# Monsanto GMO products contribute to ccd



## JStinson

Sorry, can't make it. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578380872639718046.html


----------



## jim lyon

Ole Mac is just having some fun with us (note smiley face). In all seriousness one can certainly make an argument that the use of GMO products with the resulting highly productive and weed free fields is hardly beneficial to bees. But it sure is good for the billions of 
people on the planet that like eating.


----------



## JStinson

Ah, got it. I was hoping for an impassioned, holier than thou response. Quite a disappointment.

:lookout:


----------



## BigDawg

Contrary to popular belief, GMO's do NOT produce higher crop yields...


----------



## mac

jim lyon said:


> Ole Mac is just having some fun with us (note smiley face). In all seriousness one can certainly make an argument that the use of GMO products with the resulting highly productive and weed free fields is hardly beneficial to bees. But it sure is good for the billions of
> people on the planet that like eating.


 weed pollen and nectar for highly productive bees. I do believe bees help feed people and the court is still out on the health benefits of GMO crops. Time will tell


----------



## mac

BigDawg said:


> Contrary to popular belief, GMO's do NOT produce higher crop yields...


 That is true in some instances crop yields are lower


----------



## mac

JStinson said:


> Ah, got it. I was hoping for an impassioned, holier than thou response. Quite a disappointment.
> 
> :lookout:


 From me???? surely you jest. And ya don't have to call me Shirley.


----------



## JRG13

I don't know if anyone says gmos boost yields, but it has more to do with the actual breeding line it's in anyways.


----------



## jim lyon

mac said:


> That is true in some instances crop yields are lower


True, sort of. Some "roundup ready" soybeans have little if any direct yield advantage. But indirectly there is a huge yield benefit as weeds, insects and drought all take a huge toll on yield and they are all problems that genetic modification addresses. I dont think you can make an effective dual argument that bees suffer because of a lack of "weed" forage yet those same weeds don't also rob yield from the crop. :lpf::gh:


----------



## Barry

I should delete this thread. I'm not interested in promoting any corporate marches, pro or con, here. Do that on your own time and own website. But, since everyone is using  mr. smiley, I'll assume this is all a big joke!  :lookout::lpf::banana::ws:


----------



## Barry

JStinson said:


> Sorry, can't make it.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324105204578380872639718046.html


OK, you'll need to copy some of that article here so we can read it. Getting a page that requires me to sign up to WSJ doesn't work. I do like the subtitle: 
Campaigns by well-fed activists would impose the tastes of the rich on the hunger of the poor.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> OK, you'll need to copy some of that article here so we can read it.

I'm not a paid WSJ subscriber. But here is a free summary of the piece:


> [Article Summarized by Meridian Institute] In this opinion piece, Robert Paarlberg, a professor of political science at Wellesley College, writes that campaigns by well-fed activists to require the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will take important choices away from farmers and consumers in poor countries. If a mandatory labeling law was enacted in the U.S., says Paarlberg, America’s farmers could likely find an acceptable workaround, as much of the soy and corn grown in the U.S. is employed as feedstock for biofuels or as animal feed, neither of which requires a label. But, he argues, there would be a large downside in poor countries that are moving further along this path. Developing countries, he says, have significant unmet food needs, and GMO food crops could help. Golden rice, which contains vitamin A, could help those in Asia lacking this nutrient; in India, access to GMO eggplant would reduce the toxic exposure farmers and consumers get from pesticides; and, in East Africa, drought-resistant maize would help those farmers vulnerable to hunger and destitution when the rains don’t come. But, warns Paarlberg, “if America, through a labeling system, joins Europe in embracing a new norm against the cultivation of GMO crops for human food, governments in developing countries, already skittish thanks to activist campaigns, will likely follow suit. The result would be a needless setback for the world's poorest and hungriest people.”
> 
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups/World-Needs-Genetically-Modified-Foods-1807778.S.232805928


Lets not forget the smileys!:lpf::gh:
:digging:


----------



## BlueDiamond

Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta produce the TOOLS farmers need to grow more corn and soybeans. But they do not create the public DEMAND for corn and soybeans. If anti-pesticide activists were sincerely interested in reducing sales of Monsanto et al products, they should have been working to reduce the public demand for corn and soybeans; i.e. they should have vigorously fought the Biofuels Mandate, vigorously promoted major reductions in auto size, weight and engine horsepower and supported reinstatement of the national 55 MPH speed limit. But they are not interested in doing any of that because there's far less money to be made promoting true conservation as compared to waging high profile "Occupy Monsanto" type campaigns. The activists like to claim they are not in it for the money, but their IRS tax returns show otherwise:


----------



## WLC

I take it that you have a sportsman's license. 

While modern agriculture almost certainly has an impact on pollinators, I think that it's exotic pathogens that are the root cause of CCD.

Why blame others for exotic viruses, and other pests and pathogens, that have reached us from the other side of the world?

I blame globilization!


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Why blame others for exotic viruses, and other pests and pathogens, that have reached us from the other side of the world?


because those others is what these others are trying to eliminate, using us beekeepers as the mule


----------



## JStinson

Strange, that link didn't work for me either. I googled it and got to it that way.

The World Needs Genetically Modified Foods
By ROBERT PAARLBERG

The Whole Foods grocery chain recently announced its intent by 2018 to require labels on all foods with genetically engineered ingredients. This step was hailed as a game-changer by those campaigning to make such labels a federal requirement. Yet even without mandatory labeling, most genetically modified (or GMO) foods have already been driven out of our supermarkets.

People in wealthy countries can afford to live with this outcome. But in the long run, it will take important choices away from farmers and consumers in poor countries.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long opposed the mandatory labeling of GMO foods because it agrees with a scientific consensus that these foods so far bring no new risks to human health or the environment. All of the leading national science academies in Europe have reached this conclusion. Three years ago, the Research Directorate of the European Union concluded that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, "are not per se more risky than, for example, conventional plant breeding technologies."

Nonetheless, campaigns by activist groups such as Greenpeace have so scared consumers that most GMO food products have been kept out of the American marketplace.

A genetically modified wheat designed to reduce the cost of weed control was first field-tested in 1994, but in 2004 Monsanto MON +0.66% decided not to go ahead with sales of wheat seeds when it became clear that American and Canadian farmers feared consumer resistance and lost export sales in Europe and Asia.

GMO rice that can be grown with less pesticide spray has been field-tested in the U.S. since 1990—but, for similar reasons, never commercialized. GMO potatoes that resist beetle damage were grown successfully in the U.S. from 1999 to 2001, but their cultivation was voluntarily suspended when food-service chains told farmers that they didn't want to be accused by activists of selling GMO french fries.

GMO tomatoes with a convenient trait that delays ripening were grown between 1998 and 2002, but cultivation was then suspended. GMO melons capable of resisting a virus have been successfully tested in the U.S. since 1989 but never planted commercially.

It is often reported that roughly 70% of foods in the U.S. contain some ingredients from genetically engineered crops, but most of those ingredients are byproducts such as oil, starch or sweeteners derived from just three GMO crops: soybeans, corn and sugar beets. If the U.S. enacted a mandatory labeling law, the impacts might be surprisingly small. To avoid the stigmatizing labels, food companies could reformulate many of their products, for example by turning to oil from non-GMO corn and soy, or by using non-GMO palm or sunflower oil. Byproducts from GMO corn and soy could then be diverted to industrial or biofuel use.

America's farmers might also find an acceptable workaround. Currently 98% of their soy and 88% of their corn is already employed as feedstock for biofuels or as animal feed, neither of which requires a label. But there would be a large downside in poor countries for moving further along this path.

Developing countries have significant unmet food needs, and GMO food crops are positioned to help. In Asia, poor consumers who currently don't get enough vitamin A from their rice-only diets could be better protected against blindness if their farmers had permission to plant so-called Golden Rice, which has been genetically engineered with high beta-carotene content.

Farmers and consumers in India currently exposed to toxic insecticides when they grow and eat eggplant could reduce their exposure if farmers had access to a GMO eggplant, Bt brinjal, that needs fewer chemical sprays. Farmers and consumers in East Africa currently vulnerable to hunger and destitution when drought hits their maize fields would be more secure if growers had permission to plant GMO drought-resistant varieties of white maize.

But if America, through a labeling system, joins Europe in embracing a new norm against the cultivation of GMO crops for human food, governments in developing countries, already skittish thanks to activist campaigns, will likely follow suit. The result would be a needless setback for the world's poorest and hungriest people.

Mr. Paarlberg is a professor of political science at Wellesley College and the author of "Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know" (Oxford, 2010).


----------



## BigDawg

Worth watching: http://billmoyers.com/segment/vandana-shiva-on-the-problem-with-genetically-modified-seeds/


----------



## mac

JStinson said:


> Strange, that link didn't work for me either. I googled it and got to it that way.
> 
> The World Needs Genetically Modified Foods
> By ROBERT PAARLBERG
> 
> The Whole Foods grocery chain recently announced its intent by 2018 to require labels on all foods with genetically engineered ingredients. This step was hailed as a game-changer by those campaigning to make such labels a federal requirement. Yet even without mandatory labeling, most genetically modified (or GMO) foods have already been driven out of our supermarkets.


 In the EFSA report, which can be read online, you can find (within the scientific wording) that researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations. NK603 maize, of course, was also recently linked to the development of mass tumors in rats.
According to Independent Science News, Gene VI also inhibits RNA silencing. As you may know, RNA silencing has been pinpointed as vital for the proper functioning of gene expression when it comes to RNA. Perhaps more topically, it is a defense mechanism against viruses in plants and animals alike. On the contrary, many viruses have developed genes that disable this protective process. Independent Science News reports that the Gene VI is one such gene.
Overall, there is a degree of knowledge on Gene VI. What we do know going by information within the report is that the gene:
Helps to assemble virus particles
Inhibits the natural defense of the cellular system
Produces proteins that are potentially problematic
Makes plants susceptible to bacterial pathogens
All of which are very significant effects that should be studied in depth by an independent team of scientists after GMO products are taken off the market pending further research on the entire array of associated diseases. And that does not even include the effects we are unaware of. http://www.realfarmacy.com/safety-group-blows-lid-on-secret-virus-hidden-in-gmo-crops/


----------



## Slow Modem

What worries me is Monsanto's private army/secret police/storm troopers invading the small farmers.


----------



## yankee joe

99% of the public do not know the kinds of poison that Monsanto ,Bayer and Syngenta are producing in the name of food production and gardening and lawn products. All they know are that they work as directed in the label. Who gives a ???? about the pollinators. If the public was truly informed of the pollinator problems the world is now facing there would be some changes made. God help us all.


----------



## BigDawg

Here, here!



yankee joe said:


> 99% of the public do not know the kinds of poison that Monsanto ,Bayer and Syngenta are producing in the name of food production and gardening and lawn products. All they know are that they work as directed in the label. Who gives a ???? about the pollinators. If the public was truly informed of the pollinator problems the world is now facing there would be some changes made. God help us all.


----------



## BlueDiamond

yankee joe said:


> 9If the public was truly informed of the pollinator problems the world is now facing there would be some changes made. God help us all.


What food crops have suffered a yield loss due to an insufficient supply of pollinators? What wildflowers are going extinct due to an insufficient supply of pollinators?


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> What food crops have suffered a yield loss due to an insufficient supply of pollinators?


 Well gee I wonder why almonds apples pear cherries blueberries water melons cucumbers cantaloupes squash and now strawberries (did I miss any?) need pollinator contracts for honeybees. Hmmmmmm. Take off the rose colored glasses my friend. [/QUOTE] Did anyone mention extinct wild flowers??


