# Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

*Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline?intcmp=239*



The world's most widely used insecticides (Imidacloprid) has for the first time been officially labelled an *"unacceptable danger to bees feeding on flowering crops*". Environmental campaigners say the conclusion, by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), sounds the "death knell" for the insect nerve-agent.

The chemical's manufacturer, Bayer, claimed the report, released on Wednesday, did not alter existing risk assessments and warned against "over-interpretation of the precautionary principle".

The report comes just months after the UK government dismissed a fast-growing body of evidence of harm to bees as insufficient to justify banning the chemicals.

Bees and other pollinators are critical to one-third of all food, but two major studies in March 2012, and others since, have implicated neonicotinoid pesticides in the decline in the insects, alongside habitat loss and disease. In April, the European commission demanded a re-examination of the risks posed by the chemicals, including Bayer's widely used imidacloprid and two others.

Scientists at the *European Food Safety Authority* (EFSA), together with experts from across Europe, concluded on Wednesday that for imidacloprid _*"only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable"* _because of exposure through nectar and pollen. Such crops include oil seed rape, corn and sunflowers. EFSA was asked to consider the acute and chronic effects on bee larvae, bee behaviour and the colony as a whole, and the risks posed by sub-lethal doses. But it found a widespread lack of information in many areas and had stated previously that current "simplistic" regulations contained "major weaknesses".

_*"This is a major turning point in the battle to save our bees,"*_ said Friends of the Earth's Andrew Pendleton: _*"EFSA have sounded the death knell for one of the chemicals most frequently linked to bee decline and cast serious doubt over the safety of the whole neonicotinoid family. Ministers must wake up to the fact that these chemicals come with an enormous sting in the tail by immediately suspending the use of these pesticides."*_

*Prof David Goulson*, at the University of Stirling and who led one of the key 2012 studies, said: 
​[B_]"It is very pleasing that EFSA now acknowledge there are significant environmental risks associated with these chemicals. It begs the question of what was going on when these chemicals were first approved. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was 50 years ago but we have not learned the lessons._"[/B]

However, Bayer's Julian Little told the Guardian:
​* "We do not believe the new EFSA reports alter the quality and validity of [existing] risk assessments and the underlying studies. [But] the company is ready to work with the European commission and member states to address the perceived data gaps. We believe it is very important that any political decision relating to registrations of neonicotinoid-containing products should be based on clear scientific evidence of adverse effects … and not on the basis of an over-interpretation of the precautionary principle."*

The chemical industry funded a report published on Tuesday claiming that banning neonicotinoids would cost farmers £620m in lost food production. But Goulson said the report contained "not a shred" of serious evidence.

A spokesman for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said: 
​[B_]"This research will be examined by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides and their advice will be considered by ministers. If it is concluded that restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids are necessary, they will be brought in." The spokesman said the results of new government field studies were expected imminently_.[/B]

EFSA concluded that another neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam, was an "acute risk" to bees through droplets of sugary sap exuded by maize seedlings. But Mike Bushell, at thiamethoxam manufacturer Syngenta, said: 
[B_]"EFSA has focused on highly theoretical risks to bees, ignoring years of independent monitoring that demonstrates the identified risks are being managed through established stewardship practices_."[/B] He said Syngenta's interpretation of studies was that there was *"no evidence whatsoever"[/B] of an impact on bee colonies from sap droplets.

The effect of neonicotinoids on pollinators is under investigation by the UK parliament and the Guardian has learned that Bayer's spokesman, Julian Little, is being recalled to explain "discrepancies" in his evidence. 

​[B]"Our inquiry has identified apparent flaws in the assessment of imidacloprid," said Joan Walley MP, chair of the environmental audit committee. "Despite data from field trials showing the pesticide could linger in the environment at dangerous levels, imidacloprid was approved for use in the EU. We have asked chemical giant Bayer to return to parliament to explain discrepancies in its evidence on the amount of time that imidacloprid remains in the environment."*

Walley added:
_"The evidence seen by the committee raises serious questions about the integrity, transparency and effectiveness of EU ​*pesticides regulation." EFSA is responsible for providing expert assessments on safety risks, while national governments and the European commission are responsible for taking action. Bans on some neonicotinoid uses have already been implemented in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia, but not, to date, in the UK*_*.*

Evidence submitted to Walley's inquiry cites a long list of failings in current regulations. They include that it is only the effects on honeybees that are considered, despite 90% of pollination being performed by different species, such as bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others. Others are that the testing required is far too short to detect chronic or sublethal effects and that the regime was set up for pesticide sprays, not systemic chemicals like neonicotinoids that are used to treat seeds.

Even the National Farmers Union, which argues that there is no need for a change of approach to neonicotinoids, told MPs: "It is very well known that the current pesticide risk assessment systems for bees were not developed to assess systemic pesticides."

The National Farmers Union horticulture adviser Chris Hartfield, reacting to the EFSA report, said:
​* "Any decision to change the regulatory process, which in turn changes pesticide usage, will have an impact. It is essential that we fully understand all these impacts before taking action."*


----------



## HatTrick (Oct 19, 2012)

*Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*

And here in the US nothing will be done. A quote taken from the EPA's web site on neonicotinoids, "To EPA's knowledge, none of the incidents that led to suspensions (refering to France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia) have been associated with Colony Collapse Disorder."

