# Death of Bees: GMO Crops and the Decline of Colonies in North America



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this is a cut and paste piece and not your own work?

If I'm wrong, would you be willing to share your professional background with us? If it is (as I suspect) a cut and paste piece of other's work, what is your level of professional expertise in evaluating this information. Obviously, you find it important enough to share. 

If it is not your own work, the proper thing to do is to acknowledge that fact and provide author information.

Wayne


----------



## Durandal (Sep 5, 2007)

What I do not understand about this copy is that this statement is made: "The proof is obvious that one of the major reasons of the bees’ decline is by the ingestion of GMO proteins."

The only thing that is touched on regarding GMO crops is "terminator seeds" which have not be introduced into mainstream farming yet. MOST GMO seeds across a broad spectrum are Glyphosate resistant types. OF those varieties there are several types that do contain both BT and a coating of any one of a variety of pesticides, mainly for the prevention of weevil damage prior to planting, but not all. I have yet to personally see a soybean seed treated thus...only field corn.

I'd like to see if the escaped GMO types actually have a poorer protein quality or if this is a direct result of poor farming...poor soil quality/nutrients. We've been discussing this in other forums (unrelated to bees) in regards to nutritional quality of crops we grow (other grain crops and vegetables) and your proteins/sugars/pollens can be effected by a tremendous amount external influences. We are seeing poor quality organic crops, mono-cropped in exhausted soils that have little value in terms of quality and we are seeing the same in GMO crops in exhausted ground. There are some folks who are mapping CO2 content vs plant growth vs pollen quality, suggesting that the more CO2 there is the more green growth there is and less fruit development. Water can be a huge factor as well, with huge regions in the US at very LOW levels of rainfall.

Nothing in the initial comments suggest any scientific peer reviewed documentation that claims GMO crops (in general) are to blame.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Apparently written by someone named Brit Amos:
http://www.google.com/#num=30&hl=en...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=e012d73abb6f150c


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

waynesgarden said:


> If it is not your own work, the proper thing to do is to acknowledge that fact and provide author information.
> 
> Wayne


It never occured to me to question authorship per se, but I did find it interesting that, if this person is the author, he didn't sign his work and take full credit for what he wrote.

Did you post this on Bee-L too?


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

> Without this pollination, you could kiss those crops goodbye,


Personally, I took issue with this statement right from the get go.

This is nothing but sowing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

the plants and crops will not just die off due to honey bees not pollinating them. They will diminish and not likely produce the quality we require/desire to be sure.

We will be limited to the haphazard pollination of other insect and bird pollinators as they are available like bumble bees, butterflies, bats, hummingbirds, moths, gourd bees and the list goes on.

some places, like the pear orchards in a location in China I recently saw on a PBS show again, have gone to pollinating by hand with feathers.
Not fun or efficient as honey bees, but possible.

The sensationalist notion that these plants will entirely die out without honey bees does not lead to convincing, fact based discussions about the whole situation.

Mind you, I am not saying there won't be major issues to contend with as there certainly will be, but the chicken little "the sky is falling" way of approaching this does nothing but cause more trouble in the end.

Big Bear


----------



## chrisw (Aug 8, 2010)

*Genetically Modified Crops
*
their is repercussions of manipulating crops by swapping plant genes for animal genes so the plants will have so called better characteristics and yield. 
and the pollinators are the canary in the mine for this. and ask your self why wont they allow food to be labeled GMO? Bingo nobody will buy it because they know its garbage.


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

Chris,
Thank's for bringing that story over.
Everyone needs to be aware of "frankenfoods", it may not be only bees that are affected negatively.

BM


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Where are you going w/ this chrisw? And don't you mean "there are" instead of "their is"? Even when I hear this sort of misuse of the language by people on the radio who supposedly should know better it makes me wonder what else they aren't accurate about.


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

Genetically Manipulated Crops: The GMO Catastrophe in the USA. A Lesson for the World
by F. William Engdahl
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20675

For those who wish to read more about another GMO problem.

BF BM


----------



## Stone (Jun 6, 2009)

EXCELLENT article. Thank you for posting it.

This corporate push towards genetically modified crops is another example of profits over people and the environment. (But I'm preaching to the choir.) And it also makes clear the importance of forums such as these and an educated populace. We have to overcome the information void that exists in the "mainstream" media AND the enormous amount of false information spread by these corporations to "sell" their products.

Take another example: 
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006

This is just one article in a high profile publication but there are many others.
This process to get "clean energy" has been quietly been going on for years, poisoning our land and water and sickening our people. Like genetically modified organisms, it is CONTEMPT for people and the environment. Make as much profit as possible and if a few people and some livestock die along the way, and rivers get poisoned - well that's the price of progress. We've got to fight it by being educated - bottom line.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 5, 2007)

BS

Its the easiest way to produce CHEAP food. Americans want their stuff for cheap.


