# Researchers recreate bee collapse with pesticide-laced corn syrup



## Bubbles

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0405-hance_colonycollapse_pesticides.html


----------



## beemilk

What an ironic advertisement posted at the top of this thread.


----------



## yankee joe

Just think how much food we eat with high fructose corn syrup in it. Kind of scary isn't. The next generation will be a bunch of babbling idiots that wont be able to find there way home. Maybe this is what they want in Washington. Sorry I do not want to get into politics.


----------



## LSPender

Fasinating study, recreated our experiances in scientific setting.


----------



## Ramona

This study was extensively discussed on all the major bee forums and has the reputation of being one of the worst studies ever done. If you read the actual study you will see that it does not support the claims it makes. 

Many beekeepers here and on other forums pointed out the numerous flaws. For a thorough review, see randy Oliver's comments at www.scientificbeekeeping.com.

Reading the actual study made me even more uncomfortable accepting third part reports as truth on any subject than I already was.

Ramona


----------



## LSPender

where on randy's site would i find info?


----------



## jeffnmo

Just finished reading Randy Oliver's commentery on the study and would say this kind of leads us back to ground zero. Would love to see a debate between both parties. That would be an open debate with facts and not egos so the truth will begin to come into full light.


----------



## mlsthmpsn

beemilk said:


> What an ironic advertisement posted at the top of this thread.


Not ironic at all, it's intentional. Ad agencies' software scans the website content and display ads that have a similar theme.


----------



## Ramona

LSPender said:


> where on randy's site would i find info?


On the homepage of www.scientificbeekeeping.com

Second article under "Bee News" on right side of page...scroll down. Lots to read.

Ramona


----------



## BlueDiamond

yankee joe said:


> Just think how much food we eat with high fructose corn syrup in it. Kind of scary isn't.


What's more "scary" about eating high fructose corn syrup as compared to honey?


----------



## RiodeLobo

yankee joe said:


> Just think how much food we eat with high fructose corn syrup in it. Kind of scary isn't.


Only if you are poisoning it before you eat it. 





Ramona said:


> On the homepage of www.scientificbeekeeping.com
> 
> Second article under "Bee News" on right side of page...scroll down. Lots to read.
> 
> Ramona


He really ripped them a new one.


----------



## Michael Bush

>What's more "scary" about eating high fructose corn syrup as compared to honey? 

Well, first it has Bt toxin in it, which has not been in the human diet in large amounts before. Then it has neonics in it, which, once they bind to your neurons, they never let go, then we have a product that is not allowed in food in the rest of the world because they don't think it's fit for human consumption...


----------



## mlsthmpsn

Ramona said:


> On the homepage of www.scientificbeekeeping.com
> 
> Second article under "Bee News" on right side of page...scroll down. Lots to read.
> 
> Ramona


I don't know how anyone can read that page...I try all the time and last on seconds before my eyes are really straining to stay open. For me, it's like looking at the sun or something.

Too bad, because I would spend some time on there. I did get a kick out of his requirements for picking up nucs.


----------



## yankee joe

Thank you Michael. To you readers who are following this thread please read a little more on BT Toxins.


----------



## BlueDiamond

yankee joe said:


> Thank you Michael. To you readers who are following this thread please read a little more on BT Toxins.


Michael Bush did not provide evidence that high fructose corn syrup "has Bt toxin in it" and "has neonics in it."


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael Bush did not provide evidence that high fructose corn syrup "has Bt toxin in it" and "has neonics in it." 

The Bt toxin has been spliced into the genetic code of the corn and is in every cell of the plant. I know of no process that will remove it entirely. It is harmless to bees and they have a short life anyway, so who knows what "long term" effects there are. My concern is with humans who will live 80 years or more. No one knows the long term effects of that. As for neonics it's similar (but slightly different). It is not in the genes, but it does permeate the entire plant. Tell me how they refine that out? I don't believe they can. Again, my concern is not for the bees, but for the humans. Neonics bond to the neuron receptors and unlike the acetyl choline that usually bonds there and lets go, it remains and does not clear out, so it permanently disables that neuron...