----------



## Dave Burrup

The biggest threat to native pollinators is loss of habitat. With 7 billion people in this world we farm just about everything that a crop can be grown on. The monocultures that result offer almost nothing for pollinators. A strawberry field will only offer a food source for less than a month. Then what to the native pollinators do. The only thing GMO is guilty of is fostering these sterile monocultures. The insecticides in use now versus 30 plus years ago are much safer.
Dave


----------



## Ian

mac said:


> Well gee I wonder why almonds apples pear cherries blueberries water melons cucumbers cantaloupes squash and now strawberries (did I miss any?) need pollinator contracts for honeybees. Hmmmmmm. Take off the rose colored glasses my friend.


he is referring to wheat, corn, rice, soybean, . . . you know, field crops, The food base


----------



## BlueDiamond

mac said:


> Well gee I wonder why almonds apples pear cherries blueberries water melons cucumbers cantaloupes squash and now strawberries (did I miss any?) need pollinator contracts for honeybees.


You havn't listed any food crops that have suffered a yield loss due to an insufficient supply of pollinators...therefore you havn't supplied evidence that the supply of any crop is imminently threatened due to an insufficient supply of pollinators. You also havn't listed any specific wildflower species that deminished in abundance over time in farm areas and then went extinct due to an insufficient supply of pollinators.


----------



## D Coates

You're looking for actual pollenation required crops and wildflowers that have suffered from a lack of pollenation and scientifically repeatable evidence? 

er,, uh,, umm,,,


----------



## spudrocket

Monsanto is an evil company. They are genetically modifying everything so no one can reproduce anything (vegetables, fruit, even bees). They buy out small farms and companies and will make it to where no one can live independent lives.


----------



## jim lyon

Delete, sorry


----------



## BlueDiamond

D Coates said:


> You're looking for actual pollenation required crops and wildflowers that have suffered from a lack of pollenation and scientifically repeatable evidence?
> er,, uh,, umm,,,


It's a very simple request: Someone tell me of an example of a bee pollinated crop where the yield per acre one year (or multiple years) was reduced by even 10% due to a shortage of available bees. If no one knows of many case history examples of that happening then no one can legitimately claim there is a looming pollination crisis that threatens the food supply.


----------



## Mr. Buzzy Bee

I hate Monsanto, that Is why I'm going natural w/ my bee hives. Who knows, may be soon, bee keeping will be illegal.


----------



## Spark

BlueDiamond said:


> It's a very simple request: Someone tell me of an example of a bee pollinated crop where the yield per acre one year (or multiple years) was reduced by even 10% due to a shortage of available bees. If no one knows of many case history examples of that happening then no one can legitimately claim there is a looming pollination crisis that threatens the food supply.


So you are saying "Blue Diamond as in Almonds?" that almonds don't need bees? BTW who needs bees anyways California has flys and they are pollinators too but who is more efficient is the answer.


----------



## melliferal

I don't think BlueDiamond is trying to say bees aren't necessary; I think they're asking for evidence that there's currently not enough bees to do all the pollinating.


----------



## Spark

When Blue Diamond can confirm he is anything but a paid contributor then maybe his posts can have validity as well.


----------



## hpm08161947

melliferal said:


> I don't think BlueDiamond is trying to say bees aren't necessary; I think they're asking for evidence that there's currently not enough bees to do all the pollinating.


Yes.. that is what he is asking. I don't know if he is paid or not, but it is a valid question... No?


----------



## Mr. Buzzy Bee

"BTW who needs bees anyways California has flys and they are pollinators too but who is more efficient is the answer."

We need bees no matter what people say. They are the number one pollinators in the world. People have kept bees for thousands of years. Yes, there are other pollinators, but bees are more needed than ever. What fly has ever made honey, what bee has ever spread disease? What bees fly around feces? I have never seen any. "Think about it". We need every bee.

Mr. Buzzy Bee


----------



## D Coates

Spark said:


> When Blue Diamond can confirm he is anything but a paid contributor then maybe his posts can have validity as well.


I also need a confirmation of whether he's the Queen of England and if he wears boxers or briefs. 

Seriously?, this is the internet. Even if he was paid, he (or she) could easily lie and you can't prove who he is who's paying him. Are you asking this of everyone or only those you disagree with? 

Gotta go, I'm off to cash my check from Monsanto.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

D Coates said:


> Gotta go, I'm off to cash my check from Monsanto.


_Hey_!! I have been described by BBM as one of "_*Monsanto's attack dogs*_", but I haven't gotten *any *check from them yet! Maybe you could hook me up with the right people to correct this oversight? 
:s :lookout:

:ws:


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> he is referring to wheat, corn, rice,


 They are wind pollinated.


Ian said:


> The question "What food crops have suffered a yield loss due to an insufficient supply of pollinators?"


 My answer indicated just about every thing we eat except wheat, corn,rice,millet,barley,rye oats, did I miss any?? My point was that if native pollinator populations were not now being decimated why do farmers pay large amounts of money to have their crops pollinate by honeybees. I’m not sure what your point is.


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> You haven’t listed any food crops that have suffered a yield loss due to an insufficient supply of pollinators...


 Well geeeeee I’m sure almond growers are spending $100,00 - $200.00 per hive to pollinate their groves because there are an ample number of pollinators to go around, same with the other growers I mentioned, and if that aint good enough evidence don’t bring bees to California next spring and see what happens seems like the growers don’t have enough pollinators even with honeybees. QUOTE]


BlueDiamond said:


> You also haven’t listed any specific wildflower species that diminished in abundance over time in farm areas and then went extinct due to an insufficient supply of pollinators.


 I don’t think I ever mentioned anything about wildflowers going extinct so why would I mention any?? Sorry.


----------



## mac

hpm08161947 said:


> Yes.. that is what he is asking. I don't know if he is paid or not, but it is a valid question... No?


 I'm sure he's asking about pollinators other than honey bees or I could beeee wrong


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> It's a very simple request: Someone tell me of an example of a bee pollinated crop where the yield per acre one year (or multiple years) was reduced by even 10% due to a shortage of available bees. If no one knows of many case history examples of that happening then no one can legitimately claim there is a looming pollination crisis that threatens the food supply.


 Thought we were talking about pollinators other than honey bees. Well answer me this Riddler. Why do farmers spend millions of dollars to have their crops pollinated??? Answer: because they would suffer reduced yield. Don't believe ME ask a farmer they ain't stupid and don't invest money unless there is a larger return on that investment. If ya want numbers ask the state ag extention agent an then get back to us.


----------



## hpm08161947

mac said:


> I'm sure he's asking about pollinators other than honey bees or I could beeee wrong


Mac - I think you are assuming native pollinators should be able to handle the pollination of monocrops. When you create a monocrop, you create an ideal place for fungus and many pests. In a monocrop of any size this will require some means of controlling these pests and fungi..... else you will have a very reduced crop and not be profitable. As soon as you apply the pesticide... whammo... the natural pollinators are dead. Here is where the commercial pollinators come in, they only stay long enough to pollinate the crop and leave before the pesticides come out.


----------



## mac

D Coates said:


> I also need a confirmation of whether he's the Queen of England and if he wears boxers or briefs.


 He is and boxers AND briefs


----------



## mac

hpm08161947 said:


> Mac - I think you are assuming native pollinators should be able to handle the pollination of monocrops. When you create a monocrop, you create an ideal place for fungus and many pests. In a monocrop of any size this will require some means of controlling these pests and fungi..... else you will have a very reduced crop and not be profitable. As soon as you apply the pesticide... whammo... the natural pollinators are dead. Here is where the commercial pollinators come in, they only stay long enough to pollinate the crop and leave before the pesticides come out.


 Yes of course however he has indicated that native pollinator populations were NOT being desimated “You havn't listed any food crops that have suffered a yield loss due to an insufficient supply of pollinators” My contention is that there IS an insufficient supply of pollinators because of just what you mentioned and that is why we need to pollinate just about every thing with honey bees. Now that should beeeee as clear as mud.


----------



## hpm08161947

mac said:


> Yes of course however he has indicated that native pollinator populations were NOT being desimated


Surely he would not think that. Long before the Neonics came along the native pollinators were gone.


----------



## melliferal

mac said:


> Thought we were talking about pollinators other than honey bees. Well answer me this Riddler. Why do farmers spend millions of dollars to have their crops pollinated??? Answer: because they would suffer reduced yield. Don't believe ME ask a farmer they ain't stupid and don't invest money unless there is a larger return on that investment. If ya want numbers ask the state ag extention agent an then get back to us.


Fine, fine, but - ARE farmers, as a matter of fact, reporting a reduced yield right now? By whatever channel those kinds of reports are made?


----------



## BigDawg

Interesting read......

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tem/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html


----------



## hpm08161947

BigDawg said:


> Interesting read......
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tem/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html


Perhaps the yield per acre is not that greatly affected, but the total acreage one can farm is greatly increased.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Interesting read......
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tem/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html


Interesting Rebuttal:http://www.whybiotech.com/resources/tps/Response-to-UCS.PDF Excerpts:

"Surprisingly, while the report mentions ‘wealth of data on yield under real-world conditions’ it fails to use these data. The report focuses on corn and soybean, omitting the extensive data available from cotton and canola. Finally, the report focuses on the US, omitting the results from the rest of world. Collectively, these omissions in the UCS report serve to distort the actual situation."

Summary:
"The current generation of GM crops were designed to preserve OY, and have succeeded in doing so around the world. Furthermore, they have made substantial contributions to sustainability indicators and have succeeded in decreasing the agricultural footprint in the environment. These factors alone are enough to justify the use of GM crops as part of an overall strategy for agricultural development around the world."


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> Interesting Rebuttal:
> 
> "Surprisingly, while the report mentions ‘wealth of data on yield under real-world conditions’ it fails to use these data. The report focuses on corn and soybean, omitting the extensive data available from cotton and canola. Finally, the report focuses on the US, omitting the results from the rest of world. Collectively, these omissions in the UCS report serve to distort the actual situation."


And yet:

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/demand-growing-for-non-gmo-corn-seed-among-farmers/

"Interest and demand for non-GMO corn seed among US farmers is growing, according to seed suppliers who say that higher yields and returns, less cost, dissatisfaction with genetically modified traits, and better animal health are driving the demand.

Tim Schneider, a sales representative for Tom Eischen Sales in Algona, Iowa, said he is selling 20 times as much conventional, non-GMO corn seed as GM this year. “Demand has been steadily going up,” he says.

“Demand has never been higher. We are growing faster than what we can handle,” says Will Trudell, vice president of De Dell Seeds."

http://www.dailytech.com/US+Farmers...+Genetically+Engineered+Seed/article19802.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1004/Signs-of-a-biotech-backlash

"Even as most farmers embrace genetically modified crops, some producers are casting a critical eye on the technology. Corn Belt farmers complain loudly about the soaring cost of seed. The federal government is investigating the industry for anticompetitive practices. Farmers are grappling increasingly with weeds that have grown resistant to Roundup, an herbicide widely used with genetically modified crops, and genetic contamination of conventional crops."

"But with rising costs and recent resistance to herbicides, biotech seed has become less favorable and farmers are taking notice. For instance, last year, the price of biotech soybean seeds rose 24 percent while corn seed rose 32 percent. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating the anticompetitive practices of Monsanto, and Monsanto is countering by saying it plans on offering more seed options at lower prices next year."


----------



## BigDawg

Hey BlueDiamond,

I'm curious--how are your bees doing? Do you prefer Italians, or Carniolans? How many hives to you have now?


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> Interesting Rebuttal:http://www.whybiotech.com/resources/tps/Response-to-UCS.PDF Excerpts:
> 
> "Surprisingly, while the report mentions ‘wealth of data on yield under real-world conditions’ it fails to use these data. The report focuses on corn and soybean, omitting the extensive data available from cotton and canola. Finally, the report focuses on the US, omitting the results from the rest of world. Collectively, these omissions in the UCS report serve to distort the actual situation."
> 
> Summary:
> "The current generation of GM crops were designed to preserve OY, and have succeeded in doing so around the world. Furthermore, they have made substantial contributions to sustainability indicators and have succeeded in decreasing the agricultural footprint in the environment. These factors alone are enough to justify the use of GM crops as part of an overall strategy for agricultural development around the world."


