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/29/10921493-neonicotinoid-pesticides-tied-to-crashing-bee-populations-2-studies-find?lite) I have to seriously, seriously question whether or not one Mr. Randy Oliver doesn't have a reason for his incredible bias. "Science" and synthetic treatment is not the solution here, it's the problem. Yet on his website he repeatedly touts his "experiments" as showing that we need to synthetically screw with something as natural as the honey bee. This is precisely _how_ we got here in the first place. 

Randy's going to have to do better than quoting "studies" that show pesticide rates in comb in other countries that don't have our same collapse problems, and either pulling quotes out of context from U.S. studies, or quoting really, really, REALLY bad "studies" done by a bunch of kids without so much as a control to be seen to convince me that the real studies that HAVE found a correlation aren't on to something.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Javin007 said:


> I'm not sure who Randy Oliver works for, or what his bias is, but this is mostly a load of bunk. I've spent the day reviewing the reports that you have quoted here.


do have to admire a beek that is posting on beesource and doesn't have a clue who Mr. Oliver is and what he does.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Javin, thank you. you saved me a lot of background work that I really don't have the time to do right now. But your post is consistent with what I have been finding when I look deeper into these issues.

Wildbranch. Right,... so much for any expectation that you will be keeping up. Jut in case you or anyone else really is confused. Javin was not saying he does not know who randy is or what he does. He is saying he does not know why he is doing it. I know, I know it was wickedly deceitful for him to intentionally confuse you like that.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Randy's going to have to do better than quoting "studies" that show pesticide rates in comb in other countries that don't have our same collapse problems, and either pulling quotes out of context from U.S. studies, or quoting really, really, REALLY bad "studies" done by a bunch of kids without so much as a control to be seen to convince me that the real studies that HAVE found a correlation aren't on to something.


Why don't you go over to Bee-L and confront him? That would be very interesting. Personally his credentials are pretty good and his science is excellent.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Daniel Y said:


> Javin, thank you. you saved me a lot of background work that I really don't have the time to do right now. But your post is consistent with what I have been finding when I look deeper into these issues.
> 
> Wildbranch. Right,... so much for any expectation that you will be keeping up. Jut in case you or anyone else really is confused. Javin was not saying he does not know who randy is or what he does. He is saying he does not know why he is doing it. I know, I know it was wickedly deceitful for him to intentionally confuse you like that.


Do you have anything to say which would support Javin's comments beyond what you wrote? Maybe some intelligent rebuttal to what Randy Oliver wrote? I don't claim to understand everything Randy Oliver writes or says, but I find him a credible and highly intelligent and thoughtful person. I have enjoyed meeting him and sharing a drink or two talking bees and the maladies of modern beekeeping.

Maybe your knowledge and Javin's knowledge is equally as credible and well thought out as Randy Oliver's, but I haven't seen enough to know.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> Particularly in the light of two REAL studies being done that HAVE shown a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and CCD,


As long as we are being precise, I'm not sure how you show a correlation between anything and "ccd" without actually being able to reliably cause CCD by doing the thing you think is causing it, or by showing a very, very strong correlation between CCD symptoms and circumstances surrounding the hives. I don't believe that either of the studies that you cite indirectly via NBC "shows a strong correlation between neonicotinioids and CCD". They explore some of the impacts of neonics, but they haven't shown they can cause CCD under any circumstance the bees are actually exposed to, and they haven't shown that CCD is restricted to bees exposed to neonics.

I'd be happy to hear quotes from the studies in question that do show a strong correlation between neonics and CCD...but probably should come from the studies and not from NBC.

deknow


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

First of all. nobody is suing anyone for a settlement. they are suing the EPA for not doing their job. Could that result in a settlement? when it is all said and done maybe. But not in this case. what they are suing for is that the EPA can no longer allow these lax approvals of chemicals to continue. And those chemicals that are being used due to these lax approvals will be removed from the market. 

You all just sort of build an entire universe to live in around the simplest things. All they have to demonstrate is that these quick path approval methods the EPA uses are not reliable and are in fact a failure on the EPA's part to do what they exist for. Way have an EPA we can just set a gal behind a desk to collect the exemption applications.

Basically what it looks like to me is that the EPA put an exception to the approval process. most likely for things that had little chance of being a danger and with the idea that full approval would have to be carried out. Business being what it is and loop holes being what they are. it turns out that this exception now becomes a way that companies can put products on the market for years and never actually go through the entire approval process. They simply file for the exemption again.

Meeting the exemption requirements may for example require far fewer tests at far less expense than full approval. So it may be nothing more than a matter of is is cheap and easier for a company to operate year after year under the exception. than to ever file for full approval. There may not be anything at all wrong with the product it is just making smart business decisions. Plus the studies needed for full approval are long and complex. who is to say it does not take 20 years to complete them? As a person who has work for the government for a long time I am telling you noone will tell someone how long they can take in regard to these matters. we will say you have to test these products. but would never tell them how long that takes.

No chemical in my department is allowed to be used unless I have an MSDS on it. Once I have it anyone can use it. That the MSDS says the product can be fatal is not used properly is not my concern. I do not read an MSDS and say. oh this product cannot be used. All I do is possess the MSDS. that is my job. the use of the product is someone elses job. Yes it is complex, ridiculous and extraordinarily ineffective. but it is the way it is done.

So over their is the EPA. and they all know that for a product to be approved the manufacturer bust do this that and the other thing. or they can, by the rules file for an exemption. They do not care that an exemption exists. or if it is abused or if it is used in accordance with it's intent. it exists and it can in fact be used. it is the rules. rules made by someone else somewhere else.

Now beekeepers come along ans say, Hey you are not using this exemption the way it was intended to be used. the EPA reads the rules and says "Ho so" the rules are right here and we are following them. The beekeepers say but it is not protecting us when you use it that way. The EPA says sorry but those are the rules. Now the beekeeprs are taking the EPA to court so that a judge can tell them how the rule works. and that is about all that is happening. And whatever the judge says is how the EPA will treat the rule in the future. There is noone anywhere even remotely associated with the EPA that really gives a dry crusty turd about weather Bayer makes money. beekeepers keep bees or anything else. What they care is that there cabinets are all nicely filled with all the proper paperwork. And as of right now according to their files they have done nothing wrong. never have. If tomorrow the rules change so will the paperwork. and they could care less if even one bee survives as a result. They could not care less if Bayer goes belly up as a result. Nobody is beign bought. no corruption is goign on. it is just your standard every day government managment.

