# British MP Demands Immediate Ban on Neonicotinoid Pesticides that Kill Bees



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

All I saw in the Harvard study was that if you feed bees insecticide they die. Nothing new there and certainly no indication that they have found the cause of CCD. Read the study.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Bayer is a really bad company... See my blog: http://www.yazyasminandyou.com/2009/05/ugly-history-of-yasminyazs-manufacturer.html . Bayer was quick to manufacture evidence that it was NOT at fault back in 2001!


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

I am going to make my pollination clients sign a statement that they agree not to use insecticides containing imidacloprid or neonicotoids this year. I am curious to see how they respond. Just made my first call.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Might want to spend some time on this study:

http://www.gesundebiene.at/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Neonicotinoide-in-bees.pdf


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

> However, Matt Shardlow, chief executive of Buglife, the invertebrate conservation charity, criticised the Harvard research.
> 
> "This study is further evidence of the toxicity of neonicotinoids to bees, but the levels of pesticide in the food fed to the bees was higher than would be found in pollen and nectar in treated crops, hence it would be stretching the point to claim that it was strong evidence that neonicotinoids are responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder," he said.


So what is the problem again? :scratch:


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Here's what Randy Oliver had to say about this study:

Re this study, at first glance it appears to support the hypothesis that
chronic exposure to field realistic doses of imidacloprid during summer and
fall can lead to late winter collapse of the treated colonies.
Unfortunately, there are a great deal of factual misrepresentations and
fuzzy thinking in the paper, which obviously was not peer reviewed by
any bee biologist nor toxicologist. For example, the author stated in an
interview:

"When other conditions cause hive collapse--such as disease or pests--many
dead bees are typically found inside and outside the affected hives."

Could someone please refresh my memory? Other than in the case of tracheal
mite, which diseases or pests leave many dead bees in a hive? (Note that
starvation or acute pesticide toxicity would not fall into the category of
"disease or pest").

My reading of the paper suggests that the author knows little about bees,
little about pesticides, nothing about HFCS, had no understanding of the
distribution of systemic pesticides in plants.

Let's look at a few more sentences from the paper:

"We hypothesized that the first
occurrence of CCD in 2006/2007 resulted from the presence
of imidacloprid ... in
high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fed to honey bees as
an alternative to sucrose-based food. There are three
facts to support this hypothesis. First, since most of the
suspected but creditable causes for CCD were not new
to apiculture, there must have been an additional new
stressor introduced to honey bee hives contemporaneous
with the first occurrence of CCD during the winter
months of 2006 and early 2007."

As Bob and others have pointed out, CCD actually started occurring in
2004-2005.

"Second, while commercial beekeepers appear to be affected by CCD at a
disproportional rate"

This is not true according to any of the surveys that I've seen.

", their beekeeping practices have been
relatively unchanged during these years except for the
replacement of honey or sucrose with HFCS as the supplemental
sugar source for economic and convenient
reasons.... Although
the replacement of honey/sucrose-based feeds
with HFCS among commercial beekeepers took place
much earlier than 2006/2007, it was the timing of the
introduction of neonicotinoid insecticides to the cornseed
treatment program first occurring in 2004/2005
that coincides with CCD emergence (Bonmatin et al.,
2005; Benbrook, 2008)."

It appears that the first cases of CCD preceded this time period, since any
HFCS
produced from such treated corn would have necessarily have been produced
following
the season of harvest.

The authors then cite a few studies that show that systemic insecticides
are translocated,
as they are intended, throughout the plants. But then they stretch by
stating:

" These study results
lend credence to our hypothesis that the systemic
property of imidacloprid is capable of being translocated
from treated seeds to the whole plant, including
corn kernels and therefore likely into HFCS."

My gosh, this is one helluva assumption! Without taking the time to simply
confirm that Imd winds up in the kernels, the author *assumes* that it is
concentrated
there at high levels! An then further goes out on a limb by "assuming"
that any
such imidacloprid is then concentrated when the corn is used to produce
HFCS (ignoring the fact
that most corn is treated with clothianidin, rather than imidacloprid):

The paper turns into farce when the author states:

"we used food-grade HFCS fortified with different levels of imidacloprid,
mimicking the levels that are assumed to
have been present in the older HFCS. The range of dosages
used in this study from 20 to 400 ?g/kg were not
only environmentally relevant"

Since when has 400 ppb ever been been considered to be
"environmentally relevant"? Levels of 1-4 ppb are environmentally relevant;
levels above 40 ppb are usually considered to be overtly toxic. So the 400
ppb
figure is 100 - 400 times as strong as the normal measured levels in the
field due to seed treatment.

But then the author goes into la-la land with some even wilder creative
assumptions:

"Since there is no tolerance level for imidacloprid in HFCS, we
applied a 10-fold concentrating factor, or 0.5 ppm (500
?g/kg) of imidacloprid in HFCS, by taking into account
the uptake by corn plants from seeds that are treated
with imidacloprid."

He simply created this "concentrating factor" out of thin air! He gave
absolutely
no justification for it. In the actual process of making HFCS, pesticides
are
largely removed. As I stated before, all that the author had to do would
have been to
ask Roger Simonds at the USDA Gastonia pesticide testing lab as to the
actual measured levels of Imd in HFCS, and thus would
not have brought embarrassment to Harvard Medical School by such a
ludicrous assumption.

"Therefore, we
are confident that the imidacloprid dosages applied in
this study would be comparable, if not lower to those
encountered by honey bees inside and outside of their
hives."

Unfortunately, the authors' confidence is not supported by any actual field
measurements whatsoever!

The authors state:

"There are several questions that remain unanswered as
a result of this study. First, the systematic loss of sealed
brood in the imidacloprid-treated and control hives may
indicate a common stress factor that was present across
all 4 apiaries."

Like, maybe the field investigators should have taken a few nosema or
varroa counts, rather than simply
assuming that these common parasites weren't killing the colonies! For all
we know, all the hives could have
bee crawling with varroa or badly infected with nosema. One statement
suggests that varroa was evident: "nor a large number of Varroa mites was
observed in hives during the summer and fall seasons," suggesting some
something less than a "large" number of mites was indeed observed! And
then they waited until October 5 to treat with Apistan strips, which are
ineffective against mites in many areas of the U.S.

The authors, on a roll, simply do not know when to stop:

"If imidacloprid exposure is truly the sole cause of
CCD, it might also explain the scenario in which CCD
occurred in honey bee hives not fed with HFCS. Considering the sensitivity
of honey bees to imidacloprid as
demonstrated in this study and the widespread uses of
imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid insecticides, pollen, nectar,
and guttation drops produced from those
plants would have contained sufficient amounts of
neonicotinoid insecticide residues to induce CCD"

What are they talking about when they say "considering the sensitivity"?
Even the lowest fed dosage (20 ppb) is about 5-20 times higher than
that commonly found in nectar, and the other three doses were far
higher--it is amazing to me that the colonies were not killed outright!

Oddly, I don't see any explanation as to why the investigators changed
treatment dosages mid trial. To their credit, they initially treated the
colonies with "field realistic" doses of the insecticide: 0.1 - 10 ppb
(that would have actually have been a decent study). I suspect that after
feeding the colonies for four straight weeks in July, and not noticing any
adverse effects, that they then decided that they had better really hit the
colonies hard if they wanted to support their hypothesis--so they
arbitrarily ramped up the lowest dose to 200 times stronger, and the
highest dose to 40x stronger (that oughtta do it!).

I can only imagine their surprise and disappointment when after then
feeding colonies a full half gallon of obviously toxic treated syrup weekly
for another 9 straight weeks, they still noted virtually no adverse
effects! Note that the amount of broodrearing was unaffected at the 20,
40, and 200 ppb dosages, and only slightly depressed at the clearly toxic
400 ppb dose! Note that the colonies were all still alive at midwinter, 3
months after the dosing ended.

So why did the colonies die? Such pinsecticide exposure to hives in late
summer has been clearly demonstrated to greatly increase the chance of a
colony later dying from nosema or varroa infection during the winter. In
this study, poisoning the colonies all through late summer and early fall
likely hampered the ability of the colonies to prepare a healthy population
for winter.

Oddly, the investigators also took biweekly measurements of the cluster
sizes of the colonies, yet
chose not to include the results in the paper. This makes me wonder
whether there was no effect of
treatment upon the colony populations, and the authors simply decided to
exclude any data that did
not support their hypothesis.

So although this paper is surely going to be cited by anti-neonic advocates
ad nauseum, I find it to be a case in which an initially fairly designed
study (the dosing of hives with a series of four field realistic doses of
Imd) turned to farce when the investigators arbitrarily ramped up the
doses, and blew it on parasite management.

In my assessment, it appears that the data from this study actually support
an alternative hypothesis--that field realistic doses of imidacloprid had
no measurable adverse effects upon the colonies. And even patently toxic
doses had little immediate effect. I suspect that the apparent delayed
effect was due to the impact of the insecticide upon late summer colony
populations (which the authors inexplicably did not present), which led to
later collapse due to parasite buildup.

i find it unfortunate that the press, including both of our national bee
journals, gave publicity to this paper without any sort of critical
analysis. Such messages only confuse the public. Pesticides are a major
issue to the beekeeping community. What we need are well designed and
executed studies, (as well as better enforcement of pesticide law) in order
to solve these problems. Sadly, this study just confuses the issues.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

camero7 said:


> Here's what Randy Oliver had to say about this study:


Wow. Randy Oliver sure has given the paper some serious thought and has provided a good response.