----------



## Stone (Jun 6, 2009)

Please. Couldn't you be more direct? 

It would be useful if you indicated what section of the post you were directing your BS to. 

I'm sure you don't mean that you speak for all Americans. Do you actually know enough about this subject to say that the food produced from Genetically Engineered Crops is cheaper than food produced naturally? Durandel, there is so much more here than meets the eye.

The corporate propaganda machine works overtime for us to eat up this crap that they keep throwing at us.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's an article on GM canola gone wild.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetically-modified-crop

You do remember that they found virus fragments had integrated into the honeybee genome and made those bees virus resistant?

Looks like GM bees are already here. They're 'naturally transgenic'.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 5, 2007)

Stone said:


> Please. Couldn't you be more direct?
> 
> It would be useful if you indicated what section of the post you were directing your BS to.
> 
> I'm sure you don't mean that you speak for all Americans. Do you actually know enough about this subject to say that the food produced from Genetically Engineered Crops is cheaper than food produced naturally?


Going to rush this one out because I am prepping for a fair...

Define naturally.

By naturally do you mean a food forest system with companion plants like thistle and paw paws? Prairie grasses and blooms? Native (Natural) pollinators vs imported varieties?

Or do you mean acres of organic mono-cropped salad greens that truck in manure and seaweed and use immense amounts of water to artificially stimulate weed growth prior to cultivation and planting? A water source that is in no way sustainable, like snow melt or too much of a drain on the flow of river sources?? Or sustainable farming that rotates crops but uses a tractor (hardly natural). No-till or till?

I grow organic food and I sell to restaurants, resellers, and direct to consumer. A perfect example is GMO corn. We grow it as well. We also grow OP and Heirloom varieties as well. One we sell to the market where all those food companies that make processed food, corn syrup, and feed buy their bulk raw material. The market pays right around 7 CENTS a pound. People were having kittens two years ago when it doubled in price and we were getting nearly 14 cents a pound (7 dollars a bushel). Do you know what I sell my OP and Heirloom and non-GMO zero spray corn for? 8 TIMES that and more if I mill it. Because it takes FAR MORE work to get it to a consumer. Its also a healthier product and contains more protein than your GMO types.

You misunderstand my comment. Yes, I am saying that it cheap food is to blame. Cheap homogenized food. Crap. Corn and Soybean. Yes, I am also saying that it is due to American greed. 

You are correct though it is a complex issue. One issue is large corporations like Bayer, Cargill, and Monsanto. Another issue is the cost of food. Food costs are a political third rail in most cases. Since Nixon we, as a Nation (yes I am speaking for a majority of Americans) to design an Ag system that artificially deflates the cost of food for consumers. Americans treat their food much like we treat our stereos and furniture. We want it cheap, fast, and don't care how its made till someone dies then we are all up in arms.

The food system is the same way.

I sell honey at a Farmers Market. I sell my honey fro 8.00 a pound. More if you purchase smaller containers. I sell a gallon of honey to restaurants for 60.00 per gallon...bakers too. Not all of them, but the locally owned ones that charge 25.00 to 40.00 per setting...or more.

When I say cheap food I mean subsidized food. The cost to consumers is a facade. Since their tax dollars are helping feed them.

In the end I can tell you that I spend very little time in my GMO fields that I spray. My neighbor grows non-GMO conventional but sprays four times as much (weaker herbicide to not kill resistant cultivar) I spend about 6 times as much time cultivating my organic plots. The quality of food coming out of them is fantastic but it takes a lot of hard work to get a crop that is not eaten up by weeds. Even then you may get a bad toss of the coin by mother nature and loose a certain percentage because you end up getting weeds.

It is a complex issue. WE...we Americans are just as much to blame as any corporate giant. Simply two issues in a big pot of them.


----------



## Stone (Jun 6, 2009)

Well, there you are. We completely agree with each other.


----------



## chrisw (Aug 8, 2010)

"It is not about the correct punctuation of a mans words or the proper organizing of a sentence that determines the man, but what determines a man is the content of his character."

- Chris W 8/27/10


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

As an organic gardener and former organic market gardener, no one would like to see Monsanto execs choke to death on the poisons they inflict on our planet more than I do, but this is a bee forum and this thread is getting links dumped on it that have nothing, nada, zilch to do about bees. Take the general GMO controversy to the tailgater section, please. We talk about bees here.

The original article does mention bees, though I believe it is probably the worst piece of writing I've seen on the subject. (But who would expect anything more from that Prince of Paranoia, Alex Bell's fantasy website?)

