# Monsanto buys Beeologics!



## Barry

Hmmm, does give pause for concern.


----------



## Fogducker

Monsanto are the fine folks who have brought us the weed killer "Roundup", something like "Agent Orange", and then genetically engineered crops to be resistant to "Roundup". Hope my girls don't find any of that stuff.

Better living through chemistry--------oh yeah!

Fog


----------



## David LaFerney

Hope they don't sue us if our queens mate with their drones.


----------



## WLC

You don't understand.

Once they get a gene that they own into a Honeybee, and then it shows up in your bees, they own you.

That's their M.O. .

Unfortunately, if they put this RNAi gene into a known retrotransposon site, it can act like a jumping gene, and it will get around very quickly.


----------



## waynesgarden

I picture a time in the future when the busiest sub-forum of Beesource will be "Beekeepers Sued by Monsanto Forum" for victims of Monsanto's legal department.

Wayne


----------



## squarepeg

sorry, i'm new. what's the bad history with monsanto? googled beeologics, looks like their developing antiviral meds for bees.


----------



## Gypsi

Monsanto sues organic farmers for stealing their patented 
Genes if bees cross-pollinate neighboring fields.


----------



## squarepeg

really?


----------



## WLC

Read, "The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and The Control of The World's Food Supply." by the award winning French journalist Marie-Monique Robin.

You'll get a feel for how Monsanto operates.


----------



## squarepeg

wlc, found the video free on you tube, gonna watch it.


----------



## lazy shooter

I have worked as a consultant for Monsanto on several occasions. Their chemical plants are the cleanest plants with the least air omissions of any of the several chemical plants that I have worked. I don't have any idea what their plan is for the honey bee operation. I do know something about their genetic engineering of crops, and I don't see any problem with genetic engineering. Now, before you come unbuckled remember their are some where north of six billion folks in our world, and some of the nice tidy things that we do (organic farming comes to mind) will not work to feed the world's population. OK, I've put my hardhat on, so fire away.


----------



## Spark

They are an evil corporation whose only goal is world food domination strictly for greed.


----------



## Intheswamp

Don't feed the pidgeons....


----------



## WLC

Don't feed the pidgeons.... ?

When you read about how the introduction of Bt cotton in India has led to the suicide of thousands of farmers, you might say that there are no words that can accurately describe what they are.


----------



## Intheswamp

WLC said:


> Don't feed the pidgeons.... ?
> 
> When you read about how the introduction of Bt cotton in India has led to the suicide of thousands of farmers, you might say that there are no words that can accurately describe what they are.


As for Monsanto...they're evil scum...no use in discussing that being as we're both limited in our descriptive abilities to describe them justly.

The statements a few messages above by Lazy the Monsanto employee, ending with the remark about putting on a hardhat on and "firing away" seemed somewhat inciteful, thus the bird warning.

I believe we're on the same page.


----------



## lazy shooter

I am not an employee of Monsanto. I am a part owner of a consulting company that drills hazardous environment oil and gas wells and provides sub surface geology for environmental concerns, and all my work is consulting on a per day cost or per hour basis. I work for Exxon/Mobile, Valero, DuPont and several other large companies. Monsanto has been a good client that pays their bills on time and provides a clean and professional work place. For that I am grateful.

I really don't know where all the Monsanto hate comes from, but roundup is a blessing to many people.


----------



## beeware10

for all the problems they have had with the bee industry this is could be a good will gesture along with making more money. makes sense to join rather than stand back and get beat up. this way they can say they are helping save the bees.


----------



## WLC

Lazy Shooter:

Do you know anything about the players involved in Beelogics? 

Beelogics has done some groundbreaking research on the application of RNAi technology on Honeybees.

In my opinion, it's where the next generation of products used to combat agricultural pests and pathogens will come from.

I'm also familiar with some of the research done by key advisors to Beelogic.

I'm sorry to see that some of them will now be 'on the payroll'.

If it was any other company, even Bayer, I wouldn't have reacted the same way.

You don't want a Monsanto to get a stranglehold on Honeybees, either here in the U.S., or anywhere else for that matter.

It's what happens after you sign on the dotted line that has me worried.

Also, Honeybees aren't an organism that anyone, who understands anything about their molecular biology, would advise as a subject for genetic modification.

Honeybees aren't Maize, and I've decribed them as having Formula 1 Genetics for a good reason.
Genetic modifications can get around very quickly.


----------



## Intheswamp

beeware10 said:


> for all the problems they have had with the bee industry this is could be a good will gesture along with making more money. makes sense to join rather than stand back and get beat up. this way they can say they are helping save the bees.


Monsanto does not care about good will nor about *appearing* to help save the bees....and they do the beating, they do not receive it. The money part is right...they'll do *anything* for it...and they don't care who or what gets hurt in the process. I feel confident that they already have an idea of how they'll reap profits from the purchase of Beeologics and that they're looking at how to control this segment of farming.

Conspiracy thinking.....it is historical fact that the best way to control people is with their food and water supply.


----------



## Gypsi

This is the part that worries me:

WLC said: "Also, Honeybees aren't an organism that anyone, who understands anything about their molecular biology, would advise as a subject for genetic modification.

Honeybees aren't Maize, and I've decribed them as having Formula 1 Genetics for a good reason.
Genetic modifications can get around very quickly."

They had better be healthy mods, because we will all be dealing with them. Although as long as I can stay off the radar on even having bees, I shouldn't get sued.

Gypsi


----------



## Michael Bush

>Once they get a gene that they own into a Honeybee, and then it shows up in your bees, they own you.

That's one of my two biggest concerns. The other is that once a gene is loose there is no removing it and what if it is not advantageous to the beekeeping world... AHB obviously comes to mind...

>That's their M.O. .

Yes it is. They have done it in the past, just not on honeybees yet.


----------



## waynesgarden

Gypsi said:


> Monsanto sues organic farmers for stealing their patented


Actually, Monsanto sues any farmer it wants, organic or conventional. With over 10 and a half billion dollara in sales last year, they can afford endless legal representation.

To prevent them from putting your farm out of business, don't save seed. Don't let their seed drift onto your land. Don't let birds carry seed into your fields. 

They even sued Oakhurst Dairy, here in Maine, to try to force them to remove a note on their label stating that they do not use artificial growth hormone, a product that Monsanto produced at one time.

Since I don't have a full-time legal department, I don't believe I'll be buying any bee-related products from them.

Wayne


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Sadly, honeybees have an incomplete genome. Their immune systems are easily compromised due to the lack of a correct genetic code. So it was only a matter of time before some idiot researcher decided to insert only the devil knows what genetics into the bee to benefit some large bioengineering firm. Now having said that, the world is running out of resources. We are going to need all of our ingenuity and resources to keep humanity going. WLC, you got your food stockpile built up yet??? TED


----------



## jim lyon

Keep talking folks I'm still trying to formulate an opinion on this. A few points, though, do jump out at me. 
1. Any type of genetic modification of honey bees sounds a bit ominous
2. It may have tremendous potential to do good.....and harm
3. I don't see how anyone could possibly control the licensing rights to any bees beyond the first generation since honeybee reproduction is so vastly different and more uncontrollable than seed production


----------



## Humanbeeing

Maybe they will develop a neonicontinoid ready bee.


----------



## Michael Bush

>1. Any type of genetic modification of honey bees sounds a bit ominous

Agreed.

>2. It may have tremendous potential to do good.....and harm

Agreed. Look at what has happened just trying to manipulate natural genes... AHB are a glimpse on a very SMALL scale of some of the potential for disaster to the bee world.

>3. I don't see how anyone could possibly control the licensing rights to any bees beyond the first generation since honeybee reproduction is so vastly different and more uncontrollable than seed production.

But seeds are not controllable. They are finding genes from Monsanto corn in secluded villages in the Andes who have been saving their own seed for centuries. Pollen blows in he wind and is carried for miles by bees. And yet the courts have let them sue farmers who were not trying to get Monsanto genes at all, but were just doing what they had done for centuries and save their own seed from their own plants. If it were not already happening, I would agree that any reasonable person would think it ludicrous to allow them that kind of rights. But they already are.


----------



## rwurster

Selective breeding of honeybees for good housekeeping or greater honey production is a genetically modifying them, and roundup is a great product.


----------



## WLC

'Selective breeding of honeybees for good housekeeping or greater honey production is a genetically modifying them, and roundup is a great product.'

I don't agree with the first part. Yes, GMO and the matching products do work, for a time.

What concerns me about Beeologics' advisors is this: some of its Isreali advisors, and 1 U.S. advisor have discovered retrotransposition of RNA viruses in Honeybees.

In fact, at least one of the Isrealis worked w/ Maori, the discoverer of retrotransposition of IAPV into Honeybees, and the resulting RNAi induced immunity to IAPV it caused. The American found other viruses retrotransposed into Honeybees, like DWV.

So, it's possible that they will use retrotransposition to get new genes into Honeybees. This can occur accidentaly when they feed RNAi products to bees, or by design. That's my concern.


----------



## Acebird

lazy shooter said:


> I am a part owner of a consulting company that drills hazardous environment oil and gas wells and provides sub surface geology for environmental concerns, and all my work is consulting on a per day cost or per hour basis. I work for Exxon/Mobile, Valero, DuPont and several other large companies.


I, yie, yie, public enemy #2, toxic oil companies destine to destroy our most precious resource, water.


----------



## Acebird

> Once they get a gene that they own into a Honeybee, and then it shows up in your bees, they own you.


If people were smart they would ban together and turn that around. It is their gene that is polluting the (pure) species so they should be paying the damages not the other way around. I know our justice system is far from justice but it baffles me how jurors would side with Monsanto to win any case. I just can't figure it.


----------



## Acebird

> roundup is a great product.


 OMG I'm going to puke! Eat all you want.


----------



## lazy shooter

Acebird said:


> I, yie, yie, public enemy #2, toxic oil companies destine to destroy our most precious resource, water.


Acebird:

We are a hydrocarbon based society. Do you have electricity, or mayber a car, or lawn mower or .... Do they operate on hydrocarbons? If you have an electric car, what generates the electricity? 

The over use of water from the Ogallaly Acquifer, irrigation from the Rio Grande and many other farming areas is using up our water. Do you water your yard like millions of Americans do? 

I agree with you that water is precious, but the oil companies are but a small portion of that problem.

Lazy


----------



## Intheswamp

This appears to be the press release from Monsanto...it seems to me to be some ominous wording in there:
http://www.beeologics.com/breaking_news.asp

This thread got me to reading about RNA virus and bees...I'm no medical/chemistry/lab person and at the moment a wannabee beek so I'm definitely in the newbee tier. 

What caught my attention is that some researchers believe there is a link between CCD, RNA, and pollen. What I read was that some researchers found pollen brought in by non-diseased bees to be contaminated with RNA viruses...they stripped the pollen directly off of the bees before the bee had a chance to deposit it in the hive. Anybody know how long Monsanto has been fooling around with the genetics of our food supply and how long CCD has been happening?

AHB is courtesy of 26 Tanzanian queen bees being "accidentally released" in South America. Thank you very much, Brazil. I'm sure that Beelogics has been tinkering around with honey bee genes for some time. If they hadn't made significant inroads to achieving some of their goals then Monsanto would not have bought them (Monsanto looks at $$$$). Monsanto is not focusing on making bees healthy, they are looking at making money...if the bees happen to benefit from it it makes for some good public relation work and photo ops.

Looks like one of the main Beelogic people has already chug-a-lugged the Monsanto kool-aid... "Passionate About Bees" By Nitzan Paldi, Chief Technology Officer and Co-founder of Beelogics .

In their research did Beelogic possibly create some super "sick" bees to cure? I sure hope that none of the "ooh, I left the door open, too bad..." genetics of that bee keeper in Brazil are in any of the workers at Beelogic/Monsato. If Monsato decides to "just out of curiosity" explore what happens if they do something like the "terminator gene" in honeybees....how much of a bonus wouldthe goonie get that leaves the door open? 

I apologize for being conspiracy-minded, but Monsanto is EVIL. If they can not make money on us or gain some type of control over us...then we are in their way and they could care less about what happens to us...or our bees.

I hope that my feelings are very, very wrong, but I'll have to see proof otherwise to think any differently. 

Ed


----------



## Intheswamp

lazy shooter said:


> I agree with you that water is precious, but the oil companies are but a small portion of that problem.
> 
> Lazy


I agree with you on this...all the glyphosate being dumped on our watershed farmland going into our rivers, streams, and reservoirs that's doing more damage than the oil wells. Plus changing the genetics of unintended (native) target plants and in some cases eradicating them...that kind of hurts. Just think Beelogic/Monsanto could design a crop and include a modification that could spread *their* honeybee gene via pollen to local beeks' honey bees. They could probably then have the local beeks arrested for "stealing" their "intellectual property" or whatever they call it...charge'em with trespassing, too, since the beeks didn't exert reasonable control over their bees, keeping them from working the gmo pollen crop.<sigh>

One other thing...what about if your honey is checked and Monsanto's marker is found in it?...do the feds then seize your year's worth of productivity and arrest you??? 

I'm done here, maybe I'm getting out there a far bit....but not so many years ago who would have ever thought that you could dump tons of RoundUP on a crop and the crop not be damaged? ....or be arrested for saving your great-great-great-grandfather's corn seed?:waiting:

Ed

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear


----------



## Gypsi

Acebird said:


> If people were smart they would ban together and turn that around. It is their gene that is polluting the (pure) species so they should be paying the damages not the other way around. I know our justice system is far from justice but it baffles me how jurors would side with Monsanto to win any case. I just can't figure it.


Organic farmers are beginning to sue, and win suits against Monsanto for just this reason. But all the same the damage is done. I don't think organic non-modified canola (rape) exists anymore, due to contamination from gmo fields. (You'd have to research that, I read too much, and retain a bit less everytime.)

Gypsi


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries

I agree all of this is super spooky. Could someone explain exactly what Beeologics does? And what they do w/ RNA?
Mike


----------



## D Coates

Lazy Shooter,

Give up trying reason with the unreasonable. Some people feed on finding the negative and focus much of their time on it. Instead of focusing on the negative, I see the positive, Monsanto has the financial strength to get serious about coming up with solutions. They'll sell those solutions to those who want to buy it and yep, they'll make a profit. They are not a social organization, they are not the government, they have to balance their books, meet shareholder expectations and are in it for the money. Just like I am too, if I can make a legal, ethical (my ethics) dollar creating a product I will. People want jobs created... but are against what they deem as "EVIL" companies... Where exactly are these good paying jobs supposed to come from? I'm certain there are those who consider my company "EVIL" as well. Personally, I use some Monsanto products and if Monsanto is this effective at making money and defending their patents, I may go buy some stock in the company.


----------



## sevenmmm

Every bee yard should have no trespassing signs posted. Using the DNA against a beekeeper in court would be problematic. 

I think it is fair to post "All Monsanto Employees will be Shot On Sight".


----------



## Randy Ray

I was wondering when and how the "Man Vs. God" prophecy would reach the Honey Bee. To be honest, I thought the prophecy was already fulfilled with the Africanized Honey-bee, and all we had to do was breed the meanness out of them. Greed will kill us all unless a miracle happens. If the prophecies are true, humans are going to be in a painful way.


----------



## sevenmmm

I have to add to my post above.

Monsanto has preempted the natural order to the defeat of normal ecological functions that were built over a very long period of time. Don't get me wrong, there are many corporations that do damage in nature, but Monsanto is the monster red-horned devil in respect to all manner of life.

Yeah, a red-horned devil.

State-sanctioned big time money maker, their tentacles reach even to the beekeeping community, able to defeat and kill off even the least in opposition.


----------



## sevenmmm

Don't worry, Mr. Moderator, I won't type out what I really think.

:shhhh::shhhh::shhhh:


----------



## fish_stix

Anybody know Monsantos NYSE stock code? Think I'll add some to my retirement fund.


----------



## woodguyrob

Wonder if there is/are proprietary testing methods that beeoloigics own that are now controlled by Monsanto.


----------



## woodguyrob

sevenmmm said:


> Yeah, a red-horned devil.


But they keep a clean factory.....:ws:


----------



## woodguyrob

Acebird said:


> If people were smart they would ban together and turn that around. It is their gene that is polluting the (pure) species so they should be paying the damages not the other way around. I know our justice system is far from justice but it baffles me how jurors would side with Monsanto to win any case. I just can't figure it.


Farmers are trying to that now. Monsanto has deep deep pockets for litigation, not to mention the folks in Government who were on their board or worked for them or who will sit on their board upon retirement. They (Monsanto) have friends in high places.
It's all about the money...


----------



## Gypsi

This organization puts out the best newsletter on what's up with food that I receive, and is worth reading, and supporting. They are not Monsanto's best friend. http://www.organicconsumers.org/


----------



## sevenmmm

fish_stix said:


> Think I'll add some to my retirement fund.


You still have money in this market???

They don't want you to make any money, they only want to take it, you know...

Only a few things worth owning right now and they are all golden-colored.


----------



## Gypsi

Worth owning:

Simple housing that can be heated and cooled with minimal electrical requirements (the grid is strained, and it will get worse)
Land, good land.
Water - multiple sources. I'm on city water, but there is an old well down the street that might be revived provided fracking hasn't contaminated the ground water. They aren't quite here yet. If they don't get the well drilled by July of next year, I will not be renewing the contract I foolishly signed in 2005. 
Veggie seeds, fruit trees, chickens and bees. 

That's my plan anyway. Greenhouse starting to go up today.

Gypsi


----------



## lazy shooter

Woodguyrob:

"But they keep a clean factory....." I have worked on many different chemical plants over the years, and believe me a clean factory is a good omen in the chemical industry. I refused to work on a couple of plants over the years because the air omissions were too strong smelling. I'm impressed with cleanliness. I won't leave my car in a dirty mechanics work shop. I don't allow my roughnecks (oilfield workers) to wear dirty clothes. Mom often said "cleanliness is next to Godliness."

Now, I don't think being clean exhonorates all evil, but a clean plant shows pride in one's operations, and prideful people seem less likely to be crooks. But, in the end, I still don't know anything about genetics or Beeologics.