Camero, is something that is posted on ScientificBeeking.com, or was it from personal communication?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Nevermind I found it on the front page of ScientificBeeking.com


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

No, it was posted on Bee-L


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

camero7 said:


> No, it was posted on Bee-L



I found it right here on the front page: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/



(I dont want to step on anyones toes, but what is the ediquette in regards to referencing other bee forums / bee websites on Beesource?)


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Bayer responds:

http://www.bayercropscience.us/news/press-releases?storyId=9a154f21-e75e-4bac-9035-8e083696c213


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I would take this paper seriously.

However, it hasn't been published, but it has been leaked.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> I would take this paper seriously.
> 
> However, it hasn't been published, but it has been leaked.


Yes the Bayer response should be taken seriously. 

The paper the OP posted is . . .


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The tide has turned against neonics in the U.S. .

In my opinion, this is a direct result of the whole Monsanto/Beeologics Op. .

They miscalculated.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC, I think you need to read the paper...it is terrible. This has nothing to do with Monsanto/Beeologics ...this was a poorly done study performed by a researcher with a poor understanding of the subject. The press release from Harvard is even worse (which is what all the media reports are based upon). All they did was kill bees by feeding them imidacloprid.

deknow


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> The tide has turned against neonics in the U.S.


And because of that, people are allowed to publish and report science that is nothing but hype and is so badly flawed that it becomes a complete and utter joke? 

You have lost all credibility and I am down voting you!


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

I've read randy's posts on bee-l forever, never seen him write that long a response ever, must have really been fired up.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

My credibility is just fine. Monsanto won't dare release Remebee. I'm always glad to lend a hand to a U.S. company in need of guidance.

Perhaps you haven't been keeping track of the avalance of studies that have been done on the off target effects of neonics?

A vacuum was created once many U. S. Honeybee researchers became associated with Monsanto through the purchase of Beeologics.

The U.S. based research that is being released is a direct result of that. They've lost control of publication.

That's the miscalculation.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

thought we were talking about the paper, not Remebee. WLC you're off base on this one.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

You hav to understand that many key scientists that used to referee papers are no longer in that position. That's one of the effects of their association with Beeologic/Remebee, now Monsanto.

So, you're going to see alot more of these types papers coming out of the woodwork here in the U.S. .

There's no one to stop them.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Randy Oliver recently ran field trials for Monsanto.
Tut, tut, tut.

As for the paper itself...

This isn't a defining paper, but it is an example of what's to come. The dam has broken.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

And, of course you have more credibility then Randy. Nice try, don't defend the position. Throw stuff at someone else.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tinction-billions-colonies-die-worldwide.html

I wish to point out to the good people here, how far some will stray from the truth just to sell a few messily news papers. 

If a journalist will do this, then how much more will a researcher lie or dissemble the truth just to snag a big fat government research grant that may result in a whole career of future research grants?

*Bee numbers plummet as billions of colonies die across the world*
*By Mail Foreign Service Read more:*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ons-colonies-die-worldwide.html#ixzz1rIVJDzY7]
*“The world faces a future with little meat and no cotton because of a catastrophic collapse in bee colonies, experts have warned.”*

People, the first thing I learned in 4H was that cattle, swine, and poultry are self fertile, and they all still are. The second was that… OMG, cotton is self fertile as well! Cotton never has been non will cotton ever be dependant on honey bees or on any other insect for pollination. Until the recent past in America, honey bees were even an actual if slight detriment to profitable cotton production. I am shocked that The Daily Mail, a United Kingdom news paper got it so wrong. 
Statements of the type made by the Daily Mail are called *Yellow Journalism.* 

Return with me now to the banner headlines if you will. In much of Europe (in Germany I know) the word billion still usually refers to the term trillion in American English. Now I don’t know how big a number the Daily Mail had on their minds, (or how big a number they clutched between their thumbs and forefingers) when they penned this headline, but this is just a small example of what goes on in the over stimulated minds of to many journalist. So my question for you is this. Is The Daily Mail saying that Trillions of bee colonies have died “across the world” when much of the evidence suggests an almost 50% world wide increase in managed honey bee colonies since the 1960s? It seems to me that the original poster, the Honorable Borderbeeman, has been reading the UK’s news papers, but maybe not closely enough, but at the same time he is holding his news papers’ *Yellow Journalism *reporting to close to his heart.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"And, of course you have more credibility then Randy."

Yes I do.

I've never fed jumping genes to my bees for Monsanto. How about you?

Here's the point:

If you've associated yourself with Monsanto in any way shape or form, you can't comment on a paper (no matter how mediocre it may be) without declaring conflicts.

I haven't been associated with Monsanto. However, I understand why this paper is both important and flawed.

It represents a significant change in the kind of research that's being published and reaching the public here in the U.S. .

It's run of the mill for Europe, but it's relatively new here.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WLC said:


> "And, of course you have more credibility then Randy."
> 
> Yes I do.
> 
> .


I think folks would be interested in why you believe you should be given more credibility, absent some sort of resume I choose to put my faith in Randy.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, some of you are known to be pro Monsanto. Birds of a feather perhaps?

Jim, you were part the Jerry Hayes thread. What you may not know is that it was picked up by a well known journalist and some of what was discussed went viral under 'GE Honeybees'.

The same exact thing is happening with neonics (imidacloprid) here in the U.S. .

It's simply going viral.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

So your not answering the question?


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

The point is that Bayer and its ilk influence the science. We see it every day in the pharmaceutical industry. The scientists are either paid directly or indirectly. You would not beleive the lengths they will go to to make a profit. If you go back to the original authors of the first published papers that defended the neonicitoids I will bet you dollars to donuts you will find a link back to Bayer. You may not find it until you take their deposition and get them to produce their emails, but sooner or later i would expect that you will find a link somehow.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Randy ran field trials for Monsanto. And get this...

He paid for the treatments!

Heh, Heh.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

And you should have more credibility because.........?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

What a joke, the guy who is very public about who he is being called a troll by some phantom from New York City?? But let's get back to the issue at hand. Randy is very public about who he is and what he does. His common sense research is willingly shared shared through his web site free of charge and with anyone one who asks him a question. He is half "roll up your sleeves and do some bee work" and half accomplished scientist. His advice has been invaluable to many beekeepers. The fact that he chose to pay for the treatments in the field test only gives him more credibility. As for me I am 90% roll up your sleeves and go to work, I don't claim to have any scientific acumen but I have spent a lifetime working with bees and I know what I see and experience on a daily basis even though I might not be able to quantify it scientifically. listen to WLC's scaremongering if that's what you choose, I might even pay more attention to it myself if I had any idea who It is and why I should listen.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Did I forget to mention that Randy went on a junket paid by Beeologics before it was purchased by Monsanto?

Face it. He's biased.

He can't critique a paper concerning a Monsanto product without disclosing that.

That's the way it is.

As for me...

I think that the paper is an important mile stone. Mediocre, perhaps, but still important.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ah yes a junket now that would explain everything now wouldn't it. He sold all his credibility for coach fare somewhere. Darn another bubble burst.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Before you critique another scientists work, you have to state your possible conflicts.

For instance: I went on a Beeologics junket (that's 'consideration') and ran field trials for Beeologics and Monsanto.

That's all he has to say before he attempts to gut a paper on neonics.

That's not asking too much.

As for his credibility.

He's just plain incredible.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WLC said:


> Before you critique another scientists work, you have to state your possible conflicts.
> )


You are right on that WLC and since you have long hinted at being a scientist and seem quick to critique the works of others on here I am all ears for your disclaimer.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> Well, some of you are known to be pro Monsanto. Birds of a feather perhaps?
> 
> .


I do not support anyone or anything except good science. I have no conflicts of interest. 

Walt, if have anything to add other than wild speculation and paranoid accusations, let's see it. Several people here actually do have the credentials and have demonstrated the ability to read through the science and psuedo-science papers that have been posted here lately. I am amazed at the level of discussion.

So go ahead an post a link to a science or psuedo-science paper of your choice so that we can discuss it.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I've never worked for Monsanto, or had anything to do with neonics.

But, that has nothing to do with my original point.

We're going to see alot more research on neonics published in the near future, especially here in the U.S. where it has been relatively quite for quite some time.

The pulverized neonic seed coat papers, replicating previous studies done in Europe, are the most significant in my opinion.

A product defect of that type can certainly result in that product being pulled from the market, just as they were in Europe.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> My credibility is just fine.


Please explain how the paranoia, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks contained your last 9 posts supports your claims of credibility. All we have to go by is what you have written in your posts and you certainly have not demonstrated any credibility there. Is that the best you have to offer? 



WLC said:


> I haven't been associated with Monsanto. However, I understand why this paper is both important and flawed.


I think we can all agree that the paper has flaws. Please try to disregard your emotions about Randy and Mansanto for a moment and actually add some value to the discussion by elaborating on why you think the paper is important. Is that asking too much from a man with credentials such as yourself? 



WLC said:


> For instance: I went on a Beeologics junket (that's 'consideration') and ran field trials for Beeologics and Monsanto.
> 
> That's all he has to say before he attempts to gut a paper on neonics.
> 
> That's not asking too much..


OK Let's set a baseline so we can advance this important discussion that we are all engaged in. I have no idea if it is true and I cannot speak for everyone else, but let's assume for the time being that you are correct and Randy has ties to Mansanto, big ties involving money. For the remainder of this discussion, you can now disregard this point because we all now accept it as a primary consideration. Now that we have established our baseline and can move on, is there anything that you would like to add to your argument? Anything at all reagarding the OP, or perhaps providing additional papers that we can discuss? Is that asking too much from a man with credentials such as yourself? 




