# 37 million bees dead



## Bee Whisperer

Saw this on Facebook.









ELMWOOD - Local beekeepers are finding millions of their bees dead just after corn was planted here in the last few weeks. Dave Schuit, who has a honey operation in Elmwood, lost 600 hives, a total of 37 million bees. 
“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Schuit said. He and many others, including the European Union, are pointing the finger at a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, manufactured by Bayer CropScience Inc. used in planting corn and some other crops. The European Union just recently voted to ban these insecticides for two years, beginning December 1, 2013, to be able to study how it relates to the large bee kill they are experiencing there also. 
Local grower Nathan Carey from the Neustadt, and National Farmers Union Local 344 member, says he noticed this spring the lack of bees and bumblebees on his farm. He believes that there is a strong connection between the insecticide use and the death of pollinators. 
At the farm of Gary Kenny, south west of Hanover, eight of the 10 hives he kept for a beekeeper out of Kincardine, died this spring just after corn was planted in neighbouring fields. 
What seems to be deadly to bees is that the neonicotinoid pesticides are coating corn seed and with the use of new air seeders, are blowing the pesticide dust into the air when planted. The death of millions of pollinators was looked at by American Purdue University. They found that, “Bees exhibited neurotoxic symptoms, analysis of dead bees revealed traces of thiamethoxam/clothianidin in each case. Seed treatments of field crops (primarily corn) are the only major source of these compounds. 
Source: http://www.thepost.on.ca/2013/06/19/bees-dying-by-the-millions-N


----------



## gmcharlie

Posted here yesterday, And totaly not true... read the article, bees tested and nothing found... then they go on to discredit testing. saying "testing only shows none issues" Testing for neonics is known.......

And 37 million dead bees from Planter dust wold be a record and ALL OVER the news.. not is a poorly written article like this one....... the article is really about planting flowers on the roadside...


----------



## Tenbears

Neonics have been tested extensively. The results have shown that they do not transcend the growth cycle to the pollen, Although dust directly from the seed coating can be harmful to honey bees. Standard planting techniques usually keep it to a minimum resulting in little exposure to honey bees. Following recommendations of the department of agriculture and planting early A.M. when dew id on ground, and other times of high moisture further reduces danger to bees. The reality of it is neonics are far less harmful to bees that conventional insecticides and their application.


----------



## ArtSmart

In fact, neonicotinoids are so harmless and so beneficial that you can spray your whole hive with them - prophylactically, they can be used as food supplement (to build your character), to solve global warming (as well as global cooling), bring peace to the middle east and remove our dependency on the fossil fuels.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I want to train my bees to harvest neonics instead of nectar. More return on investment.


----------



## Tenbears

ArtSmart said:


> In fact, neonicotinoids are so harmless and so beneficial that you can spray your whole hive with them - prophylactically, they can be used as food supplement (to build your character), to solve global warming (as well as global cooling), bring peace to the middle east and remove our dependency on the fossil fuels.


cute, good thing this is not a serious subject!


----------



## gmcharlie

ArtSmart said:


> In fact, neonicotinoids are so harmless and so beneficial that you can spray your whole hive with them - prophylactically, they can be used as food supplement (to build your character), to solve global warming (as well as global cooling), bring peace to the middle east and remove our dependency on the fossil fuels.


Your tag line is very fitting Common sense is definitely not common.....


----------



## Earthboy

I am a long time beekeeper, much longer than even this forum, and I learned never to put my bees near GM corn fields, ever. If you have lost dozens of colonies as a result of keeping your bees near a large cornfield, you will learn not to.

Of course, lobbyists would argue otherwise: that's their job. Sure, there is no global warming, either. Sure, bees are not dying. Sure, this nicotine-based chemical is harmless like milk. People will say and do anything for a buck. 

Not one tobacco executive has ever admitted how nicotine is addictive! That was under oath!

Tell you what. Situate your own bees near GM cornfields as many as for three years; put a few dozen colonies, do your experiment, and follow the result. You may not lose yours perhaps, but I have mine under best practice.

You say nicotine is not addictive; sure, I believe you.

I live the fact.


----------



## gmcharlie

My hives are all withing 100 yards of planted corn.... including my queen hives....


----------



## HeffsBStuff

My hives are also near planted corn, just after the planting I had quite a few bees on the ground in front of the hives lethargic and then dying.... maybe a coincidence, but the "coincidence" hasn't happened since the planting, and I walk out to my hives daily to visit. Poisoning from this corn is something I am going to consider as a real possibility. Let's see what happens next year and lets hope the bees survive.


----------



## Ben Franklin

In theory dist from planting seed corn could drift to near by hives. However I would think that the drift would have to be close by within a hundred feet or so. I would be sure to place my hives further away. Also if you have a chance to place a sprinkler in the path of the drift (wind) this would wash the air.
I am totally against GMO and all these new seeds being Round up Ready. Mark my word within the next five years we will have a new disease that can not be explained.


----------



## HeffsBStuff

The sprinkler thing is a pretty good idea, I may try that. I agree, I think we will see some issues with GMO's also, but at the very least I would like to be able to choose the food I buy and that is going to be difficult without appropriate labeling. But back on topic, My hives are as far away from the fields as I can get them which is about 80 yards. Again, I'm not sure the problems I had are related to the planting, it could have happened during a crop spray a mile away but the timing was quite coincidental. I am going to monitor it next year and hopefully we don't see this issue again.


----------



## Bee Whisperer

As I said, I saw this on Facebook. I have no knowledge of fact or fiction. However, it does surprise me how easily opinions are verbalized without clarifying supposed facts. People say neonics are bad, neonics are not bad; they cause this, they cause nothing; tests show positive, tests show nothing; no one can believe anything because of the contradictions and confusion. 

My questions to all the nay-sayers are; 
•	Did 37 million bees (600 hives) actually die? 
•	If they did, is it really coincidence? 
•	Who all did the tests? 
•	What actual tests were done?
•	How was data collected and analyzed?
•	Were the tests valid, accurate, and reliable? 
•	What variables were addressed and controlled, and were there any that weren’t? 
•	What external monitoring and accountability was in place? 
GM Charlie; you say it is “not true.” 
•	Did you actually investigate?
•	Did you read the actual lab results with scrutiny? 
•	Have you studied and done research to formulate true objective deductions? 
•	Have you done tests yourself?
•	What are, and where are, the published results of the studies you have done? 
•	Have you actually spoken to the man whose bees died? 

Demands for indisputable evidence-based results must be made, and wild opinionated conjecture must be debunked. Lies and suppositions have been muddying the view of the facts so no one can see the truth. What is the TRUTH?


----------



## ArtSmart

OK Pontius Pilate. The truth will set you free. I'm sure, sooner or later they will figure out exact mechanism how this particular poison kills bees. They will pat each other on the back and write a paper about it. Meanwhile most of the people came to the same conclusion years before. How did those uneducated unenlightened peasants managed to figure something out that takes scientists decades to figure out? It is called experience. Meanwhile true scientific minds will keep using poison and muse: "How come all the bees are dying?". I think it is Einstein who gave definition of insanity as: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."


----------



## Cloverdale

Artsmart and Paul McCarty :thumbsup:


----------



## sqkcrk

Earthboy said:


> Tell you what. Situate your own bees near GM cornfields as many as for three years; put a few dozen colonies, do your experiment, and follow the result. You may not lose yours perhaps, but I have mine under best practice.