Now do you really want these people in charge of your health care? it ain't gonna get any better folks. It does not get important enough for them to do it any better. You and everyone dear to you can rot and die and they will not care. They will be far to busy arranging their paper work and looking for their bag of chips.

If you really thin that government cannot be that useless. try this real example. Two carpenters over three days where able to put up three pieces of metal siding. I know I watched it happen. One of those carpenters is now the supervisor of the department. Cause he is one of their best. o there was nothing complex about this siding . no unusual reason for it to take so long. How they did it I am not completely sure and I was there. It was a lot like trying to watch grass grow and then being asked to make a report of it's progress.

So you all may wonder how the EPA could fail to protect beekeepers. My question is more like how can they ever succeed.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

IF this actually works, and the EPA figures they will indeed pull neonics from commercial use, is the action going to stop there? How about every other pesticide used on crops that kills bees? They are all documented to damage honey bee health, and how about fungicides? Lots of stuff coming down the pipe on that. 

Do we actually think agriculture is going to turn the clock back 50 years? I grant you this action is a bold move, but I doubt the courts will open up this can of worms


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

camero7 said:


> Why don't you go over to Bee-L and confront him? That would be very interesting. Personally his credentials are pretty good and his science is excellent.


i heartedly agree with cam on this javin.

you seem to have a sufficient background in the science behind all of this to join the 'informed discussion' that is taking place on bee-l.

randy does not shy away from challenges to his conclusions when they are more intellectually rather than emotionally directed, which is why he no longer participates here.

please, join the bee-l list and lodge your criticism directly to randy. i would also be very interested in his response.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

What a bunch of cop outs! Read the darn studies yourself...they are written in english.

Even a cursory reading of the post reveals:


> "In particular, exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust from abrasion of certain pesticide-treated seed (e.g., corn) during spring plantings appears to have negative effects on individual honey bees in experimental (laboratory and field) settings." Despite this report having been put together by the USDA and the EPA, two groups that (call me a conspiracy theorist) have a history of suspect practices anyway, from allowing Monsanto and its untested GMOs to run wild, to the EPA who is even listed in the lawsuit - they still had to admit that testing had shown that the pesticides from "pesticide-treated seed" (this is most likely the neonicotinoid coated seeds from the marriage of Monsanto and Bayer being referenced) did, in fact, show negative effects. Yet Mr. Oliver chose to ignore THIS quote, and instead take one that paited a rosier picture out of context.


...so Randy is being accused of not equating clear cut cases of pesticide poisoning as CCD? Yes, we know that there are issues with the dust.....but these incidents are obvious pesticide poisoning (as evidenced by the fact that they were testing piles of dead bees), and hardly fit any definition of CCD. Do some reading folks...it's much more fun (and informative) than letting other people digest it all for you.

deknow


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

deknow said:


> Do some reading folks...it's much more fun (and informative) than letting other people digest it all for you.
> 
> deknow


thats the problem, a lot of the reading is pretty heavy stuff, I do not have a research back ground so sifting through the studdies does me little good. Thats the reason why many beekeepers are looking for someone to help translate all the research and give us the jist. 

I find Randy very easy to relate to, as do many others. It is very important we have people criticize his work, as that is what science is all about,


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

squarepeg said:


> please, join the bee-l list and lodge your criticism directly to randy. i would also be very interested in his response.


I think as long as javin keeps the conversation as an 'informed discussion' the input would be welcome
they dont take kindly to personal attacks


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Do you have anything to say which would support Javin's comments beyond what you wrote? Maybe some intelligent rebuttal to what Randy Oliver wrote? I don't claim to understand everything Randy Oliver writes or says, but I find him a credible and highly intelligent and thoughtful person. I have enjoyed meeting him and sharing a drink or two talking bees and the maladies of modern beekeeping.
> 
> Maybe your knowledge and Javin's knowledge is equally as credible and well thought out as Randy Oliver's, but I haven't seen enough to know.


I thought I had posted a reply to Cameros comment about Randy's science being Excellent. I write stuff and then delete it though so maybe it didn't get posted.

No insult to Camero and I will take him at his word for what he considers excellent. I also tend to like Randy Oliver. But at beast Randy is a laid back go between of science and the layman. In fact that is what I think Randy wants to be. But Excellent science? I suppose you woudl have to ask in comparison to what? ow keep in mind I hob nob around the halls of a leading medical research facility for a living. So my idea of excellence in science might be a little different than Cameros. I figure if you can understand the title of the study it probably is not to deep into excellence. Science and it's reports are not for general public consumption. Most of it requires a degree to even understand. You have to study the reports not just read them. Even the stuff that is commonly linked to on this site in regard to studies findings etc. are casual in comparison. That is how I woudl describe Randy. Casual. as for his credentials. I have no idea.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Religions (and cults) always run more smoothly when "the people" have to have the holy books read or interpreted by the priests.....at least it runs more smoothly for the priests!

deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

daniel, if those halls that you are hob-nobbing in contain both basic science researchers as well as clinical researchers, then you are probably aware of the tension that exists between them and their respective endeavors.

i came through a similar institution and haved earned both types of degrees, and i am familar with the criticism from basic science community that is often directed toward the clinical community regarding the 'excellence' of their science. 

i believe that randy has uniquely positioned himself between academia and the real world. he is striving for applied or practical (clinical) knowledge, while factoring in the basic science.

there is nothing 'laid back' about what he is doing.

and unless i am a total fool, i don't see how anyone can suggest that randy is involved in some kind of propaganda campaign as javin appears to do in his post.

it is interesting to see the back and forth on bee-l between randy and others who are more knowledgable than i on this subject. i do hope that javin will bring his criticisms to that forum and allow randy to respond.


jmho


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> Science and it's reports are not for general public consumption. Most of it requires a degree to even understand. You have to study the reports not just read them.


I would agree 100% here. I would also say you may have a doctorate degree but you probably rely on a carpenter, electrician, and plumber to build your house. These people rely on you to simplify what a research paper is actually claiming. Most beekeepers including myself would rely on the same thing.
Dealing with the FDA in my carrier I am not willing to put them is the same category as the DMV or Welfare department. My experience is that they were very intelligent and took their jobs seriously. Admittedly, I may not have agreed with many of their findings because they are black and white.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

deknow said:


> Religions (and cults) always run more smoothly when "the people" have to have the holy books read or interpreted by the priests.....at least it runs more smoothly for the priests!
> 
> deknow


all too true dean.

too bad for the religous (quasi government) establishment that gutenberg invented the printing press and the lay community was able to read the bible for themselves. although it did take a few generations for the reformation to take place.

in that case there was a motive, i.e. control of the masses.

i am neither copping out of the task of doing my own homework, nor live in fear that i am being manipulated by allowing randy's distillation of the studies guide my thinking on the subject. 

what possible motive would he have for trying to deceive the beekeeping community?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

squarepeg said:


> i am neither copping out of the task of doing my own homework, nor live in fear that i am being manipulated by allowing randy's distillation of the studies guide my thinking on the subject.