----------



## Michael Palmer

And you have evidence that Bt toxins are in HFCS? I don't use the product but I would like to see the evidence that there is Bt toxin in HFCS.


----------



## BlueDiamond

Michael Bush said:


> The Bt toxin has been spliced into the genetic code of the corn and is in every cell of the plant. I know of no process that will remove it entirely... so who knows what "long term" effects there are. My concern is with humans who will live 80 years or more. No one knows the long term effects of that.


http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/GE_Sweet_Corn_is_it_safe

Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD Cooperative Extension Specialist, Animal Genomics and Biotechnology University of California, Davis:

"The National Academy of Sciences and other leading research institutions agree that GE foods present no unique risks, or greater risks, than non-GE foods. In fact, because GE foods are intensively tested for safety while most other foods are not, GE foods are probably safer than most foods on the market today."

Bruce Chassy, Professor of Food Microbiology and Nutritional Sciences University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign:

"Genetically-engineered foods are rigorously tested before marketing. These tests are designed to ensure there are no adverse effects on human health now or in the future. There is no credible scientific evidence that they cause allergies or that they would have any long-term health effects."

Wayne Parrott Professor in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences University of Georgia:

"GE sweet corn is every bit as safe as conventional sweet corn. It uses a protein that has been used in agriculture since 1937. Not only does it have a history of safe use, it has been extensively tested byHealthCanada, the European Food Safety Authority, the Korean FDA, Food Standards Australia & New Zealand, & the Japan Food Safety Commission, among others. All reports to the contrary do not hold up under close inspection."


----------



## dnichols

I am sure someday we will look back and realize someone was right...and forget we were the ones that were wrong.:lookout:


----------



## Michael Bush

>"Genetically-engineered foods are rigorously tested before marketing. These tests are designed to ensure there are no adverse effects on human health now or in the future. There is no credible scientific evidence that they cause allergies or that they would have any long-term health effects."

It is shear arrogance to think we can know the "long-term health effects" of something that has only been in the human diet in these amounts for the short term. You only find out "long term" effects after the "long term".


----------



## ubernerd

Michael Bush said:


> >Michael Bush did not provide evidence that high fructose corn syrup "has Bt toxin in it" and "has neonics in it."
> 
> The Bt toxin has been spliced into the genetic code of the corn and is in every cell of the plant. I know of no process that will remove it entirely. It is harmless to bees and they have a short life anyway, so who knows what "long term" effects there are. My concern is with humans who will live 80 years or more. No one knows the long term effects of that.


It may well be that the Bt gene is in every cell in the plant, but that is several biological processes short of the *toxin* being in every cell of the plant. Since the toxin is a protein, you've got to get through transcription and translation before it's even present. I don't know what expression system is controlling expression of that gene, so it may well be broadly expressed, or it may be a tissue specific expression. Then, even if the toxin is expressed in every cell of the plant, there are really good (scientifically based) reasons to think that it is not a problem for humans - short term or long term. For the toxin to be effective, it must first become soluble in the gut, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to require an alkaline gut pH (why it works on insects and not humans), then it has to go through a pH driven conformational change (again requiring alkaline pH), then it has to interact with and be modified by host-specific proteases to convert the "raw" form to the active form, *then* it has to interact with host specific receptors to form complexes which are inserted into the gut wall causing the eventual physiological response. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857359/) Bt toxins are not even broad based in their effects on insects. Due to the host-specific nature of a couple of the steps, Bt toxins only affect certain classes of insects, depending on the Bt species from which the toxin was isolated. 

On top of all that, to produce HFCS, the corn kernels are subjected to high heat and strong acid in order to convert the starches into simple sugars. Both of those things are VERY hard on proteins, and tend to destroy them quite quickly. So, the chances of much protein even making it into the final HFCS product is pretty small.