----------



## Gypsi

The best mechanics have dirty shops with uncivilized shop bathrooms, but their shop floors are immaculate for not having parts, tools, spills and debris. imho. In other words, function before beauty.

This is based on about 30 years of hiring mechanics. I've had some guys with a really nice waiting room tear up a car and turn it into $75 worth of salvage, but it was tidy when I got it back. They just blew the rings.

In other words, pride in appearance is often just good salesmanship.

Gypsi


----------



## beeG

Ok I have got to ask this group, this question? 
How many of you that have negative things to say about Monsanto, Say these things from first hand experience? 
I am extremely curious the reasons why Monsanto is considered satanic and evil? 
and I want first hand experiences?
Or even direct second hand experiences? 
and lastly if you do not have first or second hand experience through a relative or close friend. That got sued by Monsanto. Then what source caused you to believe so strongly against this company to hate them so? 

Oh I do believe the beelogic, that monsanto bought was working on that vaccine for the israel bee virus. A virus believed to be associated with CCD


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

While I dont like the tinkering around with honeybee genetics, it is going to happen. Just like glow in the dark kittens are now a reality as an offshoot of viral research. So GET OVER IT!!! and do not feed the pidgeons too much. TED


----------



## StevenG

But Ted!!! Pigeons are cheap, and they taste just like chicken!


----------



## Bee Bliss

Personally, what caused me to dislike Monsanto so much (many years ago) was reading reports of misdeeds, lawsuits, etc. etc. in Organic Gardening magazine. What I read makes me believe they are bullies, greedy and care not of the damage they do to others directly and indirectly.


----------



## mac

beeG said:


> Ok I have got to ask this group, this question?
> How many of you that have negative things to say about Monsanto, Say these things from first hand experience?
> I am extremely curious the reasons why Monsanto is considered satanic and evil?
> and I want first hand experiences?
> Or even direct second hand experiences?
> and lastly if you do not have first or second hand experience through a relative or close friend. That got sued by Monsanto. Then what source caused you to believe so strongly against this company to hate them so?


 Since ya asked nicely If my neighbor plants GMO corn and it also ends up pollinating my field of heirloom corn and I sell it and save the seeds for next year and Monsanto gets a sample and finds out it has their genetics I get sued for copyright / patent infringement and not paying royalties or buying the seed from a distributor that’s the problem with Monsanto A landmark lawsuit filed on March 29 in US federal court seeks to invalidate Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seeds and to prohibit the company from suing those whose crops become genetically contaminated.
The Public Patent Foundation filed suit on behalf of 270,000 people from sixty organic and sustainable businesses and trade associations, including thousands of certified-organic farmers. In Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 11 CIV 2163), PUBPAT details the invalidity of any patent that poisons people and the environment, and that is not useful to society, two hallmarks of US patent law.
"As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be 'injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society,'” notes the complaint in its opening paragraphs, citing Lowell v. Lewis. 
The suit points to studies citing harm caused by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.
We saw that when Bayer’s transgenic seeds contaminated a third of the US rice supply, causing the European Union to close its market to US rice. Bayer has faced 6,000 lawsuits due to that contamination and market closure. On top of lawsuits already lost or settled, last month, Bayer lost a $137 million lawsuit by Riceland Foods. The new suit notes that, “The worldwide total economic loss due to the [2006 GM rice] contamination event was estimated at $741 million to $1.285 billion.”


----------



## beeG

But it has not happened to you. Or anyone you personally know? just read about it? Granted if there were issues it sounds like these law suits are clearing things up. And as all companies go CEO's do change. I am not out right defending them. I cant grow a fungus. All plants die under my care. I just wanted to know how and why monsanto is so hated. Thank you for the honesty. And the honesty of the poster who dislikes monsanto because of an article in a magazine.


----------



## Bee Bliss

Excuuuuse me! It was much more than one article!!!! And do YOU not catch the news on TV??? So, do YOU think that lawsuits are enough to take care of permanent damage done by Monsanto!!! The clock cannot be rolled back. So, are we to believe that no damage has occurred and therefore we have no right to an opinion just because we did not personnally experience it??? Ha!


----------



## mac

beeG said:


> it has not happened to you.


 Not yet


beeG said:


> Or anyone you personally know? just read about it?


That seems to be how most people learn about whats going on around them in the world. How did ya learn about mites,shb,how to keep bees I assume ya must have read something.


beeG said:


> Thank you for the honesty. And the honesty of the poster who dislikes monsanto because of an article in a magazine.


 Not exactly just one. Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Schmeiser, ruling that he didn't have to pay Monsanto anything.. .....full storyhttp://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 http://organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm(NaturalNews) Australian organic farmer Steve Marsh recently had his organic certification status pulled by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia (NASAA) because his organic wheat field was contaminated by a nearby genetically-modified (GM) canola field. And after Marsh threatened to sue the GM farmer for the incident -- which has cost Marsh his entire business, by the way -- Monsanto, the owner of the GM canola, came out and said it would legally back the GM farmer "in any way [it] could."

A previous NaturalNews report on the issue explains that GM canola materials blew from a nearby GM field about a mile away and contaminated over 540 acres of Marsh's organic wheat fields (http://www.naturalnews.com/030686_G...). As a result, Marsh's fields can no longer be considered organic due to very high standards in the Australian organic industry that hold a "zero tolerance" policy concerning contamination with foreign genetic material.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030851_Monsanto_GMOs.html#ixzz1ZktTZssg http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...se-preserves-victory-for-farmers-environment/

High Mowing Organic Seeds Won Our Lawsuit Against Genetically Engineered Crops!

I am thrilled to announce that yesterday the 9th Circuit Court in California ruled in our favor in the High Mowing Organic Seeds lawsuit against the USDA regarding the premature deregulation of Monsanto's GMO sugar beets. We've won!!! We were joined in the suit by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Organic Seed Alliance and the Sierra Club and were represented by CFS and Earth Justice attorneys.

This ruling means that the USDA will likely require much more thorough research and a full Environmental Impact Study prior to allowing more GE crops to be released. It may also result in a moratorium on any more GMO sugar beets getting planted.

The USDA has a lot of work to do, but is recently making great progress. I hope that this lawsuit will confirm for them that people really care about our food system and keeping it safe and healthy.

You can read my original letter explaining why we decided to become involved with this suit.

For those who are curious, here is a copy of the actual court ruling. (PDF file)


----------



## franktrujillo

its a good thing that my bees are already super bees since there evolution is quicker than they are.my bees already contain the gene there trying to figure out and being contaminated with there canola the farmers should counter sue saying that they trespassed and illegally put that crop there and killed all there bugs in the field causing my child emotional distress because he like the bugs....


----------



## Spark

It's amazing how evident it is there are so many willing to particpate in a thread they have absolutely no knowledge of. Given you have internet access and all the free info about what Monsanto is doing at the tip of your nose and your eyes.

What Monsanto is doing to seed crops (yes they are buying up varieties..you never get your hands on again.. think it's OK) wait till they buy up all variety of bees. Have you seen what they've done to the South American farmers and soybeans, won't be long before their reach affects everyone here. So buy your demise with their stock and product, I won't!

If Monsanto can eventually control seed and pollination hopefully I'll no longer be around to see it.


----------



## beeG

Bee Bliss said:


> Excuuuuse me! It was much more than one article!!!! And do YOU not catch the news on TV??? So, do YOU think that lawsuits are enough to take care of permanent damage done by Monsanto!!! The clock cannot be rolled back. So, are we to believe that no damage has occurred and therefore we have no right to an opinion just because we did not personnally experience it??? Ha!


the tangable damage I see. With my own senses ( not written in an article, or televised on TV) Is the division in society caused by such claims and conspericies. With seem to fuel lynch mobs who cry witch and demand change. Ok I bite so we get rid of Monsanto, Tysons, sue bee, All of them. What then? What is your plan. and how capable are you to carry out such a plan? or are you just an arm chair warrior.


----------



## WLC

Well, Diana Cox-Foster's still listed as an advisor...

http://www.beeologics.com/advisory_board.asp

You wonder where the rest of the scientists on the RNAi trial fit in.

http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160

Did Monsanto also buy up some big names in the field of Honeybee pathogen research?

Who was the scientist that testified to Parliament about neonics in the U.K.?


----------



## beeG

This is the vaccine for the virus believed to be a cause of CCD http://www.beeologics.com/products.asp

In the founders blog he mentions the timing of monsanto buying the company to help in bringing the approval of the product so it may be avaliable to the public.


----------



## WLC

'This is the vaccine for the virus believed to be a cause of CCD'

Unfortunately, they're quite wrong about a 'vaccine' being necessary or even viable for CCD. 

Honeybees already incorporate viral RNA into their genome because they contain active retrotransposons.

Their product is not only redundant, it could have already been incorporated into the DNA of the Honeybees they treated in the RNAi trials.

It's not something that you want to do with the Honeybee.


----------



## sevenmmm

Great.

Monsanto creates systemic insecticide, markets it as the best thing since slice bread, and makes a ton of money selling it.

A side effect is the insecticide kills beneficial insects.

Monsanto then produces an antidote, and yet again, markets itself as a savior (red-colored one at that), and makes a ton of money selling it.

You mean to tell me we just can't prohibit the insecticide to begin with?

Sheesh...


----------



## beeware10

I talked to randy oliver a year ago about the vaccine from remebee.(fed with syrup) It was my understanding that it only worked on the bees fed and had to be fed later for future hatches. I may be way off but I can see by most of the other posts I'm not alone.


----------



## frostygoat

Much of this discussion is pretty alarmist. For those of you involved in sustainable or organic ag, Monsanto has done you all a huge favor by bringing GM crops to the mainstream. They've driven millions of people to a new level of food awareness that has created a huge market for you. 

From a scientific perspective, it is hard to argue against GMO's. There are no ill health effects from GM crops, and if anything the environment has benefited from reduced insecticide use in Bt corn. It certainly isn't playing God. Artificial selection (breeding), has been going on for thousands of years. GM makes it faster. Glow in the dark kittens help us cure disease. And I certainly wouldn't complain if GM mosquitos could wipe out malaria (which they may).


----------



## sevenmmm

frostygoat said:


> Much of this discussion is pretty alarmist.
> .


Really. Give some examples please.


----------



## WLC

"Without it most of you people living in the big concrete jungles called cities, would be sitting in the dark....Us country people would just throw another log on the fire.........TED"

Some of us have fire places Ted.


----------



## sevenmmm

Oh oh. Barry finally logged in.


----------



## Corvair68

beeG said:


> Oh I do believe the beelogic, that monsanto bought was working on that vaccine for the israel bee virus. A virus believed to be associated with CCD


I do believe some of the other things believed to be associated with CCD is Monsanto's GMO seeds, topical pesticides, and herbicides. Yeah they are really great folks, they brought us other great products like DDT and agent orange. 

They say hind sight is 20/20, apparently their hind site works differently. You can't see anything when your head is up your be-hind.


----------



## Barry

I think there have been a lot of unnecessary comments. Please, let's not get so far off topic for so long.


----------



## WLC

Everyone is just venting.

The topic is still Monsanto buys Beeologic.

What are the implications?

My feeling is that they are getting into bee rustling.

http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160

RNAi is a new player in the 'pesticide' game.

However, I don't think that RNAi is an effective treatment for Honeybee pests and pathogens.

RNAi is a good way to get a patentable gene into a bee.

If you look at some of the scientists attached to Beeologics, you'll see that Monsanto was out scientist shopping again.

What does it mean to have Cox-Foster in the stable?

She basically has agreat deal of influence in the 'peer reviewed' publishing game. If you want to publish a paper related to Honeybee pathogens, you'll likely have to go through her. That's how she gets her name on so many papers.

Ellis, Pettis, Hunter are there as well it seems.


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries

Could someone answer my question and explain what Beeologics does? I have skimmed the articles about them in ABJ. Someone give an synopsis. 
Mike


----------



## utahbees

One only needs research who the leading corporation suing farmers is... over 3,000 (estimated) lawsuits active, pending or settled for intellectual property theft by Monsanto against farmers (or other individuals/small companies related to farming)... and yes they have successfully defended their "patents on life" down multiple cross generations and regardless of how the Monsanto patented gene was introduced to the farmers crop.


----------



## Michael Bush

>There are no ill health effects from GM crops

When I was a kid there were no ill health effects in x-raying pregnant mothers so they could see their baby... but 30 years later when those babies were getting cancer, they changed their mind... that is only one of thousands of similar scenarios I have watched play out in my lifetime.


----------



## lazy shooter

It seems this thread is for the most part focused on what could go wrong. Are there any scenarios where good can come from this merger or buy-out?


----------



## jim lyon

A. X-Rays once thought to be safe were later proven to be unsafe
B. There is no evidence that genetically modified foods are unsafe
C. Therefore these foods will eventually be proven to be unsafe


I had our schools principal try something like that on me once years ago:
A. We caught Fred cheating
B. You and Fred are pretty close
C. Therefore you must have been cheating 

What do both of these scenarios lack? Evidence! Good science is a real stickler for that.


----------



## Jeff G

This thread makes me chuckle a little. Everyone thinks Monsanto has bought beeologics for the bee research but lets get real. I used to work for Monsanto years ago and IF it wasn't a 100 million dollar market, Monsanto was not interested, and I would imagine that figure is higher today. To me it is obvious; what they are after are the biological control products that are underdevelopment that they can put on corn or soybean seeds to benefit crop production. The entire pest control market for the 2.5 million hives in the US is probably only $10 to $20 million and that just ain't enough. And as cheap as we are as beekeepers it probably isn't that big. If we are lucky as beekeepers, Monsanto will continue to fund the bee research to benefit all of us. If they do it will be a good will gesture.

Just one mans opinion but if it wasn't for Monsanto and companies like them before them developing better genetics and greater crop yields, the world would be a hungrier place. Man has been modifying seeds for over 100 years and they are not done yet.


----------



## HVH

I started a thread in 08 asking forum members what their thoughts were regarding the future of transgenic bees http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?216380-Transgenic-bees&highlight=transgenic and more specifically, if they would purchase them. The responses were overwhelmingly negative. 
The idea of placing an RNAi gene into the honeybee germ line is only one application. Once this door is opened the Genie is out. The future is uncertain but it is reasonable to assume that transgenic bees will be made commercially available one day. Since I am not aware of any proprietary methods for the stable transfer of DNA into the honeybee genome I will remain optimistic that we still have some time left before a transgenic bee is released. I do, however, expect to one day see bees for sale that express 'genes of interest'. I don't have any idea what impact this will have, if any, but it always scares me when we play God and deal with any unintended consequences later. I've worked in this field before and think the technology is very powerful. But just because we can do something doesn't always mean we should.


----------



## Michael Bush

No.

A. X-Rays once thought to be safe were later proven to be unsafe demonstrating that there is a difference between "safe" in the short term and "safe" in the long term.
B. There is no evidence that genetically modified foods are unsafe YET
C. Therefore these foods MAY eventually be proven to be unsafe and any statement that they ARE safe in the long run is not a proven fact, but a currently unproven assumption.


----------



## Axtmann

Pollen from GM plants coming in contact (pollinated) with non GM plants and contaminate this plants, the result is the wild plans become extinct. GM is against the law in EU and even the import of honey from GM counties is against the law.


----------



## sevenmmm

Beekeepers should not lose sight of the fact Monsanto produces toxins that kills natural living organisms. Sure, most people would view single species plantings of the new super crops as a positive, but in any regard, way more life is destroyed in its making.

Including the honey bee.

Anyone who is for Monsanto is against the honey bee.


----------



## WLC

Kingfisher:

The Isreali's in Beeologic, Maori et al. (2007), discovered that Honeybees had incorporated IAPV viral sequences into their DNA. Some of these bees were immune to IAPV (via something known as RNA interference) because the bees were making fragments of IAPV RNA due to the viral sequence that had been 'retrotransposed' into their genome.

If you feed a particular double stranded RNA sequence to Honeybees, they can internalize it into their cells, and it can even be spread and amplified naturally throughout other cells in their body.

It can also cause matching RNA sequences to be cleaved, or destroyed, thereby making the Honeybee 'immune' to an RNA molecule that may come from a pathogen (or even the Honeybee!).

Beeologics basically sells this idea: we sell you double stranded RNA, you feed it to your bees, problem solved.

Unfortunately, it isn't a proven technology for fighting Honeybee pathogens.

RNAi/double stranded RNA is really something that still belongs in the lab at this point.

It can be be useful tool for silencing expressed gene products however.


----------



## toomanyhandles

D Coates said:


> Lazy Shooter,
> 
> Give up trying reason with the unreasonable. Some people feed on finding the negative and focus much of their time on it. Instead of focusing on the negative, I see the positive, Monsanto has the financial strength to get serious about coming up with solutions. They'll sell those solutions to those who want to buy it and yep, they'll make a profit. They are not a social organization, they are not the government, they have to balance their books, meet shareholder expectations and are in it for the money. Just like I am too, if I can make a legal, ethical (my ethics) dollar creating a product I will. People want jobs created... but are against what they deem as "EVIL" companies... Where exactly are these good paying jobs supposed to come from? I'm certain there are those who consider my company "EVIL" as well. Personally, I use some Monsanto products and if Monsanto is this effective at making money and defending their patents, I may go buy some stock in the company.


I think you are willfully? unaware of how this company operates.

They have patents on wind-blown genes that land on your plants (pollen), and your plants incorporate them as that is how life works.

Then come fall, the company comes onto your property, tests your seeds, and if they find their genes they either sue you until you are out of business, or you give up and buy their licensed product from then on.

I guarantee you if they follow this same pattern with honeybees you won't be keeping bees, my friend.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

Here is the real problem:

The Isreali's found that RNA virus (IAPV) sequences had become inserted into the Honeybee genome (in 30% of the colonies examined!). They also discovered that some of these bees were now immune to IAPV via RNAi. Maori described them as 'transgenic bees'.

They also described the mechanism by which this occurred, retrotransposition. RNA was being turned into DNA and being insereted into the Honeybee genome by retrotransposons (basically, they found evidence for an active jumping gene).

Here's the question: who in their right mind would feed RNA to an organism, like the Honeybee, when they know that there's evidence for active retrotransposition in the organism? In other words, if there's a chance that they can make a transgenic organism, why do it?