Maybe you have more corn grown in OK than here in my part of NY, but I have never lost hives because they were close to fields of corn. Not as far asd I know. Usually what people see as cause and effect isn't accurate. WE often think emotionally and don't establish the facts. But you could be right in your assumption.


----------



## sqkcrk

The use of the number of dead bees is used to attempt to inflate the disaster. Beekeepers usually think about colonies, not individual bees.


----------



## gmcharlie

Bee Whisperer said:


> GM Charlie; you say it is “not true.”
> •	Did you actually investigate?
> •	Did you read the actual lab results with scrutiny?
> •	Have you studied and done research to formulate true objective deductions?
> •	Have you done tests yourself?
> •	What are, and where are, the published results of the studies you have done?
> •	Have you actually spoken to the man whose bees died?
> 
> Demands for indisputable evidence-based results must be made, and wild opinionated conjecture must be debunked. Lies and suppositions have been muddying the view of the facts so no one can see the truth. What is the TRUTH?



Actually the QUestions you ask were answered in the article, Bees were tested, nothing found, ownwers response was the same... "it was the corn" It is an undeniable fact that many people refuse to see whats in front of them... We Had a guy last year sqawking the same story... IL state be inspectors investigated and found Foulbrood in every one of his hives... and yet hes still out there claiming they lied, it was GMO......
Not saying this guy has FB, just saying even when the lab test showed it wasn't pesticides, he refuses to belive... 

Neonics ARE harmful to bees... in fact deadly, and planter dust CAN be a problem... Know what types of planters your farmers are useing and act accordingly... My self we don't put bees next to corn until AFTER its planted.........

And remember the options..... crop dusters full of pesticides covering EVERTHING, boom sprayers makeing repeated trips, again COVERING EVERYTHING.........
cars kill people, proven fact, but the overall good far outweighs the options... such is Neonicitoids.......get ALL the facts, instead of just squawking and parroting silly hype, thats my theory... try to understand the real picture.....

Mowing the grass kills more bees than neonics in my yards.


----------



## Paul McCarty

I would have more respect for the GM stuff out there if they were truly GMO instead of simply a vehicle to sell more Round-up. Heck, you can make your own Round-up by mixing vinegar and soap water. Why do we have to be sold a petro-chemical to do the job? If you are going to do GM crops, why not do something where the crops can cope with infertile soil or make more fruit/seed? They just make it tolerant to their chemicals. how does that help humanity? It helps their bottom line, but not so much the world.

Bee killing is a whole different issue.


----------



## Nabber86

Bee Whisperer said:


> What is the TRUTH?


Well it aint on the internet. 

I did a google search on "Dave Schuit + Elmwood" and got a couple thousand hits; all of them repeating the same words in the OP and referencing each other in a giant circle. The circle goes around and around and leads nowhere. 

ALL of the articles, at some point, said something like, "You can view the studies and read more about the story at such and such site.". Then when you click on "such and such" link, the same article appears on another website. Most of the websites where what I would describe as just a little bit flakey. One of the top hits (actually second from the top) was infowars.com. 

Other gems appeared such as 

collective-evolution.com 
abovetopsecret.com
truthisscary.com


----------



## ArtSmart

sqkcrk said:


> but I have never lost hives because they were close to fields of corn.


 Sqrk I'm very happy for you and your bees. But it doesn't mean that your experience disproves hypothesis that this particular group of poisons causes bees dieouts. I might get stung by tens of bees at a time and it doesn't affect me. Then a friend of mine comes over, gets stung by one bee gets all swollen and dies. The claim that it was not a bee sting that killed him because I was stung before many times seems preposterous. More appropriate assumption would be that there was some other factors involved as well but it was the sting that killed him. Assuming the hypothetical friend managed to survive after all, he might want to do all kinds of tests to see what could be the cause of this mysterious illness, but you bet your rear side he is not getting anywhere close to the bees again, regardless of the exact mechanism of his demise. Cause and effect are not always linear and straightforward. But you don't need to know exact chain of events to avoid the result. Based on the experience of many you can make an educated assumption what is the cause and avoid it while the scientists entertain themselves with the root cause analysis. An average guy doesn't really care how exactly it happens, he just cares about it not happening. And that's exactly what they are doing in Europe. Even if it doesn't prove anything, it is probably better to error on the side of caution.


----------



## sqkcrk

ArtSmart said:


> Sqrk I'm very happy for you and your bees. But it doesn't mean that your experience disproves hypothesis that this particular group of poisons causes bees dieouts.


Did I say that it did? I didn't mean to imply that what I wrote disproved any hypothesis. I thought I had clearly expressed that there isn't enough data or lab test results proving one way or the other.


----------



## hilreal

gmcharlie said:


> My hives are all withing 100 yards of planted corn.... including my queen hives....


Planter ran within 20 feet of my hive and not a single dead bee.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> I have never lost hives because they were close to fields of corn. Not as far as I know.


Nor have I, again, as far as I am aware. Have any of my hives ever been in some way affected? Again I cant say yes......or no. I do know this, though, I have, unquestionably, had bee hives severely damaged by spray but not since the advent of systemic pesticides. I operate many thousands of hives on 100+ bee locations over an area of around 2,000 square miles in a heavily row cropped area. All but a handful are within easy flying distance of corn or beans. The bees appear unaffected, winter losses in recent years have been minimal and easily replaced within our own operation each spring. The only big crashes we have suffered were in the early 1990's when varroa first affected our operation. Currently our bees have never looked better, swarming is the biggest issue I have battled this spring. I am not alone in the industry in that assessment. Bees face lots of stresses, some are within our control and some arent. I try to worry, first and foremost, about the things that I know I can do to be a good beekeeper and that approach has worked for me for 40 years. I havent treated my hives with anything harsher than thymol or oxalic acid for about 10 years now. My honey tests clean of any residues and a test last fall of pollen from our brood nests showed no residues whatsoever of any pesticides of any kind including miticides. I would like to think that has some bearing on my success but that is just supposition on my part. I think the critics of neonics really need to explain why there are so many success stories out there and why losses arent equally distributed within agricultural areas. I dont know the answer to that, I formulate my opinions primarily on what I see and experience and I freely relate those experiences to others. My opinions of neonics and gmo's is pretty much neutral. I do find it disheartening when these discussions are reduced to ridicule and name calling by anyone not seeing things from their perspective. I hear criticisms of gmo's and neonics lumped together as one when they, in fact, are entirely different issues. I am not involved in any sort of crusade against the big ag companies nor do I have any love for them (please dont refer to me as one of those pro-pesticide guys) but I am someone who understands that when you live among farmers and rely on good relationships with them that this issue can get pretty complex. Farmers need to control insect damage to their crops and in areas where placement of our bees strictly for honey production interferes with that then problems may arise. Fortunately there is much more awareness of these things among farmers, much "safer" and more targeted pesticides (I am betting no one else in this discussion has ever had parathion sprayed near their hives) and that helps a lot but I am always acutely aware that we are just invited guests on their property and they must first look out for their own crops. I field many calls each year from concerned farmers telling me that they need to do some spraying near my hives. I always thank them and ask with what, where and when....and then tell them to do what you feel you must do to take care of your crops. Fortunately its never (yet) been on a crop that the bees are actively working and by all outward appearances the bees always seem to be unaffected particularly if the spraying can be done in the early morning or late evening. I am rambling a bit here but I think its important that people see a balanced picture from someone that has some real life experiences to share and not just a lot of downloaded links from a google search.