WLC said:


> I think that the paper is an important mile stone.


Please provide additional information as to why you consider the paper a "mile stone". While you are at it, PLEASE DONT FORGET THE BASELINE THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED ABOVE!




WLC said:


> Jim, you were part the Jerry Hayes thread. What you may not know is that it was picked up by a well known journalist and some of what was discussed went viral under 'GE Honeybees'. The same exact thing is happening with neonics (imidacloprid) here in the U.S.
> It's simply going viral.


A _well know journalist_ rather than a _well known doctor_, or perhaps _4 out of 5 dentists_?? That is one of the worst examples of the Appeal to Authority argument that I have ever seen on the internet. 

Viral? Do people with credentials such as yours stoop to sensationalism to make their point? I have never met any.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I welcome good...or even reasonably good studies regarding neonics. The "kind" of study this is is "lousy" "dishonest" "not helpful in furthuring knowledge". I don't know what kinds of studies we are going to see more of.....but I hope they are not like that.
I've been very impressed with your grasp of some of the rnai issues....but this study cannot be taken seriously.
One can question Randy's impartiality, but his critique is accurate and to the point. Harvard's own press release miscited the study so that the symptoms would sound more like Ccd than they actually were.
Deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Besides the flaws in the paper itself, besides the bias of some of the 'reviewers', besides the media hype, besides the upcoming flood of papers of this type that are likely in the pipeline because no one is minding the store, and last but not least, besides the sustained personal attacks by the usual suspects...

This paper will be important (if it ever does get published) because it raises questions about the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS. It's saying that after about six months, Honeybees fed sublethal concentrations (below those allowed by law) of neonics, die.

In short, the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high.

That's the message that I'm taking away from this unpublished, leaked, paper.

I'd like to see more work on this question by other investigators.

I haven't forgotten the Alaux paper where undetectible levels of neonics fed to bees had measurable impacts on Honeybee health. I'll never forget the decreased level of glucose oxidase, and the resulting reduction in hive immunity, finding. That blew my socks off.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"13 March 2012 - corrected PROOF Bulletin of Insectology 65 (1): xxx-xxx, 2012
ISSN 1721-8861
March 13, 2012 - Bulletin of Insectology corrected proof 1
In situ replication of honey bee colony collapse disorder
Chensheng LU1, Kenneth M. WARCHOL2, Richard A. CALLAHAN3
1Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Landmark Center West, Boston, MA, USA
2Worcester County Beekeepers Association, Northbridge, MA, USA
3Worcester County Beekeepers Association, Holden, MA, USA
Abstract
The concern of persistent loss of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies worldwide since 2006, a phenomenon referred to as colony collapse disorder (CCD), has led us to investigate the role of imidacloprid, one of the neonicotinoid insecticides, in the emergence of CCD. CCD is commonly characterized by the sudden disappearance of honey bees (specifically worker bees) from hives containing adequate food and various stages of brood in abandoned colonies that are not occupied by honey bees from other colonies. This in situ study was designed to replicate CCD based on a plausible mechanistic hypothesis in which the occurrence of
CCD since 2006 was resulted from the presence of imidacloprid, one of the neonicotinoid insecticides, in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fed to honey bees as an alternative to sucrose-based food. We used a replicated split-plot design consisting of 4 independent
apiary sites. Each apiary consisted of 4 different imidacloprid-treated hives and a control hive. The dosages used in this study were determined to reflect imidacloprid residue levels reported in the environment previously. All hives had no diseases of symptoms of parasitism during the 13-week dosing regime, and were alive 12 weeks afterward. However, 15 of 16 imidacloprid treated hives (94%) were dead across 4 apiaries 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing. Dead hives were remarkably empty except for stores of food and some pollen left, a resemblance of CCD. Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in HFCS causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing. The survival of the control hives managed alongside with the pesticide-treated hives unequivocally augments this conclusion. The observed delayed mortality in honey bees caused by imidacloprid in HFCS is a novel and plausible mechanism
for CCD, and should be validated in future studies.

Key words: colony collapse disorder, imidacloprid, Apis mellifera, neonicotinoid insecticides, high-fructose corn syrup."

Are you feeling O.K. Nabber? Perhaps you read the 'Comic Book' version?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I hope that this link works so that those of you with 'functional' reading comprehension levels can follow along. 

https://doc-0s-14-docsviewer.google...cPOdNw6&hash=b4ubuu95123a0amr0b9ag8p50d5q9h4n


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> I hope that this link works so that those of you with 'functional' reading comprehension levels can follow along.


Yes we have seen this before. Bees fed with HFCS that is purposely dosed with Imidacloprid die. A perfectly valid conclusion for the paper. The study was well designed. Proper controls were in place and followed in a methodical manner. 

The last sentence of the paper is somewhat of a caveat. "_The proposed mechanism of delayed mortality should be carefully examined and __should be carefully examined and validated in future studies_".

I eagerly await the results of the future studies.

Thank you for supporting your position by finally posting something that is revalent to the claims that you are making.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> The dosages used in this study were determined to reflect imidacloprid residue levels reported in the environment previously.


...do you think this is an accurate statement? Did you note where they upped the dosage in the middle of the study (why?)? Aside from guttation from corn seedlings, do you think these levels have been reported in the environment?

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

I've noticed the 'confusing' statements regarding dosage. They'll have to clear that up before publication. I'm not sure what they actually fed the bees.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

WLC said:


> Dean:
> 
> I'm not sure what they actually fed the bees.


I'm not sure they are either


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> This paper will be important (if it ever does get published) because it raises questions about the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS.


...it isn't clear to me what those legally allowable concentrations are. It also isn't clear to me that in processing of corn into hfcs that imidacloprid wouldn't be denatured to some degree or another...not just concentrated.
...but certainly if you don't know what the dosage was that was fed to the bees (and why it was changed mid-study), it can't be considered important.

...but it certainly doesn't back up the claims made in the study.



> It's saying that after about six months, Honeybees fed sublethal concentrations (below those allowed by law) of neonics, die.


Some of the info on toxicity of imidacloprid is hard to follow....some talk about ng/bee...some talk about ppb (sometimes in caged studies, ..sometimes it seems to be ppb of feed, and sometimes it seems to be ppb for a single bee). These look like dosages that would kill bees in a cage.
...any insights?

deknow


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

a PubMed and Google Scholar search for "pesticide residues in high fructose corn syrup" got no response. Interesting that there are no studies on it. Even more interesting that the paper determines that neonics are in HFCS without any references.

To my mind there can be no argument that neonics impact bees. It is just the degree that I find concerning in these papers. I suspect there might be a 5 - 10% impact on a hive in a high use area, but that is purely speculation on my part. I do try to avoid those areas if possible. However, pollination often makes that impossible.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

It appears that they tried to normalize dosages. But, it's unclear as to how they really did it.

So if .o5 ppm = 50ug/Kg, they then mention using a ten fold concentration of .5 ppm or 500ug/Kg.

Something to do with simulation neonic concentrations in gutation drops.

As for legal concentration limits. They mention that non exist for HFCS.

They did mention EPA environmental concentrations though.

Regardless, it's a crapshoot trying to figure out what they really did.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over this study.

There'll be more studies just like this one before you know it.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

So, after you impute the integrity of a couple of very good beekeepers and pat yourself on the back, you're going to slink back into your hole? What a cowardly thing to do. Can't ever admit you're wrong can you.

Back to my ignore list.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> Dean:I've noticed the 'confusing' statements regarding dosage. They'll have to clear that up before publication. I'm not sure what they actually fed the bees.


Why the confusion?

"Imidacloprid was initially fed to honey bees at 0.1, 1, 5, and 10 μg/kg in HFCS for 4 weeks starting on July 1st 2010, followed by 20, 40, 200, and 400 μg/kg for another 9 weeks, which ended on September 30th 2010".

Before publication? You mean this is in unpublished paper that was leaked?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Read further and you'll see what I mean. I think it was in the discussion section!?

As for beating up a leaked paper...

It started on Bee-L, not here.

There was a media announcement by the Harvard School of Public Health. Then they got hold of the unpublished study and gutted it.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> This paper will be important (if it ever does get published) because it raises questions about the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS. It's saying that after about six months, Honeybees fed sublethal concentrations (below those allowed by law) of neonics, die.
> 
> In short, the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high.


You keep referring to the "legally allowable concentrations" of neonics. Can you tell me what the legal limits are and what agency enforces them? I sure am not having luck finding them. I assume that you know of a reference that lists them. Is it something similar to the Federly enforced Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) that have been established for drinking water? In my experience, levels are established for individual compounds (Imidacloprid) rather than for classes of chemicals (neonicotinoids). This would imply that maximum levels have been established for HFCS for other neonicotinoid pesticides as well, including clothianidin and thiamethoxam. It would help in my understanding of the problem if you could provide these levels.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> It started on Bee-L, not here.
> There was a media announcement by the Harvard School of Public Health. Then they got hold of the unpublished study and gutted it.


I posted the link to the study on Bee-L....but I found it on Beesource first. I have been busy the last few days, and have not followed everything on Bee-L closely, I don't know if I was the only or first to post the link to bee-l.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"So, after you impute the integrity of a couple of very good beekeepers and pat yourself on the back, you're going to slink back into your hole?"