I have done my own experiments, and I can verify this. There is an active retrotransposon in the Honeybee (R2). I would not advise feeding dsRNA to Honeybees for that reason.

However, what does Beeologics do? They know about dsRNA and RNAi. But, they also know about the active retrotransposons in Honeybees. They discovered it.

So, they SELL-OUT to Monsanto, thus transferring their technology to them, and adding some big names in Honeybee science to the Monsanto stables.

And, on top of that, they've given Monsanto, a company known for crushing anyone who accidently acquires one of their patented genes in their crops, the possibility of putting those genes in bees.

Here's waht you need to understand about ds RNA and RNAi.

Monsanto's double stranded RNA can show up as an amplified product in your bees if they happen to rob honey from another hive that was treated with Remembee.

That's right folks, this stuff doesn't just sit around. Once dsRNA gets into your bees (even by robbing), then it can enter an amplification pathway. It will look as if you've fed dsRNA (like Remembee) to your colonies. 

Honeybees aren't Maize. Some of those RNA viruses that commonly infect Honeybees make this a real possibility (it's the RdRP that can do this).

PS-It's conceivable that the 'Remembee' from the field trials is making the rounds as we speak.


----------



## Duboisi

Not to mention that canola is already a modified form of rape(although with the old tech of crop selection), and that there are probably no original rape-stock left due to this.


----------



## mac

WLC said:


> HVH:] PS-It's conceivable that the 'Remembee' from the field trials is making the rounds as we speak.


 Look how well African bee research turned out


----------



## jim lyon

Looks like about 3 parallel points being discussed.

A. What are the potential dangers and benefits of genetic engineering of honeybees. Personally I am still learning and deciding, keep up the rational posts folks I am trying really hard to grasp this.
B. If Monsanto is involved it must be bad because everyone knows they are evil. Please stop with the irrational posts folks.
C. Genetic engineering is inherently bad and don't bother me with the mundane details of explaining why just take my word for it.

One thing we all need to keep in mind during this mostly rational discussion is that there are almost 7 billion people on our planet and all of them need that most basic of human requirements. Food. If we were still raising food like we were 100 years ago there wouldnt be enough to go around and I think it is safe to say that if all advances in food productivity were halted today there would rapidly come a time where our world population would outgrow our ability to produce enough food. This is a really complex issue and all the talk about corporate greed tends to oversimplify the core issue which is feeding a rapidly increasing populace. We are fortunate to live in a land of plenty where the discussion is about what type of food we will raise and not about whether we will eat today.


----------



## utahbees

No...

My argument is mainly against the suing of farmers for genes in their crops they have no control over. 

In the old days if my cattle got out of my fence and destroyed your corn crop I was liable. This is not the case with Monsanto genes if they get in your crop, no matter how, they can sue you for Patten infringement.
I am not against GM entirely or enhancing crop production (however if you do your research there as well you will find that sufficient proof has been produce to show that certain GM have actually had a negative impact on food production). 

What I am AGAINST is allowing LIFE TO BE PATENTED ON THE GENE LEVEL PAST THE FIRST GENERATION OR EVEN ACCROSS TRANSMUTATIONS/CROSSES. IF WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW PATENT OF LIFE WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THAT PATENT TO EXTEND TO PRODGINY AND THE PATENT OWNER SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ANY CROSS/UNWANTED POLLINATION... NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.



jim lyon said:


> Looks like about 3 parallel points being discussed.
> 
> A. What are the potential dangers and benefits of genetic engineering of honeybees. Personally I am still learning and deciding, keep up the rational posts folks I am trying really hard to grasp this.
> B. If Monsanto is involved it must be bad because everyone knows they are evil. Please stop with the irrational posts folks.
> C. Genetic engineering is inherently bad and don't bother me with the mundane details of explaining why just take my word for it.
> 
> One thing we all need to keep in mind during this mostly rational discussion is that there are almost 7 billion people on our planet and all of them need that most basic of human requirements. Food. If we were still raising food like we were 100 years ago there wouldnt be enough to go around and I think it is safe to say that if all advances in food productivity were halted today there would rapidly come a time where our world population would outgrow our ability to produce enough food. This is a really complex issue and all the talk about corporate greed tends to oversimplify the core issue which is feeding a rapidly increasing populace. We are fortunate to live in a land of plenty where the discussion is about what type of food we will raise and not about whether we will eat today.


----------



## sevenmmm

jim lyon said:


> B. If Monsanto is involved it must be bad because everyone knows they are evil. Please stop with the irrational posts folks.


Deliberately altering the natural order always has negative consequences, as such, it can be termed as evil. Here is the definition of evil, please make a note of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

I would like you to give me some examples of these irrational posts.


----------



## Nabber86

sevenmmm said:


> Deliberately altering the natural order always has negative consequences, as such, it can be termed as evil.


I put Bactine spray on a dirty cut I got in the garden last week, not to mention the Tetanus shot that I received 5 years ago. That altered the "natural order" because I didnt loose my finger to gangrene or die from from lock jaw.

I guess you consider that to be "evil"?


----------



## Nabber86

sevenmmm said:


> I would like you to give me some examples of these irrational posts.


For starters your quote qualifies as irrational:

"Deliberately altering the natural order _*always*_ has _*negative*_ consequences."


----------



## sevenmmm

Nabber86 said:


> That altered the "natural order" because I didnt loose my finger to gangrene or die from from lock jaw.
> 
> I guess you consider that to be "evil"?


Yep (for the record, I have also had a tetanus shot). The natural order has a method in dealing with weak and diseased. 

No doubt humans will continue to cultivate every square inch killing every aspect of wild life in so doing, until the soil tilth has been used up. Then we will be forced back to the natural order, and it won't be pretty.


----------



## D Coates

sevenmmm said:


> Beekeepers should not lose sight of the fact Monsanto produces toxins that kills natural living organisms.


Pharmaceutical companies create chemicals that kill natural living organisms. Doctors perscribe medicines that kill natural living organisms. Should we label both of these industries as evil too? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and watch you or your loved ones die from infections, diseases, cancers?



sevenmmm said:


> Anyone who is for Monsanto is against the honey bee.


Those type of statements are completely illogical and only erode taking your point of view seriously. We're all on this site as we are all huge supporters of beekeeping of the honey bee.


----------



## sevenmmm

Nabber86 said:


> "Deliberately altering the natural order _*always*_ has _*negative*_ consequences."


Yes. I deliberately stand by those words. Humans have preempted an order that has been in place for a very long time. I know this will come as a shock, but humans need a diversity of life. Single species plantings and altering life such as what is possible with honey bees is not diversity. 

Yes. Add killing or altering life on purpose, for profit, such as what Monsanto does, fits the definition of evil perfectly.


----------



## sevenmmm

D Coates said:


> Pharmaceutical companies create chemicals that kill natural living organisms. Doctors perscribe medicines that kill natural living organisms. Should we label both of these industries as evil too? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and watch you or your loved ones die from infections, diseases, cancers?
> 
> 
> 
> Those type of statements are completely illogical and only erode taking your point of view seriously. We're all on this site as we are all huge supporters of beekeeping of the honey bee.


Nope. And nope.

Why would I do that? It is illogical for life to die.

Having said that, medicines are preempting the natural order. One day soon I suspect a pathogen will come and wipe out a lot of people because we didn't allow our immune systems to work properly. This is why life ends but regenerates through the birth of a new generation.


----------



## D Coates

sevenmmm said:


> Add killing or altering life on purpose, for profit, such as what Monsanto does, fits the definition of evil perfectly.


So profit appears what you see as evil? Pharmaceutical companies and doctors exist becuase they can make a profit (ie, support themselves) from performing a service (ie killing natural organisms that cause the patient/customer harm). Take out the financial interest and new medicines, products, services, or JOBS aren't created. Take away "profit" and you end up with the thriving economy of ...Cuba.


----------



## Rohe Bee Ranch

Wow! This thread is amazing.


----------



## utahbees

Here is some reading for everyone and then research just a little more so you can decide. Research the individual lawsuits (most get settled out of court and therefore never make it to the light of day) and details referenced for yourself further and you will be shocked... also research the claims Monsanto makes in their lawsuits and statements. This article is meant as a reference put in the time to do your own research as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto


----------



## FarmerFrazier

I think we all can agree that none of us want to be sued by Monsanto because their drone happened to mate with our queen and our bees got their patented gene. This is what bothers me with Monsanto, they sue you because they failed to control the spread of their patented gene. I am not saying it is their intent to create a GM honeybee, but it worries me that they might, and then start suing beekeepers they contaminate.


----------



## Nabber86

After reading the wiki article on Mansanto and the following one about farmer Schmeiser, it's all clear to me now.

Monsanto was not sueing for simple possession of GM seed. Mr. Schmeiser knowingly cultivated and saved seed for later planting containing Mansanto's pantented genes. He (Schmeiser) knew the plants were Roundup Ready because he sprayed Roundup and the plants survived. He then instructed a farm hand to harvest the seed for later planting and sale. The suit *was not * about how the farmer got the seed in the first place (although I am finding the claim of "cross-contamination" highly dubious). 

Clearly this is patent infringment. Schmeiser was intent on profiting from Mansanto's work by planting seed that he knew was going to make him more money. 

Read this quote from the wiki article over and over: "_The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category_."

Further, "_The appellate court also discussed a possible intermediate scenario, in which a farmer is aware of contamination of his crop by genetically modified seed, but tolerates its presence and takes no action to increase its abundance in his crop. The court held that whether such a case would constitute patent infringement remains an open question but that it was a question that did not need to be decided in the Schmeiser case_." -


----------



## WLC

You don't even need to go the 'germline' route for their product, Remembee, to show up in your hives. Robbing and drifting alone can do that. 

Also, if this stuff does get amplified with the help of some RNA virus RdRP (you know: IAPV, KBV, ABPV, DWV, etc.), then it may spread very far, very quickly.

It's possible that it can be replicated without getting into the Honeybee genome.

That's one really dirty molecular trick.


----------



## utahbees

Nabber86 said:


> After reading the wiki article on Mansanto and the following one about farmer Schmeiser, it's all clear to me now.
> 
> Monsanto was not sueing for simple possession of GM seed. Mr. Schmeiser knowingly cultivated and sold seed containing Mansanto's pantented genes. He (Schmeiser) knew the plants were Roundup Ready because he sprayed Roundup and the plants survived. He then instructed a farm hand to harvest the seed for later planting and sale.
> 
> Clearly this patent infringment.


keep reading... he did not plant the seed.... Monsanto should not be able to sue any farmer when their gene cross pollinates or is carried by the wind, animal, or other. They should be responsible for their genes. In my opinion they are liable for trespassing and infiltrating/contaminating Mr. Schmeiser's seed and should pay restitution to him.


----------



## utahbees

As a farmer what choice does he have... he must produce a crop to survive. If he does not cut his crop and store seed he is finished and will not have an income for the year or be able to his loans. He did not know the extent of the Monsanto contamination... he simply cannot spray "roundup" on his entire crop to find out what dies and what doesn't. Monsanto sued him because their crop contaminated his field... simply ludicrous. 

Don't get me wrong I am not anti Corporations or business. I own my own companies and have filed several patents and have several ongoing patents applications for mechanical and/or intellectual property inventions I own. 

Non of my inventions can multiply, germinate, pollinate, and/ or mutate on their own.

I am, however, against the ability of life to be patented when it is extended to the progeny or the generational crosses/mutations. It is fairly recent in our history since we have allowed the patenting of life. Life did not use to be patentable.



utahbees said:


> keep reading... he did not plant the seed.... Monsanto should not be able to sue any farmer when their gene cross pollinates or is carried by the wind, animal, or other. They should be responsible for their genes. In my opinion they are liable for trespassing and infiltrating/contaminating Mr. Schmeiser's seed and should pay restitution to him.


----------



## Bee Bliss

We are losing heirloom plants/seeds due to many reasons including some people preferring to use the newer hybrids. It would be a shame to lose valuable heirlooms due to genetic contamination. Another problem occurs as the gene pool shrinks.


----------



## Nabber86

utahbees said:


> keep reading... he did not plant the seed.... Monsanto should not be able to sue any farmer when their gene cross pollinates or is carried by the wind, animal, or other. They should be responsible for their genes. In my opinion they are liable for trespassing and infiltrating/contaminating Mr. Schmeiser's seed and should pay restitution to him.


I did keep reading. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

_"At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola_."

Let's see, that's 1000 acres x $15 per acre = $15,000

and, 

"_While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] {{i.e., drifting}} could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop."

_OOOPs, there goes the gene "drifting" argument.

Clearly Schmeister was trying to defraud Monsanto to the tune of $15,000. 

Case closed.


----------



## Bee Bliss

Let's suppose that a farmer DOES buy the Monsanto Roundup Ready canola..............grows it one year and harvests seed from HIS crop and plants it next year. Shouldn't he be able to do that? Bet Monsanto won't let him!


----------



## Nabber86

Bee Bliss said:


> Let's suppose that a farmer DOES buy the Monsanto Roundup Ready canola..............grows it one year and harvests seed from HIS crop and plants it next year. Shouldn't he be able to do that? Bet Monsanto won't let him!


Exactly what Monsanto did (not let him plant the 2nd generation modified seed). 

Monsanto spent billions to develop the GM seed and they are due their fee if a farmer wants to benefit from roundup ready seed. All they have to do is cough up $15 per acre. Otherwise go to the local feed-n-seed, get non-GM canola seed, plant them, suffer reduced yeilds (in excess of $15 per acre), and save those seeds for planing next year. 

Monsanto is not holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to buy their seed. Dont buy it and save $15 per acre.


----------



## utahbees

Nabber86 said:


> "_While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] {{i.e., drifting}} could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop."
> 
> _OOOPs, there goes the gene "drifting" argument.


Monsanto's own admission: Monsanto initially claimed that Schmeiser planted Roundup Ready Canola in his fields intentionally, though they could offer no evidence for this. The company later admitted that it was possible for unintentional gene flow to have resulted in the initial presence of Roundup Ready Canola in Schmeiser's field.


----------



## Gypsi

from wikipedia:
Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the farmers' sale of seed containing Monsanto's patented genes. In some cases, farmers claimed the seed was unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops, a claim rejected in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.[11] These instances began in the mid to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto's favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5–4 vote in late May 2004, that court ruled that "by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants (canola farmer Percy Schmeiser) deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the patent." With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes.
As of February 2005, Monsanto has patent claims on breeding techniques for pigs which would grant them ownership of any pigs born of such techniques and their related herds. Greenpeace claims Monsanto is trying to claim ownership on ordinary breeding techniques.[12] Monsanto claims that the patent is a defensive measure to track animals from its system. They furthermore claim their patented method uses a specialized insemination device that requires less sperm than is typically needed.[13]
In 2006, the Public Patent Foundation filed requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke four patents that Monsanto has used in patent lawsuits against farmers. In the first round of reexamination, claims in all four patents were rejected by the Patent Office in four separate rulings dating from February through July 2007.[14] Monsanto has since filed responses in the reexaminations.
In October 2008, the company's Canadian division, Monsanto Canada Inc., was named one of Canada's Top 100 Employers by Mediacorp Canada Inc., and was featured in Maclean's newsmagazine. Later that month, Monsanto Canada Inc. was also named one of Manitoba's Top Employers, which was announced by the Winnipeg Free Press newspaper.[15]
In January 2010, Monsanto was named company of the year by Forbes.


----------



## Gypsi

I got my sweet corn seed this year, pre-ge monsanto corn seed. I keep it carefully refrigerated, and next year, if we don't have drought, I'll save my own seed to replant with. 

Trying to pick up a few heirloom varieties of other stuff for similar purposes.


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries

From the ABJ Extra (email newsletter)


> REMEBEE® -- Industry
> 
> Investment Will Bee Good
> 
> for the Bee Community
> 
> 
> Over the past few years – as reported and followed in the American Bee Journal (see for example “Sick bees 2” and “Sick Bees 7”), testing indicates that Remebee® shows promise in helping bees and their colonies avoid infection from viruses that may cause CCD. It is currently being used throughout the U.S. under an investigational use permit pending completion of the regulatory submission to the FDA.
> 
> While the breakthrough feels great as a scientist, as a beekeeper, I know the next step – bringing an approved product to market – is essential in putting the science to work and realizing its full potential. It’s one of the reasons why our announcement last week that Monsanto purchased Beeologics is coming at a good time.
> 
> In our opinion, this development is an important landmark that underscores the importance of bee health in the eyes of the agricultural community. It is a tremendous boost to facilitating the completion of the development and regulatory approval of the Remebee® product line to the benefit of the beekeeping community.
> 
> While I recognize that some people may have concerns about Monsanto getting involved in bees, I can assure you that Monsanto’s leadership team and scientists recognize the value of Beeologics’ research to the global bee community and are committed to continuing our work in advancing bee health. I’ve found them to be just as passionate about helping growers and agriculture as we are, and the work we’ve been doing fits well with their commitment to sustainable agriculture.
> 
> We plan on continuing to work with industry leaders to support and guide the development of our products. As we move forward, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Remebee product line with beekeepers who have questions.
> Bee health shall continue to be our main focus, and with increased impetus!
> 
> Sincerely,
> Nitzan Paldi
> CTO, Beeologics


----------



## Nabber86

utahbees said:


> Monsanto's own admission: Monsanto initially claimed that Schmeiser planted Roundup Ready Canola in his fields intentionally, though they could offer no evidence for this. The company later admitted that it was possible for unintentional gene flow to have resulted in the initial presence of Roundup Ready Canola in Schmeiser's field.


Hence my second quote above. "_While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] {{i.e., drifting}} could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop._"

Mansanto yielded that it [drifting] was "_possible_", but the court ruled that there was no "_reasonable explanation_" how the seed got there. This was based on Schmeister's proposed means, that presumably included drifting.

Anyway, the point that all of the Monsanto haters are IGNORING is that the suit was about making illegal profit from GM seed when the farmer in question knew he had Monsanto's seed and decided to use the seed without paying royalties, period. NOT how the seed got there in the first place. 