----------



## sqkcrk

If someone is really concerned about where they locate their apiary then that should be part of their criteria. I have no problem w/ anyone wishing to distance themselves froma perceived problem.


----------



## Tenbears

Has anyone noticed that the topic was about Neonicotinoids. and Not GMO! Most tend to manipulate facts to produce the results they wish. Although I do not believe neonics are the end all be all of the nations pesticides problems. I do believe that for now they are better than the alternative Have we all forgot DDT. 

People on the left tend to interpreted information in a manner that bolsters their belief, while people on the right tend to do the same. 
Both sides blend information from studies related to but not intended to discover the same information to make it sound as though it if the gospel fact. as in blending beliefs about GMO with that of Neonics to produce a logical conclusion with the results one desires to prove their point. Or perpetuate the myth that without honey bees we would starve. both sides use the same exact information in proof of two different conclusions. 
Compile this with the chicken little's who think that past incidents stand as concrete proof that the future will bring the results they suspect. and it becomes nearly imposable to differentiate fact from fiction. 

It is a sound practice to not take anything on the interned as the gospel. If you want to know the truth get the actual papers as written by the research team and read them Also read the accreditations of the researcher and any testing companies used in the research. I have read many papers in which the writer, NEVER actually did research, but simply compiled information from other research. then formed his/her own hypotheses. 

Although research done by the labs at PSU indicated that neonics do not transcend plant growth to the pollen and nectar. and following recommended planting procedures minimize exposure, it is not within sound reason to place bee hives in an area where residual drift can affect the bees as it has been determined that the coating on the seeds IS harmful to bees. remember that it all depends on the individual doing the planting, and that they will make a diligent effort to minimize non target exposure. 

As beekeepers we must understand that although we may think differently. our bees, are not the most important agricultural resource in the nation. We must all use education tempered with understanding to reach a middle ground between all aspects of life and livelihood that will benefit the human race as a whole. We must to approach every aspect with an open mine. in consideration of the viewpoint of others.


----------



## Nabber86

ArtSmart said:


> But it doesn't mean that your experience disproves hypothesis that this particular group of poisons causes bees dieouts. Cause and effect are not always linear and straightforward. But you don't need to know exact chain of events to avoid the result. Based on the experience of many you can make an educated assumption what is the cause and avoid it while the scientists entertain themselves with the root cause analysis. An average guy doesn't really care how exactly it happens, he just cares about it not happening. And that's exactly what they are doing in Europe. Even if it doesn't prove anything, it is probably better to error on the side of caution.


Oh the irony and contradiction…..



> But it doesn't mean that your experience disproves hypothesis that this particular group of poisons causes bees dieouts.


Hypothesis = a _proposed_ explanation for a phenomenon. The Facebook post masquerading as a news article has gone past the hypothesis stage and jumps straight to a conclusion. 



> Cause and effect are not always linear and straightforward


That is exactly (linear cause and effect) what the Facebook post masquerading as a news article is doing.



> Based on the experience of many you can make an educated assumption what is the cause and avoid it while the scientists entertain themselves with the root cause analysis.


Numerous anecdotes do not equal data and do not result in "educated" assumptions.
Scientists were the ones that proved bees die if they consume neonic pesticides. That’s not entertainment, it is science. 



> An average guy doesn't really care how exactly it happens, he just cares about it not happening.


How exactly do we prevent something from happening when we do not know exactly how it happens. The average guy doesn’t understand science enough to form anything more than an emotional opinion.



> And that's exactly what they are doing in Europe.


argumentum ad populum 
Let me help you on that: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Argumentum+ad+populum


----------



## BigDawg

Jim,

I do appreciate your perspective and experience, and, I'm glad that so far you're not seeing problems (that you know of) from neonics with your bees. However, your position often seems to be that because YOU haven't had any problems, therefore no problems exist, and, that those of us not directly involved in day-to-day farming operations basically don't know what we're talking about.

But that's kind of like saying: "Well, I smoked for 20 years and I don't have lung cancer, therefore smoking doesn't cause lung cancer." Clearly, a statement such as that does not hold muster against the reality that SOME people do get lung cancer from smoking. Similarly, some people--including beekeepers with decades of experience (not wet behind the ears newbies) are saying that neonics ARE causing problems for them. 

Studies suggest that only 10% of smokers will develop lung cancer from smoking. Even if only 10% of bee hives are harmed by neonics, I think you'd agree that it's a substantial problem. Clearly, more research is needed, and not just on varroa like Monsanto and Bayer are doing.



jim lyon said:


> Nor have I, again, as far as I am aware. Have any of my hives ever been in some way affected? Again I cant say yes......or no. I do know this, though, I have, unquestionably, had bee hives severely damaged by spray but not since the advent of systemic pesticides. I operate many thousands of hives on 100+ bee locations over an area of around 2,000 square miles in a heavily row cropped area. All but a handful are within easy flying distance of corn or beans. The bees appear unaffected, winter losses in recent years have been minimal and easily replaced within our own operation each spring. The only big crashes we have suffered were in the early 1990's when varroa first affected our operation.


----------



## Paul McCarty

Someone mentioned neonic/GMO being a separate issue. The current GMO crops are mostly designed to better tolerate neonics - so they are delicately intertwined.

Nor is it a Left/Right issue. Some would have us believe that. It's more of a consumer/control issue.


----------



## D Coates

As my bees sit between acres and acres of corn and soybeans you'd think my modest 20+ hives should spontainously explode, yet thanks to some well time rain and moderate temps I may get a bumper crop this year. They've been there since I started a short 7 years ago, so they should have all types of build up in the wax, pollen, population, queens, etc. I should be a poster child for CCD if all the neonic claims were true. Have I lost hives? You bet, but mostly due to operator error. A few overwinter deaths that left me stumped but I put a swarm or nuc right back in there and away they go.

By all means avoid putting your bees from locations you deem unacceptable due to GMO and neonics. It leaves more sites for those of us who don't buy the hype.


----------



## jim lyon

BigDawg said:


> Jim,
> 
> I do appreciate your perspective and experience, and, I'm glad that so far you're not seeing problems (that you know of) from neonics with your bees. However, your position often seems to be that because YOU haven't had any problems, therefore no problems exist, and, that those of us not directly involved in day-to-day farming operations basically don't know what we're talking about.
> 
> But that's kind of like saying: "Well, I smoked for 20 years and I don't have lung cancer, therefore smoking doesn't cause lung cancer." Clearly, a statement such as that does not hold muster against the reality that SOME people do get lung cancer from smoking.


i would disagree. This isn't a small sample or an individual it's a very large sample and such a sample should contain a cross section of problems. Controlled tests are done and results extrapolated by scientists from only a tiny number of hives. Certainly there must be many variables between mine and those whose bees have suffered significant die offs. It could possibly be pesticide related use variability it also could be one of any number of pathogen, management, forage, climate or treatment variables. Those comparisons should be made just as critically. Arent you the least bit curious as to why some large operations seem to be afflicted with losses while others aren't? Isn't it just good science to keep an open mind and try to understand why?