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html


----------



## MichaelShantz (May 9, 2010)

*Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*

This may well be a valid concern that warrants close study ... but it comes from the Guardian, a paper that seldom tells the truth, and it praises Rachel Carson who was proven wrong in almost everything she said. So I have to wonder. These days it is hard to figure out which set of pseudo-scientists is telling the truth.


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*

Unfortunately bees are attracted to rapeseed/canola or is this a different plant.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

*Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*

millions of bees feed on treated canola in Canada with no problems reported.


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

*When you can't fault the facts, attack the messenger.*



MichaelShantz said:


> This may well be a valid concern that warrants close study ... but it comes from the Guardian, a paper that seldom tells the truth, and it praises Rachel Carson who was proven wrong in almost everything she said. So I have to wonder. These days it is hard to figure out which set of pseudo-scientists is telling the truth.


When people can't fault the facts, they turn to 'ad hominem' attacks - i.e. attack the messenger. Rachel Carson's singular achievement was she pointed out that DDT was a highly dangerous organochlorine that was killing birds by the millions - especially the raptors which were at the top of the food chain. Can you cite ANY paper which refutes those facts?

Secondly, the Guardian was merely *reporting* the publication of a report by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) - more or less the equivalent of the EPA, except that it serves the 27 countries of the European Union rather than the 51 (?) States of the USA. The Guardian did not carry out any of these studies - they did not write this report; they merely reported on the conclusions of the report by EFSA - which was written by dozens of scientists from every one of the 27 member countries of the EU. That's a lot of brain power and a lot of universities.

In fact, the report carries even more weight, because EFSA is known to be an 'industry-friendly' agency - and just like the EPA it has steadfastly denied any connection between neonics and bee deaths for the last 15 years. What has changed is that the weight of scientific papers which confirm the causal link between neonics and the deaths of bees, other pollinators and birds - is now so overwhelming that even EFSA cannot carry on ignoring it. Sadly the EPA IS still ignoring it, but that is because the American EPA is largely an industry-front organisation - led by political appointees who used to work for Monsanto until Bush handed the EPA to them tied up in a pink ribbon.


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

*Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*



doc25 said:


> Unfortunately bees are attracted to rapeseed/canola or is this a different plant.


Bees are attracted to canola, sunflowers, soya beans and cotton. But the real killer in the States is corn (maize). More than 92 million acres of American corn were treated with Clothianidion in 2010 and when you add in wheat, soya and canola the total acreage treated with neonicotinoids is well over 200 million acres.
Maize/ Corn produces vast amounts of pollen which is very attractive to bees - since in many midwestern areas corn will be the only 'pollen crop' available for weeks at a time. The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab.

Clothianidin is about 7,000 times more toxic to bees than DDT was (official figures) and the EPA's own scientists recommended that it should NOT be given a license because it was:


Highly toxic to bees
Highly persistent in soil (up to 6,000 days / 19 years 'half life' on some clay soils)
Highly soluble and persistent in ground water - so danger of contaminating human drinking water.

Tragically, the EPA is not directed by its scientists but by political appointees - usually people who have worked for Monsanto or Bayer. The EPA looked at its scientists warnings and said "nah - that's OK - give it a license" - that was in 2003.

Since then, America has lost over 6 million bee colonies and untold billions of bumblebees, butterflies and other pollinators.

The Purdue Study on neonics measured the amount of Clothianidin used to coat a single corn seed at planting. This averaged 1.25mg per seed - which is enough poison to kill 200,000 bees - that's about 4 hives worth.

I recommend reading Michael Shacker's book *'A Spring Without Bees' *- which tells the whole sad story. $10 on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Spring-without-Bees-Collapse-Endangered/dp/B005HKP058


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

*No problems in Canada - think again!*

http://thecanadian.org/item/1413-the-bee%E2%80%99s-needs-pesticide-miranda-holmes



> Every winter since 2006 when the term colony collapse disorder (CCD) was coined, commercial bee keepers in Canada have been losing an average of 30% of their bees. (Last winter, south and central Vancouver Island bee keepers* lost 80% of their colonies
> *.) To stay in business they are now importing bees from New Zealand.
> 
> There is as yet no definitive scientific explanation for why the bees are dying – or simply disappearing – but there is a great body of evidence to suggest the culprit is a family of insecticides called neonicotinoids, which are now widely used in agriculture worldwide.
> ...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*

>The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab.

bbm, can you give a a reference for this?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*

from a recent lecture by mark lynas, a well-respected environmentalist and countryman of yours:

"So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably."

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

*Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> >The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab.
> 
> bbm, can you give a a reference for this?


There is a new charity/ Not for profit called* 'Small Blue Marble'* which has placed all the key papers about the neonicotinoids / bees issue online for free, Please visit this link:

http://smallbluemarble.org.uk/research/

ONE crucial report from the USA which is highly relevant to anyone who keeps bees near corn fields - is the KRUPKE study from Indiana University.
Here:

http://smallbluemarble.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Krupke-2012.pdf

ABSTRACT:



> Abstract
> Populations of honey bees and other pollinators have declined worldwide in recent years. A variety of stressors have been
> implicated as potential causes, including agricultural pesticides. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are widely used and
> highly toxic to honey bees, have been found in previous analyses of honey bee pollen and comb material. However, the
> ...