First the author states: "Logic states that if the flower pollen is sterile, bees are potentially going malnourished and dying of illness due to the lack of nutrients..." 

Logic has nothing to do with establishing the nutrient value of pollen, sterile or otherwise. The author bases a big part of his argument on an assumption that he makes no attempt to support through evidence, only by equating his possibly flawed opinion with logic.

He claims the concern with Varroa mites is a distraction created by the media and the GMO conglomerates. (Argument 1.)

He also claims that "parasites" (see his Argument 2 heading.) are somehow a distracting argument though in the following paragraph he seems to be actually addressing pesticides. Parasites are not discussed at all. Either he is ignorant of the difference or he needed a copy editor as well as a fact-checker.

Likewise he claims the cell phone idea (Argument 3) also distracts from searching for the true cause. Perhaps the author took this seriously back in 2008 when this piece of rubbish was written, but were researchers ever really distracted by it? I don't believe so.

Argument 4: (Terminator Seeds) I can't tell what he is trying to tell us here. First he lists them in the list of red herring arguments to distract the search for the real cause, then his Argument 4 write-up doesn't seem to explain how it is a distraction but seems to use it to support his theory. He apparently lost his way following even the simple path he laid out himself in structuring the article.

I'll leave to to others to examine the science he relates in the last half of his article. I am no scientist though I get the impression that the author knows less about the subject than I do but pushes on to his conclusion without facts or logic impeding the process. If anything, he proves his own point about distracting arguments by pointing to GMOs as the single smoking gun. Credible researchers, (of which I am convinced the author is not one) seem largely to agree on one thing, that there is likely not a single cause for CCD.

Now, how about posting some Alex Bell articles about UFOs and the New World Order and their effects on honey bees?

Wayne


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

I think the displacement of diverse genetics is more frightening than any direct health consequences. IMHO, GMO pollen is likely to be just as healthy to bees as the conventionally hybridized crops. Some proteins engineered into plants to affect arthropods may be an exception. I am not aware of any proteins, however, other than BT proteins, in this category. If the BT transgenes were a problem to bees, it is hard to see how, considering that BT sprays seem innocuous. IF Btb is harmful to bees I'm sure I will get corrected. The plasmids and viral delivery systems used by molecular biologists usually have a few tag along proteins that are expressed to some level in the target plants but the amount of these proteins found in our food is probably lower than the insect matter found in our food. I think I would prefer a few picograms of ampicillin in my salad than part of a ****roach. Some of the transgenes end up in our diet every day when we slough off billions of naturally occurring E coli cells in our gut. Not to mention all the other transgene products from beer, sauerkraut, yogurt, cheese, salami, kefir, etc........................................


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Bt corn has often been characterized as a threat to honeybees.
However, Bt powder has not only been used to treat hives for wax moths, but bees have also been used to carry Bt powder to treat crops for pests in tests.

I think that THE current issue regarding GM crops is that weeds become resistant to herbicides, like roundup, and another herbicide has to be used to eliminate resistant weeds (like pigweed). That defeats the purpose of using roundup-ready GM crops in the first place, and it also adds 1 more chemical to worry about.

It's also interesting to note, that as bees became transgenic/virus resistant themselves, only a handful of people noticed, and yet the bee's chances for survival improved (albeit at a price).

So, I would conclude that varroa, and the viruses that it induces, have done far more damage to bees, including making them 'GM' bees, than GM crops have done. 

Some might say that the real culprit is globalization and not GMO (or illiteracy).


----------



## chrisw (Aug 8, 2010)

This article has had a tremendous impact on a critical issue and encourages people to keep posting their ideas on what they think CCD is and what is causing it.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

chrisw said:


> This article has had a tremendous impact on a critical issue....


I haven't seen that impact but perhaps I just don't read the same journals as you.

I'm glad people are discussing it though.

Wayne


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

chrisw said:


> This article has had a tremendous impact on a critical issue and encourages people to keep posting their ideas on what they think CCD is and what is causing it.


Unfortunately, it also encourages people to form their opinions based on panic reactions and alarmist fear-mongering. The article you posted may have put down the "cell phone" argument, which is good to see, but it offers an alternative formed in the same fallacious manner.

Genetic manipulation has been part-and-parcel of agriculture since agriculture was invented. People have always studded their best bulls and saved the seeds from their best crops in the hopes of creating superior descendants. GMO is nothing but the logical progression of this behavior into our time, and something's being done in a day in a laboratory rather than over a three-year period via natural processes doesn't automatically make it "evil".

Certainly, _just as with natural breeding and hybridization_, problems can ensue. But that's a QC or a research problem, not a "zomg, GMO!" problem. Africanized bees weren't created in a test tube...