----------



## Nabber86

BigDawg said:


> Studies suggest that only 10% of smokers will develop lung cancer from smoking. Even if only 10% of bee hives are harmed by neonics, I think you'd agree that it's a substantial problem. Clearly, more research is needed, and not just on varroa like Monsanto and Bayer are doingStudies suggest that only 10% of smokers will develop lung cancer from smoking. Even if only 10% of bee hives are harmed by neonics, I think you'd agree that it's a substantial problem. Clearly, more research is needed, and not just on varroa like Monsanto and Bayer are doing..




Not a good comparison….

Hyperbole aside, cigarettes were not _designed to kill people_. If they were, a 10 percent cancer rate would is not very effective.

Pesticides are designed to do one thing; be 100 percent effective at killing insects (or as close to 100 percent as they can get). 

By that reasoning, if neonics really were a problem, we would be seeing a lot more than 10 percent of beehives being harmed. And what is “harm” anyway? Do you mean a handful of dead bees, all dead bees, or CCD attributed to some unknown factor?

Allow me to provide my own anecdotal evidence since everyone else is. I sprayed my garden with a pesticide product that contains neonics and none of my bees died. My hives are less than 50 feet from my garden and the bees provide ample pollination.


----------



## gmcharlie

If I lose 10% to neonics, I can probably be happy with that. For several reasons. First, I can with a SMALL amount of care limit exposure, second, 10% loss is way under what winter causes and its related issues....

And I don't poop my pants every time I hear a plane... something I used to do with crop dusting....... Want to be nervous? watch a duster working the fields around your hives knowing there is no way in heck you can move them fast enough.....


----------



## BigDawg

Nabber86 said:


> Not a good comparison….


You completely missed the comparison. I'm not comparing neonics to smoking, I'm comparing the 9 out 10 people who DON'T get cancer from smoking saying that because they didn't get it, that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's faulty logic--just like people saying that because neonics haven't harmed their bees, therefore neonics don't harm bees.



> Pesticides are designed to do one thing; be 100 percent effective at killing insects (or as close to 100 percent as they can get).
> 
> By that reasoning, if neonics really were a problem, we would be seeing a lot more than 10 percent of beehives being harmed. And what is “harm” anyway? Do you mean a handful of dead bees, all dead bees, or CCD attributed to some unknown factor?


And how do you know what the rate of harm to bees from neonics would/should be? So you're reasoning is that because 70, 80, or 90% of hives aren't dying from neonics that therefore neonics aren't a problem for bees? That's exactly the kind of faulty logic I'm talking about......



> Allow me to provide my own anecdotal evidence since everyone else is. I sprayed my garden with a pesticide product that contains neonics and none of my bees died. My hives are less than 50 feet from my garden and the bees provide ample pollination.


And yet two weeks ago neonics applied to flowering trees in Wilsonville, Oregon killed over 50,000 bumblebees (over 150 colonies). So, it's clear that neonics DO kill bees--right? Interestingly enough, some nearby trees were treated with the same neonics a few months ago (before they were in bloom as per the directions) and yet following the bee kill in Wilsonville, researchers discovered that nearby hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied. Those bee deaths would have almost certainly gone unnoticed were it not for the 50,000+ bees that dropped dead in the parking lot.

So, if your point is that you sprayed around your bees with neonics with no ill effect (yet) that that means that neonics don't harm bees and are nothing to worry about, well, that's a textbook example of the faulty logic that I'm talking about......


----------



## sqkcrk

ArtSmart said:


> Sqrk I'm very happy for you and your bees. But it doesn't mean that your experience disproves hypothesis that this particular group of poisons causes bees dieouts. I might get stung by tens of bees at a time and it doesn't affect me. Then a friend of mine comes over, gets stung by one bee gets all swollen and dies. The claim that it was not a bee sting that killed him because I was stung before many times seems preposterous. More appropriate assumption would be that there was some other factors involved as well but it was the sting that killed him. Assuming the hypothetical friend managed to survive after all, he might want to do all kinds of tests to see what could be the cause of this mysterious illness, but you bet your rear side he is not getting anywhere close to the bees again, regardless of the exact mechanism of his demise. Cause and effect are not always linear and straightforward. But you don't need to know exact chain of events to avoid the result. Based on the experience of many you can make an educated assumption what is the cause and avoid it while the scientists entertain themselves with the root cause analysis. An average guy doesn't really care how exactly it happens, he just cares about it not happening. And that's exactly what they are doing in Europe. Even if it doesn't prove anything, it is probably better to error on the side of caution.


When a colony of bees die, do you look at what is left in the hive and try to determine what it died from? Or do you look outside the hive and guess? When I come across a colony that isn't acting like it should or like others in the yard or producing like others in the yard I look into the brood nest area to see what I can see. That's how I was trained as an Apiary Inspector.

Notice something appears abnormal and try to figure out why. Find what you think the cause might be and take samples to verify the Field Diagnosis bt Lab Tests.

Has anyone on beesource done that w/ colonies they suspect were killed by pesticides such as ones being discussed in these Threads?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Interestingly enough, some nearby trees were treated with the same neonics a few months ago (before they were in bloom as per the directions) and yet following the bee kill in Wilsonville, researchers discovered that nearby hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied. Those bee deaths would have almost certainly gone unnoticed were it not for the 50,000+ bees that dropped dead in the parking lot.


Reference? Not even the Xerces Society - an Oregon based anti-pesticide group - has mentioned anything about "hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were [properly applied [per label directions]. http://www.xerces.org/


----------



## yankee joe

sqkcrk said:


> The use of the number of dead bees is used to attempt to inflate the disaster. Beekeepers usually think about colonies, not individual bees.


Waken up. Disaster is here


----------



## Bee Whisperer

Nabber86;

Sounds like your path was the same one I found. We cannot believe all the things posted on the internet. There are far too many agendas, motives, and diabolical purposes. The inconsistencies of political ads and campaign lies should have revealed that to us. Before we believe a story, or buy into an inductive response, we must know the highest truth. Finding the truth is not easy. It is hard work. Someone has to be acknowledged as a trustworthy source. The knowledge of data collection, studies, testing and measures, plus interpreting results must be something that bee keepers learn. That way we are not fooled or mislead; either on purpose or accidentally. Stories and studies must be challenged. 

Who are the trustworthy sources that can search out and weigh the information and judge it correctly? What resources are available for American Bee Keepers to fund legitimate investigative efforts as we can get real accurate results? 

When it was discovered that DDT was responsible for the reproduction problems of the American Bald Eagle, extreme measures were taken, and now the Bald Eagle, that was once on the endangered list, has become plentiful. People rising up can make a difference. Just sayin . . .


----------



## sqkcrk

yankee joe,
600 colonies. One midsized commercial beekeepers worth. Nope, not a disaster. A disaster for the beekeeper but not for the Nation.

Something a beekeper should know, but the general public doesn't.


----------



## kincade

BlueDiamond said:


> Reference? Not even the Xerces Society - an Oregon based anti-pesticide group - has mentioned anything about "hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were [properly applied [per label directions]. http://www.xerces.org/


Just because Xerces advocates for responsible use of pesticide does not make them an 'anti-pesticide group'. They are a pro-pollinator group, and one that I'm honestly surprised more of us don't support. Characterizing them as anything else is blatantly false.

BTW, I drove by the 'kill' in wilsonville. Anyone that is even reasonably interested in pollinators would have bothered by the 1" carpet of multiple species of bees lying in the parking lot, no matter what the cause. It was brutal. 