Randy ran field trials for Monsanto which involved Honeybee transgenics (very, very bad). Jerry ran trials for Bayer and has other baggage, like selling out beekeepers who were sueing Bayer.

They did it to themselves. They should never claim to be 'objective' when it comes to discussing neonics. They're not.

By the way, I'm not in a hole of any kind. So...
Watch the tone camero.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC, 

Please provide the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS. Why are you not supplying this information? Without getting too personal, I am beginning to believe that you are blowing smoke. In a re-read of this thread you indicated they they exist:



WLC said:


> This paper will be important (if it ever does get published) because it raises questions about the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS. It's saying that after about six months, Honeybees fed sublethal concentrations (below those allowed by law) of neonics, die.
> 
> In short, the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high.


Yet in an earlier post you state that they do not exist:



WLC said:


> As for legal concentration limits. They mention that non exist for HFCS.


Which is it? Do they exist or not? How is anyone supposed to follow your argument when you have contridicted yourself and will not provide clarification?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Did you read the paper? Did you read my posts?

There is no set standard for neonic concentrations in HFCS here in the U.S. . Maybe in Europe?

They state in the paper that the EPA standard for imidacloprid in corn is .05 ppm. .

They also say that there is no standard for HFCS.

Kindly do your own reading. You obviously didn't read the paper when you began your posts directed at me. You're still not reading.

Nabber, reading is FUN-duh-MENTAL.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Since
there is no tolerance level for imidacloprid in HFCS, we
applied a 10-fold concentrating factor, or 0.5 ppm (500
μg/kg) of imidacloprid in HFCS, by taking into account
the uptake by corn plants from seeds that are treated
with imidacloprid. The 10-fold concentrating factor is
very conservative compared to the reported average
level of 47 mg/L of imidacloprid measured in guttation
drops collected from corn seedlings germinated from
commercial seeds obtained in 2008 coated with 0.5
mg/seed of imidacloprid (Girolami et al., 2009)."

I still wonder why they included this.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

http://worcestercountybeekeepers.co...lication-of-honeybee-colony-collapse-disorder

I think this presentation by the lead author on March 10 about this study will reveal quite a bit...it doesn't clear up any of the dosing issues however.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's the problem with the whole deal.

The paper hasn't been published, and it might not be if reviewers are asking the same type of questions that we are. They had their 15 minutes of fame, and that's probably going to be it.

The damage is done.

However, I'm not sure if it's a useful excercise for us to follow the lead of other 'reviewers' in beating this thing up.

We're just giving a mediocre, unpublished paper more 'hang' time.

This imidacloprid issue is going to keep coming up in a bunch of similar papers that are on the way. You can bet on that.

I'm not sure that I have the patience to 'squint' my way through a recorded presentation.

Dean, if you're trying to say that Lu's presentation sucked, I can tell you from experience, some great research scientists make terrible presenters. It's just the way it is.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> There is no set standard for neonic concentrations in HFCS here in the U.S. . Maybe in Europe?
> 
> They state in the paper that the EPA standard for imidacloprid in corn is .05 ppm. .


Nice dodge, but I wasnt asking for the EPA standard for imidacloprid in corn. 

Back to the subject of HFCS. If there is no set standard for neonic concentrations in HFCS in the U.S, why on earth did you post the following statement?:



> This paper will be important (if it ever does get published) because it raises questions about the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS. It's saying that after about six months, Honeybees fed sublethal concentrations (below those allowed by law) of neonics, die
> In short, the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high..


Another thing that concerns me is that you tend to use the terms neonics, neonicotinoids, and imidacloprid interchangeably. No scientist that I know uses slang (neonics) and confuses a group of chemicals (neonicotinoids) with a single compound (imidacloprid). Furthermore, there can be no set standard for a _group _of chemicals. 

This shows quite a bit of ignorance on your part (and I mean ignorance in the literal sense, not just name calling), and serves to further erode what little credibility that you have (that is if you had any to begin with). Nobody with any knowledge in this area beyond a modicum level would post information in the way that you have demonstrated here. 

In short, the chain of evidence that you have left on this thread leads me to the conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

OK, the personal jabs have gone on long enough in this thread. No more. 

________________________ line in the sand.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

oops.

Revision:

"In short, the concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high."

Happy now?

However, it's obvious that you didn't read the paper.

As for the amount of imidacloprid in HFCS, and it's effects on bees, that's going to become an issue as soon as they figure out a reliable way to measure neonicotinoid concentrations.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

WLC said:


> ... Randy ran field trials for Monsanto... (very, very bad). Jerry ran trials for Bayer... selling out beekeepers who were sueing Bayer...


WOW, then just who are you suggesting we should put in charge of "scientific" bee health research, the Unabomber? 

As for selling out the beekeepers who are currently suing Bayer, anyway you parse it, your statement sounds like the reasoning behind a lynch mob!!! He must bee guilty because he is a (insert name of hated color, race or employer) _____ . Maybe even the lynch mob from _"To Kill A Mocking Bird." _ 

Is this what you are trying to say, “Lets string um up naaw, afor we’uns git bak tu tonn so we’uns ain’t late fer supper?” 

Do you really expect reasonable men and women to take views like these seriously and then go out and act on them? Come on, what happened to science and justice???

I was told that the reason there is a scroll feature on the right hand side of my monitor is so I can scroll back and read, then re-read my posts for foibles like the ones above. You should try it some time.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Jerry Bromenshenk actually ran field trials for Bayer after dropping out as expert testimony in a suit brought by beekeepers. It was reported by an investigative journalist right after he published his nosema/IIV/CCD paper if I remember correctly. I didn't write it. But, I read it.

Randy Oliver has run field trials for Monsanto/Beeologics. He even admitted going on a junket to Isreal paid for by Beeologics. He wrote it. Not me.

Randy wrote a header on Bee L "An Objective Analysis of..." the paper we are discussing.

How can he claim that?

He should have reclused himself (because of a possible bias), or he should have stated his conflicts.

The paper is dealing with imidacloprid (a Bayer product) and HFCS (which comes from Monsanto corn/neonic coated seeds).

I'd say that they crossed the line on Bee L.

That's bad enough.

But, this is still an unpublished paper. I have no idea who leaked the 'proof copy'.

You can't justify beating up on a leaked paper before it's published because it is not only unfair, it's improper. It's misconduct.

Don't do it if you're a member of the scientific community.

The fact of the matter is we don't know what the final paper will look like before it's published (if ever).

Jerry and Randy are dead wrong in this matter. And, they know it.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> oops.
> 
> Revision:
> 
> "In short, the concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high."


Please specify which neonic compound(s) that you are referencing and quantify what you consider to be "too high". In your analysis have you considered the application of ARARs?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"In short, the concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high."

Let me Revise my revision:

"In short, the legally allowable concentrations of neonics in CORN may be too high."

Which was around 50ppb if I remember correctly.

However, it stands to reason that it would be the same for HFCS.

>Please specify which neonic compound(s) that you are referencing and quantify what you consider to be "too high". In your analysis have you considered the application of ARARs?<

That's a silly question to ask me. All neonics should be banned from production and application. (I would include glyphosate as well).

That's because of Alaux et al. . They found that undetectable amounts of neonics could cause harm to bees. 

Undetectable. Get it?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> You can't justify beating up on a leaked paper before it's published because it is not only unfair, it's improper. It's misconduct.


There are two sides to that coin. If a paper is not yet published...and if the authors don't want any leaked copy (or excerpt, or data) to be discussed by the public, their academic institution (Harvard, in this case) should not issue press releases on the results. This is especially problematic when the press release makes claims that the actual paper doesn't (in this case, WRT CCD symptoms).

In the presentation I posted last night (which predates Randy's critique by several weeks....March 10), he stated at the outset regarding publication: "we just got accepted last week...so officially we can make a presentation today."

With the press release all over the news outlets (disguised as news stories), it is irresponsible to not comment. If the author is free to comment on the study, if the university is free to mislead the press about the data collected in the study (they lied), if the study is used in innaccurate media stories worldwide, it is irresponsible to sit on one's hands and not say anything. The cat is out of the bag...and a leaked paper came after the presentation and the press. If the researcher and Harvard had decided to wait until publication, we wouldn't be having this conversation...the manuscript has existed since last year.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

We both know that field trials aren't valid proof of cause and effect because you can't control for environmental variables. Nobody really knows what killed those bees.

I agree with you about the 'science by newspaper' aspect of this. It's opportunistic. 

As for published authors, like Randy, beating up on papers before they are officially published...

How would you feel if someone somehow got a copy of your research (no matter how mediocr it it), and then gutted it A FULL TWO MONTHS before its publication date?

No matter how wrong the authors of the paper are, Randy, Jerry, and any other published authors that have written an analysis have committed a FOUL.

Lu gets a 'direct free kick'.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...I have a different perspective on this.

1. The study author claims in the study that he knows what killed "those bees".

2. "Science by newspaper" is only part of the issue. Harvard is the one that is sending out press releases on the study, making claims that are not made in the study (nor in the presentation on March 10). Once Harvard puts this in front of the public, it demands to be discussed....or do institutions of higher learning get to make any claim they please, and the rest of us are morally obligated to sit on our hands with our mouths shut until (if) the study is published? Such a scenario is so distasteful to me that I can't even tell you.....Harvard has the study in their hands...they are "discussing" it...they are making false claims about the study...they are misleading the public as to what is in the study...and they are FREAKING HARVARD. It is intellectually dishonest what they are doing, and it is intellectually dishonest not to call them on it...leaked document or not.