> "_The Federal Court of Appeal in particular stressed the importance of the finding that Schmeiser had knowingly used the seed,..."_



Read about the law-suit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser


----------



## franktrujillo

so point is that there controlling the plant's seeds year after year which have already been paid from the first time bought.next there gm gene so if they patent the gene in the bees controlling there off spring.the next thing they will say they will own that breed or any bees that breeds with the drones of that bee. ok so i buy a gm breed from them the following year i make a split from them or they swarm next i will have to pay royalties on the split or the swarm i caught since i will make a profit on the product honey from them of if i sell queens more royalties.......


----------



## Bee Bliss

What is not fair is perhaps the farmer does not want his seed genetics contaminated. What is happening by the contamination is that some farmers are losing their market and also losing their preferred genetic seeds by no fault of their own. Quite a bit different than just a $15 difference per acre. Especially if they cannot use the seed from the crop that they grow just because of genetic contamination. Do you see that this goes in more than just one direction? In other words, Monsanto may not be the only one experiencing "loss". I think the farmers stand to lose more.


----------



## WLC

Although Genetically Modified Honeybees may be down the line somewhere, that's not what Beeologics' product, Remembee, really is.

Remembee is principally an RNA sequence. It can recognize viral RNA sequences, or the RNA sequence from another pest/pathogen, and cause those target sequences to get chopped up by an RNA interference mechanism which Honeybees have.

So, Remembee straddles the line between a genetically modified organism and treatments, because you're can add a 'temporary' nucleic acid sequence (as RNA) that acts as an antiviral (or antibiotic/pesticide).

It's a very new technology that has only recently been tested out on Honeybees in field trials.


----------



## franktrujillo

so i make the weed killer that kills that crop then i make the gm made seed that resists the weed killer i made kinda redundant profit.it should be given out and no royalties charged since it was my product that killed them in the first place...if i make a man made sickness and charge everyone who used it not knowing it will effect them then say oops and give the sickness to everyone and also make the cure and charge everyone.pesticide or ccd better take a closer look......


----------



## HVH

WLC #104

I'm not sure what you are worried about here. Even if the RNAi sequence was spread around the world by robbing, vertical transmission, horizontal transmission, transshipment, etc., the vast majority of the RNAi sequence is a copy of already existing picorna sequences that bees already use as a defense. If it becomes a jumping gene, it is still hard to see what harm would come of it. I am not suggesting that there won't be "any" unintended consequences or that I support the move in any way, but I'm not sure what the specific worry is that you are trying to express.


----------



## sevenmmm

D Coates said:


> So profit appears what you see as evil? Pharmaceutical companies and doctors exist becuase they can make a profit (ie, support themselves) from performing a service (ie killing natural organisms that cause the patient/customer harm). Take out the financial interest and new medicines, products, services, or JOBS aren't created. Take away "profit" and you end up with the thriving economy of ...Cuba.




No, you have created a strawman. I never typed profit is evil.

Why don't you stick to the point of Monsanto's profit motive?


----------



## sevenmmm

Look, I realize my view of the world is much different than most people's. I think humans are reducing diversity, with many negative consequences. Probably similar to my view of the honey bee, where most of you are only concerned with producing honey...

No one can refute the facts as I have presented them on this thread. Monsanto is killing diversity for profit.


----------



## HVH

WLC #118,
It is my understanding that there is not a single honeybee cell line to work with and the technology for gene transfer is lacking. Sperm mediated gene transfer in honeybees was done a long time ago but without stable gene expression. The things that would be needed in the tool chest are currently not mentioned in the literature but may be closer to reality in a lab somewhere as we opine. If I had to make a guess, I think it is likely to take decades to make and bring a trans-bee to market. And to be realistic, I don't know if a company would want to throw money at such a project when there is not a lack of better markets.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

The specific sequence used to generate Remembee is patented.

Now, Monsanto owns the patent. That is the problem.

'Naturally Transgenic' bees were discovered by some of the folks working for Beeologics.

They discovered that RNA virus sequences from IAPV were not only incorporated into the Honeybee genome, they also described the mechanism as retrotransposition.

So, they're planning on feeding patented RNA sequences to Honeybees that they already know have retrotransposons, which can cause that RNA to be inserted into the Honeybee genome.

That's more than just a bit ill advised.

They're also feeding RNA to RNA virus infected Honeybees. RNA viruses make an enzyme that can amplify RNA sequences, like the kind found in Remembee.

That's also more than a bit ill advised.

So, this isn't in the realm of the unlikely. It's part of the history of the technology itself.

Have I mentioned that Monsanto also has 'acquired' some key Honeybee pathogen scientists as well? Monsanto can now exert a great deal of control over the publication of Honeybee related research.

By the way, I didn't see any mention of any precautions, or tests, in the original Remembee/RNAi field trials report, for potential contamination of the immediate environment (or nearby apiaries) by Remembee. 

I hope that you understand my concerns.


----------



## Gypsi

Mason bees are sounding better and better, WLC. I'd say something, but then Barry would have to delete it. Had something to do with messing up a dream...

Gypsi


----------



## HVH

If your concern is that the use of Remebee is likely to lead to the stable incorporation of a patented RNAi sequence into the honeybee genome and that it will likely become a jumping gene, then the part I am missing is how a jumping RNAi retrotransposon is cause for concern. These jumping genes are riddled in almost all sequences. If you consider humans, we are also transgenic due to the large number of viral sequences found in our genome. I should also mention that if your mechanism were followed in the Remebee example then Monsanto would have a very difficult time with intellectual property. Their patents rely on the stable integration of a known vector into the host genome. If robbing occurred and the Remebee sequence were transfered to bees I doubt that Monsanto would have any rights to said sequence for the lack of any deliberative action. My concern would be that Monsanto has more of an interest in transgenesis. I am aware of a virus that can be delivered into honeybee cells for the stable transduction of DNA. If this virus were used towards sperm mediated transduction it would not be that hard to make a Franken-Bee. To take it a step further, such a transgenic bee could be made in such a way to place the DNA promoter under the control of tetracycline so that Terra could be used to turn on the gene of interest. There are other switches that can be used to make the gene product conditional. It seems to me that transgenesis is a better fit for Monsanto than ds-RNA. If Monsanto is only interested in the ds-RNA in its current form, I don't think beekeepers have much to worry about. I suppose that bees that have already integrated the RNAi sequence could be bred to improve resistance. This could allow Monsanto some patent protection without the stigma associated with the GMO label. Bees bred and subsequently challenged with increasing concentrations of IAPV would likely increase RNAi gene copy number and expression levels (or improved RNAi mechanisms) and could then be sequenced for patent reasons and subsequently sold as resistant bees. Its all speculation at this point.


----------



## Barry

OK, let's stay away from crops regarding Monsanto. Let's keep it to bees.


----------



## Elwood

Protect the bees! Kill Monsatan!


----------



## WLC

HVH:

I'm concerned about the likely 'off-target' effects of RNAi in Honeybees. Especially with the likes of Monsanto now in possession of the technology.

As far as the Honeybee genome being riddled with retrotransposons, that's not the case. Only about 1% of its DNA is 'jumping gene' derived. That's far less than most organisms.

I don't think that we understand the breathe and scope of the molecular biology of the Honeybee. There's something astonishing being discovered about it regularly.

My opinion is this: the Honeybee isn't a suitable target for RNAi, or even genetic modification. There's too much going on that's beyond our grasp. But, it looks like they're going to do it anyway.

Monsanto's M.O. has always been to sue first. Let the other guy worry about the consequences. You don't want to be on the wrong end of that. Even if it isn't your fault.

That's the strategy that has payed off for them in the past. There's nothing stopping them now from doing that with Honeybees.

Controlling pollination in the U.S. would make them invincible, and they know it.


----------



## WLC

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*

I will say it appears that Monsanto has set its sights on controlling pollination with its purchase of Beeologics.

If you control the seeds, and the pecticides, then controlling the pollinators would give you some real leverage. If you use our product A, then you also have to use our products B and C.


----------



## LampBurner

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*

At very worst case sceniaro, they'll eventually have the bees so they can't reproduce but must be produced, as they have already done with seeds. It's not beyond the realms of possibility. That is in addition to owning the genes anyhow as well.


----------



## sevenmmm

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



WLC said:


> If you use our product A, then you also have to use our products B and C.


The explanation doesn't get any more simple than that.


----------



## Nabber86

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



WLC said:


> I will say it appears that Monsanto has set its sights on controlling pollination with its purchase of Beeologics.
> 
> If you control the seeds, and the pecticides, then controlling the pollinators would give you some real leverage. If you use our product A, then you also have to use our products B and C.



Then use products D through Z and quit complaining about it. Is Monsanto holding a gun to your head?


----------



## HVH

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*

I think there is a lot of fear about a lot of speculation. I too don't want a future with corporate control of the food chain or a bunch of GMO's supplanting all of our biodiversity. But the reality is that we are not prescient. There is no way of knowing what the intent is here nor the outcome. Perhaps the worst case scenario is that we end up with a trans-bee released into nature and the drones breed with our bees. Even with that outcome it is really difficult to anticipate the harm done to beekeepers. Personally, I doubt that the courts would side with Monsanto if a beekeeper refused to purchase their GMO bee. If your bees mated with a resistant drone you would be completely ignorant of the fact other than the bees seemed to do better that year. Its not like you could spray your bees with something analogous to RoundUp and test them directly. If your bees robbed out a neighbors Remebee and then somehow became stably resistant to IAPV you would still not know what happened. There are ways of cloning resistance into the bee with conditional gene expression that might be more analogous to the RoundUp ready plants where one would feed the bees a proprietary substance that turned on the resistance gene and this could be policed, but a gene contamination event would be rendered useless without the same substance. 
Again, we are a long way away from having a clue about what is to come. There is a good chance that the technology will be used some day but it is unlikely to be a repeat of RoundUp ready seeds.


----------



## D Coates

sevenmmm said:


> No, you have created a strawman. I never typed profit is evil.


Actually, it appears you did. See below...



sevenmmm said:


> Add killing or altering life on purpose, for profit, such as what Monsanto does, fits the definition of evil perfectly.


So if they did it for free it's not evil? (Think Soviet gullags, German concentration camps, Chinese re-education camps, etc...)




sevenmmm said:


> Why don't you stick to the point of Monsanto's profit motive?


Of course they did it for profit and I've got no problem with it. They are not a social organization or the government. They are responsible for balancing their books and making a profit for their shareholders. When we've bought companies it wasn't to loose money it was for profit. That's how companies who want to stay in business operate. In doing so they pay taxes, create inovative new products that they sell for profit, and they create jobs. I've never said they didn't do it for profit. Monsanto will invest additional capital (equipment and jobs!) and try to come to market with a product that we don't have to buy.


----------



## The Soap Pixie

I read "Seeds of Destruction" and was shocked to learn how Monsanto slipped into our lives so easily, thanks to our politicians. They are a very scary entity. All I can say is that Monsanto is no longer the mysterious name behind the product. It is coming to light exactly how dangerous and unpredictable they are. They don't stick their fingers into anything for the betterment of society. The whole anti GMO movement may be a reason their stocks have fallen recently. I sure hope so!

Thanks to the OP for sharing the link! It will be an interesting thing to share and discuss at the next demand for GMO labeling demonstration since bees are often part of the topic.


----------



## brushmouth

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



Nabber86 said:


> Then use products D through Z and quit complaining about it. Is Monsanto holding a gun to your head?


Have you seen the dvd "Vanishing Bees"? 
There is also a book called "Silent Spring" written by a Rachael Carson, a woman light years ahead of her time. (goes way back in time with pesticides)
There is NO warm fuzzy feeling with these guys working on the CCD problem, which I may add is NOT a
problem in Europe. (NOW why would that be? )

Personally I don't care to partake of ANY Frankenfood, nor do I wish to have my bees gather monsanto round-up ready pollen or any other of their "solutions". 
GMO sugar beets and GMO alfalfa next season (corp approved USDA stamped), alfalfa scares me as its so wide spread.
How do we keep GMO seed out of the open pollinated hybrid strains?

This purchase may provide results for beekeepers but will be an added cost to pass on to consumers,
that is if they find an end run around the problem.
I may add roundup has found resistance over time ....a wee bit of a problem don't you think?
The solutions are at hand, ignored here in the US, in favor of corporate profit.
All the while the lobbyists and corporations FIND a solution.
ALL IMO, monsanto 

BM


----------



## beeG

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



brushmouth said:


> Have you seen the dvd "Vanishing Bees"?
> There is also a book called "Silent Spring" written by a Rachael Carson, a woman light years ahead of her time. (goes way back in time with pesticides)
> There is NO warm fuzzy feeling with these guys working on the CCD problem, which I may add is NOT a
> problem in Europe. (NOW why would that be? )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

drastic rise in the number of disappearances of Western honey bee colonies in North America in late 2006.[1] Colony collapse is significant because many agricultural crops worldwide are pollinated by bees.

European beekeepers observed similar phenomena in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain,[2] and initial reports have also come in from Switzerland and Germany, albeit to a lesser degree[3] while the Northern Ireland Assembly received reports of a decline greater than 50%.[4] Possible cases of CCD have also been reported in Taiwan since April 2007.[5]


----------



## D Coates

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



brushmouth said:


> Have you seen the dvd "Vanishing Bees"?
> There is also a book called "Silent Spring" written by a Rachael Carson, a woman light years ahead of her time. (goes way back in time with pesticides)


Just because you can quote a couple things that support your belief does not make them so.



brushmouth said:


> CCD problem, which I may add is NOT a problem in Europe. (NOW why would that be? )


That's simply not true. They had similar effects to what we experienced. That's what was so puzzling, many of the boogiemen products that were blamed for it here were not sold in in Europe. Also, why is CCD (whatever it is) dimishing here in the US? No pesticides nor uses have changed. If anything the numbers of CCD deaths should be increasing from the supposid build up in the ecosystem. If it's so easy to convict Monsanto with this supposed evidence why has no one done so? 

If your answer is "Greed and cover up" that's lazy conspiracy theory garbage.


----------



## Nabber86

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



brushmouth said:


> Have you seen the dvd "Vanishing Bees"?
> There is also a book called "Silent Spring" written by a Rachael Carson, a woman light years ahead of her time. (goes way back in time with pesticides)
> There is NO warm fuzzy feeling with these guys working on the CCD problem, which I may add is NOT a
> problem in Europe. (NOW why would that be? ).......BIG SNIP....


What does any of that idiotic paranoid rant have to do with Mansanto purchasing Beelogics and possibly comming up with a vacine for CCD?? :scratch: :scratch:


----------



## Rohe Bee Ranch

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*

Like I said earlier...WOW.


----------



## franktrujillo

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*

their coming up with the cure because they caused the problem in the first place they know how the chemicals they produced react in living organisms....and now they want to fix it and capitalize on it like they have done all along.....


----------



## Nabber86

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*

The sky is falling......


----------



## D Coates

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



franktrujillo said:


> their coming up with the cure because they caused the problem in the first place they know how the chemicals they produced react in living organisms....and now they want to fix it and capitalize on it like they have done all along.....


That's pure conjecture with no substantiated evidence. If the evidence exists why has it not been used in a successful class action lawsuit? There are plenty of environmentalist, lawyers, and organizations would LOVE to make some serious money taking down Monsanto. We're all entitled to our opinions. However, claiming it like it's a known fact, or even more laughable a conspiracy, simply weakens any hope in this position being taken seriously.


----------



## brushmouth

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



D Coates said:


> Just because you can quote a couple things that support your belief does not make them so.
> 
> That's simply not true. They had similar effects to what we experienced. That's what was so puzzling, many of the boogiemen products that were blamed for it here were not sold in in Europe. Also, why is CCD (whatever it is) dimishing here in the US? No pesticides nor uses have changed. If anything the numbers of CCD deaths should be increasing from the supposid build up in the ecosystem. If it's so easy to convict Monsanto with this supposed evidence why has no one done so?
> 
> If your answer is "Greed and cover up" that's lazy conspiracy theory garbage.


_"Drought here, dead bee's there, financial collapse elsewhere and you have a recipe for food wars. In comes the Savior (yeah right) MONSANTO and more gov rules!

The FDA in the US has Bayer, the huge chemical and pharma bully, designing, running, and submitting the findings on CCD (colony collapse disorder.) Do you suppose there could be some bias in the findings, any 'conflict of interest'? Naaaahh couldn't 'bee' Pun intended.." _

Quote from here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ad-dying-Florida-knows-why.html#ixzz1Zvs2RWOT
Do a litttle research on Bayer/Germany/CCD 

BTW, I DO NOT have to prove anything.
It's on you to prove the facts to yourself before you accept them as such. 
I can only offer a few leads for your own research, you have to form your own opinion.
At this point in time facts and the truth are elusive...and there is plenty of "garbage".

BM


----------



## D Coates

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



brushmouth said:


> BTW, I DO NOT have to prove anything.
> It's on you to prove the facts to yourself before you accept them as such.
> I can only offer a few leads for your own research, you have to form your own opinion.
> At this point in time facts and the truth are elusive...and there is plenty of "garbage".


So I can claim the moon is made of cheese or something equally preposterous and expect to be taken seriously by lining up a few sources from the pro-cheese moon crowd? Come on, blaming Monsanto and others like that for droughts, fiancial collapses, dead bees, etc without actual neutral source supporting documentation is black helicopter humorous.


----------



## WLC

*Monsanto sets its sights on the Honeybee.*

For the first time, we see that Monsanto is now able to directly affect the Honeybee.

Before, it was indirectly through its monocultures and pesticides.

We are all aware of the history of this company.

I would wonder what this means for the future of beekeeping here in the U.S. and worldwide.


----------



## Corvair68

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



beeG said:


> European beekeepers observed similar phenomena in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain,[2] and initial reports have also come in from Switzerland and Germany, albeit to a lesser degree[3] while the Northern Ireland Assembly received reports of a decline greater than 50%.[4] Possible cases of CCD have also been reported in Taiwan since April 2007.[5]


The CCD problem has been improving in Europe since their governments have decided not to allow many of the GMO products from companies like Monsanto and Bayer. I don't understand why people would think that the pesticides wouldn't affect the bees as well as the other insects they kill.