If you understood both arguments (Randy's and Javilin's), you wouldn't need to watch them duke it out...you would have your own opinion.
If you didn't understand both arguments, but were trying to understand them, you would have questions.
If you don't want to bother with the details, you can put them both in the ring and watch them fight....but until you understand their arguments, you have no way to know who is winning the fight.
None of these things are particularly hard to read. If you quote something in order to make a point, you ought to understand it.



> what possible motive would he have for trying to deceive the beekeeping community?


There are tons of "possible" motives...the most obvious is that he is not trying to deceive anyone...but that doesn't mean he is right....and it doesn't mean he is wrong...but you will never know unless you read what he is writing critically, and follow up with some of the references. One can be wrong without trying to be deceitful. One can be deceitful in the persuit of money, ego, security, recognition, etc.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Daniel Y said:


> So over their is the EPA. and they all know that for a product to be approved the manufacturer bust do this that and the other thing. or they can, by the rules file for an exemption. They do not care that an exemption exists. or if it is abused or if it is used in accordance with it's intent. it exists and it can in fact be used. it is the rules. rules made by someone else somewhere else.
> 
> Now beekeepers come along ans say, Hey you are not using this exemption the way it was intended to be used. the EPA reads the rules and says "Ho so" the rules are right here and we are following them. The beekeepers say but it is not protecting us when you use it that way. The EPA says sorry but those are the rules. Now the beekeeprs are taking the EPA to court so that a judge can tell them how the rule works. and that is about all that is happening. And whatever the judge says is how the EPA will treat the rule in the future. There is noone anywhere even remotely associated with the EPA that really gives a dry crusty turd about weather Bayer makes money. beekeepers keep bees or anything else. What they care is that there cabinets are all nicely filled with all the proper paperwork. And as of right now according to their files they have done nothing wrong. never have. If tomorrow the rules change so will the paperwork. and they could care less if even one bee survives as a result. They could not care less if Bayer goes belly up as a result. Nobody is beign bought. no corruption is goign on. it is just your standard every day government managment.
> 
> So you all may wonder how the EPA could fail to protect beekeepers. My question is more like how can they ever succeed.


These are the same people who approve the miticides we use in our hives. Do you really want to get on their bad side?

Billions of dollars generated by growers of corn and other crops and people think that anybody is going to listen to or side w/ the bastard orphan child of agriculture?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> If you understood both arguments (Randy's and Javilin's), you wouldn't need to watch them duke it out...you would have your own opinion.


I pretty much understand the arguments. But it gets tiresome that people attack others when they can't respond. If you're going to criticize someone I believe you should do it head on and let them answer. That's the stand up way, call them out. Don't do it behind their back.

But when you get over there you better strap it on. They take no prisoners over there.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

dean, you are right in that i don't understand javin's argument, and i haven't taken the time to figure out if what he is alleging makes sense.

but after going back and rereading javin's post, i get the sense that he is misrepresenting randy's arguments. (perhaps i am _mis_understanding javin's argument).

javin seems to be making the case that randy is making the case that neonics are not the cause of ccd.

i totally agree with your response to javin on that point.

i am not learned enough in this field to even know what questions to ask. 

randy himself publically invites criticism and debate, and the 'duking it out' between randy and his critics is usually educational for the rest of us.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I took Dean's words as noncritical and correct, but we are not all blessed w/ the same abilities of knowledge and understanding.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

camero7 said:


> I pretty much understand the arguments. But it gets tiresome that people attack others when they can't respond. If you're going to criticize someone I believe you should do it head on and let them answer. That's the stand up way, call them out. Don't do it behind their back.


What are you talking about? Randy's comments are "published" on his website for mass consumption, and mass criticism..
Everyone is much more likely to be able to "respond" here on beesource where the moderation is minimal. At least in the past, Bee-l has had quasi official "no bothering the researchers" policy, and everything is moderated. I've been involved in these first hand, and can cite specific examples if you like.
But if you publish something....especially if you are calling it science, you have to expect that it will be critiqued...that goes with the territory of speaking out.
There is less preventing an open discussion/debate here than there is no Bee-l...why should bee-l be the "official" venue? Remember, the quotes in question came from Randy's website, not a bee-l post.
All of this is public and in the open....and no one in the discussion is being moderated.
If you do understand the arguments, there is little interesting that could come of a debate...unless you only think you understand the arguments...in which case some reading is in order!

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I feel about this like I feel about new beekeepers who say they can't see eggs or can't keep a smoker lit.

Virtually anyone can see eggs if they work to find appropriate lighting/magnification. Anyone can keep a smoker lit...if they try and learn from their own mistakes and the success of others.

If you are not opening up these studies and trying to make sense of them...and figuring out what you don't understand, you simply aren't trying. If you aren't trying, I'm not sure what the point of discussing it is.

deknow


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

well Dean, I've not been censored on Bee-L and I see lots of dissension over there. And, of course, one could take Randy on by email. But there is a lot of back stabbing on this forum that is tiresome and solves nothing. If I had a beef with Randy, I'd post on Bee-L and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't take shots at him on this site that he doesn't monitor or post on. Remember how Beesource came to be in the first place.Just saying.


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

camero7 said:


> I pretty much understand the arguments. But it gets tiresome that people attack others when they can't respond. If you're going to criticize someone I believe you should do it head on and let them answer. That's the stand up way, call them out. Don't do it behind their back.
> 
> But when you get over there you better strap it on. They take no prisoners over there.


What gets tiresome is other people (in this case you) dropping other people's names and quoting the "studies" that _the other people_ have found. Then when I point out how those studies are totally trash, not a single person actually rebuts my points, but rather says that now I'm back-stabbing people by responding to _your post in the forum it was presented in_. Do your own research or don't. I don't care. I've pointed out the flaws in your argument, and have no intention of "going to war" with another group of fanboys on another forum. I'm not here to "duke it out" for anyone's education or amusement. I pointed out glaring flaws in the argument, and if you choose to ignore them, that's your choice. You posted the argument here, I responded to it here. I'm not going to be diverted to another site because you don't like that your sources seem to be weak. I don't have a "beef with Randy." I don't have a "beef" with anyone. You dropped Randy's name into this conversation, then started quoting studies. I showed how the studies are trash, or unrelated to the context of the argument. Simple as that. 