Also interesting to note the the author, Wayne Parrot, is the head of the ParrotLab at UGA: "Our laboratory conducts research on crop genetic engineering, although its members also use molecular markers as a tool for transgene deployment and work in gene discovery. The bulk of the work deals with the development of protocols for somatic embryogenesis and genetic transformation of soybean, switchgrass, alfalfa, rice and maize. We are part of the Department of Crop & Soil Sciences and the Institute of Plant Breeding, Genetics and Genomics at The University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia." Not exactly what I would consider an unbiased source of information given the likely financial ties between the lab and the biotech industry.

Also interesting to note that one of the references for in the bibliography is the Keystone Group, a well-known pro-industry organization that has a well documented history of accepting lots of money from their clients, and then (surprise!) authoring highly favorable "scientific reports" that support their client's endeavors: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jreynolds/independence_or_co-dependence.html


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> And yet:
> 
> http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/demand-growing-for-non-gmo-corn-seed-among-farmers/
> "Interest and demand for non-GMO corn seed among US farmers is growing, according to seed suppliers who say that higher yields and returns, less cost, dissatisfaction with genetically modified traits, and better animal health are driving the demand.


I get my GMO crop adoption information from actual USDA statistics, not from the "Organic & non-GMO Report."

Examples:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produc...ecent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx#.UaQ43uB8v8s

"Herbicide Tolerant soybeans went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001 and 93 percent in 2012."

"Plantings of Herbicide Tolerant cotton expanded from about 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001 and 80 percent in 2012."

"The adoption of Herbicide Tolerant corn, which had been slower in previous years, has accelerated, reaching 73 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2012."


----------



## BigDawg

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/b...=1&adxnnlx=1369668318-hOp37uCcTyuZBsB051uWJw&

"The Non-GMO Project was until recently the only group offering certification, and demand for its services has soared. Roughly 180 companies inquired about how to gain certification last October, when California tried to require labeling (the initiative was later voted down), according to Megan Westgate, co-founder and executive director of the Non-GMO Project.

Nearly 300 more signed up in March, after Whole Foods announced that all products sold in its stores would have to be labeled to describe genetically engineered contents, and about 300 more inquiries followed in April, she said.

“We have seen an exponential increase in the number of enrollments,” Ms. Westgate said."

And on Saturday, an estimated 2,000,000 people took to the streets in over 52 countries to protest against GMO foods in general and Monsanto in particular. The size and scope of the global protest was unprecedented, never before have so many people from all around the world shown up to protest against a specific corporation:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...tries-against-monsanto.html?utm_source=feedly and http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/25/global-protests-monsanto/2361007/

"And in a new paper funded by the US Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin researchers have essentially negated the “more food” argument as well. The researchers looked at data from UW test plots that compared crop yields from various varieties of hybrid corn, some genetically modified and some not, between 1990 and 2010. While some GM varieties delivered small yield gains, others did not. Several even showed lower yields than non-GM counterparts. With the exception of one commonly used trait—a Bt type designed to kill the European corn borer—the authors conclude, “we were surprised not to find strongly positive transgenic yield effects.” Both the glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) and the Bt trait for corn rootworm caused yields to drop."


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg, the USDA statistics show an overwhelming majority of corn and cotton belt farmers prefer GMO seeds. Earlier in this thread Jim Lyon (who lives at the western end of the Midwest corn belt) pointed out some of the reasons why so many farmers prefer GMO seeds: "indirectly there is a huge yield benefit as weeds, insects and drought all take a huge toll on yield and they are all problems that genetic modification addresses."


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> "indirectly there is a huge yield benefit as weeds, insects and drought all take a huge toll on yield and they are all problems that genetic modification addresses."


 That’s just not accurate


----------



## Ian

yes it is, may I add fuel savings and increased soil health and structure


----------



## Barry

This thread is wondering off into areas that have little to nothing to do with beekeeping.


----------



## delber

You are right Barry. I'm sorry, but I have to wonder if a given food is good / bad for us what does the pollen and nectar cause for the bees. I have read I think in this thread or others where at least soy has proven to "keep hives alive" through a dearth last summer, but personally I would love to see studies / research on all of this. (example. . . What characteristics do the pollen / nectar have vs. Non GMO crops, and what about the end product?) Perhaps this isn't the place to discuss the "end product"?


----------



## mac

hpm08161947 said:


> Surely he would not think that. Long before the Neonics came along the native pollinators were gone.


Well that's not true


----------



## mac

I don't see how one can separate farming and bees they kind of go hand in hand me thinks.


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> yes it is, may I add fuel savings and increased soil health and structure


 Welllllllll soil health and structure are depleted by NOT cultivating weeds and cover crops back into the soil also water retention properties are diminished by not adding them back to the soil increasing demands on having to irrigate.. Erosion is also increased by not having organic matter added back to the soil. The weeds feed the bees the bees help to feed us.


----------



## jim lyon

mac said:


> Welllllllll soil health and structure are depleted by NOT cultivating weeds and cover crops back into the soil also water retention properties are diminished by not adding them back to the soil increasing demands on having to irrigate.. Erosion is also increased by not having organic matter added back to the soil. The weeds feed the bees the bees help to feed us.


 Mac your post shows a total lack of understanding of no till farming practices. The crop matter from the previous year is left undisturbed (think of it as mulch) and naturally decays back into the soil. Older farming practices often called for as many as 3 passes just to prepare a seed bed. This exposed the soil to the threat of massive erosion if heavy rains occured before the crop became well established, a very common occurance. many combines used to sustain serious damage if the driver failed to see the resulting deep holes and ruts and drove a loaded combine into them resulting in broken axles or even an occassional roll over. The now nearly obsolete practice of cultivating opens the soil, robbing soil moisture with each pass and the newly disturbed soil allows a whole new crop of weeds to begin germinating requiring yet another pass and so on. Nowadays it's a single pass with a new type of planter that actually cuts through the debris or even into sod that has been sprayed. The soil is virtually undisturbed. What this means of course are highly productive weed free crops but, of course, virtually no bee forage.


----------



## hpm08161947

mac said:


> Well that's not true


Mac... I am talking about native pollinators in monocrops. That is why they hire pollinators...


----------



## BlueDiamond

hpm08161947 said:


> As soon as you apply the pesticide... whammo... the natural pollinators are dead.


Actually, the flowering weeds that exist along the margins of monocrops set lots of seeds because there are lots of natural pollinators along the margins despite the pesticide use. Here's a example from a near desert area - the arid west side of California's San Joaquin Valley: https://imageshack.us/a/img823/8452/finki.jpg


----------



## BigDawg

GMO wheat, not yet approved for use in the US, was just recently discovered in an Oregon farmer's fields. The discovery puts the entire Oregon wheat crop at risk because our primary markets are Asia where they do not want GMO products. In addition, this hurts organic wheat farmers who's organic certifications are now at risk. This is very bad news for Oregon's wheat farmers.......

http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/29942495-76/genetically-wheat-modified-usda-engineered.html.csp


----------



## BlueDiamond

www.twincities.com/news/ci_23345797/usda-non-approved-modified-wheat-oregon-field?source=rss

"While USDA's results are unexpected, there is considerable reason to believe that the presence of the Roundup Ready trait in wheat, if determined to be valid, is very limited," the company [Monsanto] said.

"Firko and Acting Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Michael T. Scuse said they have already been in touch with international trading partners to try and assuage any concerns.
"Hopefully our trading partners will be understanding that this is not a food or feed safety issue," Scuse said."


----------



## Ian

mac said:


> Welllllllll soil health and structure are depleted by NOT cultivating weeds and cover crops back into the soil also water retention properties are diminished by not adding them back to the soil increasing demands on having to irrigate.. Erosion is also increased by not having organic matter added back to the soil. The weeds feed the bees the bees help to feed us.


you have no idea what your talking about


----------



## BigDawg

"The discovery could have far-reaching implications for the U.S. wheat industry if the growth of the engineered product turns out to be far-flung. Many countries around the world will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and the United States exports about half of its wheat crop.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Director Katy Coba said in a statement that *the discovery is "a very serious development that could have major trade ramifications."* The state exports about 90 percent of its wheat.

*"I am concerned that a highly regulated plant material such as genetically modified wheat somehow was able to escape into a crop field," she said.
*

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/29/genetically-modified-wheat/2370533/


----------



## BlueDiamond

USDA test results for Roundup Ready wheat in Oregon might have yielded a false positive:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/monsanto-statement-on-usda-gm-wheat.aspx

Excerpt: "Commercial test strips, which are used to detect the presence of glyphosate tolerance in soybeans, canola, cotton and sugar beets, generate a very high incidence of false positive detections (greater than 90 percent) and are not reliable for wheat. We have asked [the USDA] for information necessary to confirm the presence of the Roundup Ready trait in the samples that were tested.* Up to this point, Monsanto has not received details about the testing USDA has performed, nor has UDSA provided us with samples necessary to verify their [USDA] findings."


----------



## jim lyon

Ian said:


> you have no idea what your talking about


I think your response was a lot better than mine.


----------



## Ian

why is it that when someone does not know anything at all about a particular subject, they will just make something up to fit their argument


----------



## BigDawg

Interesting stance by Monsanto given that:

1. The wheat in question was sprayed with glyphosate more than once and did not die, which is what led to the suspicion that it was GMO wheat.
2. The USDA tested samples and determined that it was GMO wheat, and then did further testing to reveal that the source of the wheat was Monsanto GMO test crops that were terminated in 2005.

So, it was sprayed with roundup and did not die, and, it's been tested twice so far by the USDA--testing precise enough to link the strain to Monsanto test varieties......

"WASHINGTON, May 29, 2013 –The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced today that test results of plant samples from an Oregon farm indicate the presence of genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant wheat plants. Further testing by USDA laboratories indicates the presence of the same GE glyphosate-resistant wheat variety that Monsanto was authorized to field test in 16 states from 1998 to 2005. APHIS launched a formal investigation after being notified by an Oregon State University scientist that initial tests of wheat samples from an Oregon farm indicated the possible presence of GE glyphosate-resistant wheat plants. There are no GE wheat varieties approved for sale or in commercial production in the United States or elsewhere at this time. "




BlueDiamond said:


> USDA test results for Roundup Ready wheat in Oregon might have yielded a false positive:
> http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/monsanto-statement-on-usda-gm-wheat.aspx
> 
> Excerpt: "Commercial test strips, which are used to detect the presence of glyphosate tolerance in soybeans, canola, cotton and sugar beets, generate a very high incidence of false positive detections (greater than 90 percent) and are not reliable for wheat. We have asked [the USDA] for information necessary to confirm the presence of the Roundup Ready trait in the samples that were tested.* Up to this point, Monsanto has not received details about the testing USDA has performed, nor has UDSA provided us with samples necessary to verify their [USDA] findings."


----------



## BlueDiamond

The bottom line is that as of today Monsanto "has not received details about the testing USDA has performed, nor has UDSA provided us with samples necessary to verify their [USDA] findings". And even if the USDA's findings are eventually verified by Monsanto there will still likely be an investigation into possible sabotage by anti-Monsanto interests. Recall the 2001 anthrax attacks against members of Congress were thought to have been conducted by a scientist who worked at one of the government's biodefense labs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks 

And recall the devastating 2002 Hayman fire in Colorado where a US Forest Service technician pleaded guilty to "setting fire to federal forest land and lying to investigators" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayman_Fire So it's conceivable that the GMO wheat plants in Oregon (if they really turn out to be GMO wheat) were deliberately planted by a sabateur.


----------



## yankee joe

The proof is out there (face It)


----------



## mac

ooooops


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> you have no idea what your talking about


 Well I suppose ya’ll are referring to me. Down here in Dixie they don’t practice no till farming. Ya’ll grow cotton up yonder?? So I was helping a fellow beekeeper unload and move 30 or so hives to pollinate watermelons up in Al. awhile back and they had turned the soil before planting, then planted then used round up and a fungicide made another pass with fertilizer, and the last time hauling wagons to load the melons on. I was going to suggest to the owner that he should start using no till farming practices like they do up in Canada just only one pass at planting then go pick your melons. But the owner had a pinch between his lip and gum and a Budweiser on the seat so I kept my mouth shut. Picked up 11 dead outs that day. Sure had nothing to do with round up or fungicides. Must have beeen lousy beekeeping.