I do wish you would watch the presentation I posted....not much to watch (just a few slides)...but do listen.

deknow


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> "In short, the concentrations of neonics in HFCS may be too high."
> 
> Let me Revise my revision:
> 
> ...



Actually that does not stand to reason at all. 

You do know that there is a difference between corn and HFCS and that if allowable limits were calculated for HFCS, the result would be a different value. Each intermediate receptor (i.e., corn versus HFCS) has it's own unique number. Just because corn and HFCS are realted, the allowable levels are different. As an example, the maximum allowable levels calculated for any given chemical is different for infants than for adults (and I think most people would agree that infants and adults are related terminal receptors). Toxicology 101. 

Additionally, there can be no limits of any kind calculated for a group of chemicals, such as Neonicotinoids. Limits can only be calculated for single compounds, such as imidacloprid. Let me explain this concept. Halogens are a group of chemicals and you cannot calculate an allowable limit for the whole group. You can however calculate individual limits for fluorine and iodine. Obviously the allowable limit for iodine is much lower than that of fluorine. Iodine is a poison in case anyone is wondering. Fluorine is added to toothpaste to prevent cavities. 

Stating that there are (or should be) allowable limits for a group of compounds such as neonics [_sic_] is meaningless.

These issues are not just symantics, they are very basic concepts in toxicology.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

I don't doubt your assessment.

You're focusing on the quality of the actual studies.

I'm trying to tell you that we are going to see more of these 'science by newspaper'/'studies' because the media wants more of it.

The other side of the coin is that many of the key researchers in Honeybee research were knocked out of action when Monsanto purchased Beelogics. They were like deer in headlights.

They can't conduct/review/edit this type of work without declaring the dreaded Monsanto affiliation. That's what this study represents.

It's what happens when key researchers are no longer available because of what I would call a 'dirty trick'.

As for who is now conducting/reviewing/editing these kind of studies, we are starting to see how quality takes second place to media coverage.

It's not about the science, it's about feeding the frenzy.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Keeping to the _subject matter_ of the paper(s) that were provided in this thread...

We have establihed that there is no allowable limit for imidacloprid in HFCS. The next step would be to calculate the allowable limit for imidacloprid in HFCS and then compare that to what is present in HFCS that is typically fed to bees.

However, we can jump past that step and start looking at the actual levels of imidacloprid that are present in HFCS that is fed to bees. 

Can anyone provide recent data? This whole thing may be a non-issue.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

From what I've read, extracting pesticides from HFCS can be very tricky.

The only guidance that I can offer is that PVPP, a common nylon derivative used to clarify beer and wine, has been reported as a suitable matrix for binding environmental pesticides.

However, I'm not aware of any studies that have tackled the pesticide concentrations in HFCS.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

The testing at Penn State claims (I think) a LOD of 1ppb...they test honey...is hfcs more difficult? Why would that be?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I think that 2ppb is the common background level of neonics.

My thoughs on why HFCS isn't routinely tested for pesticide levels is that is hasn't been standardized.

Also, with background levels as low as 2 ppb, you'll get reliability problems with the analysis.

Let's not forget that Alaux et al. reported that neonics could impact Honeybee health at undetectable levels.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> I think that 2ppb is the common background level of neonics.
> 
> My thoughs on why HFCS isn't routinely tested for pesticide levels is that is hasn't been standardized.


You _think_? and your _thoughts_? Reference please. 

FWIW, ther is no "common" background level for any compound. They are specific to the media and area that you are studying. Agin, similar to maximum allowable levels, background levels are not established form groups of chemicals compounds. 


Pesticide testing for HFCS has not been standardized? The EPA has standard test methods developed for pesticides in their Statement of Work (SOW) for their Contract Laboratory Program (CLP):

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/clp/download/som/som11d-pest.pdf

If you bother to read, you may notice that imidacloprid is not on the list. However, the test method is most certainly standardized, applicable, revalent and appropriate. (That would be an ARAR).:lookout:


----------



## jredburn (Feb 25, 2012)

After reading most of the posts in this thread it seems to me that you fellows are more interested in dissing each other than in discussing the implications of the use of pesticides and their impact on the bees and also on the impact in humans.
Lighten up a little. 
Joe


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Nabber:

Did you actually read this 'superfund' methodology?

"The analytical method that follows is designed to analyze water andsoil/sediment samples from hazardous waste sites to determine thepresence and concentration of the chlorinated pesticides found in theTarget Compound List (TCL) in Exhibit C (Pesticides)."


It's for hazardous waste, not HFCS.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It's not necessary. We'll end up agreeing on the substance of the issue most of the time.

The only disagreement I've had with PLB was over the validity of the Girolami studies in Italy (neonic dust from seed planters). The seeds were taken off market in Italy, and now we're seeing similar studies being done here in the U.S. . My view: it's a defective product that needed to be recalled.

We are currently wondering why there is a dearth of studies on neonic levels in HFCS.

I can't even find a paper showing a methodology for measuring the levels in HFCS.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WLC said:


> It's not necessary. We'll end up agreeing on the substance of the issue most of the time.
> .


I would beg to differ. If you are going to make accusations of scientific misconduct protocol might suggest you do so in a forum where they can readily respond.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Unfortunately for them, I don't care to associate with individuals who have associated themselves with Bayer or Monsanto.

It's my constitutional right.

Bee-L isn't for me. 

As for the rules for published authors and unpublished manuscripts...

they know what's unethical. They know better.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> Unfortunately for them, I don't care to associate with individuals who have associated themselves with Bayer or Monsanto.
> 
> It's my constitutional right.


Right. Evading the opposition and non-communication is the preferred method for settling scientific disputes.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Nabber:

You have to be able to extract the pesticide from the HFCS first. That's the problem.
Imidacloprid is present in low concentrations, a few ppb, so it's a tall order to extract all of it, from multiple samples, consistently.

So, unless you can do that, you don't have a reliable assay.

Let's not forget about the other possible contaminants that may be present in HFCS as well. If they're present in ppm concentrations, for example, they can easily swamp out a ppb signal.

I'll look through a review paper that PLB posted to see if any methodology turns up. But, it's a long shot.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Right. Evading the opposition and non-communication is the preferred method for settling scientific disputes."

It's more along the lines of choosing one's company.

What dispute?

I already know that you can't prove that neonics kill bees in field trials because you can't control for the environmental variables, and caged bee trials can't replicate environmental conditions. It's a scientific 'Catch 22'. You can only prove translocation in field trials.

What we can't seem to be able to find is a reliable method for testing HFCS for contaminants.

That's why the Lu paper is important. It raises the issue.

U.S. corn farmers (in some places) have had to increase the dosage of the pesticides they're using and add new ones because of new resistant pests.

We don't know how that's impacting the level of contaminants in HFCS.

We don't even know how to measure it it seems.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> Nabber:
> 
> You have to be able to extract the pesticide from the HFCS first. That's the problem.
> Imidacloprid is present in low concentrations, a few ppb, so it's a tall order to extract all of it, from multiple samples, consistently.
> .


It is a _tall order _to extract a "few ppb"? Really? I routinely request analysis of compounds such as dioxin below the the nanogram level by mass. I assume that you do not realize that the MCL for dioxin is 0.00000003 mg/L, or 0.00000000003 microgram per liter (ppb). Vinyl chloride is reported at to sub-microgram levels also. You simply collect a larger sample (mass) of the media that is being tested and extract it. You pay a premium to the lab to do so, but it is done all the time. Do I have to explain to you how the extraction process works? Do you know that things such as sample size, sample preservation, and sample packaging are specified in the applicaple standard sampling methods? 

And I really wish that you would start using technically correct units such as micrograms per liter or micrograms per kilogram, instead of ppb (sorry, for some reason I can't get the mu character to work on my keyboard right now so I can shorten it: alt+230). It is irritating to a professional to read or dicuss in terms of ppb or ppm.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"0.00000003 mg/L, or 0.00000000003 microgram per liter (ppb)."

That's .00003 ug/L. But, we're not discussing dioxin levels in chemical synthesis (or yields). We're dealing with HFCS.

So, how exactly do you propose doing the extraction from HFCS?

The literature is reporting that they are reaching the detection limits at the 1ppb levels. But, I suppose that depends on the equipment that they are using.

There's also the issue of reliability. If you get too much variance while extracting from multiple samples, then your data is unreliable.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's link to an article discussing the issue.

If you look near the youtube panel down the page, you see that someone else has weighed in on the difficulty of extracting pesticides from HFCS.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/neonicotinoids-colony-collapse/


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> "0.00000003 mg/L, or 0.00000000003 microgram per liter (ppb)."
> 
> That's .00003 ug/L. But, we're not discussing dioxin levels in chemical synthesis (or yields). We're dealing with HFCS.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right. I did make an error in the unit conversantion (another reason to use µ and mg instead of ppb or ppm. Even though I typed it wrong, it made it easier for you to catch the error, didnt it? 

Reliability, accuracy, variance, repeatability - these are things an analytical laboratory deals with every day. Nothing is perfect. That's why the have develpoed standardized methods and procedures. That's also why you need a huge body of data before you strat drawing any conclusions. The quality issure can be overcome. 