Then there's the whole, "I can't be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC" argument. Give me a break. If I can be bothered to look up EVERY study that was quoted in your post, then certainly you can be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC (which, by the way, WERE actually real, randomized studies with controls that showed that even at low doses of neonicotinoids, up to 94% of the hives "collapsed" mirroring the symptoms of CCD - unlike ANY of the studies quoted by you.) But I'm done with this argument as clearly, that's is all it is. It's not a debate when you attack me instead of the points I've made.

Edit: Screw it, here you go:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/chensheng-lu/files/in-situ-replication-of-honey-bee-colony-collapse-disorder.pdf
In this study, CCD was cleanly duplicated by treating hives with very low levels of neonics.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.abstract
In this study, bees were given sublethal doses, and it was found that they would either have trouble returning to the hive, or wouldn't return at all.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

To everyone, let's keep the comparing of different discussion groups out of the conversation please. I don't think it does any good to pit the various forums against each other. If someone is going to bring into the discussion here, something that someone said in another group, then it should be perfectly acceptable for members to reply to it here.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> Particularly in the light of two REAL studies being done that HAVE shown a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and CCD, (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-crashing-bee-populations-2-studies-find?lite) I have to seriously, seriously question whether or not one Mr. Randy Oliver doesn't have a reason for his incredible bias.





> Then there's the whole, "I can't be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC" argument. Give me a break. If I can be bothered to look up EVERY study that was quoted in your post, then certainly you can be bothered to find the studies mentioned by NBC (which, by the way, WERE actually real, randomized studies with controls that showed that even at low doses of neonicotinoids, up to 94% of the hives "collapsed" mirroring the symptoms of CCD - unlike ANY of the studies quoted by you.) But I'm done with this argument as clearly, that's is all it is. It's not a debate when you attack me instead of the points I've made.


The two studies mentioned in this article are the Henry et al and the Whitehorn et al published in April 2012

The Whitehorn study looks at bumble bees rather than honey bees.
Neither looks at CCD.
The nbcnews link actually mixes up the two studies and claims that the French study (Henry et al) looked at bumble bees and Whitehorn et al looked at Honeybees when in fact it is the other way round.
Such a long post and such a lot of inaccuracy in it.
Nothing but an unsubstantiated smear on randy Oliver.



> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/chenshen...e-disorder.pdf
> In this study, CCD was cleanly duplicated by treating hives with neonics.


It did nothing of the sort.
It fed bees Imidacloprid in corn syrup at massive doses and killed the colonies which proves that insecticide kills insects. no more no less.
The other factor is that corn grown in the US is not treated with Imidacloprid, it is treated with Clothianidin so the study claimed that Imidacloprid in corn syrup causes CCD even though there is no Imidacloprid in corn syrup.

This study could be held up as an example of one of the most flawed pieces of research ever conducted.

Do some basic research if you intend to throw mud.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

javin, 

here is a link to randy oliver's thorough critique of the harvard study:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

it's under 'news items' on his home page.

what do you find objectionable about his review?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

deknow said:


> I feel about this like I feel about new beekeepers who say they can't see eggs or can't keep a smoker lit.


I can't see eggs without a lot of magnification. Eyesight is a limitation. Keeping a smoker lit is more of a learned skill. One has a chance of improving over time and one usually doesn't. Most magnification devices reduce the focal point to a point that is too close or even inside the veil. I have learned that seeing eggs is not necessary for beekeeping and I never had an issue with keeping my smoker lit.



> If you are not opening up these studies and trying to make sense of them...and figuring out what you don't understand, you simply aren't trying.


Maybe you would like to discuss what difference it makes where you drill a hole in a beam. If you haven't studied the subject you may never understand why it makes a difference no matter how much you try to understand it.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Nice post Jonathan. I'm still trying to wrap my head why Monsanto gets mentioned in a Neonic thread... Just shows how confused people are on the subject. One other trend I see is people always link Neonics to GMO's which is pure folly. A lot of non gmo's are treated as well so people need to realize that as well. I for one would just like to see a meaningful study done and maybe Bayer funding some independent research done by 3rd parties.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> The Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Europe "studies" were nothing more than studies to see if enough pesticides had accumulated in the hives to be testable. None of those "studies" had any intention of showing any link to colony collapse, and if anything are being used completely out of context in order to "prove" that there's "no evidence."


This is the 4 year German Study (Genersch et al)



> Abstract – The Western honey bee, Apis mellifera, is the most important animal pollinator in agriculture
> worldwide providing more than 90% of the commercial pollination services. Due to the development in
> agriculture the demands for honey bee pollination are steadily increasing stressing the pollination capacity
> of the global managed honey bee population. Hence, the long-term decline of managed honey bee hives in
> ...


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

jonathan said:


> The two studies mentioned in this article are the Henry et al and the Whitehorn et al published in April 2012
> 
> The Whitehorn study looks at bumble bees rather than honey bees.
> Neither looks at CCD.
> ...


I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal. 

In the meantime, here's another study for you to review:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021550


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

jonathan said:


> This is the 4 year German Study (Genersch et al)


I don't follow your line of thinking? We're discussing the theory that CCD is caused by a number of factors, one of the biggest being neonicotinoids. Neither CCD nor neonicotinoids are addressed in that study?


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

JRG13 said:


> Nice post Jonathan. I'm still trying to wrap my head why Monsanto gets mentioned in a Neonic thread... Just shows how confused people are on the subject. One other trend I see is people always link Neonics to GMO's which is pure folly. A lot of non gmo's are treated as well so people need to realize that as well. I for one would just like to see a meaningful study done and maybe Bayer funding some independent research done by 3rd parties.


Then you too are confused on the subject. Nobody's claiming that the GMOs (which have their own sets of problems) are producing the Neonicotinoids. What is fact, however, is that Monsanto and Bayer are quite in bed with each other. Bayer producing the neonics that Monsanto covers its seeds with. Those seeds then grow, carrying the neonics through the plant and into the pollen. Over time, those neonics become concentrated enough in the hive to cause CCD, or so goes the theory.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that.


I would not make bold claims having taken no more than 'a cursory glance' at a paper.
I think Randy Oliver read it more carefully than that.

This is very old news but neonicotinoid residue in pollen and nectar has been reported in many studies to generally be from 1-5 ppb.

The Harvard study first of all looked at levels from 0.1 to 10 ppb and no effect was noted.