----------



## jim lyon

Mac: No till farming is a bit soil specific I am aware there are some soil types where some sort of aeration is necessary. I assume farmers understand what works well in their soil types. I won't pretend to understand every regions farming practices. Up here no till has been a real god send for moisture retention and soil erosion reduction. Plows and cultivators have become so much scrap iron.


----------



## Ian

GM crops have provided the same advantage to the grower no matter what your growing or where your growing it. It gives the grower the advantage with weed control which translates into allowing the grower to manage the land in a more efficient sustainable manner. 

Since we started using GM crop on our land in the late 90's our fuel consumption has decreased by half, our land has never been in better shape. Life has returned and which has rebuilt our soil structure, we are building soil every year now as opposed to eroding away. This is a direct result from cutting back on our tillage.

This is a direct result from using a RR cropping rotation in our fields. Its not all no till up here, Id call it minimal tillage


----------



## mac

sorry


----------



## Barry

I'm going to start deleting posts that are basically links to an article with some quoted material. A thread was created for these types of posts and it's stuck at the top of the thread page. Use it.


----------



## Ian

mac said:


> I’m sure no till will beeeeee good for the bees.


I dont know if it is or not,

The thing is many people harp on Monsanto and their control over farmers buying habits, 
farmers are merely buying a product that serves a very useful process, good products will be bought 
Farmers benefit, and so does the land 

the bees will have less to forage on because of the farmers ability to produce absolute clean crops


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> I dont know if it is or not,


Here it seems to mean you can farm more land.... much more land. To quote one farmer.... "I put the same time and effort into 2000 acres of soybeans that I once put into 100 acres". From the beekeepers stand point .... it means my swamps, bogs, and bays are rapidly being cleared, drained, and tiled.... bees don't care about Soybeans.


----------



## mac

ok


----------



## mac

jim lyon said:


> Mac your post shows a total lack of understanding of no till farming practices.


 Don't believe anyone mentioned no till untill this post.


----------



## TWall

mac said:


> Welllllllll soil health and structure are depleted by NOT cultivating weeds and cover crops back into the soil also water retention properties are diminished by not adding them back to the soil increasing demands on having to irrigate.. Erosion is also increased by not having organic matter added back to the soil.


Actually, soil tillage is destructive to soil health in a number of ways. As has been mentioned, the risks of erosion are greatly increased by tillage. Soil organinc matter content is decreased by tillage by increasing the oxygen content of the soil thus oxidizing the organic matter. 

There is a great example of this in Florida with the farming of the muck soils. While they are very fertile the draining and tilling of the muck soils results in subsidence of these soils which released nutrients to groundwater which ended up in lakes. The big O is south Florida is one example. the impacts on Lake Apopka are another example.

Tilling in crop residue does not increase soil organinc matter content. At best you will reduce the rate of loss of organic matter.

The biggest impact RR, or other herbicide resistant, crops have on bees is the reduction on non-crop flowering plants which bees would forage on. 

Tom


----------



## Ian

hpm08161947 said:


> Here it seems to mean you can farm more land.... much more land. To quote one farmer.... "I put the same time and effort into 2000 acres of soybeans that I once put into 100 acres". From the beekeepers stand point .... it means my swamps, bogs, and bays are rapidly being cleared, drained, and tiled.... bees don't care about Soybeans.


thats not all a result of RR cropping, technology has come along way in the last 5-10 years.


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> thats not all a result of RR cropping, technology has come along way in the last 5-10 years.


If beekeeping technology had kept pace with cropping technology, I wonder what my world would be like?

My neighbor just replaced his old combine... this one cost .5 million.... and it is used! Cab looks like the inside of a jet plane....


----------



## Ian

hpm08161947 said:


> If beekeeping technology had kept pace with cropping technology, I wonder what my world would be like?
> 
> My neighbor just replaced his old combine... this one cost .5 million.... and it is used! Cab looks like the inside of a jet plane....


I typed the same thing in my previous post, but deleted it because I thought it might stir the pot! lol 
I absolutely agree, but do you know what the key ingredient to cropping tech is? Private investment and promise to make a fortune. 

let me tell you a little story about agribusiness investment into RnD, 
A few years back I fell victim to being on the wrong side of a seed company, who went broke, lost $5000, and was listed as an unsecured investor, got payed 6% on the dollar,
on the page of unsecured investors was DOW , I think it was, owed $250 000 000. 
Big investments into agriculture can be very lucrative


----------



## hpm08161947

And I believe it is a pretty well established fact, that not too many fortunes are made in beekeeping. At least not that I have observed.


----------



## mac

So monsantoes answer to all related bee problems is to create GM bees. Ya'll ready to get sued???


----------



## BlueDiamond

mac said:


> So monsantoes answer to all related bee problems is to create GM bees. Ya'll ready to get sued???


The Monsanto owned Beelogics company is trying to develop products to help control honey bee pests, parasites and diseases. http://www.beeologics.com/beeologics-blog/

BTW, here's a look at the food that's served in Monsanto's employee cafeteria: http://monsantoblog.com/2012/02/10/whats-served-in-monsantos-cafeterias/
On a couple occasions Monsanto had to pull the spinach from their salad bar after learning it was recalled due to possible E.coli and Listeria contamination. The spinach in both cases was - organic.


----------



## BigDawg

n/a


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> The Monsanto owned Beelogics company is trying to develop products to help control honey bee pests, parasites and diseases. http://www.beeologics.com/beeologics-blog/


Oddly enough, Monsanto only took an interest in purchasing Beeologics AFTER they had released several reports that raised questions about the safety of neonicotinoid pesticides and their negative impacts upon bees.



> BTW, here's a look at the food that's served in Monsanto's employee cafeteria: http://monsantoblog.com/2012/02/10/whats-served-in-monsantos-cafeterias/
> On a couple occasions Monsanto had to pull the spinach from their salad bar after learning it was recalled due to possible E.coli and Listeria contamination. The spinach in both cases was - organic.


Lol, yes, because conventional crops NEVER get E. coli or Listeria.....Yep, watch out for that organic food, it's bad for you--if you make your living selling pesticides....


----------



## melliferal

Of course conventional crops can become contaminated with E. coli or Listeria; but using manure to fertilize makes it a whole heck of a lot more likely.


----------



## emorris

I'm sure that spinach was tainted by one of the cafeteria workers not washing their hands after going to the bathroom. Haha

The real question? Odd that Monsanto offers organic food to their employees, but swear by their product. 

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=oJ5riRX1_3w&desktop_uri=/watch?v=oJ5riRX1_3w apologies if this was posted before, long thread to watch all of the videos. Watch the first 35 min. 

There is nothing "sustainable" about GMO crops. Solar is sustainable...organic growing is sustainable...I especially like Monsantos view on at LEAST labeling the products made by GMO's...they don't want to do that because people won't buy it. Interesting. So lets mute the consumer voices. That always works...

And while they're at it, lets mute the beekeeper voices as well (seen in the video).


----------



## melliferal

Perhaps it was one of the cafeteria workers. But on other occasions contamination happens on a large enough scale that it can't credibly be pinned to a single individual, and is more likely a systemic thing.


----------



## mac

melliferal said:


> Perhaps it was one of the cafeteria workers. But on other occasions contamination happens on a large enough scale that it can't credibly be pinned to a single individual, and is more likely a systemic thing.


 May 26 2013 Last week the Brazos County Health Department appropriately announced that the source of the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that sickened 10, putting two young brothers in a Houston hospital with acute kidney failure (HUS), was traced to ground beef from a College Station restaurant. According to those health officials, the Coco Loco restaurant across the… 

The E. coli outbreak linked to frozen food products that sickened 35 people in 19 states appears to be over, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Thursday. The outbreak began in December of 2012, when the first illness began, and the last victims fell ill in mid-April of this year, according to CDC…. 

An E. coli outbreak linked to a barbecue restaurant in Northeast Georgia sickened as many as 18 people, health officials announced Friday. This case count includes 7 more illnesses than the 11 reported on May 21. BBQ Shack restaurant in Toccoa, GA is the suspected source of the E. coli bacteria, which was confirmed as… 

After all, it was E. coli O157:H7 in droppings from deer wandering through some strawberry fields in Oregon that contaminated berries that would eventually kill an elderly woman and send seven people to the hospital, three of whom suffered kidney failure, according to public health officials.

And it was the same potentially fatal type of E. coli that killed three people and sickened more than 200 in the 2006 outbreak linked to baby spinach grown in California. The likely culprits in that outbreak were wild pigs or livestock that wandered through the field or perhaps nearby irrigation water that had been contaminated by livestock or wildlife. But even with matching DNA samples, the exact way the pathogen actually spread to the spinach remains unknown.

Kalmia E. Kniel, Department of Animal and Food Sciences at the University of Delaware, and one of the project’s researchers, told Food Safety News that, when all is said and done, the results of the literature review show that it’s “very unlikely” that contamination of produce occurs in the field through root uptake.

When asked about root crops such as carrots, Kniel said there’s no evidence to show that they’re at risk when it comes to internalizing pathogens from the soil.
That’s not to say, of course, that root crops grown in soil contaminated with pathogens won’t have some pathogens on their surfaces when they’re harvested.
The paper’s conclusion says that “generally, the presence of internalized pathogens in roots of plants does not directly correlate with internalized pathogens in the edible or foliar tissues of crops.”


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> The Monsanto owned Beelogics company is trying to develop products to help control honey bee pests, parasites and diseases. http://www.beeologics.com/beeologics-blog/


 no their trying to control the food chain


----------



## BlueDiamond

mac said:


> no their trying to control the food chain


If Bayer and/or Monsanto should happen to invent new products that control bee pests, parasites and diseases more effectively than existing products or which improve bee health in other ways (e.g. nutritionally) then they will have earned the right to dominate the bee health market.


----------



## Grizz270

mac said:


> no their trying to control the food chain


I have to agree


----------



## Ian

mac said:


> no their trying to control the food chain


no, they are profiting from it, the consumers control it


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> no, they are profiting from it, the consumers control it


 both are true


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> If Bayer and/or Monsanto should happen to invent new products that control bee pests, parasites and diseases more effectively than existing products or which improve bee health in other ways (e.g. nutritionally) then they will have earned the right to dominate the bee health market.


 What they have invented so far and which they have unleashed into the Environment has created the problems in the first. "A 2005 study in Alberta (Canada) revealed a reduced wild bee abundance and
highly-correlated reduced pollination in GM canola compared with organically grown canola [126],
with Roundup-treated non-GM canola coming in at an intermediate level. A study comparing bees
exposed to glyphosate and/or Roundup® against a control population demonstrated a significantly higher
mortality rate in the glyphosate-exposed bees (p < 0.001) [127]. Neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid
and clothianidin can kill bees, and have been implicated in colony collapse disorder [128]. However,
this toxic effect is likely synergistic in combination with glyphosate, as would occur with bees
ingesting herbicide-contaminated pollen. Glyphosate is an organophosphate, and a study of human
self-poisoning has demonstrated that organophosphate ingestion synergistically greatly enhances the
toxicity of ingested neonicotinoids [129].


----------



## delber

My thoughts. . . If a given company is producing something that can't be reproduced (sustained) then they are seeking to control the market. (monopoly) So if they can get people dependent upon their product however great or poor it is assuming that it can't be reproduced then they are controlling the market to whatever extent that people continue to buy their product. This is what I'm seeking to do with my hives. Make a product that is superior to others that people can buy so that they want mine. in reality that's "sustainable business" right? Perhaps not the best, but you do want customers to desire what you have. (demand) so that you can supply it. Once a customer is reliant on you do they continue to control the market? If you alter things slowly and in small ammts. at a time will they detect it and go elsewhere?