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

i am familiar with the krupke et. al. study, and no where in it is your claim:

"The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab."


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

you are free to believe as you wish, i prefer to stick with the facts as they are presently understood, (and subject to change as new and valid information comes to light).

here is a recent review by someone whose understanding is based on science fact and not science fiction:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

You appear to be an industry insider??


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*

...the problem with the Lynus "confession" is that he also admitted to never having read a peer reviewed study on plant biology. It is easy for an ignorant person to change their mind. ...which is the real problem here. If one is willing to mislead (or lead out of ignorance) in order to cause others to take action, all they are really doing is creating a group of believers that are ripe to believe the next lie....and the next lie is bound to be more attractive.

Deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



borderbeeman said:


> You appear to be an industry insider??


 i'll answer that when you provide me the reference for your claim:

"The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab."


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*



deknow said:


> ...the problem with the Lynus "confession" is that he also admitted to never having read a peer reviewed study on plant biology. It is easy for an ignorant person to change their mind. ...which is the real problem here. If one is willing to mislead (or lead out of ignorance) in order to cause others to take action, all they are really doing is creating a group of believers that are ripe to believe the next lie....and the next lie is bound to be more attractive.
> 
> Deknow


good morning dean. you are probably better read than i on gmo's, what's your take?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



borderbeeman said:


> You appear to be an industry insider??


No, SP is just level headed. I think SP likes to look at the whole picture from both sides before forming an opion.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



borderbeeman said:


> You appear to be an industry insider??


I'm an "insider"....I like to know what is "inside" a study.

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*

Wow….two of the most memorable and meaningful quotes I’ve seen on Beesource….and within two days of each other…..and from people with whom I often find myself in disagreement!



deknow said:


> If one is willing to mislead (or lead out of ignorance) in order to cause others to take action, all they are really doing is creating a group of believers that are ripe to believe the next lie....and the next lie is bound to be more attractive.





Michael Bush said:


> "Lord, lead me into the company of those who seek the truth and protect me from those who have found it."--?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*



squarepeg said:


> good morning dean. you are probably better read than i on gmo's, what's your take?


This is a bit OT for this thread, but my take on GMO's is this....

Yes, there are many mechanisms where genes are transferred from one organism to another (most notably, gut microbes tend to pick up genes that help digest food from the microbes that live on that food).

This is not a targeted or directed process...it is part of how life exists, how life, evolution, and "biological time" unfolds. It isn't strictly random....there is some reason to how this works (a leaf is likely to harbor microbes that can metabolize some aspect of that leaf....it isn't just random chance that if I start eating that leaf that genes that would help me metabolize that leaf are shared with my already present gut flora).

50,000 people (more or less) die in car accidents every year. Some of this is more or less random...and we are willing to accept that (the value of car transportation outweighs the cost in life). ...but in any case where such deaths are not random (ie, drunk drivers, poorly maintained cars, no license, etc), we take great pains to eliminate. What if those 50,000 deaths were not random...what if they were targeted?

Exactly. A random vehicle death is not the same thing as a targeted vehicle death. The same mechanism (a car running someone over) is at play, but one is punishable, and one is not.

The lottery is the lottery (and people play it) because it is a random system. If the lottery were rigged so that only beekeepers won, how many non-beekeepers would buy tickets?

GMO's rely on mechanisms that do exist in nature....but once we start applying these mechanisms in a targeted, human centric manner, we are no longer doing anything natural. What are the consequences? I have some ideas, but essentially it's like going into Vegas with loaded dice.....you might win some money, but the fact that you can "win at will" throws the entire casino system out of balance.

deknow


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/


Thanks for the link. Good read!


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

thanks for your thoughtful answer dean.

another poster points out that agriculture as practiced by humans has never been 'natural'.

it appears that only time will tell if the correct balance of risk/benefit is acheived with gmo's.

so far, there seem to be more upsides than downsides, jmho.


----------



## borderbeeman (Dec 16, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> i'll answer that when you provide me the reference for your claim:
> 
> "The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab."


OK - this is not really the place to get into detailed analysis of an academic research paper - but I will give you the short version.

Krupke's paper was noted worldwide because it found that there were multiple routes of exposure to bees near corn/ maize fields:

1. Bees were killed outright by exposure to planter dust - which contained huge levels of Clothianidin
2. Bees were killed by consuming pollen collected from treated plants - in which levels of Clothianidin exceeded the LD50 (lethal acute dose at which 50% of exposed bees died)
3. Soil was found to be contaminated with Clothianidin at levels above the LD50
4. Dandelions growing nearby were found to be contaminated with Clothianidin above the LD50 level.
Finally, Clothianidin is known to be highly soluble in water and highly persisten - meaning that it can leach from treated fields into neighbouring un-treated fields where it can be taken up by wildflowers or follow on crops.

Dr Christian Krupke'e paper includes the following abstracts:

*DISCUSSION*

Because we found these compounds in pollen, oral LD50 is a
relevant parameter in discussing toxicity to honey bees. 

In terms of acute toxicity (based on the *oral LD50 of 2.8 ng/bee* [23]), the
amount of clothianidin on a single maize seed at the rate of
0.5 mg/kernel contains enough active ingredient to kill over
*80,000 *honey bees.