In the second part of the study it switched to levels of 20-400 ppb
there was no explanation for this but the speculation is that when no effects were noted in the field realistic range they upped the dose until an effect was noted

The bees then died.

This is not ccd.
This is what happens when insects are exposed to high levels of insecticide

This paper was discussed to death last year here and every other bee forum on the internet.

Randy's review is on the front page here


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

>I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal. 

thanks javin, i look forward to what you have to say about that.

just curious, and not looking for anything too specific, but can you give us a general idea of what your scientific background is?


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> javin,
> 
> here is a link to randy oliver's thorough critique of the harvard study:
> 
> ...


Thanks, going over it now. And already, I can say that what he's reading from the study, and what I'm reading from the study seem to be quite conflicting. For instance:

"When the investigators failed to prove their case after a month of feeding spiked syrup—they changed the protocol, and ramped up the doses of insecticide in the syrup to sky high and overtly toxic levels, and then made a series of compounding mistakes, notably by not performing the sort of necessary parasite management required for colonies to survive the winter. And then, even though the symptoms of the colonies when they died did not match the symptoms of CCD, yet the Harvard press agent claimed that they did!"

I find nothing in the study to indicate that there was any change in the dosing protocol during the timeframe of the study. The lack of parasite management means zilch in this case since the people doing the study DID actually have a control group that also did not have parasite management. The study can be found here: http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/Lu%20final%20proof.pdf

The argument that they "dumped a lot of pesticide" on the bees is asinine at the best, and perhaps someone should "do some basic research" before making that accusation.

They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself. 

Then there's the dosage levels. In 2008, a study was done to find out what concentration of imadocloprid (the neonicotinoid in question) was actually found in the guttation of corn to be around 47mg/L. If my admittedly shabby math is correct, this works out to very (very) roughly to 470,000 micrograms per kilogram. In other words, over a thousand times MORE pesticide could be found in corn's nectar than was actually used in this study.

Then Randy Oliver states that no CCD was observed. Except that it was. CCD is the sudden absconding of the vast majority of live honey bees without bodies of the dead to be found, leaving the queen and a handful of very young bees behind. Now, if we want to change the definition of what we're calling CCD, then by all means let's do that before saying that they didn't experience any CCD in the study, since this was precisely the result they got. (And for those that don't like to read, they have pictures.) 

The only problem I have with the Harvard study is the incredibly small sample size that was tested, but even the scientists themselves state that. The entire point of these studies is to give us a basis for further investigation. This study shows a clear correlation between CCD and neonicotinoids. It does not necessarily show causality (correlation does not prove causation) but it most certainly is the ONLY study I've found to date that has given it an honest and _unbiased_ try. I can't say the same for Randy Oliver's rebuttal if I'm understanding both his rebuttal and the study itself correctly. But again, don't take my word for it. Read the study yourself. That's why I've posted the links.


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

squarepeg said:


> >I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal.
> 
> thanks javin, i look forward to what you have to say about that.
> 
> just curious, and not looking for anything too specific, but can you give us a general idea of what your scientific background is?


Certainly. I was a 91T in the U.S. Army. I specialized in medical research and worked at the Naval Medical Research Lab #3 (NAMRU-3) in Cairo, Egypt until the year 2000 - mostly doing insect parasite and viral research. Since then I've gotten out of the field, opting for the higher paying world of computer programming, but I've never lost the research itch.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

> They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself.


Go read it again then, half way down the paragraph titled 'materials and methods'
The initial part looked at 0.1 to 10ug/kg


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

jonathan said:


> This is very old news but neonicotinoid residue in pollen and nectar has been reported in many studies to generally be from 1-5 ppb.


Could you please link these studies? According to this study, the numbers exceed 500 ppb. Perhaps you're thinking 1-5 ppm? Which would actually be around the levels that they used in this study. 

The 20-400 number also seems to be a bit of confusion for you. This is 20ug /kg to 400 ug/kg. The concentration used in the HFCS. These numbers are still below the 5 ppm mark.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

No it is 1-5 ppb.

500ppb is way over the LD50

that is why the harvard study is such dross

This stuff is really basic.
You are confused by a factor of 1000


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

jonathan said:


> Go read it again then, half way down the paragraph titled 'materials and methods'
> The initial part looked at 0.1 to 10ug/kg


And? Please read my statement that you quoted. You're saying that since they started the study with INCREDIBLY tiny doses, then switched the doses that this somehow invalidates the study? Except you fail to understand that this WAS the study. They were attempting to emulate the dosages as found in nature. In nature, the dosages wouldn't go from 0 to 20 (some hives received a max of 20 for the bulk of the study, some received a max of 40, 200, and 400). The reason for this was a.) In the "wild" they would not be exposed to no poison, and suddenly, a ton of it. The growth of the plants that had the imadocloprid covered seeds would cause a gradual increase in the environmental pesticide, and they were duplicating this pattern to eliminate the potential argument that the bees just died from the "shock" of the pesticide. If you want a pretty little snapshot of what was done in the study, simply scroll down to Figure 2 to see the results. 

The point of this study, in their own words, was not to prove that the pesticide kills bugs. We know it does. Duh. It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

In nature bees are typically exposed to values of 1-5ppb in pollen and nectar.
That is why an experiment which exposed them to 20-400 ppb is pointless.
It is way over field realistic levels.

Do your research about levels in pollen and nectar.
Google papers by Bonmatin for example.



> It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.


These are massive doses and clearly they will kill bees.
Check your LD50s

I don't know why you have started to argue this stuff without checking the most basic facts.


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

jonathan said:


> No it is 1-5 ppb.
> 
> 500ppb is way over the LD50
> 
> ...


Yes, this stuff is really basic. I agree. Yet you seem to misunderstand it. Take a look at the following study:
http://sverigesradio.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/files/83/7239.pdf

This is where they got their dosage levels for the study. I'm entirely unsure as to where you got yours.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

> HFCS samples from Tate and Lyle, Archer Daniels Midland,
> Roquette and Mann Lake were sent to the Carl Hayden Bee Research
> Center in Tucson, AZ, USA in 2008. These companies are among the largest commercial suppliers of HFCS to beekeepers. The HFCS was used in a study to investigate the relationship between temperature and HMF formation (LeBlanc et al., 2009). A 50ml sample of HFCS from each supplier was shipped on ice to the USDA-AMS-National Science Lab in (NSL) Gastonia, NC for pesticide analysis. The HFCS samples were extracted for analysis of agrochemicals using an official pesticide extraction method (AOAC 2007.01, also known as the QuEChERS method), and analyzed by gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS, GC/MS/MS, LC/MS/MS). Samples were analyzed for the presence of 174 different agrochemicals including 17 neonicotinoids and their metabolites (Table 1). Quantification was performed using external calibration standards prepared from certified standard reference
> material. The National Science Laboratory is ISO 17025 accredited to perform pesticide residue analysis.
> There were no pesticides detected in any of the HFCS samples.