As far as long term effects go, sure, anything is possible. But, the most likely effect would be the same as is in insect guts, and that is a VERY short term effect, which would be noticed quite quickly.

I deeply respect a lot of the writing you do and your experience as a beekeeper, but I think that in this case, the implication you make about Bt being present in HFCS and being able to do *anything* in a human digestive tract needs some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's pure hand-waving speculation.


----------



## rhaldridge

BlueDiamond said:


> Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD Cooperat... my right to know what I'm buying and eating?


----------



## Michael Bush

>It may well be that the Bt gene is in every cell in the plant, but that is several biological processes short of the *toxin* being in every cell of the plant. Since the toxin is a protein, you've got to get through transcription and translation before it's even present. I don't know what expression system is controlling expression of that gene, so it may well be broadly expressed, or it may be a tissue specific expression.

It would not be very effective as an insecticide if it's not at least in the tissue of the plant that the larvae are eating. I usually see the larvae on the ears, which happens to be the part we eat. It's in the pollen, hence the research on it's effect on Monarchs.

> Then, even if the toxin is expressed in every cell of the plant, there are really good (scientifically based) reasons to think that it is not a problem for humans - short term or long term. For the toxin to be effective, it must first become soluble in the gut, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to require an alkaline gut pH (why it works on insects and not humans)

Like infants have...

> then it has to go through a pH driven conformational change (again requiring alkaline pH), then it has to interact with and be modified by host-specific proteases to convert the "raw" form to the active form, then it has to interact with host specific receptors to form complexes which are inserted into the gut wall causing the eventual physiological response. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857359/)

This is in order to act in the same way it does on the insect larvae, but what is the effect long term of eating this protein, even if it is not doing direct damage? Allergic responses to our food? Other issues? I know it does not affect humans in the same way as insects, but we still don't know the long term effects of exposure to this toxin.

> Bt toxins are not even broad based in their effects on insects. Due to the host-specific nature of a couple of the steps, Bt toxins only affect certain classes of insects, depending on the Bt species from which the toxin was isolated. 

Insects have very short lives. If the toxin is not directly effective in their digestive track, they don't have time to develop other reactions to it. We live long enough for that to happen.


----------



## deknow

I'm in the camp that thinks it very unlikely that any bt protein or any systemic pesticide can be found in the end product of producing HFCS.

I think it's a disservice to everyone to claim these substances are found in HFCS.

deknow


----------



## BlueDiamond

rhaldridge said:


> Well, okay, but if the stuff is so wonderful, why have the producers lobbied so hard to prevent the FDA from requiring GMO food to be labeled as such?
> why isn't it my right to know what I'm buying and eating?


Five reasons: http://www.noprop37.com/facts/ Here's the 5th reason: "forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution, recordkeeping and other bureaucratic operations that will cost billions of dollars to implement. Or, companies will be forced to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell food in California. Economic studies show this would increase food costs for the average family by hundreds of dollars per year – a hidden food tax that would especially hurt seniors and low-income families who can least afford it."


----------



## ubernerd

Michael Bush said:


> >
> 
> It would not be very effective as an insecticide if it's not at least in the tissue of the plant that the larvae are eating. I usually see the larvae on the ears, which happens to be the part we eat. It's in the pollen, hence the research on it's effect on Monarchs.


I'll grant you that it's *likely* that it's in the kernels. Pollen is probably not relevant to HFCS. By the time the corn is grown to term, harvested, stored, removed from the cob, etc.... how much pollen it left around? Heck, we all know that pollen production if pretty seasonal. How much is even left by the time the corn is harvested?



Michael Bush said:


> > Then, even if the toxin is expressed in every cell of the plant, there are really good (scientifically based) reasons to think that it is not a problem for humans - short term or long term. For the toxin to be effective, it must first become soluble in the gut, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to require an alkaline gut pH (why it works on insects and not humans)
> 
> Like infants have...