The levels of clothianidin in bee-collected pollen that we found are
approximately 10-fold higher than reported from experiments
conducted in canola grown from clothianidin-treated seed [16

Detection of clothianidin in pollen, both in stored pollen in cells
and in pollen traps is a critical finding because clothianidin is even
more toxic when administered to bees orally, with an LD50 of
*2.8–3.7 *ng/bee [23,24]. 

*Given an average weight of 80–100 mg/ per bee, some of our 
pollen sample concentrations exceed the oral
LD50. * 

This, combined with the result that our samples of dead
and dying honey bees consistently demonstrated the presence of
clothianidin, suggests that the levels of both clothianidin and
thiamethoxam found in our sampling of stored pollen in May of
2011 may have contributed to the deaths of the bees we analyzed.



*Table 3.* Pesticide concentrations found in pollen removed from maize anthers at anthesis. Samples were taken from the
experimental field where hives were placed. All concentrations shown are expressed as parts per billion.1

THIAMETHOXAM 1.7ppb

CLOTHIANIDIN 3.9 ppb


*Table 4.* Pesticide concentrations found in pollen samples removed from returning foragers of hives placed adjacent to maize
fields at planting, all concentrations shown are expressed as parts per billion.1

1 day after planting 6.7ppb
2 days afer planting 3.4ppb

*
Table 5.* Pesticide concentrations found in/near apiary colonies during planting period in 2011, all concentrations shown are
expressed as parts per billion.1

samples of dead or dying bees contained Clothianidin at concentrations of: 6.9ppb, 10.8ppb, 3.8ppb, 4.9ppb, 13.3ppb


*Table 6.* Pesticide concentrations found in* unplanted *fields near apiary during planting period in 2011, all concentrations shown
are expressed as parts per billion.1

Concentration in Dandelions in* unplanted* fields 1.4ppb, 3.9ppb, 5.1ppb, 1.1ppb, 9.6ppb, 15.4ppb


Since the generally accepted baseline for Clothianidin toxicity - for Krupke was that the *oral LD50 of 2.8 ng/bee* - many of the figures quoted above show that the poison insecticide was present at many times this level - up to 15.4ppb in p0ollen, dead bees and wildflowers.

I wouild stress that ALL of the above dosage levels are libnked to ACUTE LD 50s - i.e. levels at which bees keel over and die within a short time.
There is no mention here of CHRONIC, SUB LETHAL EXPOSURE to far lower amounts. Many studies have confirmed that when bees are exposed to virtually undetectable amounts of neonics (Alaux, Pettis, Belzunces) they still die. Belzunces in France was able to achieve an LD50 with imidacloprid by feeding bees just 4 ppb in syrup; they all died within 48 hours. However, when he fed them ONE THOUSANDTH of this dose - that is 4 PARTS PER TRILLION ( 4 picogrammes) all of the bees died within 10 days. This is the clearest example of how a poison is hundreds of times more toxic if fed for much lower doses, but over an extended period - which is what happens when bees store contaminated pollen within the hive and feed it to brood and queen over a period of weeks or months.

That would appear to be very convincing to anyone with an open mind. Not only is this convincing, but it fully explains the observed phenomena of global mass-bee deaths - from Australia, to New Zealand, to France, germany, UK, Italy, USA and Canada. In every case the mass death of colonies is consistent in time and space with the widespread introduction of neonics. you don't actually need lab studies - the Epidemiology is enough to convince any reasonable person what is the root cause here.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> another poster points out that agriculture as practiced by humans has never been 'natural'.


Of course not. It is a common argument for GMO's to state that there is nothing "unnatural" about GMO....it is rarely (if ever) argued that GMOs are completely contrary to nature, yet "good".



> it appears that only time will tell if the correct balance of risk/benefit is acheived with gmo's.
> so far, there seem to be more upsides than downsides, jmho.


1. Unless you can list (and quantify) the "downsides" along with the "benefits", it is impossible to compare them.
2. It seems to me that humans have much the same general motivations as the rest of nature. Unless one can imagine an infinite future of a perfect well run government/regulation of GMO technology, it is impossible not to assume that at some point, in a quest for profit, any "balance" will be breached (think of a Bernie Madoff type of cheat....but one that can escape and reproduce). Already Bt is losing its efficacy because it is easy to build a resistance to something that is always present. How many replicating proteins are we willing to release into the wild? What are we willing to give up in return?

deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

all good points dean.

cleary, it is erroneous to claim there is nothing 'unatural' about gmo's.

and the profit motive as you point out can be a deliterious factor.

one obvious upside would be reduced spraying and drifting of insecticides.

another might be increased production at a reduced cost, but i'll have to defer to the farmers on that one.

the biggest downside i'm aware of is the risk posed if quantities of neonics are released in dust clouds when proper precautions are not taken during planting.

do you have a list of up and downsides with quantification?

i'm no expert on gmo's nor an industry insider, just someone with a vested interest trying to stay informed.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



> The world's most widely used insecticides (Imidacloprid) ... -borderbeeman


I see this sort of claim bandied about, but I'm puzzled as to what, exactly, it means. It almost certainly isn't based on the amounts applied. So, what exactly does it mean? Applied in the most varied sorts of formulations? How are such things measured?