Are agrochemicals present in High Fructose Corn
Syrup fed to honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)?
Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman1*, Diana Sammataro1 and Roger Simonds2
1Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS, 2000 East Allen Road, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
2National Science Laboratory, USDA-AMS, 801 Summit Crossing Pl. Ste. B, Gastonia, NC 28054, USA.

Lets go back to basics here.
The harvard study fed HFCS to bees with added Imidacloprid.
This is in spite of the fact that corn in the US is treated with Clothianidin rather than Imidacloprid.

The link above shows that HFCS does not contain pesticide residue anyway, either Imidacloprid or Clothianidin.

leaving aside Corn syrup for the moment, there are various routes of exposure to pesticides, the main ones are via pollen, nectar or in the case of corn, planter dust during seed drilling.

The Krupke et al paper discusses this.
The biggest risk to bees is planter dust as this is highly toxic.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> Yes, this stuff is really basic. I agree. Yet you seem to misunderstand it. Take a look at the following study:
> http://sverigesradio.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/files/83/7239.pdf
> 
> This is where they got their dosage levels for the study. I'm entirely unsure as to where you got yours.


This link is to Girolami's guttation fluid experiment.
HFCS is not made from guttation droplets!


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

deknow said:


> Religions (and cults) always run more smoothly when "the people" have to have the holy books read or interpreted by the priests.....at least it runs more smoothly for the priests!
> 
> deknow


ha ha ha ha


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Anybody want to discuss "Beekeepers suing EPA"? No? Then maybe the dualing Research Papers folk aught to get their own Thread.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Mark, they should make you a moderator, . . . but then, a lot of stuff would get deleted ! ha ha


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Ian said:


> Mark, they should make you a moderator, . . . but then, a lot of stuff would get deleted ! ha ha


Mark used to be a moderator - but I do not think it fit his "style"......


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Guilty. Short lived. Ha,ha.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

But we're still friends!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

At least that's what we tell the kids.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I don't want Mark as a Moderator he would have to bite his tongue and not come out with any zingers...
That would curtail his talents.


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

jonathan said:


> This link is to Girolami's guttation fluid experiment.
> HFCS is not made from guttation droplets!


And your point is? Nobody's claimed that HFCS was made from guttation droplets. However, there's precisely zero question that the bees feed from guttation droplets, and these studies show the mass amounts of neonicotinoids that are found in those droplets. Thus, the Harvard study used that dosage level to test the bees. I am honestly confounded on how any of this is confusing to anyone...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

javin, i take it your opinion on the harvard study was unchanged by oliver's review?

regarding bees feeding on guttation drops, a challenge was made on the other forum to produce a picture of a bee feeding on corn guttation. so far no pictures.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

squarepeg said:


> regarding bees feeding on guttation drops, a challenge was made on the other forum to produce a picture of a bee feeding on corn guttation. so far no pictures.


Bees pay little if any attention to field corn.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

hpm08161947 said:


> Bees pay little if any attention to field corn.


on that point almost everyone is in agreement.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Javin007 said:


> .... and these studies show the mass amounts of neonicotinoids that are found in those droplets.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't _all_ the corn plants in that [corn guttation] study in containers (even the ones n the field, if I remember correctly)? Would one expect to find the same amount of systemic seed treatment in guttation of plants that are planted in the ground (like corn) and plants that are confined to a tiny amount of soil in a small container? It doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption to me.

But even the most ardent anti-neonic voices have stopped talking about this [the harvard] study...for good reason.

deknow


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

one of the points Randy makes time and again, controlled experimentation does not translate equally to actual field conditions


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> However, there's precisely zero question that the bees feed from guttation droplets.


In fact there is no evidence at all that they _do _collect water from guttation droplets as far as I know.
I imagine it is possible, perhaps when there is no alternate water source, but it is certainly not a habitual activity of bees. Anyway, bees tend to avoid a food or water source when it is contaminated due to the repellent effect of a pesticide at higher levels. Various researchers have noted this for Imidacloprid.
Someone posted a video on you tube of a bee collecting water from droplets but there was no evidence that the water droplets were even guttation droplets.
Guttation droplets can contain very high levels of systemic pesticide but if bees are not taking water from them there is not actually a problem for bees.
With corn, the problem for bees is planter dust clouds during seed drilling.

The Girolami experiment was a lab study which fed dehydrated caged bees syrup laced with pesticide via pipette.
ie it is another study which demonstrates that insecticide kills insects efficiently at high dosage but shows little else.


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

jonathan said:


> In fact there is no evidence at all that they _do _collect water from guttation droplets as far as I know.
> I imagine it is possible, perhaps when there is no alternate water source, but it is certainly not a habitual activity of bees. Anyway, bees tend to avoid a food or water source when it is contaminated due to the repellent effect of a pesticide at higher levels. Various researchers have noted this for Imidacloprid.
> Someone posted a video on you tube of a bee collecting water from droplets but there was no evidence that the water droplets were even guttation droplets.
> Guttation droplets can contain very high levels of systemic pesticide but if bees are not taking water from them there is not actually a problem for bees.
> ...


Guttation droplets are not a water source. They are a nectar source. They have the same molecular make-up of nectar - high in sugar, various enzymes, etc. And even if someone showed a THOUSAND videos of bees drinking from guttation (such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhguEp7qN4) or a THOUSAND videos of bees collecting corn pollen (such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsLnC8W5DI) the folks that, for some bizzare reason, _actively want_ to ignore the fact that it's our own pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides causing these problems will continue to do so, making statements such as "bees ignore corn" while the sheep nod their heads in agreement. I'm done wasting my time here.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>'m done wasting my time here.<<

hmmm, thanks for posting bud. 
I was actually reading some of it but looks like you cant participate in a two sided conversation


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

Ian said:


> >>'m done wasting my time here.<<
> 
> hmmm, thanks for posting bud.
> I was actually reading some of it but looks like you cant participate in a two sided conversation


That would make sense if the conversation was actually two-sided vs. a bunch of pro-pesticide'ers saying such as, "Bees ignore corn." and "Bees don't drink guttation." I'm not going to waste my time arguing against statements as absurd as this.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> That would make sense if the conversation was actually two-sided vs. a bunch of pro-pesticide'ers saying such as, "Bees ignore corn." and "Bees don't drink guttation." I'm not going to waste my time arguing against statements as absurd as this.