----------



## Ian

where do you find that garbage mac. That entire clip you posted is garbage, do some research


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Mac,
the almond farmers have to import bees because it's a large monolithical crop. You have a few weeks of heavy nectar flow followed by 11 months of absolutely nothing. The bees can't live there year round they'd starve and local bees could never ramp up fast enough to handle all the blooms in those several weeks.




mac said:


> Thought we were talking about pollinators other than honey bees. Well answer me this Riddler. Why do farmers spend millions of dollars to have their crops pollinated??? Answer: because they would suffer reduced yield. Don't believe ME ask a farmer they ain't stupid and don't invest money unless there is a larger return on that investment. If ya want numbers ask the state ag extention agent an then get back to us.


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> where do you find that garbage mac. That entire clip you posted is garbage, do some research


 No it's not. Do your own research


----------



## mac

BayHighlandBees said:


> Mac,
> the almond farmers have to import bees because it's a large monolithical crop. You have a few weeks of heavy nectar flow followed by 11 months of absolutely nothing. The bees can't live there year round they'd starve and local bees could never ramp up fast enough to handle all the blooms in those several weeks.


 I know that.You missed the whole point of the thread.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

what was the point of the thread in your view?


----------



## Ian

do you have more garbage you would like to cut and paste?


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> do you have more garbage you would like to cut and paste?


 Well since you asked.Possible consequences of the overlap between
the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant
transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI
in transgenic plants
Nancy Podevin1,* and Patrick du Jardin2
1The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); Parma, Italy; 2Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech; Plant Biology Unit; University of Liège; Gembloux, Belgium


----------



## mac

BayHighlandBees said:


> what was the point of the thread in your view?


 To perk the interest in finding the truth about GMO crops and how they effect our bee populations in reference to CCD. monsanto, epa,fda, usda have been less than honest about the unknown consequences of gmo crops. They have been deemed perfectly safe for human consumption and have no effect on bees but new evidence has become available that indicates this mite no be true. If it were true Monsanto would not bee spending millions of dolor’s lobbying the us congress trying to squash the gmo labeling laws that are being considered by 20 state’s. Ct. being the first state to pass a gmo labeling law. Furthermore an amendment was slipped into a bill passed by the us congress that states to the affect that if a court orders monsanto to stop planting gmo crops they can disregard that court order with no legal consequences. So much for the rule of law.


----------



## mac

mac said:


> I know that. You missed the whole point of the thread.


 bayhilandbees.I didn't mean that. The statement you quoted was in reference to the statement to prove there were no reductions in crop yields because there was a lack of pollinators. My statement was to indicate there would be crop yield reductions if millions of bees were not imported because there was a lack of pollinators. Weather it is a monocarp or not there is a lack of pollinators so bees need to be trucked in. Sorry for the rude comment. Have a great day.


----------



## deknow

mac said:


> What they have invented so far and which they have unleashed into the Environment has created the problems in the first. "A 2005 study in Alberta (Canada) revealed a reduced wild bee abundance and
> highly-correlated reduced pollination in GM canola compared with organically grown canola [126],


Errr, the "organically grown" canola was grown without any insecticides at all. [edit..also, the insecticides used were not seed treatments, but broadcast at flowering]


> Conventional fields were treated with the broad spectrum herbicide Odyssey (BASF), and three of the four were treated once during flowering with the insecticide Matador (Syngenta). No insecticides were used on the organic fields.


The organic fields were planted with a different species than the conventional fields...they both produce canola, but they are not the same plant.
Do we find it surprising that less insects (pest or pollinator) are found in fields treated with insecticides? Is this how "organic canola" is grown...completely without insecticides?

Of course the review you quote from has almost 300 references...I only looked at the first one you cited. Remember, this is a review article...every footnoted statement is based on someone elses work. Both the quality and interpretation of each of these footnotes is critical to understanding what the statements in the paper are based upon.

deknow


----------



## deknow

mac said:


> ... A study comparing bees exposed to glyphosate and/or Roundup® against a control population demonstrated a significantly higher
> mortality rate in the glyphosate-exposed bees (p < 0.001) [127].


This one is worse. This is a high school student (a junior) putting roundup in feeders of caged bees and finding that they die faster than bees fed sugar water alone. There was no variation of dosage, it was (I think) 400ppb.
http://k12science.missouristate.edu...te 2009/Papers 2009/HS_ENV/Foulk_Kayla_HS.pdf

This is a great high school science project, but hardly something one would want policy based upon.

So, I've looked at the first two references you cited...I'm done. Please don't tell me that the other 250+ are better until you've looked at them.

deknow


----------



## deknow

ok, one more...


mac said:


> However, this toxic effect is likely synergistic in combination with glyphosate, as would occur with bees ingesting herbicide-contaminated pollen. Glyphosate is an organophosphate, and a study of human
> self-poisoning has demonstrated that organophosphate ingestion synergistically greatly enhances the toxicity of ingested neonicotinoids [129].


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005127
...found no such thing, because:


> All patients presenting to a study hospital with a history of imidacloprid exposure were considered for this study. Patients under 14 years, pregnant women and patients presenting with co-ingestions are excluded from the study.


The study did not look at anything to do with synergistic effects of organophospahates and neonics. Strike 3.

deknow


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> This one is worse. This is a high school student (a junior) putting roundup in feeders of caged bees and finding that they die faster than bees fed sugar water alone.


Blah ha ha ha haha ha, 

great job finding all the facts mac, your rreally making your case. keep digging through all that garbage, ha ha ha


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Mac,
in 15 years there will be no pesticides used on crops anymore. 

and you'll have GMO based crops to thank for that


----------



## BayHighlandBees

as Randy Oliver eloquently states in his article on GMO and bees

Genetic RNAi technology would allow plant breeders to develop crop cultivars that control insect pests in the same manner that the plants naturally control viruses. All that the breeder need do would be to identify a unique target protein in a particular pest, and then splice a gene into the plant to produce a “blocking” dsRNA molecule that would prevent the pest from building that specific protein. The beauty is that dsRNA molecules are already naturally found in plant tissues, the blocking molecule would be entirely specific for that pest alone, completely nontoxic to humans or other non target species, and be rapidly biodegradable. It would be a win all around (except for the pest)—crop protection, no toxic pesticides, and a sustainable farming technology


----------



## JRG13

You know Ian, some people believe everything they read or hear..... yesterday I ran into the neighbor at my bee yard.... he started touting off about how he was talking to the tow truck driver about the seed company next door that makes gmo plants that secrete all kinds of insecticides and they have a multi million dollar underground bunker to do all the research.... I said, fat chance, but nope, he's seen it it's definitely true... Of course I didn't tell him I worked at that exact same company and pretty sure there's not secret underground bunker for researching deadly gmo's.... I'll give him credit tho, that guy can grow some big 'pot' plants under a junk pile canopy.


----------



## JRG13

Hello Beeologics


----------



## WLC

Unfortunately, several studies in Honeybees have shown that non-target, control dsRNAis have gone off-target in tests.

It's not perfect.


----------



## Ian

JRG13 said:


> You know Ian, some people believe everything they read or hear.....


EVERYTHING that I read on beesource is true, isnt it?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

WLC said:


> Unfortunately, several studies in Honeybees have shown that non-target, control dsRNAis have gone off-target in tests.
> 
> It's not perfect.


don't non-targets always go off target? :s


----------



## mac

Well ya'll could be right or not. Time will tell.


----------



## mac

deknow said:


> Of course the review you quote from has almost 300 references...I only looked at the first one you cited. Remember, this is a review article...every footnoted statement is based on someone elses work. Both the quality and interpretation of each of these footnotes is critical to understanding what the statements in the paper are based upon.
> deknow


 right so it's a review and you'r point is??


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> Blah ha ha ha haha ha,
> 
> great job finding all the facts mac, your rreally making your case. keep digging through all that garbage, ha ha ha


 The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated
with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In
females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible
in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles
were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and
before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified
by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5
times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked
and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large
palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very
significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters
were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of
Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved


----------



## mac

Ian said:


> Blah ha ha ha haha ha,
> 
> great job finding all the facts mac, your rreally making your case. keep digging through all that garbage, ha ha ha


 Hey man watch the old blood pressure dude no sense getting your tuke in a wad Ya know??


----------



## sqkcrk

What price would you all pay for a more pristine environment? If all pesticides and herbicides and fungicides were recalled and banned from use, what would be the overall result?


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> This one is worse. This is a high school student (a junior) putting roundup in feeders of caged bees and finding that they die faster than bees fed sugar water alone.


your credibility goes straight out the window when you back your reference a junior high school students science project,


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> What price would you all pay for a more pristine environment? If all pesticides and herbicides and fungicides were recalled and banned from use, what would be the overall result?


exactly Mark, what price would we pay, food would definitely be costly. I was just listening to a guy on the radio yesterday talking about the advances in tech in the Ag world. We have been able to produce more food than ever, feeding more people than ever, cheaply and with the highest food standards in history. Now back all that tech up 20 years, alot of people would be missing a meal every day, and the rest of us would be paying more for our produce. THATS A FACT


----------



## sqkcrk

But, considering the amount of land dedicated to CORN and the prevalence of HFCS in food, what is the quality of the food we have available to us? What is our obligation to feed the World? Is it an ethical issue? Or a National Security issue? Were we, here in the US, so concerned about environmental quality that we went to extremes to insure our food security and the security of our Nation's environment by banning all chemicals, letting other parts of the World suffer for our "selfishness", what would that be like?


----------



## Spark

Mark

I don't see where it says it is upon us to feed the world or be the world policeman either. Maybe those countries need to take care of themselves and their needs. Trying to rely on others, even in my own world, doesn't always work out well. From what mac posted it seems the only good thing Monsanto invented with their GMO crops is an effective rat poison.

I say it's Ian and the rest of Canada's turn to be the world food supplier :lookout:


----------



## jim lyon

There are many folks around the world who are struggling to feed themselves and their families on ground that we consider waste ground in the USA. Political boundaries shouldn't be a factor in the goal of providing enough to eat for everyone. Idealistic? Perhaps a bit, but its still a goal everyone should share. And, yes, I do question our use of a large part of our grain production as fuel. It's important to note that breeding for drought tolerance here in the US has resulted in new varieties of grain that are able to be grown with far less rainfall than previously thought possible. There is no better proof than the fact that grain production in the US in the drought of 2012 (considered the worst in 60 years) was still higher than a decade ago.


----------



## hpm08161947

Spark said:


> Mark
> 
> I don't see where it says it is upon us to feed the world or be the world policeman either. Maybe those countries need to take care of themselves and their needs. Trying to rely on others, even in my own world, doesn't always work out well.


Through out history that strategy has not played well. Wars and wars upon wars is about all that ploy produces.


----------



## Barry

We're getting into societal issues here that are best discussed in TG. Feeding the world, wars, national security, yadda, yadda . . . Come on in to Tailgater everyone, Mark is wanting more member participation there!


----------



## TWall

I'll try to keep this CCD/bee related for the most part.

We would have to go back much farther than 20 years ago if we eliminated the use of pesticides/modern technology. I think there would be a definite increase in bee forage. That would be the biggest benefit to bees. The reduction in food production would be devasting on a worldwide basis. There are not enough farmers to go back.

Tom


----------



## deknow

mac said:


> right so it's a review and you'r point is??


In a review, there are two important things.
1. The quality of the sources that the review is based on
and
2. The authors ability to accurately interpret the sources that the review is based on

Both are demonstratively lacking in the single paragraph you quoted. Without those two things, there is nothing left of value.

deknow


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> Were we, here in the US, so concerned about environmental quality that we went to extremes to insure our food security and the security of our Nation's environment by banning all chemicals, letting other parts of the World suffer for our "selfishness", what would that be like?


ya but our own food would also rise in price, sky rocket high, we do trade in a world wide fashion


----------



## Ian

Spark said:


> I say it's Ian and the rest of Canada's turn to be the world food supplier :lookout:


Thats our plan! We have food, timber, water, OIL, Uranium, . . . poutine

All we need, is, US package bees . . .


----------



## wildbranch2007

Ian said:


> . poutine
> 
> .


 you have to stop throwing curve balls, I had to go look it up, I had it once years ago up there, never kniw what it was called. very good, when are you going to start exporting?