For the first 24 hours of their life. (http://tinyurl.com/btrxzus) Is HFCS really a food source for a significant amount of infants in the first 24 hours?




Michael Bush said:


> >This is in order to act in the same way it does on the insect larvae, but what is the effect long term of eating this protein, even if it is not doing direct damage? Allergic responses to our food? Other issues? I know it does not affect humans in the same way as insects, but we still don't know the long term effects of exposure to this toxin.


That's kind of the gist of the issue. You're basically saying that you have no data, no model, and no theory of any kind that suggests that there might be another mode of action, but you're willing to cast skeptical daggers in the direction of Bt. I guess that doesn't sit too well with my scientific training.

I'll not argue further, as I like the amicable environment of this forum and don't want to ruin it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think.

Peace,

Will


----------



## Michael Bush

>That's kind of the gist of the issue. You're basically saying that you have no data, no model, and no theory of any kind that suggests that there might be another mode of action, but you're willing to cast skeptical daggers in the direction of Bt. I guess that doesn't sit too well with my scientific training.

Adding a toxin not previously used in any significant amounts, to our food supply without any data to show it's safe in the long term sits well with your scientific training? My observation is that these kinds of things do not become obvious until 20 to 40 years later. The Romans didn't notice any effects to using lead for their water pipes... and probably never figured it out...


----------



## jim lyon

Pretty sure the Romans weren't doing any testi g let alone testing down to single digit ppb's then assuming that the problem is actually with undetectable levels. Why not make decisions based on data and not assumptions?


----------



## Michael Bush

http://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

Here is an interesting study.


----------



## Michael Bush

The Bt toxin is Cry1Ab toxin. In the above study:

"Cry1Ab toxin was detected in 93% and 80% of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69% of tested blood samples from nonpregnant women." 

It is in your blood. What are the long term effects of that?


----------



## rhaldridge

BlueDiamond said:


> Five reasons: http://www.noprop37.com/facts/ Here's the 5th reason: "forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution, recordkeeping and other bureaucratic operations that will cost billions of dollars to implement. Or, companies will be forced to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell food in California. Economic studies show this would increase food costs for the average family by hundreds of dollars per year – a hidden food tax that would especially hurt seniors and low-income families who can least afford it."


Hey. Dueling websites:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/



> The No on 37 campaign’s recent economic analysis of Proposition 37, conducted by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, is based on so many flawed premises that it is an entirely useless analysis of the California ballot initiative for labeling genetically engineered foods. Northbridge has no economic expertise; they are a consulting firm best known for opposing recycling laws for the soda pop industry.
> 
> In contrast, a real economic study on Proposition 37 conducted by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Emory University School of Law, found that: “Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” Among the report’s findings –- backed by empirical literature and historical precedents – is that companies’ fear of losing customers due to increasing grocery prices is a significant deterrent to passing on the “trivial” labeling costs to consumers.


Check out the list on that page I posted above: those who support labeling, and those who oppose it.

The reason that Monsanto and ConAgra and Bayer oppose the measure, to the tune of millions of dollars, is that they know that some consumers, if informed, will be reluctant to buy their products. Period. It has nothing to do with their concern for low income families.

Bottom line is this: I have a right to know what I'm spending my hard-earned money on. In almost every other first world country in the world, I have that right. 

Not here


----------



## gmcharlie

Possible bad long term for Romans, but at the time a average live span was 30 years, so it was still a huge plus to have plumbing..... If I remeber my history correctly Lead pipes didn't kill off the Romans...


----------



## ubernerd

Michael Bush said:


> The Bt toxin is Cry1Ab toxin. In the above study:
> 
> "Cry1Ab toxin was detected in 93% and 80% of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69% of tested blood samples from nonpregnant women."
> 
> It is in your blood. What are the long term effects of that?


The authors drew the conclusion that it is in your blood, but that paper has been widely critcized for the methods it used to draw that conclusion. (And, those doing the criticism are not linked to the big agribusiness companies.) The ELISA assay they use to establish the presence of the Cry1Ab toxin has several MAJOR drawbacks in that application.