So I gather you commonly observe this? Was it in an area in which the only nectar/pollen producing species was field corn?


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

hpm08161947 said:


> So I gather you commonly observe this? Was it in an area in which the only nectar/pollen producing species was field corn?


Yes, as I am saying I commonly observe this. As does everyone ELSE who has ever grown corn or who doesn't have some strange "I love pesticides" blinders on. And no, that was not the only nectar/pollen producing species. I can't even believe I'm having to address this.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> Yes, as I am saying I commonly observe this. As does everyone ELSE who has ever grown corn or who doesn't have some strange "I love pesticides" blinders on. And no, that was not the only nectar/pollen producing species. I can't even believe I'm having to address this.


Try to calm down, no one is trying to harm you.

I wonder if you are talking about garden corn... or what we call sweet corn... I do occasionally see bees on sweet corn.

Just so you will know... you are not talking to a city dweller.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> Guttation droplets are not a water source. They are a nectar source. They have the same molecular make-up of nectar - high in sugar, various enzymes, etc.


Not the case. Guttation fluids are low in sugars, usually under 5% whereas nectar is more like 30%



> Guttation fluid is generally low in
> sugar content, and thus not highly attractive for foraging
> honey bees. However, water collecting in honey
> bees is intensive in arid regions and it is unclear to
> ...


USDA doc P70


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I have a yard close to some sweet corn. My bees are in it a lot at tassel time. I have a yard adjacent to a large field of silage corn. I never see my bees in it although they often are flying over it to get to other forage. I have NEVER seen a bee drinking guttation fluid from either source. And I have looked. Also my bees are doing pretty nicely next to that field of corn. Experience trumps all the studies for me about neonics. I have seen the devastation that the organophosphates do to hives at times. Never seen that with the neonics.


----------



## Javin007 (Mar 14, 2013)

I would agree with that. But even the 5% mark is highly variable depending on how much water has been available to the plant. But that also doesn't make guttation attractive just as "a water source."

This is the last I have to say on the subject. I promise. But the neonicotinoids (read: poisons we know for a fact kill bees) are not ONLY found in the guttation, but in the pollen and nectar in large amounts as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> This is the last I have to say on the subject. I promise. But the neonicotinoids (read: poisons we know for a fact kill bees) are not ONLY found in the guttation, but in the pollen and nectar in large amounts as well:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/


High concentrations of neonicotinoids in corn (as well as other moncrops) do not bother me a great deal, but I would be interested if they were found in: fetterbush, clethra, sumac, button bush, zenobia, gallberry and several other bay/swamp dwellers....


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

Javin007 said:


> I would agree with that. But even the 5% mark is highly variable depending on how much water has been available to the plant. But that also doesn't make guttation attractive just as "a water source."
> 
> This is the last I have to say on the subject. I promise. But the neonicotinoids (read: poisons we know for a fact kill bees) are not ONLY found in the guttation, but in the pollen and nectar in large amounts as well:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/


Blacquiere is one of the more sober commentators so I would recommend that last link you posted.

It's not true though that neonicotinoids are found in pollen and nectar in large amounts. They are found in pollen and nectar in small (ppb) amounts whereas in guttation fluid the concentration could be 1000 times higher than that.
The key thing is that bees barely bother with guttation fluid so that is not a major issue.

This entire argument about safety of neonicotinoids and whether they should have been approved in the first place or should be banned now hinges on exposure levels.
Pollen and nectar are obviously both attractive to bees so if there is a problem with pollen or nectar then there is a problem with the pesticide.
Canada grows over 7.5 million hectares of Canola every year and the Canadian beekeepers bring their bees to that crop to bring in the nectar and make honey. The bees collect the pollen and the nectar, build up well, and the beekeeper sells the honey surplus.
The minimal levels of neonicotinoid residue in this pollen and nectar collected does not appear to cause problems. If it did, there would be no bees left in Canada by now and I believe there are still plenty.
There are some problems with neonicotinoids, such as planter dust during seed drilling of corn but neither guttation water, nor pollen, nor nectar seems to be a significant issue for honey bees. It may be a different story and a different level of risk for other pollinators such as solitary bees but this is a honey bee forum so people are discussing the issue from the perspective of the impact on honey bees.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Javin007 said:


> Yes, as I am saying I commonly observe this. As does everyone ELSE who has ever grown corn or who doesn't have some strange "I love pesticides" blinders on. And no, that was not the only nectar/pollen producing species. I can't even believe I'm having to address this.


Javin,

I have to say I have never seen bees forage on guttation on corn. I don't love pesticides. I realize that farmers choose to use them to product their crops from pests.

Corn produces guttation under very specific and uncommon environmental conditions. So, it is not regulalry available for bees to forage on.

I have a bee yard that is literally surrounded by corn every other year. There are hundreds/thousands of acres of corn within the foraging area of this bee yard. Others on Beesource have commented on their hives being located in close proximity to corn. While anecdotal, these reports include thousands and thousands of hives located near corn without massive, pesticide related die-offs.

There is no question about the toxicity of neonics to bees. The problem comes in bees exposure, or lack there of, to the neonics.

What is suing the EPA going to do? Result in noenics being banned? Unlikely. But, what if they are? What happens then? Are farmes going to stop using crop protection chemicals to protect their crops from pests? No! What chemicals are they going to use? Are those chemicals going to be safer for bees/pollinators? Are these products going to be as effective, both cost and crop protection wise? What will be the impact to food production/food costs? Could there be any backlash towards beekeepers seeking to place hives on farmers' land who have been impacted by the loss of neonics?

While banning neonics sounds like a great idea on the surface, there are a plethora of potential unintended consquences that mey, or may not be better for bees and the beekeeper.

Tom


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It is not that the EPA doesn't have scientist or highly educated people

And a lot of them came there directly from Monsanto...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>High concentrations of neonicotinoids in corn (as well as other moncrops) do not bother me

You do realize that you are eating those neonics don't you?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> You do realize that you are eating those neonics don't you?


Not me.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> >It is not that the EPA doesn't have scientist or highly educated people
> 
> And a lot of them came there directly from Monsanto...


Michael,

Do you know how many or what percentage of EPA scientists are former Monsanto employees?

Tom


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Do you know how many or what percentage of EPA scientists are former Monsanto employees?