I really dont think that HFCS is different than any other water based liquid. You put it in a soxhlet extractor with the appropriate solvent (methylene chloride?) and let her rip. Do not take this as gospel and rip in to me on this, I am talking off of the top of my head and I have to get to work right now.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

t:


WLC said:


> Here's link to an article discussing the issue.
> 
> If you look near the youtube panel down the page, you see that someone else has weighed in on the difficulty of extracting pesticides from HFCS.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/neonicotinoids-colony-collapse/


....and if you have been paying attention, it is the same person who Lu cites as saying that imidacloprid has been found in HFCS. As far as I can tell, he is the only one making either of these claims.
deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

While the allowable limit of imidaclopril in corn is 50ppm, I'm getting the feeling that Cargill/ADM would make sure that any HFCS is filtered/purified.

They already know that there are pesticides, etc., in it. So, they would be sure to avoid any downstream problems by simple filtration.

So, perhaps HFCS has the pesticide residues filtered out, and this explains the reported concentrations at the detection limits and within 'safe' concentrations.

Maybe they already took out the pesticides and other contaminants?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> Maybe they already took out the pesticides and other contaminants?


...the contention of the study author is that they may do this now, but they didn't do it a few years ago. He claims to have proven this by feeding the bees HFCS intentionally spiked with (even at the lowest levels used) a lethal dose of imidacloprid....since the bees disapeard, there must have been imidacloprid in the HFCS...right?

deknow


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Here are several studies regarding the extraction of imidacloprid down to the nanogram level. All with percent recoveries* that are well within the established range for quality, proving that the extraction method is successful. 

* Percent recovery is determined by dividing the spiked mass by the amount recovered in the extract. If you spike a sample with 10 µg of imidacloprid and the extraction recovers 9 µg, you have a percent recovery of 90 percent (9 divided by 10). It’s a data quality parameter with allowable ranges set by regulatory agencies. Don’t be alarmed when you see PR greater than 100 percent, it happens. 
Note the last study indicates the minimum detectable amount of imidacloprid was 4 ng. That is a really low level. 

I am sure _somebody_ will point out that the extraction studies were all carried out on vegetative matter, not HFCS (it was impossible to find extraction data for HFCS because you are bombarded idiocy if you include any combination of imidacloprid + HFCS in your search string). However the low reporting levels and excellent mass recoveries do not indicate a problem with the extraction of imidacloprid, at least from solid matter. From there I can conclude that there should not be a problem with extraction of imidacloprid from a water-based media, such as HFCS. If you are wondering how I came to that conclusion, all I can offer is this: I have never seen much discrepancy between extraction from solid media and extraction from liquid media. The levels are usually very similar. There is nothing magical about HFCS. Chemistry just doesn’t work that way. 

Of course if _somebody_ has some actual data to provide, let’s see it. I could be completely wrong on this one. 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf000275y
Extractions at 276 bar and 80 °C with a solvent consisting of supercritical carbon dioxide modified with methanol (5%) gave a recovery of 97.0% (RSD = 3.6%, n = 10) using a 40 min extraction time.

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_squ...ical_reports/pdfs/2005/337papers/lewis337.pdf
The percentage recovery of imidacloprid added to ash phloem tissue ranged from 89 to 119% over a rage of 48 ng to1600 ng of added pesticide. All of the pesticide residue recovered was found in the initial methanol extraction. No detectable imidacloprid was found in the second methanol extraction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18205138
On Chinese cabbage The analyte was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UVD) and confirmed by high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) in the select ion-monitoring mode. The mean recoveries ranged from 75.34 to 98.00% and 96.95 to 100.97%, with relative standard deviations of 0.86-4.14 and 1.22-3.52%, in samples treated with and without additional column clean-up procedures, respectively. The minimum detectable amount of imidacloprid was 4 ng.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Just so we're all clear on my own hypothesis regarding the cause of CCD.

It's caused by by the knockdown of the RNAi machinery in Honeybees by RNA sequences coded for by pathogens (viruses and Nosema).

It has nothing to do with pesticides. (They just harm insects the regular way).

If the producers of HFCS have, in fact, started to filter out aldulterants in HFCS, that's a good thing.

We all know that the '2 Liter bottle' is the sixth food group here in the U.S. . HFCS is a major ingredient. It's not just for kids. Adults like it too! 7&7 anyone? Maybe an R&C?

I don't know what the imidacloprid concentrations in HFCS were in the past, nor do I (or anyone else) know what they are now.

But, at least the paper got us to discuss it.

I'm going to see what I can dig up on HFCS production. Who knows? Maybe they'll describe how the process removes aldulterants, like pesticide residues?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's one paper describing the process (and why we're too fat, as usual):

http://www.academicjournals.org/bmbr/PDF/Pdf2010/Dec/Parker et al.pdf

Let me run this up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes:

The immobilzed glucose isomerase column would be a great place to put a filtering substrate to remove alduterants.

For example, PVPP would be a good candidate because it has been reported to bind pesticides, heavy metals (like mercury), and it can also bind the proline group of proteins (if memory serves me correctly). It also swells into a gel very nicely.

So, you might be able to bind the glucose isomerase enzyme (it's a protein, and if it has an exposed proline group at the right place, it could work) to the matrix, AND remove aldulterants at the same time. 

Just wash and recharge the matrix as needed.

I like to try and propose solutions when I see a problem. Otherwise, it's just another complaint.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> I like to try and propose solutions when I see a problem. Otherwise, it's just another complaint.


...I'm not sure what the problem is you are proposing to solve.

There is one person who, without any documentation, is stating that imidacloprid has been found in "trace amounts" in HFCS _and_ that it is difficult to test HFCS for imidacloprid.

I am not convinced at all that either statement is true. Perhaps contacting a commercial testing lab would solve both "problems". Going through the manufacturing process to figure out where decontamination be effectively implemented is the long way around...and still doesn't address the key issue here......was there imidacloprid in HFCS?

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

Imidacloprid is a systemic pesticide that should be present in the whole corn plant. That would include products like HFCS.

From what I'm reading about the way glucose isomerase (GI) is immobilized, it's very possible that the substrates used to immobilize GI can also act to bind contaminants like pesticides and heavy metals.

So, the reason why you can't find detectable levels in HFCS is likely because of the production process used for making HFCS.

The most likely place where this occurs is at the glucose isomerase step.

Sorry, but that's the likely solution to this mystery of mysteries.

However, this doesn't mean that imidacloprid was never present in the plant before processing.
It was likely removed long before anyone fed HFCS to their bees.

I don't work in a Cargill/ADM plant, so I don't know exactly what 'brand' of immobilized GI they use.

But, the matrix is the key.

PS: I did read up on GI immobilization technology. No, I'm not going to give you a seminar on it.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Just to re-cap 5 pages of delightful conversation, we have learned the following:


Imidacloprid is toxic to honeybees (nothing new there).
HFCS that is purposefully dosed with imidacloprid toxic to honeybees (nothing new there)
Imidacloprid may or may not have been present in some samples of HFCS that were collected by unknown people at some unknown place and at some unknown time.
Imidacloprid can be detected/reported down to the nanogram level using standard analytical methods.
The current supply of HFCS in the US is not contaminated with imidacloprid.
The entire issue is a non-problem.

Am I missing anything here?


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

You forgot the part about money.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Imidacloprid can be detected/reported down to the nanogram level using standard analytical methods."

How do you detect that in HFCS?


"The current supply of HFCS in the US is not contaminated with imidacloprid."

I would say that we can't detect it. But, that doesn't mean that it's not contaminated. It just might be a ridiculously small quantity, or our current tests are inadequate.

That being said, don't forget the Alaux study that was done using 'undetectable' amounts of another neonic. Undetectable amounts did something to the bees.

Lu may have a point: suppose the glucose isomerase used to make HFCS has been changed since 2006? If the GI substrate didn't hold contaminants as well as what is being used today, he may have some support for his hypothesis.

Did ADM/Cargill change the type of Glucose Isomerase used since 2006?

Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## jredburn (Feb 25, 2012)

For a little plain talk about this subject watch the webinar at
https://gomeet.itap.purdue.edu/p32228058/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
regards
Joe


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> "Imidacloprid can be detected/reported down to the nanogram level using standard analytical methods."
> 
> How do you detect that in HFCS?



I will try to say this as nicely as possible and hopefully this will be interpreted only as constructive criticism and not a personal attack, but you have demonstrated time and again in this thread that your knowledge of chemistry, especially analytical chemisty, is somewhat lacking.

I really can not help you any further.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

:lpf:
:banana:

That's the only response I can give.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Joe:

Thanks for the link. I just finished watching.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC, you win. 

I guess I am left no other choice than to add 7th and 8th conclusions to the list:

7. Molecules of imidacloprid have the abilty to hide behind fructose molecules and escape detection. They are in it together and it is a conspiracy.

8. HFCS has magical properties that makes it different from any other physical material in the known universe. It behaves much like dark matter and trying to extract simple chemical compounds from such a complex martrix is a feat that is comparable only to performing nuclear fission. You literaly need a particle accelerator to pry anything loose from it's deadly grip.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

My first choice would be to filter the HFCS through PVPP to bind the contaminants, and then wash with distilled water to remove traces of the syrup.

Then, I would try to extract the contaminants from the PVPP with methanol.

Keep in mind that I could do all that in a spin column format with minimal amounts of PVPP and methanol (but lots of HFCS and distilled water). The trick is I'd use a vacuum manifold to run the HFCS and distilled water through the spin column loaded with PVPP, and then centrifuge to collect the methanol wash from the column. By the way, everything except the small volume of methanol extract (which gets sents in for analysis) can go down the sink or in the regular trash.