The hyperbole and multiple agendas of this thread are a good example of why one should never trust what is read on the internet. The original article is poorly cited and clearly has an agenda, while multiple posters in this thread appear to have the opposite agenda and by first glance should work for Monsanto as advocates. The truth often lies in the middle, as I think it does in this case.


----------



## BigDawg

http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2013/06/after_50000_bees_die_in_wilson.html

"Hillsboro officials aren’t sure what’s killing the bees, but Preston confirmed that the trees in downtown Hillsboro were treated with the same pesticide, Safari spray, as 55 trees that were sprayed in Wilsonville. Agricultural officials determined that the insecticide — which is meant to kill aphids — caused the Wilsonville bees’ deaths.

*Preston said that one interesting difference between the die-offs is that the Wilsonville trees were sprayed recently, while Hillsboro sprayed its trees in March."*




BlueDiamond said:


> Reference? Not even the Xerces Society - an Oregon based anti-pesticide group - has mentioned anything about "hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were [properly applied [per label directions]. http://www.xerces.org/


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg, your link says: "He saw about 100 dead or dying bees below one tree [Hillsboro, Oregon], and more living bees up in the tree." No mention of honey bees. No mention of hives. Yet in your earlier post you wrote: "researchers discovered that nearby [Hillsboro, Oregon] hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied." So your link does not substantiate you claim of "honeybees being killed/harmed [in [Hillsboro, Oregon] by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied". On the bee-list both Randy Oliver and Peter Borst have pointed out the nectar of some species of Linden trees is known to be toxic some years http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1307&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=D&P=16386 So the task facing the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture is to determine whether the neonic or the possibly toxic nectar from some of the Linden trees killed some of the bumblebees in Hillsboro, Oregon.


----------



## BigDawg

I never said honeybees were involved, and I used "hives" instead of "colonies." 

Regardless, the fact remains that the trees in Hillsboro were sprayed with neonics in March, and bee deaths are still occurring in June, months later. Sure, sometimes Linden trees can produce toxins, but, the bee kill in Wisonville happened just days after being (illegally) sprayed with neonics and are, by most sources, the largest recorded bumblebee die-off in Oregon's history. It will indeed be interesting to see the final analysis, but given the timing of the spraying and the large number of bees killed, it seems highly likely that the cause was the neonicotinoid spray used to treat aphids.




BlueDiamond said:


> BigDawg, your link says: "He saw about 100 dead or dying bees below one tree [Hillsboro, Oregon], and more living bees up in the tree." No mention of honey bees. No mention of hives. Yet in your earlier post you wrote: "researchers discovered that nearby [Hillsboro, Oregon] hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied." So your link does not substantiate you claim of "honeybees being killed/harmed [in [Hillsboro, Oregon] by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied". On the bee-list both Randy Oliver and Peter Borst have pointed out the nectar of some species of Linden trees is known to be toxic some years http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1307&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=D&P=16386 So the task facing the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture is to determine whether the neonic or the possibly toxic nectar from some of the Linden trees killed some of the bumblebees in Hillsboro, Oregon.


----------



## BlueDiamond

kincade said:


> Just because Xerces advocates for responsible use of pesticide does not make them an 'anti-pesticide group'. They are a pro-pollinator group, and one that I'm honestly surprised more of us don't support. Characterizing them as anything else is blatantly false.


Xerces has not provided credible evidence that neonics kill pollinators when applied to ornamental plants according to label directions and yet the organization is calling for all these radical bans on neonic (and other) pesticide applications:
Uploaded with ImageShack.com


----------



## BigDawg

The exact quote is "hundreds of dead or dying bees" in the Hillsboro case. Also, the Oregonian is reporting that state officials have confirmed that the neonic Safari was responsible for the deaths of the 50,000+ bumblebees in Wilsonville.

*"In Wilsonville, state officials confirmed the pesticide Safari was the culprit in the deaths of thousands of bees."
*
Also, in regards to the possibility that the bees were poisoned by the Linden trees themselves:

*"Linden trees can also be toxic to bees under some circumstances, according to both Preston and Black. But Black said that toxicity is very unusual, and typically occurs in drought conditions when the tree's nectar is concentrated."*

http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2013/06/state_investigating_death_of_h.html

According this drought map, Hillsboro has received normal rainfall amounts this year and is not currently experiencing any drought conditions at all:

http://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-oregon-drought-monitor-map.php





BlueDiamond said:


> BigDawg, your link says: "He saw about 100 dead or dying bees below one tree [Hillsboro, Oregon], and more living bees up in the tree." No mention of honey bees. No mention of hives. Yet in your earlier post you wrote: "researchers discovered that nearby [Hillsboro, Oregon] hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied." So your link does not substantiate you claim of "honeybees being killed/harmed [in [Hillsboro, Oregon] by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied". On the bee-list both Randy Oliver and Peter Borst have pointed out the nectar of some species of Linden trees is known to be toxic some years http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1307&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=D&P=16386 So the task facing the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture is to determine whether the neonic or the possibly toxic nectar from some of the Linden trees killed some of the bumblebees in Hillsboro, Oregon.


----------



## yankee joe

Just look around. 600 colonies here 50 there 100 some where else and so fourth. It all ads up to disaster. Bee keeping is a disaster around the world and will only get worse unless something is done very shortly. Frankly I do not see this happening.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg, you misinformed in multiple ways:

YOU SAID: "Interestingly enough, some nearby trees were treated with the same neonics a few months ago" 

THE FACTS: The "nearby trees" were in Hillsboro, Oregon, nearly 20 MILES northwest of Wilsonville.

YOU SAID: "Interestingly enough, some nearby trees were treated with the same neonics a few months ago" (before they were in bloom as per the directions) and yet following the bee kill in Wilsonville, researchers discovered that nearby hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied."

THE FACTS: No "hives" were killed or harmed in Hillsboro, Oregon because the bees killed were bumblebees!

YOU SAID: "nearby hives were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied."

THE FACTS: The Oregon Dept of Agriculture has not determined why there were about 100 dead bumblebees beneath this single Linden tree in Hillsboro, Oregon: https://imageshack.com/a/img195/5088/46lq.jpg (photo lifted from Google Street View, photo should say 100, not "hundreds" of bumblebees were found beneath the tree)

That tree was one of 200 sprayed in March with the Safari neonic insecticide. Hillsboro public affairs manager Patrick Preston told the Los Angeles Times: "The Oregon Department of Agriculture visited the site to take samples and test whether pesticides also played a role. The city has sprayed the trees with Safari for the past three years. This is the first time bee deaths have been reported, Preston said. If Safari is found to have been behind the bee deaths then we will not be using it anymore,” Preston said. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...esticides-restricted-20130626,0,3014501.story


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> 3. I never said that the ODA had determined the reason for the BBee deaths in Hillsboro.


BigDawg you wrote: "researchers discovered that nearby hives [in Hillsboro, Oregon] were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied [correctly according to label directions]."

But that's not true...it's not true that "researchers discovered that nearby hives [in Hillsboro, Oregon] were still being killed/harmed by the neonics MONTHS after they were applied [correctly according to label directions]."