I have seen a list. Try this search on google:
monsanto revolving door list

You'll get 63,000 results and many lists.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Michael,

I did a google search as you suggests. The hits I checked had a list of about 20-25 prominent people who worked for both Monsanto and the US government at some points in their careers. It seemed like the majority were lawyers or MBA/management types. It also seemed like most of the activity listed was from the Clinton although, that dates ranged from the early 1980's to the present.

Not many scientists were listed. However, those in the top spots can steer policy in certain directions if they desire.

I also did a Bayer revolving door search and didn't find the same results.

I still don't believe a link has been found between bee colony deaths and neonics. There is also the question what will replace neonics if they are banned?

Personally, I think the neonics are better than the products used in the past. I also feel that neonics are not the biggest problem facing honey bees today. Given my druthers I would prefer my bees were not exposed to any pesticides or mites! 

Tom


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

There are plenty of bee deaths due to neonics....but of course, they are confirmed pesticide kills (seems that they are mostly obvious pesticide kills), but of course, they are in contrast to "CCD"...a case of suspected "CCD" that shows high levels of neonics in the dead bees piled in front of the hive is not CCD...it is a pesticide kill.

deknow


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >
> 
> Try this search on google:
> monsanto revolving door list
> ...


Yes you will get ~63,000 google _hits_ if you do this. You will also get 3.2 million hits if you google "flying saucers". The number of hits doesnt mean much.

As a side note, the pay is much higher at Monsanto so the natural migration of jobs would be away from the EPA to Monsanto, not the other way around.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> As a side note, the pay is much higher at Monsanto so the natural migration of jobs would be away from the EPA to Monsanto, not the other way around.


I am sure it is both ways like it is with the medical industry.
If you are a regulatory body you want experience people from the industry you are regulating and if you are a manufacturer trying to comply with regulation you want people experienced in regulation. It happens every day everywhere.

It is not a problem until a company is so large and has so much influence that the end result is no regulation.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>You will also get 3.2 million hits if you google "flying saucers". The number of hits doesnt mean much.

But not their names and positions...


----------



## Joel_T (Feb 8, 2013)

Nabber86 said:


> Yes you will get ~63,000 google _hits_ if you do this. You will also get 3.2 million hits if you google "flying saucers". The number of hits doesnt mean much.


That just proves there's more flying saucers than shuffling scientists.




TWall said:


> Not many scientists were listed. However, those in the top spots can steer policy in certain directions if they desire.


One maliciously _influential_ scientist is too many. I'd just as soon nothing was steered Monsanto's way. 

And talk about a little shuffling influence....Clarance Thomas who coincdently worked as a lawyer for Monsanto for a few years, I understand ruled in favor of a Monsanto appeal that some claim will give them control of among other thing alfalfa. He should have recused himself. They already own soy...what's one more.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> I am sure it is both ways like it is with the medical industry.
> .


It does work both ways. However, it's all about the money? There is more money to be made in the private sector than working for thhe EPA. I work with all kinds of scientists that went to work for the EPA for a couple of years to get some experience and then go out into the work force as a consultant (we have employed hundreds were I work). Invariably it is because of the money. The same thing works on the State level too; Oklahoma (ODEQ), Missouri (MDNR), Kansas (KDEQ). That's the joke about the revolving door - Every time you get a project manager "trained" to do their job, they leave and you have to start all over again. 

I can only think of a couple of intances were a professional went to a government position. That usually happens when someone gets burned out and wants to sit on their butt in a government job and do nothing until they retire.


----------



## VeggieGardener (Oct 4, 2011)

Acebird said:


> It is not a problem until a company is so large and has so much influence that the end result is no regulation.


Looks like that is exactly where we are headed: Amendment Would Weaken Biotech Oversight and Agribiz Friendly Rider Inserted into Unrelated Bill


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

VeggieGardener said:


> Looks like that is exactly where we are headed:


Oh i think we have been there for awhile.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

And again from Catch the Buzz.

“This study shows for the first time the effect of field-relevant concentrations (3 ppb) of neonicotinoid pesticides and an organophosphate miticide on honeybee brain function,” Connolly says. “Both prevent information flow in the major learning centre of the honeybee brain.

“There is clearly a major brain dysfunction in response to these compounds and this is supported by behavioral research from Newcastle University.”

Connolly says local honeybee losses in Scotland have been two-fold higher in bees reported to forage on oilseed rape, the major exposure risk of the neonicotinoids to bees.

I think this is the first information I have seen that states that losses are higher when near crops grown with these pesticides. Also note is is a single specific crop so the increase could be due to anything associated with that particular crop.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

If your bees are suffering because of the interaction between what the farmer uses and what the beekeeper uses (coumaphos or coumaphos contaminated foundation from a bee supplier), is it really fair (or even logical) to first blame the farmer without eliminating the contribution to the problem by the beekeeper?

Deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting daniel, thanks.

can you provide the link?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

her you go
http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2013.03.27.13.11.archive.html


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

> The intact bees’ brains were exposed to pesticides


We already know that neonics are toxic to honeybees when they are fed pesticide laced syrup. Now we know that neonics are toxic when applied to bees brains. 

Wow that is earth shaking.


----------



## jonathan (Nov 3, 2009)

I would hazard a guess that many if not all insecticides will have some effect on a bee brain.
I am sure a vast range of natural and synthetic chemicals have an effect on a bee brain.

Anyone remember the stuff about cocaine and bee brains from a few years ago
This completely misses the point.
The issue is whether pesticides cause harm to bees in the field when used according to the label instructions.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

deknow said:


> If your bees are suffering because of the interaction between what the farmer uses and what the beekeeper uses (coumaphos or coumaphos contaminated foundation from a bee supplier), is it really fair (or even logical) to first blame the farmer without eliminating the contribution to the problem by the beekeeper?
> 
> Deknow


Blame the farmers ! Blame the farmers !

no, blame Monsanto ! no, blame the farmers and Monsanto !

oh where is the justice !?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

It's a good thing the researchers, suppliers and the beekeepers aren't responsible for Coumaphos being approved, recommended and used in the hive so that we can lay the blame elsewhere 

deknow


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Regarding people moving between Industry and Government (except the military); Most of the higher level/policy government people are political appointees who are *required* to resign each time a presidential administration changes, forcing them to move out of government and into academia or industry (with most going to industry due to better pay and more available positions). When the presidential administration changes yet again, many of these people go back into government because they like the work and such appointments look good on their resume. In other words, the revolving door not only happens everywhere, it is (probably unintentionally) designed into the system.

I would add that I think it is the paid lobbiest by which industry has too much influence over government policy. Think of the lobbying budget that Monsanto and Bayer can muster compared to beekeepers . . .

FWIW


----------