How would you do it? Don't forget, if you sticky up the gizmo, you'll have to clean it up yourself. Can you keep hazardous wastes down as well? Hmmm...


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> My first choice would be to filter the HFCS through PVPP to bind the contaminants, and then wash with distilled water to remove traces of the syrup.


What, no cylclotron? That's preposterous!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> How would you do it? Don't forget, if you sticky up the gizmo, you'll have to clean it up yourself.


...I would start by talking to someone who has done something similar.....like test honey for imidacloprid. I don't know enough to think my first attempt would be as good as someone else's.refined process.
Deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

I'm the only one I know who has ever used it to remove polyphenols (an inhibitor of many reactions) from honey.

There is no one else.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Nabber - thanks for post 92

This is like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Has ANYONE contacted a testing lab, such as Krueger in Mass? They do the honey testing for me.



WLC - you may knock Randy Oliver, and I have personally gotten in his face before, but at least he produces some results that are usable by the commercial or hobbiest beekeeper. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

The Harvard study itself uses a quality control/quality assurance program on the spiked HFCS. Table 2 seems to show recovery down to .5ug/kg (ppb). They cite a method by Zhang eal (2011) "Multiresidue pesticide analysis of agricultural commodities using acetonitrile salt-out extraction, dispersive solid-phase sample clean-up, and high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectometry".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21671617

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Uh, Dean..

'Acetonitrile is a liquid with an ether like odor. It is a volatile highly polar solvent used in many different industrial applications. HUMAN EXPOSURE: Symptoms and signs of acute acetonitrile intoxication include chest pain, tightness in the chest, nausea, emesis, tachycardia, hypotension, short and shallow respiration, headache, restlessness and seizures. The systemic effects appear to be attributable to the conversion of acetonitrile to cyanide. Blood cyanide and thiocyanate levels are elevated during acute intoxication...'

I'm not crazy about using small amounts of methanol. I like acetonitrile even less.

Roland:

Trust me on this.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> Uh, Dean..


Errrrr, WLC,

You have been claiming that imidacloprid can't be detected in HFCS with current testing methods...you seem to have been claiming that you are the only one capable of doing so. Regardless of your wilingness to work with this or that chemical, here is a published method...one which was apparently applied to samples down to .5ppb in the study you have been defending. The author of the study would have said, "of course you can test for imidacloprid in HFCS...we did it in our quality assurance and control programs"...but you've been talking about 2ppb neonic background levels, sticky machinery, impossible to test substances, and the need to engineer a new way to test for imidacloprid because no one can do it right....based upon a very sketchy source cited by a Harvard School of Public Health researcher.
I'd be willing to bet that any number of labs would be happy to test HFCS for imidaclprod, and would be generally accurate....you would just have to ask...again, I think they do this at Penn State as well.

Uh, I don't think you are paying enough attention to what you are defending...if you had read the study, you would know that they measured imidacloprid in HFCS.

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Err.. Dean.

I'm the only one I know who has used PVPP in honey.

PVPP has also been used to bind pesticide contaminants in water samples. Without too many toxic chemicals (O.K., methanol needs to be handled with caution).

I just came up with a potential 'beekeeper safe' protocol that might be worth trying. That's all.

As for the Wong protocol...

Have you read the paper? I haven't read the whole thing. I stopped when I saw that the recovery rates weren't that great.

I think that the method was used as a quality control for Lu's 'artificial' HFCS samples. Not for analysis of other HFCS samples.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I simply don't think that it's worth rereading again.

.5ppb w/ the recovery rates reported are too close to background levels to be useful in my opinion.

By the way, I'm not defending the study itself, I'm saying that the research hypothesis might have some merit if they can demonstrate that Cargill/ADM changed their production methods for HFCS when CCD was first reported.

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary.

Jerry's throwing tomatoes at the paper!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WLC said:


> I think that the method was used as a quality control for Lu's 'artificial' HFCS samples. Not for analysis of other HFCS samples.


Yes...are you suggesting that a method that could detect imidacloprid in intentionally spiked samples would not work for "naturally contaminated samples"?

Don't you think it's funny that they claim it's difficult to measure imidacloprid in HFCS...yet they do so as part of their protocall?

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

Please remember that it hasn't been published yet.

It's like trying to fight a shadow.

We don't know if it will be published at all.

Funny huh?

Meanwhile, Jerry is throwing tomatoes.

I think that everyone has lost their minds over there.


----------



## Zonker (Mar 10, 2010)

It strikes me as odd that no one is concerned that we're eating the same stuff, and in much large quantities, as the bees.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Harvard is releasing the "final draft." Got a copy from them yesterday.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

deknow said:


> here is a published method...one which was apparently applied to samples down to .5ppb in the study you have been defending. The author of the study would have said, "of course you can test for imidacloprid in HFCS...we did it in our quality assurance and control programs"...but you've been talking about 2ppb neonic background levels, sticky machinery, impossible to test substances,
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that any number of labs would be happy to test HFCS for imidaclprod, and would be generally accurate....you would just have to ask...again, I think they do this at Penn State as well.
> 
> ...


That's as well said as anybody can put it. 

And apparenty WCL thinks you actually run the HFCS _through_ the GC column and "sticky up the gizmo".


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"It strikes me as odd that no one is concerned that we're eating the same stuff, and in much large quantities, as the bees."

That's why this paper is important. It is from a school of public health after all.

It raises several key issues:

There are no standards for legally allowable concentrations of imidacloprid in HFCS.

There are no publicly available studies showing concentrations of imidaclopirid in HFCS.


We need to have standards for contaminants, and publicly available testing data for HFCS.
That's the message that I'm taking away from this paper. 

Nabber:

The Wong reference used solvent extraction and salting out. We don't have any information on yields, etc. from the Lu paper on how the Wong methodology worked on their spiked HFCS samples. Who knows? Maybe they did 'sticky up' the gizmo?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> If you look near the youtube panel down the page, you see that someone else has weighed in on the difficulty of extracting pesticides from HFCS.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/neonicotinoids-colony-collapse/


Jumping bejesus on a pogo stick! WLC actually does think that you run HFCS _through_ the GC.

“It’s very difficult to test for this particular chemical in high-fructose corn syrup. A lot of labs have spent lots of time trying to do it, but high-fructose corn syrup is a very sticky, dense matrix that basically gums up the testing machines,” said Benbrook. “That’s why relatively little is known about imidacloprid in high-fructose corn syrup.”


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

There you go. Trying to extract contaminants from HFCS using solvents is a sticky business. Why do you think that I suggested binding contaminants to a PVPP column by running HFCS through it (diluted in distilled water would be a good idea), washing the column, and then extracting from the PVPP?

I've used many a column in my time (still do).


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> There you go. Trying to extract contaminants from HFCS using solvents is a sticky business. Why do you think that I suggested binding contaminants to a PVPP column by running HFCS through it (diluted in distilled water would be a good idea),......


More indication of what I pointed out in post number 101.


Using “distilled” water is a really bad idea. Anyone who has spent any time in an analytical lab knows that you use HPLC grade water.
Analytical labs use many solvents for extraction.
The laboratory method specifies which solvent(s) to use.
You do not get to choose an alternative solvent because the one that is specified smells like ether and you think it is dangerous.
Just because you have a high school chemistry set in your basement does not mean that you can go off and create your own off-spec extraction process.

Shall I go on?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

As I've said before, PVPP has been used to to measure pesticides in water. You know, river water, pond water, etc. .

It's not a problem.

It's environmental testing.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I do design my own protocols and extraction methodologies based on the literature because it's often necessary and most importantly, my degrees say that I can. 

Also, one of my key goals is to bring more environmentally responsible practices into the lab.

Less risk taking and less hazardous waste disposal. That's a good thing.

Regardless, there's obviously a need for testing of HFCS in a public and transparent manner.

That hasn't happened yet.

So, pardon me for daring to propose a less toxic approach to testing HFCS for contaminants.

Why? Because no one else has done so.

By the way, acetonitrile turns to cyanide in the blood once inhaled. Read them MSDSs.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

Zonker said:


> It strikes me as odd that no one is concerned that we're eating the same stuff, and in much large quantities, as the bees.


The HFCS manufacturers test for pesticide residues all the time and they routinely find none detected. Just like the manufacturers of numerous other processed foods. The Harvard researchers have no food industry experience so they apparently don't realize that for decades processed food manufacturers test for pesticides. The sugar content of a food product does not impede testing. Just ask the chemists who work at the Dried Fruit Association Laboratory in California: http://www.dfaofca.com/Lab.html They test for pesticides in prune and raisins. What could be more sugary than a prune?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> I do design my own protocols and extraction methodologies based on the literature because it's often necessary and most importantly, my degrees say that I can.


Yes perfessor, they also say that you have the ability to build a radio out of 2 coconut shells and some sea water...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

My first job out of college was as a Physics lab supervisor. So, yes, I did build various electronic circuits.

No coconuts though.

PVPP is a hydrogel. Hydrogels are used to immobilized glucose isomerase which some say is the heart of HFCS production.

If HFCS can pass through a hydrogel, it can pass through PVPP.

Nabber, I think that you're trying to apply your experience in a chem plant to an HFCS plant. They're not the same technology. HFCS production is much closer to food processing/biotechnology than it is to chemical synthesis.

Hydrogels are a very common biotechnology. So, PVPP fits right in. It's used in making wine and beer for example. It's close cousin, PVP, has been used to immobilize glucose isomerase for example.

So, spare us the moans and groans.