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

chrisw said:


> "It is not about the correct punctuation of a mans words or the proper organizing of a sentence that determines the man, but what determines a man is the content of his character."
> 
> - Chris W 8/27/10


Are you sure Martin Luther King didnt say that first


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

chrisw said:


> "It is not about the correct punctuation of a mans words or the proper organizing of a sentence that determines the man, but what determines a man is the content of his character."
> 
> - Chris W 8/27/10


I know I've seen this quote before, and it's alot older than you. John


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

melliferal said:


> Unfortunately, it also encourages people to form their opinions based on panic reactions and alarmist fear-mongering. The article you posted may have put down the "cell phone" argument, which is good to see, but it offers an alternative formed in the same fallacious manner.
> 
> Genetic manipulation has been part-and-parcel of agriculture since agriculture was invented. People have always studded their best bulls and saved the seeds from their best crops in the hopes of creating superior descendants. GMO is nothing but the logical progression of this behavior into our time, and something's being done in a day in a laboratory rather than over a three-year period via natural processes doesn't automatically make it "evil".
> 
> Certainly, _just as with natural breeding and hybridization_, problems can ensue. But that's a QC or a research problem, not a "zomg, GMO!" problem. Africanized bees weren't created in a test tube...


Your GMO "natural process" sounds like a Sunday afternoon walk in the park.
Our food chain is compromised NOW, and the long term effects to our food chain are UNKNOWN. 
Why the seed vault up north? 
(back-up in case of possible screw-up messing with mother nature??)

It may not be "evil" as you say, but frog genes in a plant goes against nature don't you think?

BM


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

brushmouth said:


> Our food chain is compromised NOW, and the long term effects to our food chain are UNKNOWN.


That's right - unknown. We could be headed for a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Or, the long-term effects could be so negligible that the environment adapts easily and unnoticed. This is true of _any_ kind of social, technological, or ecological change. Yet so many people seem to want to act as if the doomsday scenario (or whatever is analogous) should be considered the most likely - or that we should act as if it's most likely. Why? I'm interested in what your metric is. GMO is a relatively new thing, so it's not as if we can look back at the long-term effects of previous GMO ventures. Is the mere possibility of a bad result what scares you? 

The long-term effects of the transition of human society to a computer-centric paradigm are UNKNOWN...but there you are on your computer, posting to a forum on the internet, yeah?


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

brushmouth said:


> Our food chain is compromised NOW, and the long term effects to our food chain are UNKNOWN.


Known or unknown, the original article fails to convince many researchers (or perhaps no researchers) that the primary cause of CCD is GMO crops.

As I said earlier, the author of the original article succeded only in accomplishing what he was whining about, that is distracting the research into the actual causes by throwing out a favorite "smoking gun" and limiting the discussion to only that one possibility.

Wayne


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

brushmouth said:


> It may not be "evil" as you say, but frog genes in a plant goes against nature don't you think?


Actually, plants, animals and microbes already share some genes. Critical biological pathways and processes are the same, or extremely similar. Advances in technology allow for things that took much longer in the past. It use to be "we" did lots of things to create mutations in the hope that some would be to our liking and reproduceable. Now we can take genes we find beneficial and move them between organisms.

What if a gene were identified in another species that provided protection to the AIDS virus? Or, some other human healthcare problem?

I think a lot of the GMO fear mongering is kind of like chicken little and the sky is falling. Everyone does not have to embrace the technology. The technology is just a tool.

Tom


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

I bet that's precisely the reason the Europeans love GMO food so much. :doh:

BM


----------



## HVH (Feb 20, 2008)

As a genetic engineer myself, I think the technology most likely to kill us will be deliberately made to do so. Yes - it is conceivable that transgenic plants and animals may lead to some harmful unintended consequences but the harsh reality is that bioweapons are being produced around the globe and they are much easier to produce than a nuke and a lot more easy to deliver. Adding interleukin genes to small pox and changing some surface proteins to evade an immune response are worth losing sleep over. 
Reduction of the gene pool and centralized control of food scare me a lot more than eating GMO foods.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

TWall said:


> What if a gene were identified in another species that provided protection to the AIDS virus? Or, some other human healthcare problem?


what if they did? would you sign up to have these genes implanted in your soon to be born baby in a way that they are heritable to their offspring? really? would you really?

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I swear that this is true. Some time ago I was taking classes at a local university. During the same semester I took a general entomology class and a pesticide management class. One morning, during the general ento class the prof played a film from the late 1940s. It was a researcher who stated that ‘this will change agriculture as we know it today’. He was referring to DDT. In my afternoon pesticide management class, the visiting professor was working with gm cotton. And he said….well you know…word for word….on the same day! I felt the hair on the back of my neck stand up.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

_Science will kill us ALL!_


----------