----------



## HVH

*Re: Monsanto sets its sights on the Honeybee.*

Maybe Monsanto deliberately released IAPV into the US so they could profit from the cure.
Just having some fun.


----------



## WLC

*Re: Monsanto sets its sights on the Honeybee.*

They just bought a company that has deliberately released a piece of IAPV into hives in field trials. It's pretty close.


----------



## sevenmmm

*Re: Monsanto sets its sights on the Honeybee.*

Some interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYliLZWrsn4&feature=related


----------



## sevenmmm

*Re: Monsanto sets its sights on the Honeybee.*

"We can eat perfectly good food without genetically modified seed".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmyz_f_d3Wg&feature=related


----------



## HVH

*Re: Monsanto sets its sights on the Honeybee.*

WLC,
I'm really not taking a side but it is hard to see how a small non-coding hairpin is much of a worry.


----------



## Vance G

Which 80% of your neighbors do you want to die of starvation if we don't have ag chemicals? Reality sucks and the Luddites are restless tonight.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

By itself, the RNA would merely be a 'contaminant'.

In Monsanto's hands, a patented nucleic acid is a sledge hammer.


----------



## Acebird

Vance G said:


> Which 80% of your neighbors do you want to die of starvation if we don't have ag chemicals? Reality sucks and the Luddites are restless tonight.


Wow! 16 pages while I was gone ... how did you do that without me?

Vance, this nonsense about starvation that keeps coming up, how is it that when Europe closes its borders to American produced food that they all don't starve? Something is twisting your logic. Maybe you have been breathing too many of those chemicals that you are now dependant on them. Personally I am not dependant on them and I would like to keep it that way. I promise you, I won't starve.


----------



## D Coates

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*



Corvair68 said:


> The CCD problem has been improving in Europe since their governments have decided not to allow many of the GMO products from companies like Monsanto and Bayer. I don't understand why people would think that the pesticides wouldn't affect the bees as well as the other insects they kill.


Indeed it has been improving in Europe, but it's been improving here too. We've had no changes in the GMO products or pesticides offered or used over here though. If anything the CCD (whatever it is) related losses should logically be increasing as the claimed residuals increase in the ecosystem here but they're not. Logically this indicates Monsanto (or companies like it) aren't directly responsible. I'm not saying with complete certainty they aren't involved but all the supposed smoking gun info I've seen is from sources who've got axes to grind.


----------



## Nabber86

*Re: You are welcome to your own opinions but not to your own facts*

What we are witnessing is breakdown of all logic by the ingorant. Talk about a scary place for my children and their children

_cum hoc ergo propter hoc_ - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## sevenmmm

D Coates said:


> Actually, it appears you did. See below...
> 
> 
> 
> So if they did it for free it's not evil? (Think Soviet gullags, German concentration camps, Chinese re-education camps, etc...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did it for profit and I've got no problem with it. They are not a social organization or the government. They are responsible for balancing their books and making a profit for their shareholders. When we've bought companies it wasn't to loose money it was for profit. That's how companies who want to stay in business operate. In doing so they pay taxes, create inovative new products that they sell for profit, and they create jobs. I've never said they didn't do it for profit. Monsanto will invest additional capital (equipment and jobs!) and try to come to market with a product that we don't have to buy.


Oh. I missed this one!

No, I stand by my claim you created a strawman, you falsely stated I typed profit was evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Monsanto can not and will not leverage their patents for free. Another false argument. But I am willing to put that aside for the time being, and pleasure you with a big hearty yes. Raping the soil tilth from future generations (from both people and wild things), with these new super plants, and poisoning the wild things to make room for these single species plantings, is akin to rape. Monsanto is forcing society to use these products that will destroy many other species and plants. Rape is no different. Now, do you think rape is evil?

Then I beg you, are shareholders not to be held to a higher standard? Just because someone wants to make money, we are to overlook the future consequences of how the money was made? And are you sure you are willing to steal wealth from the future to fund jobs today?

You better think about this. You better think about this. You better think about this.


----------



## sevenmmm

Oh. And thanks WLC. Good to have learned some specifics...


----------



## Nabber86

sevenmmm said:


> _*Monsanto is forcing society to use these products*_ that will destroy many other species and plants. Rape is no different. Now, do you think rape is evil?.


I think I asked this before, but does Mansanto have a gun to your head? 

Try choosing options D through Z and quit complaining.

It's getting old.


----------



## sevenmmm

Vance G said:


> Reality sucks and the Luddites are restless tonight.


Who is a Luddite? You are interested in creating an opposition? Easier to denounce someone as a luddite instead of adding something significant to a very important debate? 

What are you, then, by the way?


----------



## D Coates

D Coates said:


> Actually, it appears you did. See below...
> 
> 
> 
> So if they did it for free it's not evil? (Think Soviet gullags, German concentration camps, Chinese re-education camps, etc...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did it for profit and I've got no problem with it. They are not a social organization or the government. They are responsible for balancing their books and making a profit for their shareholders. When we've bought companies it wasn't to loose money it was for profit. That's how companies who want to stay in business operate. In doing so they pay taxes, create inovative new products that they sell for profit, and they create jobs. I've never said they didn't do it for profit. Monsanto will invest additional capital (equipment and jobs!) and try to come to market with a product that we don't have to buy.


Sevenmmmm,

I noticed no response to my question. Words mean things and I'm trying to figure out what you really mean.


----------



## Acebird

So Monsanto is great and we have nothing to worry about. I feel better.


----------



## sevenmmm

Listen up beekeeps, continue to study the issue at hand. Learn it well. It is clear what Monsanto has planned, and it is clear significant and material loss of our genetically diversified honey bee will be suffered by beekeepers around the world. 

Once this new bee has been loosed, and since the Monsanto product can not be contained, this product will result in a trespass on our property without permission, effecting every single beekeep. 

So, a class-action lawsuit will be in order.

I am trying to formulate just compensation, and so far my best idea is a dollar for every bee infected, plus damages for significant mental anguish.

Now, any beekeep that agrees to allow this product to be loosed, should also be named in the lawsuit.

My opinion, of course.

I bet we would have attorneys begging to file this thing on our behalf, at a commission only basis.


----------



## Nabber86

> I am trying to formulate just compensation, and so far my best idea is a dollar for every bee infected, plus damages for significant mental anguish.


Typo?

Surely you meant anquish from significant mental damage.


----------



## seal62

sevenmmm said:


> Don't worry, Mr. Moderator, I won't type out what I really think.
> 
> :shhhh::shhhh::shhhh:


 I so know what you mean . This thread has been a hoot to read . I did notice that responce was equal to location . Some of the best were ..i didnt read anything ...lol . Its very clear that a google search with the correct key words can give you a idea to company practices . Monsanto is evil . See how easy that is ? The company plan is to have a monopoly on the food source . They have very deep pockets to protect that plan . For the younger crowd i;ll go back in time ..say when Thomas made the supreme court . I couldnt figure out why at the time they fought so hard for this guy .. hair on a coke can and all . He worked for monsanto . When the vote came on gms ..he was the tie breaker . The ruleing goes down like this . Monsanto genes that infect the neighbors fields are now the property of monsanto . Meaning that i cant use the seed from my fields next season . Translation ...I have to buy seed every yr from monsanto ..even if i buy that seed in the 1st place i still cant pull seed for the following season . Next up is milk . We can get back to corn in a min . The ruling out of florida about dairy hormones ..the sueing of the guy because he said his milk is mormone free . hahahahahahahah hormone .(typo but funny) ..Its always the latest and the greatest . I recall a boy from here in Mi when he dug a pit ...put his herd in it and shot his cows . No one would listen to this alarmist until he took out his herd . This was pcbs in the cattle feed , milk that was on every table in the state . I do not trust this company ..my 1st impression is that they caused the problems and are now buying up the results .


----------



## franktrujillo

ok since you don't think that pesticides don't affect your bees remember the residue left on the flowers stay. build two observation hives keep one healthy and spray another with anything Monsanto makes not too much then watch the bees they will start to have epileptic seizures eventually the population will dwindle and eventually the hive will die.it may take a season or sometimes a few months.ccd no bees left in hive i have been studying now for two years.no with gm treated seeds it effects pollen and nectar .so you can eat that product what do you think is going to happen with your body....


----------



## sevenmmm

I want to know what Barry really thinks?


----------



## Barry

Check out post #2.


----------



## VeggieGardener

I believe the risks outweigh the benefits when it comes to GMO’s and that the last thing we need is for Monsanto to expand their reach into honeybees. The Africanized Honey Bee is trivial in comparison to the problems that GMO’s could cause in the plant and animal world.

There are no assurances that genetic engineering is safe or that Monsanto can be trusted to value the public’s interest as well as their corporate profits. They will point out the improvements of genetic research but will they also own up to negative aspects of their work (that’s if they even know what they are)? When hybrid tomatoes were first developed they were praised for their disease resistance but did the breeders admit that they no longer tasted like tomatoes?

Population growth and hunger are not good arguments to justify the use of GMO’s. Increases in agricultural production predate the use of GMO’s and there are arguments that GMO’s have actually resulted in decreased production. Then there is the issue of nutrient decline. I saw a report recently that stated in less developed countries the adoption of high yield wheat and rice crops has led to “hidden hunger”… people were getting enough calories but fewer nutrients which leads to malnutrition and disease.

So it’s not as simple as comparing the quantity of food being produced. A study by Dr. Donald Davis at the University of Texas found that nutrients are decreasing in fresh produce while starches and sugars increased as a result of farmers planting crops designed to improve specific traits such as yield.

Why rush blindly into anything that has the potential of creating a nightmare with the bees or our food supply that could even be irreversible? And why let a corporation or a government agency make those decisions for us all?


----------



## D Coates

sevenmmm said:


> Once this new bee has been loosed, and since the Monsanto product can not be contained, this product will result in a trespass on our property without permission, effecting every single beekeep. So, a class-action lawsuit will be in order. I am trying to formulate just compensation, and so far my best idea is a dollar for every bee infected, plus damages for significant mental anguish. Now, any beekeep that agrees to allow this product to be loosed, should also be named in the lawsuit.
> 
> My opinion, of course. I bet we would have attorneys begging to file this thing on our behalf, at a commission only basis.


Sevenmmm,

Seeing how you've not yet answered my question, I'll chalk it up to being unable to defend the quote. 

I've got a brother who's a trial attorney, and leftie one at that. Much like companies and new products, attorneys spend millions and sometimes billions trying to get class action lawsuit success. Like the "evil" Monsanto they expect to make substantial profit on their investment of time and money. If they don't feel they can they move to another lower hanging fruit of a class action lawsuit. So far the market forces indicate the evidence is simply too weak and biased for any lawyer to think they've got a chance. Bet all you want, but there was enough evidence to support all these outlandish claims the attorneys would already be on this like bees on honey.


----------



## woodguyrob

VeggieGardener-good post/ well said. (#171)


----------



## WLC

"I believe the risks outweigh the benefits when it comes to GMO’s"

Don't forget the complementary pesticides that are usually packaged with the GMO.

What's so unusual about Remembee, the RNAi product developed and patented by Beeologics and now owned by Monsanto, is this: it straddles the line between a GMO (because it's a patented nucleic acid sequence) and a pesticide (it can kill target pests/pathogens).

It blurs the issue in unexpected ways. So, this thread isn't quite about either GMOs or pesticides.
It's a very new environmental issue. RNAi.


----------



## Acebird

Each side of the argument is already made up in the minds of those discussing that is for sure. No one is going to change their mind based on what is said on this forum. The good part is the longer "money" keeps dragging the thread along the more the topic stays on top for those new to the discussion that may not be aware of what money is doing.


----------



## beeware10

I'm just a simple beekeeper with a question. It is my understanding that the drug being tested by remebee treats only the bee fed. the next hatch of bees also have to be fed for the drug to continue on. this was explained to me by randy oliver a year ago. maybe I misunderstood him. If this is the case how is this creating a new bee without changing the genetics of the queen? If only one feeding is required how can montsanto make any money?


----------



## VeggieGardener

woodguyrob said:


> VeggieGardener-good post/ well said. (#171)


Thanks woodguyrob


----------



## VeggieGardener

WLC said:


> "I believe the risks outweigh the benefits when it comes to GMO’s"
> 
> Don't forget the complementary pesticides that are usually packaged with the GMO.
> 
> What's so unusual about Remembee, the RNAi product developed and patented by Beeologics and now owned by Monsanto, is this: it straddles the line between a GMO (because it's a patented nucleic acid sequence) and a pesticide (it can kill target pests/pathogens).
> 
> It blurs the issue in unexpected ways. So, this thread isn't quite about either GMOs or pesticides.
> It's a very new environmental issue. RNAi.


That's an interesting point and I really don't know anything about the work that Beeologics is doing or how Remembee functions in particular.

In the plant world Monsanto has done things like genetically modify corn to include the Bt gene for insect control. The problem with this approach is how do you administer the proper dosage and prevent insects from developing resistant strains? We may well wind up taking a safe organic pest control that has been used for decades and making it ineffective (everywhere) for the sake of Monsanto's short-lived use in a GMO. What's at stake for Monsanto compared to the organic farmer, and when Bt no longer works will the farmers be out of luck and forced to turn to a more toxic or chemical control?

Also how do you ensure that other insects are not impacted by Bt that is contained in all parts of the plant including the corn's pollen rather than if it was merely sprayed onto the surface area and specific parts of a plant being attacked by the insect pest?

Would the same type of risk in the form of the development of resistance be an issue with Remebee and the honeybee pests? What would prevent resistant strains of pathogens from developing or is that a gamble that would be taken?


----------



## franktrujillo

now what is needed to confirm that gm plant is killing the honeybee what we call "CCD" need to have a control test isolated yard with only gm crops.....not only that also more tests with control pesticide observation hives thru spraying only the crops....my conformation on known spayed hives 2 years in a row all bees was removed from sprayed comb and placed in new hives and allowed to rebuild new comb with there queen confirm that after a 4 months the hives population diminished and no bees left in hives. bees in contaminated hives noticeably had epileptic seizure like symptoms, as contaminated hive continue the larva stopped getting capped and bees pulled them out also queen stopped laying viable eggs and bees unable to supersede her loss of queen due to balling hives total loss....next control next spring i will be adding new healthy bees to "ccd" contaminated hive from known pesticide sprayed bees lived.in theory the bees that will be moved in ccd hive bees should either abscond or rebuild and have the same fate as previous bees....as they clean out contaminated cells from the death of last larvae


----------



## beeware10

other than beekeepers bashing monsanto and each other I cannnot see much value to this thread. time to let it go into the ground.


----------



## WLC

'..how is this creating a new bee without changing the genetics of the queen?'

This isn't a classical genetics issue.

They initially discovered that a sequence fragment of the Isreal Acute Paralysis Virus had jumped into the Honeybee genome by retrotransposition. Retrotransposition just means that RNA from the virus was turned into DNA and inserted into the Honeybees DNA (by an unidentified retrotransposon). This provided resistance to IAPV for some of the bees so affected (by something called RNA interference).

If it gets into the germline (sperm or egg) than it can be transmitted classically. Otherwise, it's in tissues, like the gut. But, this isn't desirable because it can potentially damage tissues and worse, lead to dysgenesis (loss of viability).

It's the non-classical amplification that presents a new risk for contamination by this engineered RNA treatment (Remembee). Those RNA viruses that affect the Honeybee also carry an enzyme that duplicates RNA. They're not all going to be knocked down by Remembee. The enzyme is called RNA Dependent RNA Polymerase (RdRP). It makes RNA copies from RNA. So, it can copy RNA from viruses, and Remembee as well.

The real threat comes from a known feedback mechanism. Honeybees don't have their own RdRP.
But, if an RNA virus is present, the bees own RNAi system can couple with the RdRP from the virus to amplify all kinds of RNAi molecules, like the type found in Remembee.

Here's the kicker, if your bees rob another hive that has been treated with Remembee, or some bees drift into your hive from a Remembee treated colony, any Remembee RNA present can get amplified in your non-treated hive (if viral RdRP is present).

These RNAi sequences don't just amplify themselves throughout the tissues of a bees body, even thought they were introduced via ingestion in the bees gut.

They can also spread fom bee to bee, and colony to colony by the above mechanism.

So, like 'rogue' pollen, your hives can become contaminated, without the need for classical genetics. 

This is far worse than pollen. Honeybees are in constant contact with other native pollinators.

There is the potential for non-target species becoming contaminated with these engineered RNAi sequences as well.

It won't necessarily be toxic to them, but it's still contamination by a 'Selfish Gene'.


----------



## beeware10

wlc thanks for the response to my question. still sounds like a lot of theorys to be proven. I guess time will tell.


----------



## WLC

'...time will tell. '

That's what worries me.

By the way, I described the current 'known' molecular biology of RNAi (and Remembee).

What concerns me is the 'unknown' molecular biology of RNAi.


----------



## Michael Bush

I don't understand the name calling.

I am fascinated by the concept that anyone who suggests caution before turning something loose in the world is a "Luddite". I wish some "Luddite" had kept the AHB from getting loose...

What kind of arrogance is it to believe you can improve on the delicate balance of things in nature that have been succeeding for millions of years?

Besides, a Luddite was someone who fights automation in favor of hand labor, not someone who counsels caution on things that could have world wide consequences for all of time. That person should be called a "mensch" or a "sage" or perhaps just someone with common sense.


----------



## HVH

WLC,
I don't disagree with the idea that some day this technology could backfire and that we may be better off sticking with natures offerings but I just don't think the mechanisms you ascribe to are much of a threat. It is really difficult to see how an ingested Remebee could be transmitted horizontally or vertically even if it was amplified by polymerase. The concentrations of dsRNA in the Remebee are orders of magnitude more concentrated than any subsequent RDRP product. If the fear is that the sequence will be vectored by another virus, the chances of it being expressed at appreciable levels are low, and the net result would still be expression of an RNAi hairpin against IAPV. Lets keep in mind that we are only discussing a short RNA sequence slightly larger than about 70 bases. If Monsanto takes the game to the next level and clones the RNAi sequence into the honeybee genome, then the conversations changes dramatically. Unless someone has direct knowledge regarding Monsanto's future applications then it is just speculation. It kind of reminds me of Al Gore's fear mongering about rising oceans killing countless numbers of people and displacing coastline residents. It really amazes me how worked up people can get over what might happen. I've been around long enough to remember the moratorium on genetic engineering with all the hyperbole that never transpired. The conference at Asilomar in 1975 highlight concerns of that time that never materialized. Of course "Fools rush in" but, on the other hand, much progress has been made despite all the hyperbole.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

I wish I had the time to dig up the references that show how that amplification occurs. No matter.