1) It is quite capable of detecting *fragments* of the original protein which may or may not represent anything even close to a biologically relevant fraction of it, but rather the products of digestion, imported as small peptides. No control was done for that. It may well even react with portions of proteins that have nothing to do with Cry1Ab (see below).

2) It has been widely reported that this type of ELISA assay is unreliable in serum samples due to non-specific cross reactivity with the plethora of serum proteins present. The level of cross reactivity depends a great deal on the source/type of serum use. The authors do note that they did positive/negative controls in 1/2 strength serum, but do not note what serum they used. This kit was designed and validated for use in bovine serum, but that is a whole different beast than human serum.

3) In the papers establishing the detection thresholds and linear response ranges of this ELISA kit, the standard curves show that at concentrations below 1 ng/mL, the response becomes markedly non-linear, and the papers that show their standard calibration curves generally show limits of quantitative detection bottoming out around 0.5 - 1 ng/mL. The paper you shared reports their *high* end result for a *single sample* as being 2.28 ng/mL in nonpregnat women, ~1 ng/mL in preganant women and 0.14 ng/mL in fetal cord blood. They report their averages as being between 0.04 - 0.19 ng/mL, well *below* the established limits of the assay to measure. So, they are reporting values that are generally regarded as being unable to be reliably measured by the technique they are using and then basing their conclusions on that.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not an industry shill, and I do have significant concerns about many of the things being done with/to our food supply. However, we do the cause no favors by arguing based on weak evidence, poor science and innuendo.


----------



## BlueDiamond

rhaldridge said:


> The reason that Monsanto and ConAgra and Bayer oppose the measure, to the tune of millions of dollars, is that they know that some consumers, if informed, will be reluctant to buy their products. Period. It has nothing to do with their concern for low income families.


The entire food industry in California was against California Proposition 37 that would have required labelling for GMO ingredients. Even the almond processors: http://ahpa.net/advocacy/prop-37/

The only food industry people who favored the labelling were, of course, the organic processors who would have enjoyed greatly increased sales and profits if the measure had passed. The employees and managers of the organic processors make more money than comparably sized conventional processors because organic products are extra profitable. And the reason they are extra profitable is because the target market for their products (affluent city born and raised folks) are willing and able to pay an extra high price.


----------



## wildbranch2007

BlueDiamond said:


> Or, companies will be forced to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell food in California. Economic studies show this would increase food costs for the average family by hundreds of dollars per year – a hidden food tax that would especially hurt seniors and low-income families who can least afford it."


I'm not against most of the "stuff" they are doing, but this being america, I do want the option of picking what is in my food, meaning labeling it. I grow as much as I can with untreated seeds, but would like to limit what I have to buy. I should have the option, not have the option taken away due to politics.


----------



## rhaldridge

wildbranch2007 said:


> I'm not against most of the "stuff" they are doing, but this being america, I do want the option of picking what is in my food, meaning labeling it. I grow as much as I can with untreated seeds, but would like to limit what I have to buy. I should have the option, not have the option taken away due to politics.


Apparently, the problem is that this _is_ America. In just about any other developed nation in the world, you'd be able to look on a food label and see if there were any GMO ingredients.

Not here.


----------



## mac

Cigarettes were once thought to be a healthy stress reliever. Glad they had to beee labeled so people could make a choice. Not so with GMO


----------



## jim lyon

This thread started as a discussion about, what I think is fair to say, is a widely criticized study about how high a level of neonicitinoid it takes before bees begin to be measurably impaired. Now it appears it has become a general food safety discussion where we are comparing known carcinogens to chemicals that are somewhere between non existent and below LOD.


----------



## Jon B

I stopped using corn syrup over four years ago. I quit moving my hives into locations that were near corn fields. It seemed to help some hives when we made the switch, but we are still dealing with high winter hive loss. The genetically modified corn may be a small piece of the CCD puzzle but I believe there are other stresses on the bees that are much more serious.