I'll be honest, I didn't get much farther than that in reading the initial post. I realize that virtually all insecticides pose threats to virtually all insects that come in contact with them. Despite that, let me just say that I have used and continue to use some pesticides, neonicotinoids and even imidacloprid specifically among them. Ever check to see that sort of active ingredient is in that top-spot application you just made to your pets? If a neonicotinoid can persist for weeks or even months in the ground or in a plant and be transferred after that time to pollen in a plant, is it much more of a stretch to imagine that the waste products excreted by a pet might also contain these systemic insecticides, which could then be taken up by plants growing at those sites, and later transferred into the pollen of flowers produced by those plants?

I regard broad-leaf herbicides as being among the most detrimental pesticides to bees, yet few people seem to want to tackle addressing the dangers of reducing or eliminating populations of flowering plants that rely on and support populations of pollinating insects.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> cleary, it is erroneous to claim there is nothing 'unatural' about gmo's.


...but it is important to understand what the "it's natural" argument is if you want to understand why it is misleading (at best).


> one obvious upside would be reduced spraying and drifting of insecticides.


Well, it would be...but it doesn't appear to be in practice. GMO corn with Bt inserted into it's DNA (and produced by the plant) has made Bt largely uselss...because it doesn't have to get sprayed....it sprays itself.
Also, note that almost all of the GMO corn is also seed coated with neonics (an alarming amount by any measure).
Also note that the other popular GMO option, "roundup ready" actually increases herbicide spraying.



> another might be increased production at a reduced cost, but i'll have to defer to the farmers on that one.


...which is also what the farming methods that led the the dust bowl were after.


> the biggest downside i'm aware of is the risk posed if quantities of neonics are released in dust clouds when proper precautions are not taken during planting.


You've got to clear this up in your head. Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide that is applied to seed, soil, trunk, or leaf. Imidacloprid is not inserted into the genes of the plant, it is not produced by the plant....it is distributed throughout the plant, and it is often used when GMOs are also used (especially in corn).


> do you have a list of up and downsides with quantification?


I didn't claim that one could make such an analysis at this point.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

yep, the unintended consequences and lack of a crystal ball. i guess those prarie land farmers had no way of predicting those years of severe drought and windstorms.

so do we proceed with advances and trust that in the end we do more good than harm, and learn from our (hopefully not irreversible) mistakes?

when it comes to feeding the world, do we have safer and sustainable alternatives?

i don't know enough about it to comment.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



> Also, note that almost all of the GMO corn is also seed coated with neon's ... -deknow


Right. Ironic, but it's true. Purchasing "naked" transgenic seed is a challenge. And, in an ironic sort of way, it makes sense. See, the Bt traits are specific against specific herbivores on corn. Bt traits target European corn borer and corn rootworm larvae and corn earworm and some other specific insects. Those traits drive the price of the seed up, but they don't protect it against insects that might consume the seed before or as it germinates. To protect the investment of the seed, seed companies and growers desire the seed treatments on those pricey seeds.

I'm still pretty undecided about what this means for bees. I've spent thousands of hours counting insects in corn fields, yet I rarely have encountered more than an isolated individual honey bee at any time in corn. I've never observed them collecting dew or water from guttation in corn. I do not commonly see them collecting pollen from corn. It certainly may happen, and it may happen far more frequently under different sorts of conditions, but I haven't seen much evidence that bees utilize corn fields much.



> You've got to clear this up in your head. -deknow


I read that much differently than you, I think. The cited study from the U. S. about the risks of seed treatments (neonicotinoids, in particular) stated that the greatest risk to honey bees directly seemed to come from planting under very dry, dusty conditions and allowing dust from those seed treatments to drift onto plants blooming or about to bloom around the edges of those fields. Dandelions, in particular, were cited as a plant that takes up neonicotinoids under those field conditions. That makes sense to me.


----------



## DBeeCooper (Apr 28, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



deknow said:


> You've got to clear this up in your head. Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide that is applied to seed, soil, trunk, or leaf. Imidacloprid is not inserted into the genes of the plant, it is not produced by the plant....it is distributed throughout the plant, and it is often used when GMOs are also used (especially in corn).


You are so right! It seems like many folks are confusing the two. For example:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/
this link doesn't seem to have anything to say about Imidiclorid, it's about GMO.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that there aren't more studies concerning the levels of Imidicloprid in corn pollen. I suspect the logic:scratch: goes something like this--corn is wind pollinated, so we don't need to look at that. I saw something similar concerning using Imidicloprid to control the Emerald Ash Borer. Ash trees don't need bees. What they ignore is, bees DO use ash trees.

Why don't the Academic and Scientific beekeepers speak up on this? Clearly they should know that just because a plant is wind-pollinated doesn't mean that pollinators don't collect that pollen. I admit to being only recently aware of this info, but surely that's not the case with the experts?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



> I do not commonly see them collecting pollen from corn. It certainly may happen, and it may happen far more frequently under different sorts of conditions, but I haven't seen much evidence that bees utilize corn fields much.