How about this:

the scientists involved discovered that Honeybees are not only 'naturally transgenic' since they contain fragments of IAPV (by retrotransposition), but that they have become resistant to IAPV by RNAI as a result.

Why would you need Remembee if Honeybees have a demonstrated natural RNAi mechanism to combat IAPV?

In other words, I don't see a need for Remembee. The Honeybee can do the same thing on its own.

Also, let's not forget that I've referred to the above discovery as a proven mechanism for acquired immunity thus demonstrating that 'treatment-free' beekeeping can produce resistant Honeybees 'naturally' and is viable.


----------



## lazy shooter

From reading all these many posts, it appears that as soon as Beeologics was formed with thier distinguished research staff, that their purpose was to perform deep experimentation and research. Beeologic was formed as a permier research unit. The genie was going to get out of the bottle. Whether Beeologic or their mother company instigates these changes is argumentative. But, chanes to our bees were coming.


----------



## Acebird

> It kind of reminds me of Al Gore's fear mongering about rising oceans killing countless numbers of people and displacing coastline residents.


So if you don't witness it in your lifetime it probably won't happen, right? We will probably never run out of oil either because you won't live long enough.


----------



## HVH

WLC,
I'm not suggesting that going all natural is a bad thing. Going all natural, however, usually means a lot of extra labor and extra risk. Commercial beekeepers can't afford either and would be more likely to embrace any treatment regimen that pencils out. 
Breeding bees for resistance will be done by nature as well as by man but it is unrealistic to assume that resistance is an all or nothing venture or that it will remain permanent if achieved. Since pathogen and host are constantly changing a more realistic outcome is a sort of equilibrium where these diseases become a nuisance and a strain rather than complete devastation. I think the days of 3-5% losses are behind us and 15-30% will be the new normal. To make matters worse, our global exchange of products also include a global exchange of pests. Once we get some limited control of one pest another new strain or completely new pest is just behind the gate ready to enter the race. Trying desperately to keep our bees alive and healthy is a new reality that has different implication for the hobbyist than the guy trying to pay his bills. 
Regarding bees that already have an RNAi and are said to be resistance, I would have to ask, how resistant?


----------



## LampBurner

_What kind of arrogance is it to believe you can improve on the delicate balance of things in nature that have been succeeding for millions of years?_
I don't believe Monsanto really want's to or even cares to improve anything, but their objective is to own and controll EVERYTHING.


----------



## HVH

I understand your visceral response but it just doesn't match up to reality. I too prefer all things natural but we wouldn't have corn, antibiotics, steel, the roof over your head, the car in your driveway, etc., if it weren't for innovation. Some of the research I did years ago helped to usher in the now controversial HPV vaccine. It was genetic engineering that allowed for this success. This doesn't mean that I advocate for a transgenic bee, but it may be needed some day. If the day came to chose between having transgenic bees and giving up beekeeping it would be a difficult decision.


----------



## Acebird

LampBurner said:


> I don't believe Monsanto really want's to or even cares to improve anything, but their objective is to own and controll EVERYTHING.


When is a monopoly a monopoly? At what point does the government say you are to big (other than to big to fail)?


----------



## WLC

HVH:

Pardon me, but I've accurately described how siRNAs work.

This should help:

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/76/17/5960


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> HVH:
> 
> Pardon me, but I've accurately described how siRNAs work.
> 
> This should help:
> 
> http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/76/17/5960


WLC, 

Maybe I am making a big assumption here, but based on the knowlege contained in your posts I am assuming you are a genetic researcher of some type. If that is the case 

How do you determine good genetic research versus bad genetic research, especially when we do not know the eventual outcome of any of the research? Arent you monkeying around with genes the same as Mansanto? What makes your research any better? Could a technique that you developed today be used down the line by evil people for evil purposes? 

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Bee Bliss

How about just the fact of them holding others over the barrel to PAY PAY PAY and with no choice in the matter. It's about them controlling others and forcing others. I want to quote Amy Winehouse singing "NO, NO, NO"!


----------



## mac

How is it possible that a company was allowed to take a natural occurring plant and modify its genetic code and then getting a patent on it in effect eliminating that natural strain? Who decided it was legal to be able to patent life. This is so wrong and all just for a buck. And most of the folks here think there ain’t nothing wrong with it. So sad.


----------



## WLC

'How do you determine good genetic research versus bad genetic research,...'

That's subjective and depends on local laws. I'm not kidding.
I would say that the field trials for Remembee, and other RNAi field trials, shouldn't have been given the green light. But, they did get the green light, and they were performed outside of a laboratory.

'Arent you monkeying around with genes the same as Mansanto?'

I've amplified and ID'd Monsanto's genes! Yes, I've done my share of genetic engineering. It's far more common than you may realize.

'What makes your research any better?'

Monsanto's research is far better than mine. You get what you pay for.

'Could a technique that you developed today be used down the line by evil people for evil purposes?'

Yes, they could.

Nabber86, but I an evil!

Mwahaha (evil laugh).

:ws:


----------



## HVH

WLC,
I'm not trying to rattle your cage. I was director of molecular biology for a small biotech firm and both designed and cloned many types of RNAi sequences and tested for subsequent integrations and knock down. I worked as a research scientist long enough to recognize that we always thought we knew more than we did, and time had a way of making us all look stupid. 
It is not usually the thing we fear that bites us in the butt, but rather that random occurrence that nobody ever feared. The movie, Contagion is a good example. Here we discuss how a theoretical acquisition of a foreign gene product could have terrible unintended consequences and forget about the next ebola or flu outbreak. I am much more worried about Iran than Monsanto. I fear the deliberative actions toward bioweaponization far more than GMO corn. There are events with far graver consequences that are far more likely to occur.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

While I don't think that Remembee will be toxic, I do think that it will become an environmental contaminant.

I'm still wondering how they got permission to do Remembee field trials in thousands of hives in Pennsylvania and Florida (I think it was up to 60,000 hives!).

I'm concerned about the 'Unknown, Unknown'. I just can't do anything about it.

While I don't do RNAi research, I wonder how many of those unidentifiable 'gel bands' from my Honeybee R2 primer amplicons are retrotransposed siRNAs.

There's an awful lot of em.


----------



## Acebird

mac said:


> And most of the folks here think there ain’t nothing wrong with it. So sad.


There has been no show of hands to take a head count. I wouldn't make that assumption.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

Since you were in RNAi, I just remembered something.

Did I ever tell you that I've found a candidate siRNA sequence that can knock down Ago2 in A. mellifera? It was in a published sequence from an IAPV strain associated with CCD. 

I call it 'Lady Gaga': gaaagaagaagaaataaacgt.

I did a multiple sequence allignment and found it when comparing the following two sequences.

>gi|187234321|gb|EU436423.1| Israel acute paralysis virus of bees strain DVE31-OP3-PA-USA-2007, complete genome.

>ref|NC_007079.2|NC_007079:c9960735-9955447 Apis mellifera linkage group 10, reference assembly (based on Amel_4.0) chromosome, whole genome shotgun sequence.

I'd like your opinion on this, if you would be so kind.

I also found it a bit odd that they would try out Remembee, which would require a non-suppressed RNAi system in the target Honeybees, when their own research had shown suppression of RNAi in Honeybees as evidenced by retrotransposon activity: the integrated IAPV virus fragments which were then found to suppress IAPV via RNAi.

That wouldn't make Honeybees an ideal subject for an RNAi field trial in my opinion.


----------



## HVH

WLC,
At first I thought you were pulling my leg because you are targeting a putative RISC complex protein which strikes me as odd plus your sequence is repetitive and has a rather low Tm. If you are not pulling my leg then feel free to PM me so we don't bore the heck out of everyone. 
It has been two years since I left the sciences but I still find it interesting. I no longer have all the tools at my fingertips but simple web based NCBI tools are still easy to access. I do have a Sun computer with a lot of molecular biology software but am a bit rusty.


----------



## nabeehive

How much did beeologics sell out for? Maybe there is another side to all this. What if beeologics knows something monsanto does not! This lead to them selling out for a big profit. Maybe once the genes are modified and spread to the the world beeologics could not figure a way to capitalize on the process. Seems logical to me.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Maybe once the genes are modified and spread to the the world beeologics could not figure a way to capitalize on the process.

That's easy to capitalize on, if you patent the gene. Monsanto has already led the way. You release it into the world and then sue every beekeeper and queen breeder on the planet for stealing your genes.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

If you do get the time, do take a look. It's an interesting find. It really is from IAPV and does match well with Ago2 in Honeybees. Nowadays, you can order dsRNA or design and order siRNA rather easily.

Mr. Bush:

'...sue every beekeeper and queen breeder on the planet...' 

That's what I've been trying to tell folks.

My question is this: how many pollinator outfits are there out there? Is it in the thousands? Tens of thousands?...

How about queen breeders?

I'm just trying to see how easy it might be for Monsanto to take over.


----------



## Acebird

Michael Bush said:


> That's easy to capitalize on, if you patent the gene. Monsanto has already led the way. You release it into the world and then sue every beekeeper and queen breeder on the planet for stealing your genes.


It is going to be a little harder for Monsanto to pull that off with bee keeping. Many beekeepers are small and under the radar. It is an industry that can exist that way very easily (like pot or booze). To sue every last one of us would book up the courts for ever. Secondly, if I produce honey and give it to my neighbor and he gives me eggs who is to know. They don't have a case if you give the honey away, you have to sell it. What Monsanto may force is smaller and smaller operations.
Although I hate what Monsanto stands for, my concern is major crop failures or some ecological destruction which turns into a disaster in the future not that they would be taking over honey production. There is one thing I can say for the younger generation; they are more concerned about the long term health of the planet than the older generation. I will give them that to their benefit.


----------



## WLC

(Deknow, are you there?)

I just want to post this link to Beeologics Technology Advisory Board:

http://www.beeologics.com/advisory_board.asp

Dave Mendes.

Didn't his name come up in a thread a month or so ago? I'm not sure.

His bees were used in trials if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## jim lyon

Michael Bush said:


> > You release it into the world and then sue every beekeeper and queen breeder on the planet for stealing your genes.


The perfect storm of hyperbole and paranoia


----------



## WLC

Unfortunately, playing hardball with patented nucleic acid sequences is Monsanto's game.

Beeologics just handed Monsanto more than just a whole bunch of patented sequences related to Honeybee pathology. They also handed over a technology advisory board with some scientific powerhouses, including a Nobel laureate who co-discovered RNAi.

I'm starting to see another problematic issue related to RNAi and Honeybees.

Honeybees are quite busy using their RNAi system to combat a never ending assault by pests and pathogens. They most certainly are busy fighting off viruses, Nosema and Foulbrood using the molecular immunity provided by their RNAi system. This doesn't include how RNAi is used by the bees to control gene expression or keep those pesky retrotransposons, and other molecular parasites, at bay.

Could adding an artificial siRNA molecule, like Remembee, tip the balance so that Honeybees can no longer fight off pests and pathogens using their own natural siRNAs?

The siRNA/dsRNA in Remembee doesn't just sit there passively. It is actively transported and amplified. It could potentially out compete the Honeybee's own siRNA molecules rendering the bees vulnerable to pathogens that aren't the target of Remembee.

Have we already seen an example of this?


----------



## WLC

O.K., I've found the thread I was looking for:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...sm-in-honey!-Toxic-honey!&p=693303#post693303

deknow mentions that nuc boxes, sold by one of the participants in the Beeologics field trials, were contaminated with AFB.

My question is this: is this an example of the competitive inhibition of the Honeybee's molecular immune system (RNAi) by Remembee?

Competitive inhibition means that this introduced product, Remembee, can outcompete the other siRNA molecules that the Honeybees naturally make to fight off pathogens. Thus, the Honeybees become vulnerable to a pathogen that they were fighting off successfully.

Is this the first real world example of an 'off target effect' of Remembee/siRNA as a contaminant?

Is there a correlation between the Remembee field trial participant and those recent bee deaths in Florida?


----------



## HVH

WLC,
Although I appreciate your passion and inquisitive mind, you may want to put a little pressure on the brakes. I spent half of my life in the sciences and I can tell you from experience that almost nothing turns out the way we envision. Sure, some of the scenarios you lay out are possible. But there are so many variables involved that such speculation is more in the realm of unlikely. 

I did look at your sequence and verified that it was present in the bee AGO2. My problem with the sequence is that it is very non-specific due to its repetitive nature. My guess would be that a gene array would reveal many off target effects with the intended knockdown being on the low side for RNAi. If you haven't tested your sequence yet, be sure to add a scrambled control. If I had to venture a crazy guess, I would predict your sequence would not yield much better knockdown over the control - at least not enough to move forward. Since I didn't read up on AGO2, I'll ask you - what would you predict the consequences would be of knocking down a risc protein involved in RNAi processing with an RNAi?
I'm afraid this has been a bit off topic and would be better done off-line.


----------



## WLC

HVH:

That's not 'my' sequence. I found it in a strain of IAPV associated with CCD.

Thanks for the assessment though.

I think that suppression of Ago2/RNAi in Honeybees will result in the de-suppression of retrotransposon acitivity, and changes in DNA methylation. It won't kill the bees outright, but it will lead to some useful insights related to CCD research.

No, I'm not going to try it out (far too risky). Retrotransposed sequences are my 'scalpel', not RNAi.

However, this isn't really off topic. It's all related to the folks involved with Beeologics, their research, and the reasons for using Remembee.

The whole issue just keeps raising more questions than answers.


----------



## lazy shooter

Real science people use words like always, never, ever, nothing, every thing, and other inclusive adjectives very sparingly. If you use these words profusely, it takes from one's credibility.


----------



## jim lyon

HVH said:


> WLC,
> 
> I'm afraid this has been a bit off topic and would be better done off-line.


Dont do that! I don't understand much of what you guys are saying but am fascinated trying to understand it. Keep talking its so much better than a lot of the stuff on here.


----------



## WLC

I'm not sure how the 'adjectives' relate to real science. 

I use them all the time: ..."Never put that reagent in the freezer again. Always wear fresh gloves whenever you touch that or even look at it. Don't use that pipettor for raw extracts ever again. Nothing else goes in this waste container. Everything gets tossed out, do it over."...



HVH:

I've heard from the 'grapevine' that there were significant losses in the field trials due to CCD. 
Even in the siRNA controls. Maybe my concern about the competitive inhibition/suppression of RNAi by these siRNA products is legitimate?

My objections remain: those field trials were premature.


----------



## HVH

WLC,
Again, I would have predicted that Remebee would have been statistically better at knockdown over control in field trials if it were to work at all. My own experience with RNAi is that people expect 100% knockdown and rarely achieve better than about 70-80%. If you consider alternate splicing, multi-gene homologs with slightly different sequences and the like, total knockdown becomes a text book fairy tale rarely realized. 
As far as my question about AGO2, I was asking you to predict how knocking down a component of the risc complex, which is responsible for processing your RNAi, would be assayed. We have a sort of tautology here where I am uncertain how one would assess the success or failure of the RNAi. I would be interested to hear an experimental design to circumvent this potential problem. 
Last thought on field trials - I have often wondered how Beeologics was able to grow and purify IAPV to be used in any challenges. Are you aware of their method? I read one of their papers some time ago and thought the omission of viral propagation methods was of interest. 

I still think this is off topic. Barry - If this is a problem just delete.


----------



## WLC

It's the same problem for assaying Ago2 (you can use RNA based assays) as it is for obtaining pure IAPV (with larvae).

There is no current way to culture 'clean' Honeybee tissues. So much for controls.

When you consider the field trials, you run into similar problems experienced by those trying to show how neonics harm bees. There is no valid way to control the experiment.

Ironically, you can use field trials to show 'off target' effects. That's how they got neonic coated maize seeds off the market in Italy. It would work the same way for 'off target' RNAi.

You can't prove that it works in field trials, but you can prove that it goes 'off target'.

Isn't that amusing?


----------



## Barry

jim lyon said:


> Keep talking its so much better than a lot of the stuff on here.


That's how I see at as well.


----------



## roostershooter7

Gypsi said:


> Monsanto sues organic farmers for stealing their patented
> Genes if bees cross-pollinate neighboring fields.


I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in that. 

Just because you own bees doesn't mean you can control them. After all, they don't fall under livestock in any book or website that I have come across. If they were classified as livestock then they would have to be able to be contained to an area with no way of getting outside that area. Similar to cattle. 

I, personally, see it as a bunch of worry over nothing where the cross breeding is concerned. I don't know of any judge in the country that would grant someone monetary damages if their bees cross bred with another.

Also, I see this as a move by Monsanto to become more environmentally friendly. I other words, they are trying to clean up their act because they see that there is a problem with the way things are going now. In this recent acquisition they may be trying to become more bee friendly in order to quell the many problems that have been brought to them by private parties. After all ... if they honey bee dies off then they won't be in business. I think they realize this, and are trying to do something about it.


----------



## HVH

Sure you could look at transcripts for AGO2 but that would be limited to a small time window and may not give any time course indications. Another approach would be to use two RNAi's, with one setting the baseline. Of course the choice of the other RNAi would be critical.
I've never really understood the problem with experimental design for neonics. You could set up multiple apiaries with neonics placed at varying distances and show a correlation between proximity and hive status. The controls would be placed in a similar geography but 5 plus miles away from the neonics. 
There was a recent paper where honeybee cells were grown but they were still not as proliferative as one would hope. I have raised honeybee cells from macerated eggs but they were mostly quiescent. It appears that some unknown growth factors are needed to get them into high gear.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> The whole issue just keeps raising more questions than answers.


AKA Results of Scientific Enquiry? Isn't that what often happens? Along w/ the answers comes more questions?


----------



## WLC

All that we really know is that Monsanto bought Beeologics.

We don't know if Remembee really works or not (scientifically).