Direct solvent extraction of HFCS isn't the best approach. Loading contaminants onto a PVPP column by running HFCS through it (gallons and gallons if you wish) is a better approach.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Why doesn't someone just DO the different extractions and demonstrate which method works?


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Barry Digman said:


> Why doesn't someone just DO the different extractions ?


What fun would that be? That sounds like work.


----------



## Nellie (Apr 9, 2012)

BlueDiamond said:


> The HFCS manufacturers test for pesticide residues all the time and they routinely find none detected.


But we already know that Neonicotinoids can have an affect in _quantities too small to detect_ so finding none means nothing (and might explain my wife's lack of direction when driving).


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Extractions were done...aparantly successfully, in the study, using a published method.
deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"But we already know that Neonicotinoids can have an affect in quantities too small to detect so finding none means nothing..."

That's the findings from the Alaux study. Undetectable amounts of a neonic (imidacloprid) affected the health of bees. 

It doesn't get better. Neonics used for another crop could be contaminating crops that were rotated in, even years later.

"Extractions were done...aparantly successfully, in the study, using a published method."

Right, but that was a solvent extraction with acetonitrile performed on spiked samples.

It would take a whole lot of acetonitrile to extract from a whole lot of HFCS just to find trace amounts of contaminants.

As I've said before, I think that it's likely the contaminants were filtered out long before the HFCS left the plant.

But, if there was a change in how they produced HFCS around the time of CCD, it might help Lu's research hypothesis. (Contaminants in HFCS precipitated CCD.)


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Why doesn't someone just DO the different extractions and demonstrate which method works?"

I'm not volunteering for that. Too sticky. 

However, if you want to clarify honey, just filter it through Polyclar (PVPP). It's the same stuff used on beer and wine so it's food safe.


----------



## BerkeyDavid (Jan 29, 2004)

Here is a study from 2008 on a method for detection:

Determination of neonicotinoid insecticides residues in bovine milk samples by solid-phase extraction clean-up and liquid chromatography with diode-array detection
Serenella Secciaa, , , Paola Fidenteb, 1, Domenico Montesanoa, Patrizia Morricaa
a Dipartimento di Chimica Farmaceutica e Tossicologica, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via D. Montesano 49, 80131 Naples, Italy
b ISS Istituto Superiore di Sanità (National Institute of Health), Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy
Abstract
In this paper we have developed an analytical method for the simultaneous determination of four nicotinoid insecticides [acetamiprid (ACT), imidacloprid (ICL), thiacloprid (TCL) and thiamethoxam (TMX)] in bovine whole milk. These analytes were extracted, in a single step with dichloromethane, from fortified milk samples, using Chem Elut cartridges, containing diatomaceous earth material. Insecticide's determination and quantification were performed by HPLC with diode-array detection (DAD). Average recoveries of the four insecticides from bovine milk samples were between 85.1 and 99.7% at spiking levels 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 mg kg−1. Relative standard deviations (RSDs) were no larger than 10% for all of the recovery tests. The calculated limits of quantitation (LOQ) ranged from 0.01 to 0.04 mg kg−1 for the four insecticides, being equal to or lower than the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by European legislation (0.01–0.05 mg kg−1). The developed method is linear at concentrations within the tested interval, with coefficients of determination higher than 0.9990. According to Commission Decision 2002/657/EC, decision limit (CCα) and detection capability (CCβ) have been calculated. The proposed method is rapid, simple and could be utilized for the routine analysis of pesticides residues

So it appears there is Eurpean legislation that contains limits. The question remains in my mind whether there is binding to the sugar molecule that would not be detected but could have a deleterious effect. THen you get into the uptake of the modified molecule and its effect on an organism.

It seems to me pretty simple: if there is a question, then why not simply avoid it? Don't feed HFCS until you are certain it is safe, and keep the neonics away from your bees in the field.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Regarding detection levels of imidacloprid in HFCS in the study:

See Table 2 (page 3): "Recoveries of imidacloprid in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) prepared in the quality assurance/quality control program."

The blank HFCS (control) "contained imidacloprid levels below the *limit of detection at 0.1 ug/kg*."

(my emphasis)

Ramona


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Ramona:

They turn a phrase strangely. 

Detection limits are one of those things that you read in the manufacturers instructions for various instruments and reagent kits.

It's an unreliable number.

You have to have significantly higher concentrations of imidacloprid in HFCS for detection because of mediocre extraction efficiencies (70-80%), and sampling error.

So, while you see detection limits of .5 and .1 ug/Kg (.5-.1 ppb), anything below 5ppb would be too unreliable to publish.

Besides, they spiked the HFCS with imidacloprid themselves.

I would like to know what the concentrations of imidacloprid actually are in commercially available HFCS. Know one seems to know.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

WLC said:


> I would like to know what the concentrations of imidacloprid actually are in commercially available HFCS. Know one seems to know.


And this is the part that's confusing for non-chemists like me. It seems a simple matter for someone to test enough samples to get some sort of idea of how much is in the HFCS. 

Why can't we know this?


----------



## Nellie (Apr 9, 2012)

WLC said:


> "But we already know that Neonicotinoids can have an affect in quantities too small to detect so finding none means nothing..."
> 
> *That's the findings from the Alaux study. Undetectable amounts of a neonic (imidacloprid) affected the health of bees. *
> 
> ...


Well I'm not a scientist, but that's rubbish. Why not blame undetectable levels of marmite or coffee vapours or the assistant's aftershave or god punishing bees because of homosexuals? All seem to be equally plausible if we're blaming undetectable stuff but probably not conveniently fitting a desire to see a result that fits a pre-drawn conclusion. Is imidacloprid the first homeopathic pesticide, the more dilute it gets the deadlier it becomes?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"Why can't we know this?" 

I don't know why it hasn't been done. Except that HFCS is problematic.
I don't see anyone volunteering to shake up some HFCS with acetonitrile in a seperatory funnel.
The only one's who have done it are associated with the Lu study.

There's also the likelyhood that the contaminants have been removed during HFCS production.

So, it could be a fool's errand.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> I would like to know what the concentrations of imidacloprid
> actually are in commercially available HFCS. Know one seems to know.


http://tinyurl.com/7e6pafd

"Although the study claims to have established a link between 
imidacloprid and bee colony collapse, the symptoms observed 
in the study bees are not consistent with, or even remotely 
similar to, those of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). As such, 
the authors’ claims that their study explains the causes of 
CCD are spectacularly incorrect.* ***

Additionally, the authors assume erroneously that the 
majority of corn grown in the United States has been 
treated with imidacloprid. In actuality, over the past 
8 years, the annual percentage of total corn acres in 
the U.S. treated with imidacloprid has been less than
half a percent. Thus, the suggestion that imidacloprid
is affecting honey bee health via residue found on 
corn or through corn products is also grossly inaccurate."*

http://tinyurl.com/boulljs

- "The authors disproved their own hypothesis by reporting 
that they found anticipated levels of imidacloprid in the 
4 spiked variables, but found NONE in the untreated HFCS 
control.

- The study seems to have affirmatively refuted the authors’
HFCS hypothesis because the untreated HFCS used for the 
experiment’s controls showed no comparable lethal effect.
This presumably demonstrates that effect-level traces of 
imidacloprid could not be present in HFCS."


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

WLC wrote:

Roland:

Trust me on this. 


Hmmmm.... That is the same thing my fiance said 9 years before she became my Ex-wife and TRIED to take everything I had. Send me a PM so that we do not have to pee on each other in public.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> Ramona:
> 
> So, while you see detection limits of .5 and .1 ug/Kg (.5-.1 ppb), anything below 5ppb would be too unreliable to publish.



Complete and utter hogwash. Anything that is reported *above *the "detection limit" is valid and usuable (with consideration of the QC parameters that are provided below). BTW, you might want to do some more _google research_ to understand the difference between _dectection_ limit and _reporting_ limit (detection limit is not the correct term when you get to the end result and are actually _reporting_ the data). You obviously caught on well to the concept of _extraction_ versus _analysis _and_ y_ou seem to have figured out the percent recovery concept fairly quickly too. I applaud you and your ability to learn so fast and parrot the information here. 

However, some more information is appropriate and I would like to see your expert comments in this area. Can you please provide your opinion of dupes, method blanks, MS, MSD, and RPD samples? Oh and then there is the basic process of data flagging by the lab and in independent data verification. Do you care to explain these issues?

While we are at it, shall we discuss your opinion of FID versus ECD detection as well? I love lab rat discussion and I could go on all day listening to what you have to tell us. I would assume that a guy with credentials such as yours could summerize all of these concepts in a post that is about the same size of this one, certainly not more than twice as long.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

While I don't use that type of analytical equipment (I just send it out for what I do), the sensor/detector techology isn't all that different.

"Anything that is reported above the "detection limit" is valid and usuable (with consideration of the QC parameters that are provided below)."

That's not quite accurate. If it says the detection limit is .1 anything, you use the next highest order figures only. Frankly, the .1 digit isn't usually there in the read out. It just gets rounded up or down.

I don't know what you mean. I'm not a analytical chemist. I just set up an account and send it out. Like everyone else.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Mercury in HFCS.*

We've all been focusing on neonics in HFCS.
It looks like they've found mercury in HFCS around 2009.
So, I generally don't eat fish more than once a month to avoid mercury.
Does this mean I can only drink one Coke a month?

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

*Re: Mercury in HFCS.*

Good read:
http://blog.sweetsurprise.com/2012/04/20/ccd-insecticides-bees-hfcs/


----------