----------



## sqkcrk

Like taking bees across the border, there are restrictions.  Actually if you live close enuf to the border you can find various examples. Mostly just fries w/ gravy, but not the cheese. Ian probably calls that something else. Eh?


----------



## Ian

wildbranch2007 said:


> you have to stop throwing curve balls, I had to go look it up,


ha ha ha ha, those crazies even made up a poutine bottled drink, yikes, tastes just like youd think,


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

>  made up a poutine bottled drink, yikes, tastes just like youd think

Story here: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/new-soda-puts-poutine-in-a-bottle-1.1265896









There is no doubt that this beverage is the REAL cause of CCD!


----------



## Ian

CCD, Crazy Canadian Disorder ?


----------



## Barry

Comes from too much snow, too much cold, too long to wait before it warms up! A perfect storm.


----------



## jim lyon

Poutine? I had to look that one up as well. Crazy Canadian Disorder indeed and you cant blame that one on the French, I dont think they even serve it down in N'awlins.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

how about poutine cologne? If they ever make a 'grilled meats' cologne this could be the sequel.

I dont wear cologne, but I wouldn't mind the smell of meat on the grill all day.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> If they ever make a 'grilled meats' cologne this could be the sequel.












> _Que_, an intoxicating bouquet of spices, smoke, meat, and sweet summer sweat, is the latest development in wearable scents and is quickly becoming a hit among meat lovers, grill masters, and backyard BBQ’ers.
> Recognizing the absence of a barbeque-scented cologne and perfume, Pork Barrel BBQ worked with a team of craftsmen and fine perfumers to create the perfect barbeque aroma. Until now, no fragrance manufacturer has ever succeeded in bottling the intoxicating scents associated with barbeque and its mixture of spices, smoke and meat.
> 
> http://www.porkbarrelbbq.com/barbeque-cologne-que/



Please note, this item is _cologne_, not a _beverage_. _*For external use only! *_ :lookout:


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> you cant blame that one on the French,


we blame everything on the French, ha ha ha , and they blame everything on the English! A nice little relationship we have going up here. What do they say, if nobody is happy, then everything is right,.... something like that 

ps, I married a french woman, grrrrooowl !


----------



## mac

deknow said:


> In a review, there are two important things.
> 1. The quality of the sources that the review is based on
> and
> 2. The authors ability to accurately interpret the sources that the review is based on
> 
> Both are demonstratively lacking in the single paragraph you quoted. Without those two things, there is nothing left of value.
> 
> deknow


 Well that's only YOUR review of a review which in this case is Insignificant.


----------



## hpm08161947

mac said:


> Well that's only YOUR review of a review which in this case is Insignificant.


Well actually it is not just his review of the review... take a look over on Bee-L at other opinions of this collection of papers. It is not considered very competent by it's peers.


----------



## deknow

mac said:


> Well that's only YOUR review of a review which in this case is Insignificant.


...the point is that the references are cited and available to read for everyone. If you don't want to bother looking up what you are posting, that is your business...but anyone that does has an advantage over you in this discussion...they know that you are defending a misinterpretation of an overly simplistic high school project as "science" that policy should be based upon.

I've actually looked up 3 of the references you brought to our attention...none of the 3 support the claims the author is making about them. You are free to read them as well.

deknow


----------



## deknow

hpm08161947 said:


> Well actually it is not just his review of the review... take a look over on Bee-L at other opinions of this collection of papers. It is not considered very competent by it's peers.


Although this review includes around 300 references, the post from mac highlights 4 of them. One of those four is a speculative CCD paper that I don't think is worth spending much time on...but look the other 3 up yourselves.

Just because there is critique from the Bee-L crowd or others doesn't really mean anything...just look up the 3 references and take a look....the work is not honest, never mind accurate.

deknow


----------



## Ian

do your homework mac


----------



## Moccasin

What caused Varroa Jacobsonii to make a new species, to leave the tropics, start feeding on worker brood instead of only drone brood and kill it's host. Also where did Varroa Destructor come from. It is not in nature for a parasite to kill it's host. Could it be a GMO?


----------



## sqkcrk

It moved from one host species to another.


----------



## Moccasin

What do you mean "it"...Varroa Jacobsonii is not the same mite... The mite that kills is Varroa Destructor. Varroa Jacobsonii lives peacefully still in the tropics on drone brood.


----------



## hpm08161947

Moccasin said:


> It is not in nature for a parasite to kill it's host. Could it be a GMO?



The killing is done by the viruses that the Varroa carry not the Varroa itself.... at least that is my current understanding of it. In Nature... consider the Rat with a flea upon it's back.... with the flea carrying the Bubonic plague...


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Varroa Destructor came from Asia where it hosted on the drones of a local asian bee. It came in contact with honey bees and jumped to a new host. Honey bees were different and the varoa could also thrive on female honey brood. 

People ship honey bees globally, and the pests propagated that way. Drones are a good local transport for the mites to get from local hive to local hive. 

so how is it that you are proposing GMO plays a part in this? Let us know if we'll need to wear tin foil hats to understand your response. :s



Moccasin said:


> What caused Varroa Jacobsonii to make a new species, to leave the tropics, start feeding on worker brood instead of only drone brood and kill it's host. Also where did Varroa Destructor come from. It is not in nature for a parasite to kill it's host. Could it be a GMO?


----------



## Moccasin

Varroa Jacobsonii is still there in tropical Asia. In 1999, it is my understanding it was realized this is NOT Varroa Jacobsonii, so it was given a new name, Varroa Destructor. Many people still call it Varroa Jacobsonii because they do not realize that. Are you one of those people or are you just rude to those who make suggestions? If you'd like to wear a tin foil hat, go ahead. 



BayHighlandBees said:


> Varroa Destructor came from Asia where it hosted on the drones of a local asian bee. It came in contact with honey bees and jumped to a new host. Honey bees were different and the varoa could also thrive on female honey brood.
> 
> People ship honey bees globally, and the pests propagated that way. Drones are a good local transport for the mites to get from local hive to local hive.
> 
> so how is it that you are proposing GMO plays a part in this? Let us know if we'll need to wear tin foil hats to understand your response. :s


----------



## Runswithbees

It is true Varroa Destructor was named in 1999 and was formally believed to be Varroa Jacobsonii doing all the damage. 



BayHighlandBees said:


> Varroa Destructor came from Asia where it hosted on the drones of a local asian bee. It came in contact with honey bees and jumped to a new host. Honey bees were different and the varoa could also thrive on female honey brood.
> 
> People ship honey bees globally, and the pests propagated that way. Drones are a good local transport for the mites to get from local hive to local hive.
> 
> so how is it that you are proposing GMO plays a part in this? Let us know if we'll need to wear tin foil hats to understand your response. :s


----------



## WLC

There is a relationship between imidacloprid and pathogen spillover.

There's more than one reservoir for Honeybee viruses like DWV. They include Varroa, beetles, and Bumble bees.

Bumble bees remove imidacloprid much more slowly than honeybees. Which, does affect their 'health'.

So, in a round about way, GMOs can add to to the contributing factors of CCD... 

...Like viral reservoirs in the environment. Bombus impatiens has been shown to be infected by IAPV. And, they can infect Honeybees in turn.

Imidacloprid contaminated bumble bees, infected with IAPV, can act as a reservoir of one of the contributing factors to CCD.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

I didn't get the connection. How are GMO's related to Imidacloprid? How is Imidacloprid contributing to DWV? 

If I get bit by a tic and develop Lyme disease or Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever or if I get bit by a Mosquito and develop Malaria, is that because of GMO and Imidacloprid?


----------



## WLC

As you know, pesticide use is listed as a contributing factor to CCD.

And, I don't know of any GMO crops that aren't packaged with a range of pesticides.

As for the 'disappearing disease' definition of CCD, that's a narrow definition that many are broadening to include colony losses in general.

As for imidacloprid and colony losses...

When neonic coated maize was suspended in Italy, Italian beekeepers reported a steep drop in colony losses.

DWV has spilled over into native pollinators and is a contributing factor to CCD.

So, Bumble bee health is affected by pesticides and Honeybee viruses, and have become a reservoir of DWV.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> DWV has spilled over into native pollinators ...


Which studies show that?


----------



## WLC

The famous Singh study for one.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014357

Here's another:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/EC10355


----------



## BayHighlandBees

pesticide wise how are GMO crops packaged any differently than non-GMO crops? If they're not, then what does GMO have to do with your comment? Shouldn't your argument pertain to all non-organic farming?

pesticide use is listed as a contributing factor to CCD?I think its more of a theory than a factor and in terms of pesticides, there's more of a focus on miticides and pesticides applied directly inside the hive than those applied to crops.

Just my thought (and its pure speculation on my part) is that CCD is more to do with pathogens and viruses than anything else because it fits the pattern of a viral epidemic. CCD was an epidemic spike that happened over couple of years timeframe. It really hasn't been happening at that level for a number of years now. 30 - 40 years there was another massive bee die off that occurred, before that another one the generation before. That pattern tracks more to a viral pattern (like swine flu or bird flu outbrakes in humans) than to a pesticidal pattern. A pesticidal pattern would be a more consistent pattern year in and year out.

Now back to the topic of DWV, I don't see how anything in your response applies to DWV.



WLC said:


> As you know, pesticide use is listed as a contributing factor to CCD.
> 
> And, I don't know of any GMO crops that aren't packaged with a range of pesticides.
> 
> As for the 'disappearing disease' definition of CCD, that's a narrow definition that many are broadening to include colony losses in general.
> 
> As for imidacloprid and colony losses...
> 
> When neonic coated maize was suspended in Italy, Italian beekeepers reported a steep drop in colony losses.
> 
> DWV has spilled over into native pollinators and is a contributing factor to CCD.
> 
> So, Bumble bee health is affected by pesticides and Honeybee viruses, and have become a reservoir of DWV.


----------



## WLC

I think the primary cause of CCD is immune supression (Ago2 knockdown) by virus and pathogens.

Most crops are GMO nowadays.

The consensus is that CCD has many contributing factors including viruses and modern agricultural practices which include GMOs and pesticide use.

I'm describing a web of contributing factors to CCD.

DWV is one of them, as is pesticide use (the kind used along with GMO crops).


----------



## BayHighlandBees

when you say "consensus" you mean "consensus theory".


----------



## WLC

I mean scientific consensus.

When translated into English it means that the scientists weren't able to figure it out.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

show me the sited evidence that proves that out. If not let's call this a scientific theory that has some consensus behind it.


----------



## WLC

Why should I even try to go through dozens of papers?

I like this...

(g)aaagaagaagaaa.

That's the Ago2 knockdown target sequence I found in DVE31 OP3, the original IAPV strain found at CCD ground zero in Penn.

The scientific consensus is very broad. Some would say, 'fuzzy'.

I like my own 'Lady Gaga' theory.


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> As for imidacloprid and colony losses... When neonic coated maize was suspended in Italy, Italian beekeepers reported a steep drop in colony losses.


 How come there's scant evidence of GMO's / neonics causing landscape scale problems for honeybees here in the USA which grows 100+ times more corn than Italy?
Maybe it's because in the USA bees rarely every gather field corn pollen or guttation water droplets. Therefore bees are not signficantly exposed to neonics except sometimes briefly once a year at planting time during rare droughts if the hives are located downwind on the day of planting.


----------



## WLC

Different pesticide formulations maybe?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

is it because American scientist are more competent, scientific, and do more due diligence?

In Italy politics is everything and in everything.


----------



## citybounty

I don't know much but I got interested in the bee situation because of these three links on facebook. 1--2--3
I have always disliked bees personally because of their tendency to seek me out for stinging, however I agree that we cannot live without them. If any of this is true then we are in deep trouble and our future survival depends on these little insects.
In that case you are all my heroes because you are the guardians of that future.


----------



## WLC

Thanks citybounty.

BHB:

Europe and the US are using different criteria.

The Italians suspended neonic maize because of a determination made by an agency veterinarian.

The decision to ban neonic coated seeds for certain crops in the EU was ultimately made by a Maltese lawyer using the 'precautionary principle'.