The truth is there is an ongoing investigation by ODA (Oregon Dept. of Ag) to try and determine the cause of the BBee deaths in Hillsboro.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

the label mentioned that you're not supposed to apply the pesticide on a trees while in bloom as they will kill bees so how was this applied correctly according to the label? :scratch:


----------



## BayHighlandBees

BigDawg said:


> Maybe you could tell us though, why, in your 173 post history here on Beesource, the ONLY subject you post about is pesticides...


the same comment could be said about you, BD


----------



## mikiex

Interview
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/As+It+Happens/Episodes/ID/2395667045/

His webpage
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Saugeen-Country-Honey/518952311492338?fref=ts


----------



## BlueDiamond

BayHighlandBees said:


> the label mentioned that you're not supposed to apply the pesticide on a trees while in bloom as they will kill bees so how was this applied correctly according to the label? :scratch:


There were two separate bumblebee kills in Oregon. One in Wilsonville where an applicator (accidentally, presumably) sprayed 55 shopping center parking lot Linden trees in mid June while they were in bloom resulting in the deaths of 50,000 bumblebees that nectared on the trees. The other kill was 20 miles away in Hillsboro, Oregon where 100 bumblebees were found beneath one of 200 Linden trees that were correctly and legally sprayed back in March long before they were in bloom. The cause of the Hillsboro deaths has not been determined yet by the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture. So it's premature for anyone to claim the Hillsboro case is an example of how neonics can kill alot of pollinators even when they are correctly and legally sprayed on ornamental trees before bloom.


----------



## I'llbeedan

As I see it, it is all a moot point. Honey bees are non indigenous to north America. They are foreign invaders and if they all disappeared what would it matter. they do not belong here in the first place.


----------



## sqkcrk

yankee joe said:


> Just look around. 600 colonies here 50 there 100 some where else and so fourth. It all ads up to disaster. Bee keeping is a disaster around the world and will only get worse unless something is done very shortly. Frankly I do not see this happening.


What do you think should be done? Anything practical?


----------



## sqkcrk

I'llbeedan said:


> As I see it, it is all a moot point. Honey bees are non indigenous to north America. They are foreign invaders and if they all disappeared what would it matter. they do not belong here in the first place.


It would matter a lot. Have you noticed how honeybee dependent much of our agriculture is? You could say the same thing about most of the human population in the Americas. Humans are the most invasive species on Earth.


----------



## gmcharlie

Big dawg, in beekeeping 20 miles is a another country....... Your attack on Blue was so far off I wonder if you even have bees???

Every year roughly 1 million hives die (30% of the countrys totals) so 600 here, 50 there is hardly a disaster... Bad yupp... end of the world hardly...... Imagine what would happen for a moment if pesticides were banned... No peaches, dang few apples, pumpkins and cucumbers would all but disapear from the stores....
Can't even fathon what would happen to corn and bean production..... the key is proper and respossnible applications 


Now if you excuse me, the rain has stopped, so i am going to go out and liquid spray my peaches and grapes with sevin dust.... the ones 30 feet from my queen hives....(for the record no Safari spray)


----------



## Tenbears

sqkcrk said:


> It would matter a lot. Have you noticed how honeybee dependent much of our agriculture is? You could say the same thing about most of the human population in the Americas. Humans are the most invasive species on Earth.


 I could not agree more! So when you all planning on moving? LMAO:ws:


----------



## sqkcrk

Ha,ha,ha. Me too. Haven't stopped moving yet. And if you are a Native American that just means your peoples got here earlier. Right?


----------



## Tenbears

Yes I am! but, according to Darwin we all slithered from the sea. and I can't hold my breath that long any more!


----------



## sqkcrk

And also from what I have heard we are all out of Africa. Certainly we can't all "go home".


----------



## UTnewbee

ArtSmart said:


> OK Pontius Pilate. The truth will set you free. I'm sure, sooner or later they will figure out exact mechanism how this particular poison kills bees. They will pat each other on the back and write a paper about it. Meanwhile most of the people came to the same conclusion years before. How did those uneducated unenlightened peasants managed to figure something out that takes scientists decades to figure out? It is called experience. Meanwhile true scientific minds will keep using poison and muse: "How come all the bees are dying?". I think it is Einstein who gave definition of insanity as: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."


Oh, it is proven that it kills bees, but the question is whether it causes CCD.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Also, in regards to the possibility that the bees were poisoned by the Linden trees themselves: "Linden trees can also be toxic to bees under some circumstances, according to both Preston and Black. But Black said that toxicity is very unusual, and typically occurs in drought conditions when the tree's nectar is concentrated.


After months of investigation the Oregon Dept of Agriculture has concluded the NATURAL toxicity of European Linden Trees is thought to have contributed to the bumblebee deaths in June 2013.
See: http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/news/131121bee_measures.aspx "It appears the tree species’ natural toxicity to bumblebees in combination with the pesticide contributed to the deaths."


----------



## Daniel Y

BlueDiamond said:


> After months of investigation the Oregon Dept of Agriculture has concluded the NATURAL toxicity of European Linden Trees is thought to have contributed to the bumblebee deaths in June 2013.
> See: http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/news/131121bee_measures.aspx "It appears the tree species’ natural toxicity to bumblebees in combination with the pesticide contributed to the deaths."


Strange how the trees nectar was not toxic before they where sprayed. It would be interesting to know just how long the bees had been foraging on those trees and not dying from it before the spraying.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

if you google you'll find lots of links on this. A number of lime / linden are toxic to bumbles but not honeybees. Some are toxic to both. Some produce good honey.

http://www.buzzaboutbees.net/Which-Lime-Trees-Are-Toxic-For-Bees.html


----------



## BZB

we all know that the pesticides are killing the bees we just have to keep informing people and spread the word on how deadly they are not only to the bees


----------



## Paul McCarty

They are deadly to us too.


----------



## psfred

There are some legitimate concerns about neonics. First, they are chlorinated nicitinoids, which means, quite shockingly, that they are resistant to degradation in the soil. This was quite a surprise to Bayer (allegedly), but should not have been since the vast majority of chlorinated substances used for pesticides have been banned for just this reason. As a result, repeated use of neonics on seeds results in sustained levels in the soil that tend to rise annually.

Second, the application to seed isn't targeted, it's "to enhance stand density", meaning it's used mostly to sell more of it without a definitive reason. This sort of scattershot application of pesticides shouldn't be tolerated under any circumstances, any more than "propholatic" use of antibiotics in overcrowded feedlots should be (far better to spread the animals out than create antibiotic resistant bacteria).

Third, the dust from air seeding is a severe problem as it settles on the dandelions and other flowering weeds beside the fields, and the bees will be quite busy collecting the nectar and pollen from those plants. It's quite common to see a big dust cloud behind planters here regardless of the weather or soil conditions. Again, "preventative" use of pesticides shouldn't be allowed.

Fourth, with corn in particular, there is a serious problem with neonics showing up in guttation droplets in cool damp weather. This is most common in new seedlings where there is a significant amount of neonic from the seed treatment in contact with the rootlets, but because neoics build up in the soil, can be a problem in larger plants as well. These droplets form by the plant transporting sugars into them to draw water up from the soil, and are highly attractive to bees. Given the right conditions, the concentration of neonics can be high enough to be directly toxic to the bees collecting them. This may not happen every year, but I think I saw some pesticide die-off about that time with my bees once. As the neonics build up in the soil, the amount excuded in guttation droplets will rise.

Fifth, neonics are metabolized very quickly by bees, and may not persist long enough to be detected properly in dead bees, making it hard to determine directly if they were poisoned. 