My bees often collect pollen from a cornfield close to one of my yards. The seed is treated. I have noticed no problems from this practice and the hives have good survival [100% last year and around 85% this year so far]. But the farmer does not plant with an air planter so I escape that problem.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

Agree with camero on bees in corn, can't say anything about effects on the bees, but the fields can be 'buzzing' although, I don't see a lot of bees, but can sure hear them. It's easy to say gmo and neonics go hand in hand for some crops.... 90% of the corn is gmo.... if 90% was non gmo, I still think most of it would be treated. I hear conflicting reports... France is back pedaling, no noticeable improvements since the ban, but again, I've seen documentaries claim otherwise. I think it warrants study, the persistance bothers me the most. 

deknow, overall use of herbicides have increased I believe when you look at the numbers, but it also comes from the fact that a lot more land became available to farm using the technology. I think if you looked at amounts per acre, there is still a decrease in pesticide usage. I don't understand why people are surprised when resistance comes up. We all know the result of using the same trait over and over is. People just look at the $$, don't want to reduce income with proper rotations or refuge requirements anymore because it's just too easy now.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



> I don't understand why people are surprised when resistance comes up. We all know the result of using the same trait over and over is. People just look at the $$, don't want to reduce income with proper rotations or refuge requirements anymore because it's just too easy now.


Some beekeepers should read this in reference to their mite treatments. That's why some treatments don't work anymore!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

O.K., so we believe/know/accept that insecticides can be lethal to honey bees. Now, what comes about because of it?

In the initial post, the summary stated that "neonicotinoids are an unacceptable risk to honey bees." That's pretty strong language. If that risk is truly unacceptable, something has to give. What? Get rid of neonicotinoids? I doubt that will happen any time soon. Stop keeping honey bees? I doubt most beekeepers would go along with that. So, what?

The initial post also states: 



> Scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), together with experts from across Europe, concluded on Wednesday that for imidacloprid "only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable" because of exposure through nectar and pollen. Such crops include oil seed rape, corn and sunflowers. -borderbeeman


I checked the EFSA's Web site, and found this press release from Wednesday, January 16, 2013:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/...age&utm_medium=infocus&utm_campaign=beehealth

I can't find where they state generally that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptable risk to honey bees. They seem to specify that certain formulations and applications under certain conditions pose significant risk to bees, but they also stipulate that they lacked data to make final assessments.

Keep us posted, if you will, on what steps are taken in Europe regarding registrations and legal uses for some of these chemicals. I don't expect much for changes in North America in the near future based on demand for grains.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> yep, the unintended consequences and lack of a crystal ball. i guess those prarie land farmers had no way of predicting those years of severe drought and windstorms.


Some unintended consequences are predictable, some aren't....but you should do a little reading up on the causes of the dust bowl...short term thinking wrt farming practices paid off short term (with predictable long term results).



> so do we proceed with advances and trust that in the end we do more good than harm, and learn from our (hopefully not irreversible) mistakes?


Talking about "advances" is like talking about "change". What do these advances look like? Who benefits? What are the impacts? What separates an "advancement" from a "mistake"?



> when it comes to feeding the world, do we have safer and sustainable alternatives?


What does "feeding the world" mean? Who do you want to feed? What resources do you want to spend feeding them? How many humans is the earth supposed to be able to support? Is it in our own best interest to use GMO technology to up the number of humans we can support? Can we expect a stable and "sustainable" result form doing so?



deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



Kieck said:


> See, the Bt traits are specific against specific herbivores on corn. Bt traits target European corn borer and corn rootworm larvae and corn earworm and some other specific insects...but they don't protect it against insects that might consume the seed before or as it germinates. To protect the investment of the seed, seed companies and growers desire the seed treatments on those pricey seeds.


Yes, but in fact, the corn rootworm has been developing resistance to Bt.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-monsanto-corn-idUSBRE82815Z20120309

...something that was so predictable, that it was actually predicted.
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/playing-god-in-the-garden/


I read that much differently than you, I think. The cited study from the U. S. about the risks of seed treatments (neonicotinoids, in particular) stated that the greatest risk to honey bees directly seemed to come from planting under very dry, dusty conditions.....[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is what the study ended up saying...but the effective mode of action of these systemic pesticides is that the plant takes them up and expresses them throughout their tissue. This is entirely different from a Bt gene that is spliced into the DNA of the corn so that the corn itself produces and expresses the toxin.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



> Yes, but in fact, the corn rootworm has been developing resistance to Bt. -deknow


I'm well aware. I stated such things even here on Beesource years ago. I've stated similar things with regards to all sorts of evolutionary adaptations, too. Bees adapting to tolerate mites, mites adapting to more efficiently parasitize those tolerant (or "resistant") bees, and so on the cycle goes.

But all that is beside the point of this thread. The point here is about neonicotinoids, the risks to bees, and what can/should be done about the situation.



> ... but the effective mode of action of these systemic pesticides is that the plant takes them up and expresses them throughout their tissue. -deknow


I think we're muddling the issue further here. I read the post by squarepeg as a simple statement of one of the conclusions of the paper. I didn't detect any confusion in his post between neonicotinoids and GMOs. I was attempting to clarify the way I read his comment.

I do think the idea of "expressing" neonicotinoids by systemic action confuses systemic pesticides and GMOs. Systemic insecticides like neonicotinoids are not "expressed." They are transported (that is, they are "systemic," or enter the vascular system of the plant. "Expression" gives a connotation that the plant is producing the insecticide from genetic information, rather than simply moving an applied chemical throughout the plant.