I doubt that it could happen here.


----------



## Ian

citybounty said:


> In that case you are all my heroes because you are the guardians of that future.


kinda like the ring to that tone !


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian, I kinda thought it seemed fatalistic. If all the managed hives of bees died tomorrow we would figure out how to get along w/out them. I don't buy the hype that we would all be eating rice and beans. Farming has changed over time and it will again. Heck, it always is changing. There is more to life than honeybees.


----------



## hpm08161947

I guess we would lose out on Almonds, have smaller blueberries, unsymmetrical apples, smaller watermelons and probably a few other things, but yea... I wonder if we would even notice. It's pretty good hype... and you hear it all the time.


----------



## jim lyon

As much as I hate to admit it, Herb is correct. There is a lot of hype in the numbers the industry likes to quote. I'm not optimistic from a beekeeping perspective either. I would expect long term that horticulturalists will continue to develop varieties that will require fewer and fewer bees per acre to do the same job. If, as an orchard owner, your livelihood were currently dependent on honey bee pollination wouldnt all these sensational reports of bee losses and high rental rates scare you into trying lots of different varieties?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

>  If, as an orchard owner, your livelihood were currently dependent on honey bee pollination wouldnt all these sensational reports of bee losses and high rental rates scare you into trying lots of different varieties?

Jim is correct. For instance ....
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr10/almonds0410.htm

While these varieties may not be ready for widespread adoption yet, you can see how things are moving.


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> Ian, I kinda thought it seemed fatalistic. If all the managed hives of bees died tomorrow we would figure out how to get along w/out them. I don't buy the hype that we would all be eating rice and beans. Farming has changed over time and it will again. Heck, it always is changing. There is more to life than honeybees.


I completely agree with you Mark, I have never bought into that hype either, 
sure makes for a good headline though, doesnt it,.? In fact that is exactly what this is all about, everyone of these lobby groups are using bees as the mule to their campaign


----------



## sqkcrk

The medium is the message and the message is "Buy this Newspaper." or TV Show or website or whatever.


----------



## sqkcrk

citybounty said:


> I don't know much but I got interested in the bee situation because of these three links on facebook. 1--2--3
> I have always disliked bees personally because of their tendency to seek me out for stinging, however I agree that we cannot live without them. If any of this is true then we are in deep trouble and our future survival depends on these little insects.
> In that case you are all my heroes because you are the guardians of that future.


Question everything. Not everything you read on the internet is true or accurate. Being a sting magnet has to do w/ your demeanor, not w/ their desire to sting you.


----------



## BlueDiamond

Here's a real life example of a scare tactic based marketing strategy:


----------



## WLC

You're forgetting about productivity and margins.

It's far cheaper to use managed pollinators, than it is to use more acreage for the same yield.

While we won't starve, alot of producers won't make their margins.

It's not hype.


----------



## JRG13

Certain crops you could do by hand easy enough like melons and squash and I bet research into parthenocarpy would yield results in some crops.


----------



## jim lyon

Its certainly not hype that many of our foods require pollination. My point is that the trend will most likely be towards fewer bees per acre rather than more. The other factor that is glossed over is that the dollar figures often quoted are a bit inflated because they are counting foods that indirectly require pollination. In other words only bees used for the seed production of the plant are needed. An example would be dairy products where the seed production to grow the alfalfa that dairy cows consume is counted even though the forage crop itself dosent require pollination. I dont know how many hives are required annually for alfalfa seed production but it cant be many. The same would be true of onions or carrots just to name a couple.


----------



## melliferal

JRG13 said:


> Certain crops you could do by hand easy enough like melons and squash and I bet research into parthenocarpy would yield results in some crops.


Growers should be prepared to hire a lot more migrant workers in order to handle this hand-pollination task.


----------



## melliferal

sqkcrk said:


> Ian, I kinda thought it seemed fatalistic. If all the managed hives of bees died tomorrow we would figure out how to get along w/out them. I don't buy the hype that we would all be eating rice and beans. Farming has changed over time and it will again. Heck, it always is changing. There is more to life than honeybees.


There is a bit of popular doggerel going around about something Albert Einstein allegedly said about if bees disappeared. Firstly, it's made up - Einstein never said anything whatsoever about bees - and secondly, Einstein was not a biologist or an ecologist, and was thus unqualified to speak on the impacts of bee loss anyway.


----------



## sqkcrk

We have adapted diets to the extent that many people live on HFCS, corn, and corn fed pork and beef, eating very few fruits and vegetables. We can always change again to eat what is available. Can't we?


----------



## sqkcrk

melliferal said:


> There is a bit of popular doggerel going around about something Albert Einstein allegedly said about if bees disappeared. Firstly, it's made up - Einstein never said anything whatsoever about bees - and secondly, Einstein was not a biologist or an ecologist, and was thus unqualified to speak on the impacts of bee loss anyway.


Most of us aren't either.


----------



## melliferal

Agreed.


----------



## delber

sqkcrk said:


> We have adapted diets to the extent that many people live on HFCS, corn, and corn fed pork and beef, eating very few fruits and vegetables. We can always change again to eat what is available. Can't we?


Mark, Obviously we'd change as needed, but we do and will suffer for it. People that aren't eating fruits and veggies are suffering even though they may not "realize" it. Some of us are going back to the way things were before, say 80 - 100 years ago because the GMO stuff isn't good for you. If it's not good for us is it for the bees? I don't have any study or any research that studies the differences in pollen, but the part that we eat GMO vs. Non GMO is clear in my mind. Does anyone have anything on the pollen to compare? I'd love to see it!!!


----------



## sqkcrk

delber, True. All I am saying is we will survive.


----------



## Ian

delber said:


> because the GMO stuff isn't good for you.


thats a bunch of garbage,


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> thats a bunch of garbage,


Or maybe compost?


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> thats a bunch of garbage,


He read it on the "Internet"..... gotta be true.


----------



## WLC

Are you saying that GMO produce is exactly the same as organic produce?

I wouldn't.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Are you saying that GMO produce is exactly the same as organic produce?
> 
> I wouldn't.


Are you 'exactly the same as" me? Are GMOs harmful?


----------



## WLC

The union of concerned scientists seem to think that it's '...Amoral and Unsustainable...'.

The EU has stopped new GMO approvals, and there is an effective ban on major GMO products.

My question would be, "Is GMO technology good for both native and managed pollinators?"

I don't have any problems consuming it; but I don't want to end up living underground, with a shaved head, wearing a white jumpsuit, with a barcode 'tat' on my neck either.


----------



## sqkcrk

I guess tests will have to be run.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Are you saying that GMO produce is exactly the same as organic produce?
> 
> I wouldn't.


soo, your comparing a GMO crop grown conventionally to an organically produced crop, and asking whether they are the same? GMO has nothing to do with it,


----------



## WLC

GMO crops sell for less than they cost to produce. They have a greater environmental impact, and they have some very, very serious social justice issues attached to them.

So, while organic produce currently costs more than GM produce, that's because GM crops are heavily subsidized.

We already know about the impact of pesticides on the environment. So, that's a moot point.

I am aware of many inidigenous people who have been displaced into city slums by the 'Soyeros' of South America. I won't mentioned the countless Indian farmers who have committed suicide by drinking pesticide because of 'false' GM promises.

All technologies have a benefit and a burden. GMOs are no different.

It's bad for someone's well being at the very least.


----------



## Ian

you obviously dont grow GM crops, otherwise youd realize that entire statement to be a bunch of , ... compost


----------



## WLC

That's not an argument Ian.


----------



## Ian

argue against a bunch of made up stuff?


----------



## WLC

I wish that it wasn't true.

An entire continent recently banned a wide range of neonic coated seed products to 'Save the Bees'.

Did they make that up too?

There's also a growing movement among beekeepers to get off of the 'Treatment Treadmill' in a move towards IPM/Organic beekeeping.

Stop defending a technology that's has alot of serious issues.


----------



## Barry

Originally Posted by *delber*  
because the GMO stuff isn't good for you.





Ian said:


> thats a bunch of garbage,


Yes, that's exactly what he said, it not good for you. It's garbage.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> I wish that it wasn't true.
> 
> An entire continent recently banned a wide range of neonic coated seed products to 'Save the Bees'.
> 
> Did they make that up too?
> 
> There's also a growing movement among beekeepers to get off of the 'Treatment Treadmill' in a move towards IPM/Organic beekeeping.
> 
> Stop defending a technology that's has alot of serious issues.


Well V. . . . WLC, I like this! When we stay away from the extremes, there is a lot we all have in common. Well said.


----------



## Moccasin

Its not nice to fool with Mother Nature! Monsanto has pretty much merged with USDA. We are stuck with it.


----------



## Ian

Barry said:


> Yes, that's exactly what he said, it not good for you. It's garbage.


has nothing to do with the GM tech ,


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Stop defending a technology that's has alot of serious issues.


Its tech that has brought huge advantages to agriculture


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> An entire continent recently banned a wide range of neonic coated seed products to 'Save the Bees'.
> 
> Did they make that up too?


what does any of that have to do with GM crops?


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> GMO crops sell for less than they cost to produce. They have a greater environmental impact, and they have some very, very serious social justice issues attached to them.


it sells on the stock exchange, has nothing to do with cost of production, 
it has provided huge advantages to soil health and sustainability, less cultivation, less pesticides, healthier soils
the social issues are a matter of opinion 



WLC said:


> So, while organic produce currently costs more than GM produce, that's because GM crops are heavily subsidized.


I dont know how GM crops are subsidized, are you referring to government programs in relation to ALL of agricultural produciton?



WLC said:


> We already know about the impact of pesticides on the environment. So, that's a moot point.


GM crops use less pesticide, thats a fact, 



WLC said:


> I am aware of many inidigenous people who have been displaced into city slums by the 'Soyeros' of South America. I won't mentioned the countless Indian farmers who have committed suicide by drinking pesticide because of 'false' GM promises.


And what does GM crops have to do with any of that?


----------



## hpm08161947

I just ate a ham sandwich. Surely the hog was fed all his life on GMO Soybean and GMO Corn. The sandwich tasted no different to me than the hogs we used to pasture feed. 

Is there any evidence that the GMO Sandwich was not good for me.... biologically, medically, scientifically? Staying away from the social issues.


----------



## Ian

nope,


----------



## WLC

How about if you ate cornbread and soy tofu instead?

I eat alot of bacon myself, so I'm not preaching here, just making an observation.

We've created a system where we have to overproduce crops so that we can all have our bacon, burgers, fried chicken, etc. .

And, oh yeah, plenty of sugar.

Our diet is made possible by GM technology.

Frankly, the only way for it to work is to have those GM crops as the cornerstone to every other food product that follows.

Someone built the system stone, by stone.

So, maybe, just maybe, our GM 'foodchain' could impact our health as a nation overall.

It's part of our culture, and who we are.

I'm not complaining because I like being able to eat all kinds of food at a good price.

But, am I really eating a 'healthy' diet as someone at the top of the GM foodchain?

How about this one...

Is it really healthy to feed soy sub and HFCS to our bees?

We don't just eat it ourselves, we're even feeding it to our bees!


----------



## hpm08161947

Sure.. anything in excess is not a good thing. But these are personal decisions and do not indicate that the GMO product itself is bad for the individual... just in excess. Wasn't it WLC who pointed out how much H2O it took to poison a human?

As far as sub and HFCS, that has been pounded to sand.... ad nauseum... better than starvation.


----------



## WLC

hpm:

I spent 4 years of my life overseas.

I'm telling you that they have (or should I say had) a very different system, with some very different food choices.

You've heard of the Mediterranean diet, right?

Well, we eat way too much processed food here because it's so cheap. I go to the supermarket and read labels. While it doesn't say made with GM products, you can almost tell which ones were because of the price.

Cheap, processed food, and plenty of it thanks to GM technology.

However, I wouldn't call it a truly healthy diet.

Extra sugar. Extra salt. Mmm good!


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> The union of concerned scientists seem to think that it's '...Amoral and Unsustainable...'.