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> Five reasons: http://www.noprop37.com/facts/ Here's the 5th reason: "forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution, recordkeeping and other bureaucratic operations that will cost billions of dollars to implement. Or, companies will be forced to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell food in California. Economic studies show this would increase food costs for the average family by hundreds of dollars per year – a hidden food tax that would especially hurt seniors and low-income families who can least afford it."


 That's not true adding a line of text to a label takes minutes costs pennies stop making up stuff


----------



## rhaldridge

mac said:


> That's not true adding a line of text to a label takes minutes costs pennies stop making up stuff


Hey, making up stuff works pretty well. The proposition was defeated.


----------



## mac

At this point no one knows the long term health effects of Bt corn or sugar beets or cotton or round up ready crops or any other GMO produced food.Labeling such products gives the consumer the choice to decide if the want to beee a part of this research or not.


----------



## mac

rhaldridge said:


> Hey, making up stuff works pretty well. The proposition was defeated.


Did you just make that up??


----------



## BlueDiamond

mac said:


> At this point no one knows the long term health effects of Bt corn or sugar beets or cotton or round up ready crops or any other GMO produced food. Labeling such products gives the consumer the choice to decide if the want to beee a part of this research or not.


Consumers already have the choice to purchase strictly non-GMO foods if they want to:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx

"We oppose mandatory labeling of food and ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks, as it could be interpreted as a warning or imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.

FDA allows food manufacturers the choice to voluntarily label their products noting certain attributes or production methods (e.g., organic) provided the label is truthful and not misleading. We support this approach. Food companies are in the best position to determine what type of information meets the needs and desires of their customers.

A Range of Available Product Choices
Many labeled certified organic or non-GM products are available for consumers who prefer to consume them, consistent with their personal preferences. These varied offerings provide additional choices for all consumers and avoid the potential of misleading the public with mandated labeling that raises concerns about the quality, safety or healthfulness of the products they have come to know and trust."


----------



## Michael Bush

>Consumers already have the choice to purchase strictly non-GMO foods if they want to

But not because Monsanto wanted it that way... They sued to prevent honest labeling of food...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#Labeling
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/b...n-maine-over-label-s-remarks-on-hormones.html


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> Consumers already have the choice to purchase strictly non-GMO foods if they want to:
> "


 It' the rest of the people that have no idea what organic food is. Interesting study here http://grist.org/food/the-latest-gmo-study-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/ In 1999, Starlink® corn, a variety with the Bt insecticide transgene, was released
on the market, approved only for animal feed, as it contains a highly stable
and allergenic protein that is difficult to break down in the mammalian digestive
system. Insufficient protocols for separating feed corn from food corn
resulted in contamination of food corn with Starlink corn. Unknown numbers
of consumers, probably in the thousands, were sickened due to allergic reactions
to the proteins. the Starlink incident underlines several points. more
Horizontal transfer of transgenes to other organisms has been found, most significantly
to bacteria within the mammalian gut. the CaMV promoter gene
that is included in the transgene package is important in facilitating horizontal
transfer and has been found to be active in human enterocyte-like cells (Myhre
et al., 2006). A UK experiment showed that transgenic DnA can survive digestion
and transfer to bacteria DnA in the human gut (Smith, 2007). Several
studies have shown horizontal transfer of transgenes to occur in test animals
fed transgenic foods (Latham and Steinbrecher, 2004; traavik and Heinemann,
2007). the other gene in the package, the antibiotic resistance gene, is of particular
concern given the possible development of antibiotic resistant enteric
bacteria. Genetic engineers had made the assumption, without adequate
experimental verification, that DnA does not survive the early stages of digestion

there are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus
conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that ‘since there is no
evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe’ is both illogical
and false. there are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support
this contention. Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm
will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted (Schubert,
2008).
Fact is now one knows if this stuff is safe or not and folks have a right to know wats in the food they purchase.


----------