But I sense we're splitting hairs here. The real question remains: What will society choose to do about the issue?

And, more directly to the thread, what are possible recommended courses of action from rehashing ideas like here initially posted in this thread?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

dean>"Some unintended consequences are predictable, some aren't....but you should do a little reading up on the causes of the dust bowl...short term thinking wrt farming practices paid off short term (with predictable long term results)."

i did a little reading on it since you brought it up. the folks at columbia have a different take than yours:

"had the SSTs been known in advance, it would have been possible to predict that the drought was to occur and, perhaps, the environmental and social catastrophe of the Dust Bowl could have been ameliorated."

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dustbowl.shtml

it's not that i disagree that unsustainable farming practices were employed, but to the point of this discussion, humanity has always been and continues to be on one huge learning curve.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> i did a little reading on it since you brought it up. the folks at columbia have a different take than yours:
> "had the SSTs been known in advance, it would have been possible to predict that the drought was to occur and, perhaps, the environmental and social catastrophe of the Dust Bowl could have been ameliorated."


...and how is this a "different take" than mine?

The paper you cite (and link to) is specifically focused on one aspect of the dustbowl, and asked if the drought could have been predicted. It would be a mistake to claim that this article is about the causes of the dust bowl. The author links to another article (which he is also one of the authors of) which states clearly:


> ....But the Dust Bowl drought was not meteorologically extreme by the standards of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Indeed the 1856-65 drought may have involved a more severe drop in precipitation. It was the combination of drought and poor land use practice that created the environmental disaster.
> Much of the Plains had been plowed up in the decades before the 1930s as wheat cropping expanded west. Alas, while natural prairie grasses can survive a drought the wheat that was planted could not and, when the precipitation fell, it shriveled and died exposing bare earth to the winds. This was the ultimate cause of the wind erosion and terrible dust storms that hit the Plains in the 1930s.


http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dustbowl.shtml


Regardless, the action that would have had to have been taken to prevent the dust bowl even if we could have predicted the drought would have been to:

1. Change the weather
or
2. Take some measures to mitigate the damage done by unsustainable farming practices

deknow


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> i did a little reading on it since you brought it up. the folks at columbia have a different take than yours:
> 
> "had the SSTs been known in advance, it would have been possible to predict that the drought was to occur and, *perhaps*, the environmental and social catastrophe of the Dust Bowl could have been ameliorated."
> 
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dustbowl.shtml


Thats quite an amusing conclusion you came to. The very same Columbia website also has this:


> The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. But the Dust Bowl drought was not meteorologically extreme by the standards of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Indeed the 1856-65 drought may have involved a more severe drop in precipitation. _It was the combination of drought *and poor land use practice* that created the environmental disaster_.
> 
> Full page here:
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml


.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

>(with predictable long term results)

my take is that the authors state the associated weather pattern had not been observed in centuries, and never on this continent, and that the end result had not been predicted. 

perhaps there were 'environmentalists' back then eschewing those practices, with the foresight of what might happen should this rare weather pattern emerge, predicting those long term results?

the poor land practice appears a lesson learned in hindsight, as some of the most painful lessons are.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



> the poor land practice appears a lesson learned in hindsight, as some of the most painful lessons are.


...I'm not sure what the point of this is. The paper you cited was also looking at weather patterns IN HINDSIGHT, and only suggests that perhaps IN HINDSIGHT, if we knew _more_ about weather patterns and how to predict them then than we do _now_, we could have taken some action to mitigate the impact of the drought.

Given that we _could_ have done something (in hindsight), it would have been along the lines of changing the unsustainable farming practices, not changing weather patterns. 

In the long run, sustainable farming practices will fair better in cycles of drought. Also in the long run, usustainable farming practices will (eventually, by definition) prove to be unsustainable. The farming practices were going to cause a problem eventually no matter how good the weather was for a bunch of years.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

yes, it was the combination of weather and poor practices.

yes, it could have been predicted _*if*_ today's forecasting models had been available (the author's conclusion).

ok, you guys win, uncle.

back to the neonics. i guess the debate is whether or not the 'predictable' long term results to the environment and the bees are being borne out. i'm not sure i'm convinced that has been proven, but what do i know.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> so do we proceed with advances


The ability of our farm to produce off an acre of land has doubled, directly related to the technologies implemented from "Big Agri". 
The cost per acre to grow the crop has also doubled, directly related to the cost of oil.

Take technological advantage out and we cant afford to grow the crops at its current price levels.
Either we use the technology available or we raise the price of food to be able to grow it


----------



## Baja (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*

Rachel Carson wrong in almost everything she said? Wow! What a statement. So according to you DDT was good and we should be spraying it in the street as we did when I was a kid?