They can't prove that it actually works (scientifically) as I've stated above.

But, I can prove that it goes 'off target' (scientifically).

I wouldn't call the field trials of Remembee 'scientific enquiry'.

I would call it something far less flattering.


----------



## HVH

Now that has a nice cynically neutral sound to it. 
That is the kind of language an old scientist gets that is tired of eating his words over the years. Of course it all becomes so generic as to lose any meaning - kind of like old politicians tired of eating their words. Thank God for Joe Biden for never getting tired of eating his words. 
I have seen data that was next to proof positive until I dug deeper and found near negligence. I hate to say it, but I think at least 80% of the scientific literature is misleading if not entirely incorrect. I've read well over a thousand papers critically and found overlooked assumptions or more commonly, conclusions not supported by the evidence. 
I am not sure what Monsanto is purchasing if the data stinks. There must be something worth their money in Beeologics patents or confidential methods to make the deal. We will have to wait and see. I just wish I had 100K stock options before the acquisition. Often times they buy you out and it can really be lucrative.


----------



## Acebird

roostershooter7 said:


> Also, I see this as a move by Monsanto to become more environmentally friendly.


Boy are you gullible.


----------



## HVH

jim lyon said:


> Dont do that! I don't understand much of what you guys are saying but am fascinated trying to understand it. Keep talking its so much better than a lot of the stuff on here.


Come on Jim, we know you just want a solution to your insomnia.


----------



## WLC

If it makes you feel better, they've got a large scale trial planned for this winter.

Doesn't it give you 'goosebumps'?


----------



## Michael Bush

>The perfect storm of hyperbole and paranoia 

They have already done it with Canola, Corn and other crops. Releasing it into the world and suing farmers when their patented genes show up in the farmer's seed. This is not speculation, hyperbole or paranoia. This is their current business plan. Try a google search on "monsanto sues farmers" and you'll get 297,000 hits and a lot of lawsuits.


----------



## WLC

And it does get around...

"Non- Remebee-I treated bees are mostly negative, but a low signal was detected in
some colonies.'

Hunter W, Ellis J, vanEngelsdorp D, Hayes J, Westervelt D, et al. (2010) Large-Scale Field Application of RNAi Technology Reducing Israeli Acute Paralysis
Virus Disease in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera, Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS Pathog 6(12): e1001160. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160

So, they're saying that they found 'Dicer metabolites', or Remembee fragments from the Remembee treated bees, in the non-treated controls.

That's not a good thing to find since it not only implies cross contamination, but they need to come up with a better experimental design.

See what I was saying?

It's only paranoia if it's imaginary.


----------



## HVH

I will need to look at those papers when I have some more time. I just don't trust their conclusions without seeing the data. Was a northern blot used, what were the controls, how much analyte was detected, how long was the fragment, where were the fragments cleaved, did they treat whole bees with RNAse prior to removing the gut, etc,. Without really tearing into a paper I just remain neutral. If they didn't take extreme caution then they may have been detecting dsRNA digestion products that never entered a bee. I'm not saying anything was done wrong. But like I said before, I am very skeptical of scientific literature.


----------



## WLC

Here's the article:
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160

Here's Supp1:
http://www.plospathogens.org/articl...ri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160.s001

Here's Supp2:
http://www.plospathogens.org/articl...ri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160.s002

Supplemental files 2 is where you can see the gels, hybridization analysis, etc. .


----------



## Acebird

Michael Bush said:


> >The perfect storm of hyperbole and paranoia
> 
> They have already done it with Canola, Corn and other crops.


Michael you are talking to someone that isn't going to listen. He and others are destine to writing their own version of history. Even the most naive person can figure out what Monsanto is up to.


----------



## WLC

What is really perplexing is how some truly great scientists got themselves involved with this whole mess, and ended up being 'packaged and sold' to Monsanto.

The contamination issue is a very serious one which I doubt that they can ever overcome.

Also, any further research done with RNAi and Honeybees will never see the light of day in Monsanto's hands.

Finally, their credibility has taken a major blow now that they have become forever associated with Monsanto.

That association is like a 'mortal stain'. I, for one, can't give any research that they are associated with the same weight that I might have given it in the past.

It's almost as if they have accepted 'blood money'.


----------



## HVH

I am unwilling to assume anything about any of this. Monsanto has a well deserved reputation of using a very heavy hand toward patent protection. Monsanto, in my estimation, has been reducing the gene pool and at the same time trying to monopolize segments of agriculture. With that said, I still cannot predict the future of their relationship with Beeologics but will remain weary based on their track record. 

WLC, thanks for the links. I hope to get caught up with the bees and should have more time after it gets cold.


----------



## WLC

'Historically, it was assumed that the forager collects the pollen
and, through the addition of salivary secretions to moisten the
pollen, she molds the pollen into a pellet to pack it into her pollen
basket [51].'

I bring this up to address the potential contamination of other pollinators by Remembee.

But, they go on to say:

' Our data indicate it is
unlikely that the salivary secretions of the foragers transfer the
virus to the pollen given three findings:...'

Singh R, Levitt AL, Rajotte EG, Holmes EC, Ostiguy N, et al. (2010) RNA Viruses in Hymenopteran Pollinators: Evidence of Inter-Taxa Virus Transmission
via Pollen and Potential Impact on Non-Apis Hymenopteran Species. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14357. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014357

One of the auhors is a member of Beeologics' technology advisory board: Diana L. Cox-Foster (and the corresponding author no less!).

As corresponding author, she has alot to say about what gets into the paper, or if it gets published at all.

So, I could question their finding 

'Our data indicate it is
unlikely that the salivary secretions of the foragers transfer the
virus to the pollen...' 

because it would be really bad for business if Honeybees could transfer Remembee to other pollinators, via pollen, through siRNA contaminated saliva (like a virus). 

This is how science can be influenced by business interests.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Here's the article:
> http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160
> 
> Here's Supp1:
> http://www.plospathogens.org/articl...ri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160.s001
> 
> 
> Here's Supp2:
> http://www.plospathogens.org/articl...ri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160.s002
> 
> Supplemental files 2 is where you can see the gels, hybridization analysis, etc. .


Some really informative links there. I am trying really hard to read and digest this stuff before formulating an opinion on this. Certainly more informative than using google hits as your criteria (just came up with 22,800,000 hits when I googled "aliens discovered"). The human species is a curious one and science is limitless but clearly there needs to be some reason applied to what is good science such as cures for diseases and what is bad science (insert your own example here).


----------



## HVH

WLC,
Although I respect your point of view, I am having a difficult time seeing what harm could be done. Worst case scenario the RNAi gets integrated into honeybees and other species, which has already been claimed to have taken place naturally. The net result would potentially be that some bees would have more resistance to IAPV and possibly other closely related picorna viruses. The more likely scenario is that nothing at all would happen. The absolutely most likely scenario is the one that eventually materializes and there just isn't any way of seeing that one coming. Does that mean I am advocating playing God - no! I just recognize that playing God can result in a 'Flavor Saver' tomato that the market kills upon arrival. There are so many variables here that any speculation is simply a mental exercise. 
I guess a strange example of what I am suggesting comes from the atomic bomb. How could any good come from such an invention? I have often pondered how many lives have been saved and how many wars avoided because we are all scared to death of mutual destruction. On the other hand, because the technology is here and is more readily available, it is likely to be unleashed by an absolute nut job looking to usher in the 11th Imam. To that end, I am also more worried about the deliberate malicious use of genetic engineering. I have no doubt, that given the resources, I could develop a really nasty bioweapon. If I can do it, then those with the means and the will are probably already working on such a project.


----------



## WLC

Hmmm...

I thought that you might have picked up on this.

RNAi uses base sequences to be effective. It appears from the field trials that it can contaminate other hives, and quite possibly, other pollinatos as well (from the RNA virus/Hymenopteran study).

We don't know how contaminating siRNA might affect nontarget species because most of them have never been sequenced. 

There's no way to use bioinformatics to see if this stuff is safe for the environment, because unlike pesticides, it can affect expressed sequences in other species/genera (the sequences don't need to be identical for siRNA to work).

I doubt that they checked for this because it isn't required.

Those bees do get around in the environment.

Oh, there's one more test that isn't required.

Changes in DNA methylation got organophosphate pesticides banned.

They should have checked for any effects that siRNA can have on DNA methylation, because competitive inhibition by introduced siRNA could, theoretically, cause a change in DNA methylation.

Yes, RNAi and DNA methylation have been shown to be linked. (don't make me dig that one up as well)

As for retrotransposition, what if this stuff increased it in Honeybees? They aren't required to test for that either.


(Let me just park this here.)
http://www.mendeley.com/research/id...ssion-profile-honeybee-apis-mellifera/#page-1


----------



## HVH

I understand your concern, but for the moment it is all prefaced with "what if". For me to become at least more concerned I would need more than "what if" - something like a high probability mechanism that is almost certain to be a problem. Like I said, there was much concern that led up the the Asilomar conference. I admit that any thing is possible but I will lose more sleep over Iran at the moment.


----------



## WLC

They already found that the controls have been contaminated by the experimental treatment in field trials.

One of the trial participants had apparently sold AFB contaminated nucs around the same time as the trial.

The grapevine reports that hives used in the trial collapsed from CCD like symptoms.

I think that we may be a little bit past the 'What if?' stage.

Let me park this too:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/COURSES/genomics/2011/Bio309_papers/Honeybee_queen.pdf


----------



## Lost Bee

Oh boy, I can see the "Terminator Gene" being inserted in a honey bee now.
With bee nucs sold at discount prices to infect unsuspecting bee keeepers.


----------



## Tim Hall

HVH said:


> ...I am having a difficult time seeing what harm could be done...the net result would potentially be that some bees would have more resistance to IAPV and possibly other closely related picorna viruses.


The _absolute_ most likely result is that we'll start breeding super viruses. Just as we now have super bacteria from overuse of antibiotics. Just as we now have an emergence of super weeds as a result of Monsanto's Roundup Ready products.



HVH said:


> WLC,There are so many variables here that any speculation is simply a mental exercise.


When the unintended consequences of an ethically questionable practice can be so far-reaching and potentially far more devastating than any _apparently_ immediate threat to bees (IAPV, which is ultimately not a fundamental problem), someone needs to do some long, hard thinking.



HVH said:


> I guess a strange example of what I am suggesting comes from the atomic bomb...I have often pondered how many lives have been saved and how many wars avoided because we are all scared to death of mutual destruction.


Apples and oranges. Supporting corporate control of life, biodiversity, and our food supply _is_ mutual destruction.


----------



## lazy shooter

Zoology and biology are not static sciences. The planet earth is an ever changing environment, and all of its creatures and plants are evolving. If evolution does not keep up with environmental changes then extinction of that species occurs. If not for evolution, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I realize than the actions of man can cause the need for more rapid evolution of some species, but can we forego antibiotics, agricultural chemicals, anti viral drugs and so on, or do we accept the fact that man has altered the balance of nature beyond repair and progress accordingly?


----------



## Acebird

There is no such thing as upsetting the balance of nature. Nature is always in balance. What that is may not be a liking to humans. It is far better to make slow changes to the effects of nature when you don't know what the full impact is going to be.

What science is static? We would have to know everything in order for that to happen.


----------



## lazy shooter

Acebird:

When do you know what the full impact of any change will be?


----------



## Scrapfe

Jim lyon said:


> The perfect storm of ...paranoia





WLC said:


> ... Nuke sold by one of the participants in the Beeologics field trials, were contaminated with AFB. is this an example of the competitive inhibition of the Honeybee's molecular immune system (RNAi) by Remembee? Is this the first real world example of an 'off target effect' of Remembee...




Since AFB is still a serous, long recognized, naturally occurring, and world wide honeybee disease, it would appear that at this time there has been no adverse affect on bee health that can be attributed directly or indirectly to Monsanto’s purchase of Beeologics’ patents. Isn’t that so? 

Questions posing as statements were employed by the Pope against Giordano Bruno for touting Copernicus‘ ideas. It was not enough for the Pope to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake but what the Pope ordered the executioners to tie Bruno’s tongue so that Bruno could not use his death pyre as a forum. After all, the stake Bruno was burnt at belonged to the Pope. Is Monsanto the next Giordano Bruno?

I suppose now someone will claim that before Monsanto became involved, that their bees were Buick proof and expect us to accept this statement as proof.


----------



## WLC

If you understand that RNAi technology is being touted as the next generation pesticide, pardon me for making the next observation:

The requirements for bringing new pesticides to market are totally inadequate and antiquated.

Now get this: the Honeybee is an indicator species that IS required in new pesticide approval.

If it harms the Honeybee, as used on the label, then it doesn't get approved.

So far, Hunter et al. have found that their controls were contaminated by their experimental treatments. I call that an invalid trial.

The gold standard for removing a pesticide from the market is if it causes changes in DNA methylation (like organophosphates).

RNA directed DNA Methylation (RdDM) is a known mechanism associated with RNAi.

Do I really have to run my own caged bee trials, where I feed the experimental group random (sham) dsRNA and look for changes in DNA methylation in those bees?

Or, should Beeologics have done this before the field trials?

Shouldn't they have also looked at the possible inhibition of RNAi (RISC) and desuppression of retrotransposons/transposons (PIWI) by feeding large quantities of dsRNA to bees? The Honeybee isn't exposed to high levels of dsRNA during normal activities. This has never been explored in depth.

As I've stated, the current requirements are totally inadequate, and this is especially true for a new pesticide technology like RNAi.


----------



## Tim Hall

lazy shooter said:


> Zoology and biology are not static sciences. The planet earth is an ever changing environment, and all of its creatures and plants are evolving. If evolution does not keep up with environmental changes then extinction of that species occurs. If not for evolution, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I realize than the actions of man can cause the need for more rapid evolution of some species, but can we forego antibiotics, agricultural chemicals, anti viral drugs and so on, or do we accept the fact that man has altered the balance of nature beyond repair and progress accordingly?


This has nothing to do with 'natural' selection. And while I'm certainly not a creationist, Darwinian understanding of so called 'evolution' is quickly becoming obsolete as scientists discover that over-simplified and over-used notions of 'competition' and survival of the fittest are far from the only driving factors. What you're talking about is still based on those theoretical _assumptions._

What I can't figure is why more folks can't get that viruses, bacteria, mysterious disappearings, are all the symptoms and not the problems. To see it the other way is to look at the picture completely upside down. From that perspective it still has scientific logic, but it's operating in reverse order how things actually are. And so it's not science that gets to the root cause.

Bees don't suddenly disappear as a result of an evolving virus. If anything they might disappear because humans set the stage for what you're calling 'evolution' and then ask the bees to sing and dance on it.

Bottom line: engineering bees is going to be very bad for everyone. Look at history, be honest about what it says, and you'll see that as technology 'advances' (so-called 'progress') to fix previous problems, we'll look (stupidly) to the next technology to fix the problems of the technology that was supposed to fix it's predecessor. We just keep doing the same dumb thing over and over again, with the hope it'll one day be salvation. And that's not progress. That's called insanity.


----------



## lazy shooter

Tim Hall:

I think you and I are on the same page. Essentially, what I am saying is, we have already interfered with the natural order of bees. There was a huge thread earlier about when bees came to America. Were they native or were they imported. In the last decades we have introduced bees from other parts of the world. AHB come to mind. With some of these different strains of bees came some diseases. We no longer have bees that are native to our country. Our current bees are mutts. Many bee keepers, most I assume, continually use chemicals. The chemicals lose their effectiveness and the next chemical is brought forward. We are now, and have for a long time, been engineering bees.

I too wish there was no bee engineering. I wish we had natural bees that had evolved with no use of chemicals. I wish there was really a tooth fairy.


----------



## Acebird

Tim Hall said:


> Bottom line: engineering bees is going to be very bad for everyone. Look at history, be honest about what it says, and you'll see that as technology 'advances' (so-called 'progress') to fix previous problems, we'll look (stupidly) to the next technology to fix the problems of the technology that was supposed to fix it's predecessor. We just keep doing the same dumb thing over and over again, with the hope it'll one day be salvation. And that's not progress. That's called insanity.


You got that right.:thumbsup:


----------



## Michael Bush

>That's called insanity.

"The leading cause of problems is solutions."--Severides Law


----------



## Rohe Bee Ranch

It amazes me how this thread about Monsanto buys Beeologics! has morphed into Monsanto 
has created mutant honeybees. I didn't see any reference to that in the article about Monsanto buying Beeolgics. Wow, guess I missed it somewhere.


----------



## Acebird

It hasn't morphed at all. There is an exclamation mark at the end of the topic. The surprise is yet to come for those that can't think ahead.


----------



## dannyidp

This is serious business folks. I fully believe that monsanto is the number 1 cause for ccd in bees.I believe that a lot of cancer in people is a direct link to monsanto.We have a lot of people in america very intelligent but absolutely NO common sense!:ws: If there is anyone on here who has no knowledge of what is going on in this once great country of ours I have a free video for you that you will find informative,it covers monsanto and what's going on here is the link www.thefutureoffood.com click on the left of page for your free video... It give me chills every time I watch it.


----------



## Tim Hall

lazy shooter said:


> I wish we had natural bees that had evolved with no use of chemicals. I wish there was really a tooth fairy.


This isn't a fairy tale. ALL my bees are now either feral, or bred to feral drones. I have no need for chemicals. My bees do just fine with little to no human intervention.


----------



## Tim Hall

Michael Bush said:


> >That's called insanity.
> 
> "The leading cause of problems is solutions."--Severides Law


Agreed.


----------



## Tim Hall

dannyidp said:


> ...I have a free video for you that you will find informative


Danny, I've seen this film. While I don't think there's anything untruthful presented, I'm not terribly fond of it's dooms-day pathos. Not a good way to reach viewers who just assume NOT know.

A much better film, backed by interviews with legit scientists, is "Vanishing of the Bees." It's now available streaming on Netflix. Really well done documentary. EVERY BEEKEEPER SHOULD WATCH THIS FILM.

I haven't seen "Queen of the Sun" yet, but it sounds like it should be an excellent film too.


----------



## WLC

Don't forget 'Silence of the Bees' which features beekeepers and scientists involved in the Remembee field trials.