I have a suspicion that pesticide usage is way out of control in the US -- sure, some of them are better than they were in the 50's and 60's, but we are using unbelievable amounts, and they cannot be good for bees. Fungicides are showing up as a serious problem because they prevent fermentation of pollen in the hive, with the result that the bees are not getting some vital sterols that they cannot synthesize. Around here, the local farmers apply fungicides by areal spray (stupid as 90% of the application goes somewhere besides the target) so you can assume the pollen all over is affected.

Peter


----------



## Daniel Y

Thank you for taking the time to post that Fred.


----------



## Josh Rollins

Good news is Bayer has a varroa control now. Its called neonicotinoid pesticides and it works for your bees as well.


----------



## greatgabber

you have got to be working in collusion with either Monsanto, the pesticide companies or one of their bought off affiliates. There are many studies verifying the existence of neonics in pollen.


----------



## greatgabber

How much did Monsanto, Bayer, and affiliates pay to get that one done? Sounds like the explanation for CCD cause....uhhhhh "its lost of food supply, poor beekeeper habits, varroa mites and maybe influenced by pesticides"


----------



## wdale

Here is an article just posted across Canadian news both TV and in the News Papers

Canada : News Findings: Pesticide sale must stop: scientists 

Scientists say dwindling bee colonies can be traced back to a particular pesticide.
A group of international scientists has completed the only global study of neonicotinoid pesticides and concluded there’s a definitive link between its use and the deaths of bees and other pollinators.
“As independent scientists, we can now say conclusively there is clear evidence of harm sufficient to trigger regulatory action,” Madeleine Chagnon, study co-author, told reporters on Parliament Hill on Wednesday. 
Calling themselves The Task Force, more than 50 scientists studied the impact of neonicotinoids, not just on insects and animals but on ecosystems. 
“Neonics persist for a long time in soil and leach and end up in our waterways,” scientist Sydeny Ribaux said. “We are concerned about their large-scale use and impacts on human health and ecosystems.” 
Task Force scientists said ideally the stuff would be banned, but even if it’s use could be restricted to only when needed rather than as a preventative, it would greatly increase chances of bee survival. 
Scientist Jean - Marc Bonmatin said roughly 30% of bee populations die annually. If current use of neonics go unmitigated, Bonmatin warned bee extinction is a reality. 
But neither farmers nor the companies producing the pesticides are keen on a ban. 
Tara Moore, spokesman for supplier Pioneer Seeds, said demand from farmers for seeds not treated with the pesticide is not great. The Western Producer magazine reported earlier this year that seed suppliers who’d been asked by farmers to supply more untreated seed hadn’t resulted in farmers placing significant orders. 
“Growers understand the value (this pesticide has) for production,” Moore told QMI Agency. 
The scientists said pesticide makers’ profits are simply too high for them to support a ban. 
Bayer, one of the largest producer of neonic pesticides in Canada, wouldn’t estimate its annual profit from the pesticides, but cast doubt on the science behind calls for the ban. 
“We don’t support the need or the background (for a ban),” Bayer spokesman Paul Thiel told QMI Agency.


----------



## Phoebee

Earthboy, I'm curious? Do you know what GM crops are? Do you think they've been genetically modified to coat their seeds with pesticides?

Neonicotinoids are a chemical pesticide class typically applied in a coating to seeds.

Genetic modification is something entirely different.

Bayer does not, to the best of my knowledge, have any tobacco executives, and in any case the addictive nature of it has nothing to do with bee deaths.


----------



## Michael Bush

>"Linden trees can also be toxic to bees under some circumstances, according to both Preston and Black. But Black said that toxicity is very unusual, and typically occurs in drought conditions when the tree's nectar is concentrated."

Ridicules... linden trees are a great source of nectar and are not at all poisonous to bees.


----------



## BlueDiamond

Michael Bush said:


> Ridicules... linden trees are a great source of nectar and are not at all poisonous to bees.


http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/news/131121bee_measures.aspx
"It appears the tree species’ natural toxicity to bumblebees in combination with the pesticide contributed to the deaths." 

So the Wilsonville, Oregon bee kill on June 18, 2013 was not a widespread incident - it was limited to the Target Store shopping center parking lot and caused by a combination of improper pesticide application (spraying 55 asphalt shopping center parking lot ornamental linden trees with a neonic when they were in full bloom) and the natural toxicity of the european linden tree.


----------



## wdale

Here is a answer and supporting information to some of your questions along with a history about neonicotinoids and it's sub chemicals 