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



deknow said:


> What does "feeding the world" mean? Who do you want to feed? What resources do you want to spend feeding them? How many humans is the earth supposed to be able to support? Is it in our own best interest to use GMO technology to up the number of humans we can support? Can we expect a stable and "sustainable" result form doing so?
> 
> 
> 
> deknow


:thumbsup:
This is a constant statement in agriculture. Who decided we have to feed the world? I'm sure if the average farmer could earn the same amount of money without GM/spraying/fertilizer produce less and get paid more per bushel they would not be so worried about feeding the world. "Feeding the world" is propaganda and allows you to sleep well at night thinking no matter what you do to the land you're doing good feeding the world. Deep down the real motivation is $$$$$.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

$$$$$$$

of course it is.
feeding the world comes from the fact that we trade internationally. The price of commodities are reflected as such, and the reason why we do not have massive price swings in areas of plenty of crop or no crop at all. It provides the world with a static supply of food. If the world produced 10-20% less food than it does now, the prices you and I and everyone else in the world would start paying out the ear to eat. This farmer as the one in Ukraine is feeding the world with a steady cheap supply of food.

zero propaganda in this statement


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

Doc, prices reflect the export market... you can't produce less and get paid more, it's purely volume these days. Maybe it's not the proper way, I don't know, but ask the guy maximizing productivity on a few thousand acres and see what he says about producing less...


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

A lot of talk about supply...but that's only half of an equation. What is a reasonable population for the planet to support? If demand (number of mouths to feed) is always pressing up against supply (ie, family size is determined in part by what it costs to feed each mouth), then we will always be trying to "feed the world" and never actually doing it.

But also relevant is "what are you willing to give up" in order t OK feed the world?

Deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



deknow said:


> A lot of talk about supply...but that's only half of an equation. What is a reasonable population for the planet to support? If demand (number of mouths to feed) is always pressing up against supply (ie, family size is determined in part by what it costs to feed each mouth), then we will always be trying to "feed the world" and never actually doing it.
> 
> But also relevant is "what are you willing to give up" in order t OK feed the world?
> 
> Deknow


those are some thought provoking questions in your post dean. how would you answer them?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> those are some thought provoking questions in your post dean. how would you answer them?


Well, Malthus wasn't right about everything, but he was correct in observing that, absent other pressures, any population will grow to not only utilize all of its food supply, but will grow enough to destroy it.

I would start by not assuming that it is necessary to always be trying to feed the world...doing so leads to more mouths to feed, and there still isn't enough to go around. I'm not advocating making lists of people to eliminate or any kind of eugenics program...but it isn't really any different than anything else.

Q:"How much do you want?"

A:"More than I have."

Q:"What do you want to pay for what you want...what are you willing to give up?"

A:"Less than I'm paying/giving up for what I have now...which is less than what I want."

We do this....and all of nature does this.

In our own lives, most of us figure out how to regulate this kind of loop from taking over. In the quest to "feed the world" by using more productive technologies _because_ they are going to finally make it possible to feed the world doesn't really consider the bigger question...."What are you willing to give up." The easy way out is to simply assume that you aren't giving anything up....but I don't know of anything, on any level that works that way.

I think a better approach is to figure out what kind of planet we want to live on and figure that out....I can't believe the answer is "the kind of planet where we can stuff the most number of humans, regardless of what it looks like."

...can't help but think of "Bordered in Black" by Larry Niven (a good short story...free online):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100964572/Larry-Niven-Bordered-in-Black

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

...there is a page missing in that copy of the story....try here:
http://bookre.org/reader?file=263759&pg=1

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



Ian said:


> feed yourself and family, then feed your community
> for me its feed my family, then myself and then communtiy


...and when you community is a global population, and you realize that no matter how much you feed it it gets too big to be fed, you keep going until something breaks down?

One of the commercial beekeepers in Queen of the Sun remarked, "We are in business to stay in business"...the above seems the opposite.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

intriguing, thanks dean. i hope we get a chance someday to meet in person.

mike bush discusses on his website and here on beesource how one's world view has a tendency to shape one's approach to beekeeping.

i pray i am not reading too much between the lines, and i hope you don't take this in any other way than in the spirit in which it is intended,

but i am curious. your approach to beekeeping is nothing artificial, no meds, no outside foodsource (with rare exceptions), no intervening to alter the course of a colony dying a natural but certain death.

would you prefer to live in a world in which **** sapiens operated under those same conditions?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

More food is better than less food. Increasing productivity is better than decreasing productivity of these things I am certain.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

This thread has wondered off topic and into TG material.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

time to lay it to rest then


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

Well give me a choice between neonic seed and organic seed, I'm buying organic. And I buy very little food these days.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



squarepeg said:


> would you prefer to live in a world in which **** sapiens operated under those same conditions?


No. I don't live in a world where bees are (or should be) treated like humans. I also don't live in a world where humans are treated like bees. Neither is appropriate.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*

same here dean.


----------



## seyc (Jul 15, 2012)

*Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports*



Barry said:


> This thread has wondered off topic and into TG material.


What is "TG"?


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*

Who is Dean?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*

Pay attention, there will be a quiz later. :lookout:

"dean" is Beesource member "_deknow_", "TG" is "Tailgater", a Beesource sub-forum.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?234689-Caveat-Posteri-Let-the-poster-beware


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

*Re: No problems in Canada - think again!*

Thank you. I always flunk the name quiz!


----------



## TheBuzz (Feb 8, 2012)

*Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"*



HatTrick said:


> And here in the US nothing will be done. A quote taken from the EPA's web site on neonicotinoids, "To EPA's knowledge, none of the incidents that led to suspensions (refering to France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia) have been associated with Colony Collapse Disorder."
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html


Those darn Europeans. What do they know? It's not like most of Europe and Canada have kids with higher science scores. Oh wait they all do!!!


----------