Also, doesn't 'Vanishing...' feature Mendes? One of the field trial participants?

Is there a CCD related video where at least one of the folks involved in the Remembee/Beeologics filed trials isn't featured?

Oh, wait. It all belongs to Monsanto. Beeologics, Reemembee, etc. .

Hmmm...


----------



## Tim Hall

I'm not a big fan of legislating agriculture. Too often laws are written to fix problems caused by the 'big boys' which lead to unintended consequences that hurt small/organic farmers. But this biotech insanity needs to have some serious checks put in place.

I think biotech companies should be required to provide to the public field assay tests, so anyone can determine a gene's whereabouts once field trials are underway. I think biotech companies should be held accountable for when genes show up in the wrong place, and NOT the other way around.


----------



## Tim Hall

WLC said:


> Also, doesn't 'Vanishing...' feature Mendes? One of the field trial participants?


Mendes is in the film. I wasn't aware of these field trials until recently...don't know when they were conducted. But I'm wondering if Mendes wants to have anything to do with it at this point(?)


----------



## WLC

All they have to show when testing a new product is that it doesn't kill bees, and a few other things.

So, I would say that RNAi is coming to a hive near you.

I don't think that any of the participants can speak about the field trials if they have an agreement with Beeologics. Those agreements now belong to Monsanto.
So, no. I don't think that Mendes will be speaking about the trials soon.

It is strange that so many of the folks in those CCD films/videos are now tied to Monsanto in one way or another. That's some coincidence.


----------



## Tim Hall

WLC, have any media/info that ties these people in? I'm not questioning what you're saying...I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Tim Hall

WLC said:


> All they have to show when testing a new product is that it doesn't kill bees, and a few other things.


That's what I mean about SERIOUS checks being put in place. We need something to protect people who are trying to do things in a _sane_ way from _genetic pollution._


----------



## Acebird

The only real check is the consumer. If the consumer stops buying what Monsanto has to offer, Monsanto would dry up and go away. But as you can see from this forum people have their own beliefs, fears, and financial gains. Some fear they would starve to death if it weren't for Monsanto. God, what a pitiful fear to have.

I have seen films on bees, agriculture, electric cars, oil industry, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing. They all have a Hollywood or 60 minutes flair to them. The bottom line is nothing will happen unless the consumer changes. Everything follows the consumer.


----------



## WLC

Well, Cox-Foster from PBS's 'Silence of The Bees' is listed on Beeologics' web site as an advisor.

http://www.beeologics.com/advisory_board.asp

So is Hayes.

If you look at the trial paper, you'll see her name and a bunch of others as well.

http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160

>
Wayne Hunter1*, James Ellis2, Dennis vanEngelsdorp3*, Jerry Hayes4, Dave Westervelt4, Eitan Glick5, Michael Williams3, Ilan Sela6, Eyal Maori6, Jeffery Pettis7, Diana Cox-Foster3, Nitzan Paldi5*

...Jeffery Pettis is the Research Leader responsible for bee research at the Bee Lab, USDA, ARS, Maryland, and has established a cooperative agreement with Beeologics, post completion of this research.

...Dave Hackenberg and David Mendes for providing 100+ hives each used in PA and FL respectively<

http://www.vanishingbees.com/synopsis/

Randy Oliver was involved in the trials as well.

It's a who's who.

You can buy three DVDs from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Silence-Murray-F-Abraham/dp/B0017M9ZJM

Many of those involved with Beeologics (now owned by Monsanto) do appear in one video or another.

The short list for involvement in the trials and appearing on videos (not in order):

Cox-Foster, Ellis (?), Pettis, Mendes, vanEngelsdorp, Hackenberg, Mendes, Hayes (?), Oliver (?).

I thought I saw the (?) in the videos, but can't remember for sure.


----------



## Tim Hall

Thanks, WLC.


----------



## VeggieGardener

Acebird said:


> The only real check is the consumer. If the consumer stops buying what Monsanto has to offer, Monsanto would dry up and go away.


How's that working with the GMO products at your local grocer? The shelves are loaded with them and Monsanto has done everything it can to hide that fact and to prevent GMO labeling laws from being implemented.

They fully understand that the vast majority of consumers are opposed to eating them so Monsanto's solution to that problem is to hide them and keep the public in the dark! What does that say about Monsanto's business practices and the way that they look after the public's interest?


----------



## Acebird

It is nearly impossible to hide something from a consumer that really doesn't want a product. Those producing non GMO products will put that claim on the package. Those that don't have something in it that is GMO. It is pretty much that simple. Those that absolutely refuse to eat GMO grow their own.


----------



## WLC

What if Monsanto offerred beekeepers a product that eliminates most or all of the major pests and pathogens in their hives? It's possible with RNAi. You can put more than 1 siRNA in the mix.

RNAi isn't GMO (technically) and it isn't a 'classic' pesticide (it gets amplified).

Because this technology is so new (to beekeepers), they could get it in under the wire before anyone has time to look for adverse effects.

Look at it this way, if you wanted to get rid of pests and pathogens in your bees, would you really care how it did it as long as it was FDA approved?

Is RNAi the new GMO?

Personally, I think it needs more lab testing. However, as long as the field trials go well, the product will get approved, even if the testing standards used are inadequate.

Now that Beeologics and Remembee are in Monsanto's hands, it's almost a sure thing.

But here's the rub: dsRNA is very expensive stuff.

Monsanto would need to have a way to mass produce it cheaply.


----------



## Tim Hall

WLC said:


> Look at it this way, if you wanted to get rid of pests and pathogens in your bees, would you really care how it did it as long as it was FDA approved?


It's not going to solve any of the real issues. It's just another band-aid, and as I said before, look at history: Odds are it'll be something else we have to 'fix' in the future.

Look, this is a really sad way to understand the situation here...to say the bees are the ones that need fixing. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE BEES! Where's the sense in trying to fix something that's not broken???

None of this biotech nonsense is going to fix anything. Doesn't matter how scientifically you want to debate about it. It's simply not a science issue. No technology we invent is ever going to entirely rid bees of pests and pathogens. Just not going to happen! So it's not a technology issue either.

Here's the reality:
1) Monsanto's chemicals break down bees' immune system.
2) Bees get sick.
3) Monsanto sells band-aid. Cha-ching!
4) Monsanto can continue to sell pesticides. Cha-ching!
5) Band-aid stops working.
6) Monsanto introduces new band-aid. Cha-ching!
5) Band-aid stops working.
6) Monsanto introduces new band-aid that requires contractual agreement with beekeepers. $$$$ Cha-ching! Cha-ching! $$$$
7) See where this is going?!?!?!

Are we really going to be so stupid to keep doing this over and over again? It's a simple logical issue.


----------



## WLC

I would say that the Honeybee is smack-dab in the middle of the RNAi technology bull's eye.

Honeybee safety is required for pesticide approval.

Ironically, The scientists involved are the first one's to discover that Honeybees had become immune to a virus by RNAi because Honeybees had incorporated an RNA virus fragment into their genome and become 'Naturally Transgenic'.

So, you can argue that there is no compelling reason to feed Honeybees dsRNA if they can generate their own RNAi immunity to pathogens naturally.

Furthermore, I've always said that the ability of Honeybees to make their own RNAi immunity was an important piece of scientific evidence that supports the whole 'treatment free' movement.

So, why feed dsRNA to Honeybees?

I think that this has come about because of fear, greed, and human vanity. It's not about the bees. Not really.


----------



## Acebird

WLC said:


> Furthermore, I've always said that the ability of Honeybees to make their own RNAi immunity was an important piece of scientific evidence that supports the whole 'treatment free' movement.
> 
> So, why feed dsRNA to Honeybees?


Hello, thank you very much.


----------



## dannyidp

Tim I think that it was a very informative film. I mean think about it the only way to make this seed from monsanto is to spray it with roundup poison!! Come on now there is something wrong with that picture.Now when the plant pollinates it releases the toxins and anything feeding on the pollen (hint bees) it dies...

Okay what happens to people when we eat this crap? According to the Japanese and other country's they don't want any of our grain or any other product that monsanto has genetically modified.So who has common sense? 


I stay in a constant shock for the things that I don't know..


----------



## randyoliver

>I don't think that any of the participants can speak about the field trials if they have an agreement with Beeologics. 

Hi WLC,

Perhaps you'd like some clarification on this issue. In 2007, I was corresponding with Dr. Ilan Sela, the Israeli virologist who discovered IAPV. When my questions started delving deeply, he referred me to Beeologics, with whom he was collaborating.

The Beeologics principles were glad to find a knowledgeable beekeeper with a knowledge about RNAi, and not long afterward asked me if I'd be interested in running a field trial of their product.

In our first meeting, I expressed clearly that I was only interested in running the trial as an independent beekeeper/researcher who wanted to see if the technology really worked, which they were fine with. In fact, they intentionally chose Dr. Eric Mussen to be the trial monitor, as he expressed considerable skepticism. In general, the best trials of a product are run by skeptics, and Beeologics was not seeking the investigators to skew the results, and carefully blinded us throughout the trial.

I also made clear that I would only participate if I were completely free to discuss and publish my findings and opinions, which they readily agreed to. The only thing that they wished to keep proprietary were manufacturing details, etc.

I've now run two complete trials for Beeologics prior to their being bought (to my surprise) by Monsanto. I've questioned the Beeologics principles about the purchase, and feel comfortable that they are able to maintain their integrity in trying to help beekeepers to avoid virus issues leading to colony collapse. 

It was a tough decision for the principles to go with Monsanto, as they were well aware of the negative feelings that many have for the company (including myself), but on the other hand felt that Monsanto was the company most likely to bring their technology to market. There was nothing sinister about their decision--the Beeologics principles are truly dedicated to beekeepers, the principle scientist being a beekeeper himself.

I assume that Monsanto's interest is not so much in honey bees, but rather that RNAi is cutting edge technology that holds promise in agriculture. Remebee is simply the first test case to be close to FDA approval.

>Those agreements now belong to Monsanto. So, no. I don't think that Mendes will be speaking about the trials soon.

Feel free to call Dave, he will speak all you want, as will I. In fact, I will write about every detail of the trials in ABJ!

>It is strange that so many of the folks in those CCD films/videos are now tied to Monsanto in one way or another. That's some coincidence.

Hardly a coincidence! The film directors tend to interview those with the most knowledge about CCD. The films were all shot long before Beeologics even thought about Monsanto. So, as much as you'd like to imply that there was a conspiracy (sorry to disappoint you), that simply was not the case, and any of us would resent the implication!

FYI, Beeologics has just this month initiated the largest FDA field trial of any product--hoping to run a trial involving tens of thousands of hives. I just graded and fed 100 (blinded to treatment) and plan to treat another hundred later today. The beekeepers will then grade the colonies just before going into almonds to see whether the product improved bee health (colony strength being the proxy).

Disclosure: I have no financial interest in the company, and actually had to pay out of my own pocket to be involved in the current trial (as did all the other beekeepers).

Although the suggestion of some kind of nefarious Monsanto/bee researcher conspiracy sure sounds sexy, it simply didn't happen in real life! BTW, I'm not following this thread, so if anyone actually wants factual information, I suggest that they simply contact any of us involved directly.

Randy Oliver


----------



## jim lyon

Welcome back Randy and thanks for the insights and clarifications. Also thanks for all you do for the industry.


----------



## Gypsi

Randy,

Thank you for the clarification! 

Gypsi


----------



## randyoliver

>Welcome back Randy and thanks for the insights and clarifications. 

Thanks Jim! Unfortunately, I simply don't have time to follow Beesource (this morning I got up before the sun came up and processed the rest of last night's beeswax, then read and excerpted 7 scientific papers, did a couple of major web searches, and posted to two lists). 

My point is that I don't intentionally ignore Beesource, just don't have the time to follow every thread. You guys are welcome to contact me any time if you think that I can help answer any questions.

Randy Oliver


----------



## WLC

Randyoliver:

I would like to hear about the details of the Remembee field trials that developed CCD-like symptoms.

That is the kind of thing that interests/concerns me. Can feeding dsRNA to Honeybees supress their RNAi system and bring on disease symptoms?


We'll never know the details of the sale of Beeologics to Monsanto though.

Nor will we know, 'Who knew what, and when did they know it?', concerning the sale.


----------



## beeware10

from the start this thread has mostly been speculaton. thanks randy for giving some actual backgroung info. some people need to read your post again.


----------



## WLC

Yeah, we did.

He doesn't know what's in the treatments that he's testing out on his bees.

If you understood that Monsanto created the FDA regulations that allowed GMOs in the first place (GRAS), then you'd understand.

As long as there's an active retrotransposon in Honeybees, I wouldn't put it past Sela et al. to apply the 'Monsanto Clause' to Honeybees in an FDA trial.

The first thing they did was to file for a patent on IAPV sequences, and then form Beeologics.

Then they sold it to Monsanto.

I'd like to know from Randy if those bees in the field trials developed CCD like symptoms after the Remembee treatments.

It's a fair question.


----------



## randyoliver

>I would like to hear about the details of the Remembee field trials that developed CCD-like symptoms.

Certainly! http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/

>Can feeding dsRNA to Honeybees supress their RNAi system and bring on disease symptoms?

Did not appear to be the case. However, treating with Remebee once a month appeared to be more effective than treating weekly. So although dsRNA fed weekly certainly did not appear to hurt the colonies, it may have been an excessive amount, and counterproductive.

>We'll never know the details of the sale of Beeologics to Monsanto though.

Why do you make such a statement? There is nothing to hide. The Beeologics folks are happy to talk to anyone who seriously wants answers.

>Nor will we know, 'Who knew what, and when did they know it?', concerning the sale.

I was in regular communication with the Beeologics staff during the period leading up to the sale, as they considered potential partners. I was not privy, of course, to which companies they were in contact with. I was with at Apimondia with the Beeologics guys at the last day before the sale, so can assure you that no one else in the bee community had any idea who they were negotiating with until the day of the announcement.

So now you know! The Beeologics principles and some Monsanto parties knew during negotiations. The rest of us found out the day of the public announcement. Does that answer your question?

Randy Oliver


----------



## WLC

'I'd like to know from Randy if those bees in the field trials developed CCD like symptoms after the Remembee treatments.'

Was that a 'Yes', or a 'No'?

'So now you know! The Beeologics principles and some Monsanto parties knew during negotiations. The rest of us found out the day of the public announcement. Does that answer your question?'

It's not a question.

I sit on an advisory board myself. We have our own Nobel laureate and award winning scientists as well.

I hear about all potential investors almost immediately.

There's no way that you (Randy) would know when someone like Cox-Foster (an Advisory Board Member) knew that Monsanto was negotiating with Beeologics.

However, both she, and many of the other scientists involved, have a great deal of influence on what gets published in the scientific literature. They also get their names on the papers as well.

That's a problem. Bias and conflicts of interest.


----------



## randyoliver

Hi WLC,

If you're just looking for argument, I'm not your guy! If you're interested in discussing facts, then I am.

>He doesn't know what's in the treatments that he's testing out on his bees.

Technically, that is correct, as I did not personally analyze the treatments. However, they were produced according to FDA GMP's (Good Manufacturing Practices), which are unbelievably stringent. I froze samples of every treatment that I applied for later verification. So I have no reason not to believe that the treatments were not what they were claimed to be.

>As long as there's an active retrotransposon in Honeybees, I wouldn't put it past Sela et al. to apply the 'Monsanto Clause' to Honeybees in an FDA trial.

There will likely always be gene endogenization in all species, including bees. Your own body is a prime example. However, you are mixing apples with oranges. There are no genes involved with Remebee--only tiny snippets of dsRNA that naturally occur in virus-infected bees. Remebee showed me the agarose gels from bees in my trials. The Remebee-treated bees amplified siRNA's that were naturally occurring in the hives already infected with IAPV.

>The first thing they did was to file for a patent on IAPV sequences, and then form Beeologics. Then they sold it to Monsanto.

Actually, the patent title is "Compositions for conferring tolerance to viral disease in social insects, and the use thereof." I think that you're not understanding why Monsanto is interested in Beeologics. It has little to do with the patent. Beeologics has proprietary technology (not patented) for producing siRNA more cheaply than any competitor.

>I'd like to know from Randy if those bees in the field trials developed CCD like symptoms after the Remembee treatments.

No, they didn't. Perhaps you should read my article. They didn't develop symptoms until I inoculated them with the virus ****tail, and even then, not until the cold snap. Beeologics has run field trials involving a total of thousands of hives all over the world, and has seen no adverse effects from feeding Remebee.

BTW, I have run two more trials on this subject since--one on my own, one for Beeologics (plus have additional trials going). I will be publishing all soon. No surprises.

>It's a fair question.

It would also be nice to ask those questions BEFORE you start insinuating the we are involved in wrongdoing! I have nothing to hide, and am happy to answer polite questions. Again, I am not at all involved in Beeologics, and am not a shill for their products. I just want to set the record straight.

Randy Oliver


----------



## beeware10

randy thanks again. this is the way this thread as been going from the start. no use of you wasting your time.


----------



## jim lyon

randyoliver said:


> > http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/
> 
> 
> 
> Randy Oliver


Great read and some fascinating research, well worth the short time spent reading it. Random speculation is a lot more fun but facts are infinitely more informative.


----------



## WLC

I don't doubt your integrity Randy.

It simply takes a while to get a simple 'yes' or 'no'. 

So, you're saying that there have been no advere effects from feeding Remembee reported anywhere.

I'm not sure why you are under the impression that FDA guidlines, that were for the most part created by and for Monsanto, are 'unbelievably stringent'?

In case you didn't know, R2 (a retrotransposon) is active in Honeybees, and not 'an artifact' as originally reported by the Honeybbe Genome Project.

So, you're feeding dsRNA, designed by the scientists who originally discovered RNAi supression of IAPV via retrotransposed virus fragments.

And, they've just been bought by Monsanto, the folks that bought use GMO food.

Did you know that if the 3' and 5' ends of the dsRNA have the right secondary/tertiary structure (not the sequence), it can become integrated into the Honeybee's DNA by a retrotransposon, likeR2? That's undetectable from a sequence alone.

Perhaps you need to be alot more interested in exactly what's in your field trial treatments?


----------