Clothianidin is authorized for spray, dust, soil drench (for uptake via plant roots), injectable liquid (into tree limbs and trunks, sugar cane stalks etc.), and seed treatment uses, in which clothianidin coats seeds that take up the pesticide via the roots as the plant grows. The chemical may be used to protect plants against a wide variety of agricultural pests in many countries, of which the following are mentioned in citable English-language sources: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, UK, and the United States. Seed treatment uses of clothianidin, corn in particular, have been revoked or suspended in Germany, Italy and Slovenia. The suspensions are reflective of E.U. pesticide law and are generally associated with acute poisoning of bees from pesticide dust being blown off of treated seeds, especially corn, and onto nearby farms where bees were performing pollinator services.
Although nicotine has been used as a pesticide for over 200 years it degraded too rapidly in the environment and lacked the selectivity to be very useful in large-scale agricultural situations. However, in order to address this problem, the neonicotinoids (chloronicotinyl insecticides) were developed as a substitute of nicotine. Clothianidin is an alternative to organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid pesticides. It poses lower risks to mammals, including humans, when compared to organophosphates and carbamates. It also plays a key role helping to prevent the build up in insect pests of resistance to organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides, which is a growing problem in parts of Europe.
Clothianidin was first given conditional registration for use as a pesticide by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, pending the completion of additional study of its safety to be done by December 2004. Bayer did not complete the study on time and asked for an extension. The date was postponed to May 2005 and they also granted Bayer the permission it had sought to conduct its study on canola in Canada, instead of on corn in the United States. The study was not completed until 2007. In a November 2007 memo EPA scientists declared the study “scientifically sound,” adding that it, “satisfies the guideline requirements for a field toxicity test with honeybees.”
Clothianidin continued to be sold under a conditional registration, and in April 2010 it was granted an unconditional registration for use as a seed treatment for corn and canola. However, in response to concerns raised by bee keepers, in November the EPA released a memorandum in which they stated that some of the studies submitted did not appear to be adequate and the unconditional registration was withdrawn.
In 2012, arguing that after more than 9 years the EPA continues to maintain the registration status for clothianidin despite the fact that the registrant has failed to supply satisfactory studies confirming its safety, an alliance of beekeepers and environmental groups filed a petition on March 21 asking the EPA to block the use of clothianidin in agricultural fields until they have conducted a review of the product. The petitioners state that they are aware that the EPA has moved up its registration review of clothianidin and other neonicotinoids in response to concerns about their impacts on pollinators, however they note that this process is projected by the EPA to take six to eight years and is thus grossly insufficient to address the urgency of the threat to pollinators.
Regulatory authorities describe the toxicological database for clothianidin as "extensive", and many studies have been reviewed to support registrations around the globe for this chemical. Laboratory and field testing revealed that clothianidin shows relatively low toxicity to many test species but is highly or very highly toxic to others. Toxicity varies depending on whether the exposure occurs on a short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) basis.
Because it is systemic, persistent and highly toxic to honey bees, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Canada has requested additional data to fully assess the potential effects of chronic exposure of clothianidin, resulting from its potential movement into plant pollen and nectar.
Permissible amounts of clothianidin residue on food and animal feed vary from crop to crop and nation to nation. However, regulatory authorities around the globe emphasize that when used according to the label instructions, clothianidin residues on food are not expected to exceed safe levels (as defined by each nation's laws and regulations). 
In the 2003 United States EPA assessment report it was stated that clothianidin should not present a direct acute or chronic risk to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, or a risk to terrestrial or aquatic vascular and nonvascular plants. It is considered to be toxic to aquatic invertebrates if disposal of wastes according to disposal instructions are not followed. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Canada lists it as "very highly toxic" to aquatic invertebrates, but only slightly toxic to fish. 
In the 2003 EPA report it was stated that although no water monitoring studies had been conducted, due to the extreme mobility and persistence of clothianidin in the environment, clothianidin has the properties of a chemical which could lead to widespread groundwater contamination should the registrant request field uses involving direct application of clothianidin to the land surface. In a 2010 EPA report it was noted that the registrant had recently added new uses on the labels, including using it directly applied to the soil surface/foliage at much higher application rate than as specified in 2003. As a result, the potential for clothianidin to move from the treated area to the nearby surface water body under the new uses is much greater than the use as a seed treatment.[24]
Bees and other insect pollinators
Honey bees pollinate crops responsible for about a third of the human diet; about $224 billion worth of crops worldwide. Beginning in 2006, beekeepers in the United States began to report unexplained losses of hives — 30 percent and upward — leading to a phenomenon called colony collapse disorder (CCD). The cause of CCD remains under debate, but scientific consensus is beginning to emerge suggesting that there is no one cause but rather a combination of factors including lack of foraging plants, infections, breeding, and pesticides—with none catastrophic on their own, but having a synergistic effect when occurring in combination. 
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority notes that clothianidin ranks "among the most highly acutely toxic insecticides to bees" through contact and oral exposure. Since clothianidin is a systemic pesticide that is taken up by the plant, there is also potential for toxic chronic exposure resulting in long-term effects to bees and other pollinators from clothianidin residue in pollen and nectar. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in addition to potential effects on worker bees, there are also concerns about lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen from chronic exposure. However, in a 2012 statement the EPA reported that they are not aware of any data demonstrating that bee colonies are subject to elevated losses due to long-term exposure when clothianidin products are used at authorized rates. 
Honey bees and other pollinators are particularly sensitive to clothianidin, as evidenced by the results of laboratory and field toxicity testing and demonstrated in acute poisoning incidents in France and Germany in 2008, and in Canada in 2010 and 2013 associated with the planting of corn seeds treated with clothianidin. To reduce the risk to pollinators from acute exposure to clothianidin sprays, label instructions prohibit the use of these products when crops or weeds are in bloom and pollinators are nearby, but in the U.S. label instructions do not require the use of a "sticker", a sticking agent meant to reduce dust from treated seeds during planting. However, according to the EPA, the use of sticking agents to reduce dust from treated seeds is standard practice in the U.S. 
In a July 2008 German beekill incident, German beekeepers reported that 50 to 100 percent of their hives had been lost after pneumatic equipment used to plant corn seed blew clouds of pesticide dust into the air, which was then pushed by the wind onto neighboring canola fields in which managed bees were performing pollinator services. The accident was found to be the result of improper planting procedures and the weather. However, in 2009, Germany suspended authorization for the use of clothianidin on corn, citing unanswered questions that remained about potential exposure of bees and other pollinators to neonicotinoid pesticides. 
A 2011 Congressional Research Report describing some of the reasons why scientists believe honey bee colonies are being affected by CCD reported that the United States Department of Agriculture had concluded in 2009, "it now seems clear that no single factor alone is responsible for the malady." According to the research report, the neonicotinoids, which contain the active ingredient imidacloprid, and similar other chemicals, such as clothianidin and thiamethoxam, are being studied for a possible link to CCD. Honey bees are thought to possibly be affected by such chemicals, which are known to work their way through the plant up into the flowers and leave residues in the nectar and pollen that bees forage on. The scientists studying CCD have tested samples of pollen and have indicated findings of a broad range of substances, including insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. They note that the doses taken up by bees are not lethal, but they are concerned about possible chronic problems caused by long-term exposure. 
A report released in 2012 found a close relationship between the deaths of bees and the use of pneumatic drilling machines for the sowing of corn seeds coated with clothianidin and other neonicotinoid insecticides. In pneumatic drilling machines, seeds are sucked in, causing the erosion of fragments of the insecticide shell, which are then expelled with a current of air. Field tests found that foraging bees flying through dust released during the planting of corn seeds coated with neonicotinoid insecticides may encounter exposure high enough to be lethal. They concluded: "The consequent acute lethal effect evidenced in all the field sowing experiments can be well compared with the colony loss phenomena widely reported by beekeepers in spring and often associated to corn sowing." Another field study released in 2012 looked at sublethal effects of clothianidin and imidacloprid in amounts that bees might be exposed to during foraging. Sublethal doses can affect orientation, foraging, learning ability and brood care. The study found: "clothianidin elicited detrimental sub-lethal effects at somewhat lower doses (0.5 ng/bee) than imidacloprid (1.5 ng/bee). Bees disappeared at the level of 1 ng for clothianidin, while we could register the first bee losses for imidacloprid at doses exceeding 3 ng."[42]
In a 2012 study, scientists found that an analyses of bees found dead in and around hives from several apiaries in Indiana showed the presence of the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The research showed that the insecticides were present at high concentrations in waste talc that was exhausted from farm machinery during planting and that is left outside after cleaning the planting equipment. Talc is used in the vacuum system planters to keep pesticide treated seeds flowing freely and was studied by the investigators since the waste talc can be picked up by the wind, and could spread the pesticide to non-treated areas; they did not however investigate whether and how much pesticide spreads this way. The insecticides were also consistently found at low levels in soil up to two years after treated seed was planted, and on nearby dandelion flowers and corn pollen gathered by the bees. Also in 2012, researchers in Italy published findings that the pneumatic drilling machines that plant corn seeds coated with clothianidin and imidacloprid release large amounts of the pesticide into the air, causing significant mortality in foraging honey bees. 
Neonicotinoids banned by European Union
In 2012, several peer reviewed independent studies were published showing that neonicotinoids, including clothianidin, had previously undetected routes of exposure affecting bees including through dust, pollen, and nectar; that sub-nanogram toxicity resulted in failure to return to the hive without immediate lethality, the primary symptom of colony collapse disorder; and showing environmental persistence in agricultural irrigation channels and soil. These reports prompted a formal peer review by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which stated in January 2013 that neonicotinoids, including clothianidin, pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied on may be flawed and contain several data gaps not previously considered. Their review concluded, "A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. A high acute risk was also identified from exposure via residues in nectar and/or pollen. In April 2013, the European Union voted for a two-year restriction on neonicotinoid insecticides. The ban restricted the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam for use on crops that are attractive to bees (maize, cotton, sunflower, and rapeseed), and goes into effect on December 1, 2013. Eight nations voted against the motion, including the British government which argued that the science was incomplete.
Following on the release of the EFSA report in January 2013, the UK Parliament has asked manufacturer Bayer Cropscience to explain discrepancies in evidence they have submitted to an investigation.


----------