The Union of Concerned Scientists is an enviro-political activist organization who's staff makes big money:


----------



## WLC

With salaries like that, they must know something!

Heh, heh.

People, let's face it. Our diet is about consumption.

We all pick up the supermarket circular to see what's on sale.

I know that a bunch of you have that propane grill all cleaned up with a fresh tank of gas underneath.

Is there anything that you put on that grill that isn't a direct or indirect GM product?

OK, so you caught a fish. But, was it stocked?

Of course sub and HFCS is better than starvation, and it makes economic sense.

Have I made my point about how GM is related to our diet/health?

I've made myself hungry talking about this, so let me walk over to KFC for a bucket.

WLC.


----------



## hpm08161947

WLC:

I am in complete agreement with your dietary theories.
But does it matter that my 'Etame" comes from a GMO soybean? As far as I can tell..... no.


----------



## WLC

What's different about the health of the average US national/resident when compared to the rest of the world?

I don't remember off of the top of my head, but I do know that I occasionally read about diabetes being on the rise.

hpm:

It's not that it's bad food. We just like eating it perhaps a little too much.

That's one of the things about being on top of the GM food chain.

I'm not complaining. There was nothing new on my recent CT scan...


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> With salaries like that, they must know something!
> 
> Have I made my point about how GM is related to our diet/health?
> .


Not really. To a great degree eating and living healthy is within everyones grasp. It involves choosing healthy foods, eating in moderation and living an active and healthy lifestyle. There is plenty of good stuff in every grocery store though I will grant you there is far more shelf space dedicated to junk food. Sadly, though, for many they choose to load the grocery cart down with 12 packs of Mountain Dew, $7 dollar boxes of sugar coated cereal and the "buy 2 get 1 free" jumbo bags of potato chips. Ahh yes but no grocery store visit is complete without grabbing the magazine at the checkout counter that has news of the latest miracle diet program. Obesity isnt Monsanto's fault its ours.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> I go to the supermarket and read labels. While it doesn't say made with GM products, you can almost tell which ones were because of the price.


where do you come up with this stuff? you can tell which food products are that of GM because of the price??? GM food has nothing to do with how its priced, thats dictated by world commodity trade. Are you referring to GM tech allowing the world to produce more food, thus decreasing the overall price on food? Then yes, but ALL food regardless if its GM or Non GM or organic is priced accordingly.


----------



## WLC

I've said this before:

Monsanto is the American Id. We ARE Monsanto.

But, bringing it back to beekeeping...

so ARE our bees!

We eat it ourselves, and we also feed it to our bees.

Does this mean that our Honeybees are on top of the GM foodchain as well?

Maybe.

The winter losses are still at around 30%.

Perhaps it's a reflection of our own health status?

This whole 'GM Foodchain' analogy is a bit of a stretch, but it does address the health issue.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Cheap, processed food, and plenty of it thanks to GM technology.


again, absolutely nothing to do with GM tech


----------



## WLC

Ian:

GM tech will feed the entire world in short order.

That is the point.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> The winter losses are still at around 30%.


Varroa, Nosema, DWV, weather, queen problems, loss of abundant forage, 
bit of a stretch linking 30% losses and bee health problems all to GM tech


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Ian:
> 
> GM tech will feed the entire world in short order.
> 
> That is the point.


what does that matter, there is no link to health concerns that you have been addressing, you cant simply tag all of our food and health related problems to GM tech.


----------



## WLC

"...you cant simply tag all of our food and health related problems to GM tech."

Given enough time, I probably could.

Sort of like the 'overpaid' Union of Concerned Scientists.

Ian:

Monsanto is as powerful as it has become for a good reason. They're awfully close to controlling the world's food supply. 

Don't feel so bad. Have a Coke and a tube of Pringles. You'll feel better.


----------



## hpm08161947

WLC:

It seems as though your objection is mainly based on the idea that Monsanto is a Monopoly. If so, then I can relate to that... but how long does a patent on GMO corn, soybean, canola, last?
Will it not be like RoundUp? Many manufacturers for Glyphosphate.


----------



## Ian

>>Given enough time, I probably could.<<

GM tech has been used on our farm for 15 plus years, and the focus on GM food has been priority by many many lobby groups for well over 20 years. Youd think with all attention and motivation of these lobby groups and the amount of time they have had to dig something up, they would of come up with something, anything, other than , "evil Monsanto"

>>Don't feel so bad. Have a Coke and a tube of Pringles. You'll feel better.<<

and that is the point you keep making time and time again, the thing, is our diet is a cultural issue


----------



## Ian

WLC, do you recognize any of the benefits that GM cropping tech has brought the Ag industry?


----------



## WLC

hpm:

Monsanto is constantly developing new products and in motion. Recently, they've made some big moves with Bayer, Dow, and Dupont.

I think that they've anticipated the EU ban and already have replacements for the banned products.

I also think that they're going to catch BASF and Syngenta 'flat footed'.

I seriously doubt that Monsanto is going to lose any ground whatsoever.

On the contrary, I think they're going to gain ground.


----------



## Ian

As long as you talk generally enough, and drop enough players names, it might sound like you know whats going on.


----------



## Barry

Originally Posted by *Barry*  
Yes, that's exactly what he said, it not good for you. It's garbage.





Ian said:


> has nothing to do with the GM tech ,


Maybe not, but the point I am making, and one you need to *hear*, is that no one wants to be told their contribution to a discussion "is garbage." It's obvious you're passionate about this topic, as are others, but I still expect civil dialog. Thank you.


----------



## WLC

They inexplicably settled major suits with them right about the time the EU commission was making its decision.

There's no other way to read it. They've closed ranks.

In case you missed it, Syngenta, Monsanto's main competitor in the seed business, recently launched and open licensing program for its technology.

I would say that Monsanto is reacting to that.


----------



## Ian

>>Maybe not, but the point I am making, and one you need to hear, is that no one wants to be told their contribution to a discussion "is garbage." It's obvious you're passionate about this topic, as are others, but I still expect civil dialog. Thank you.<<

okay, I apologize to that reference, 
my intention was to point out that what was being contributed was simply made up


----------



## Barry

I think I already jumped in once many pages ago, but this topic is how GMO relates to CCD, so let's head back in that direction.


----------



## Huntingstoneboy

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that GMO's will not benefit an insect as it has been modified to inhibit many forms of insects. Has it caused 30% loss? Maybe, Maybe Not, But it sure hasn't helped our bees! Just my 2 cents!

The fact that Monsato is a monoply, controlling governments and our food supply is an entirely different subject! Again, my 2 cents!


----------



## hpm08161947

Huntingstoneboy said:


> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that GMO's will not benefit an insect as it has been modified to inhibit many forms of insects.


Has it? I know that GMO plants are often modified to be resistant to certain types of herbicides, but that is all I know. Perhaps you are correct, where did you get your information? Hopefully not off the internet


----------



## Huntingstoneboy

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/gmos/reportsandpublications/gmofactsheet.php. This is just one of many! If it is on the internet it must be true!!! LOL. Little sarcasm there, but why go to the trouble of modifying a plant species if you are not going to make it insect resistant, as well as herbicide resistant?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

the beauty of GMO is that it can replace pesticides altogether and you can target specific individual pests in a way that pesticides could never do. You wouldn't call this an organic method of farming, but the next generation probably will. There's noting unnatural about transgenic species. You probably didn't know it but you are one to (assuming you've ever come down with the flu)


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


----------



## delber

BayHighlandBees said:


> You probably didn't know it but you are one to (assuming you've ever come down with the flu)


Please correct me if I'm not thinking correctly here, but adaptation vs. Genetically modified seems to be a big difference. I take the aspect of becoming resistant to a given "cold" to be more of an adaptation, not Genetically modified. My kids aren't ammune to it just because I am? Other animals can adapt to slightly different climates and food that's available, but they're still at the root level that specific animal. Correct? Because a crow perhaps eats the same food as a sparrow in a different area doesn't make it a crorrow. Is this what you're saying or did I miss something?


----------



## hpm08161947

He is saying viral rna/dna can actually be incorporated into your Genome.


----------



## WLC

Are we talking about the Beeologics tests again?

Although Randy is correct in substance...

...let me quote Joachim de Miranda,

"The third claim that IAPV-integrated Honey bees are "naturally transgenic" (Maori et al., 2007) represents an unfortunate use of terminology, in that it links the data to a highly controversial industry that too often tries to justify its commercial aims by finding parallels with naturally occuurring processes. This obscures the significant difference between instant transgenic evolution by man, and similar natural accidents scattered throughut the evolutionary history of the entire biosphere covering millions of years."

From 'The Acute bee paralysis virus-Kashmir bee virus-Israeli acute paralysis virus complex', Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103 (2010) S30-S47.

They're already using RNAi in plants. Yes, there was an attempt to do the same for Honeybees.

Unfortunately, RNAi seems to go off target, even in Honeybees.


----------



## JRG13

What's off target? Yes, some viruses naturally integrate into host genomes and can lay dormant or become part of the genome even. I think the main issue so far is only 60% effective and the $10k cost to treat a hive. What have you heard in terms of the oligos reacting with offtarget genes in the bee?


----------



## WLC

Jarosch and Nunes (seperately) have shown that control RNAi caused changes in transcription in Honeybees. That's off target since the controls should not have had that effect.

Some of the Beelogics investigators have shown that Varroa and Honeybees can interchange dsRNA. That's an off target effect.

And one of the original field trials for Remebee reported an off target effect in a control colony. That one suggests that the product can affect non target insects as well.

So, while RNAi is being developed for crops, I don't think that we can say that it won't have off target effects in Honeybees.

There's a convoluted relationship between Monsanto, RNAi, Beeologics, and CCD in Honeybees here. A product designed to prevent CCD (IAPV) in Honeybees will likely go off target.

I think that the same can be said for RNAi technology in general.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

WLC said:


> Are we talking about the Beeologics tests again?
> 
> I was talking more in regard to plants


----------



## WLC

RNAi in plants will likely replace current GM technology. I'll agree to that with some caveats.

One point I'd like to make is that while Monsanto is blamed by some for causing CCD, they acquired a company, Beeologics, that was developing a cure for CCD (RNAi).


----------



## BayHighlandBees

(from Randy in the above link)

What is genetic modification?

The knowledge of genetics was not applied to plant breeding until the 1920′s; up ‘til then breeders would blindly cross promising cultivars and hope for the best. With today’s genetic engineering, breeders can now take a gene from one plant (or animal, fungus, or bacterium) and splice it into the DNA of another plant. If they get it just right, the new gene can confer resistance to frost, drought, pests, salinity, or disease. Or it could make the crop more nutritious, more flavorful, etc. Such genetically modified crops are also called “transgenic,” “recombinant,” “genetically engineered,” or “bioengineered.”

There’s nothing new about transgenics

There is nothing new about transgenic organisms, in fact you (yes you) are one. Viruses regularly swap genes among unrelated organisms via a process called “horizontal gene transfer” [3]. For example, the gene which is responsible for the formation of the mammalian placenta was not originally a mammal gene—it was inserted into our distant ancestors by a virus. If a gene introduced by a virus confers a fitness advantage to the recipient, then that gene may eventually be propagated throughout that species’ population. Until recently, we didn’t even know that this process has occurred throughout the evolution of life, and didn’t know or care whether a crop was “naturally” transgenic!


----------



## WLC

BHB:

I posted a quote from a noted Honeybee virologist to illustrate that Randy is 'obfuscating' the issue.

GM technology has been shown to impact Honeybees, and it's even considered to be a contributing factor to CCD (by some).

RNAi isn't a proven technology in Honeybees.

I personally believe that it's the knockdown of a core component (AGO2) of the Honeybee's RNAi system by pathogens that is the root cause of CCD (not Monsanto).

While we all understand the importance of GMO technology, I'm not going to 'worship' it like it's a golden idol.

In the final analysis, it's just another technology that has some spectacular benefits with many terrible impacts.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

what are the terrible impacts that you are worried about?


----------



## WLC

Barry wants us to stay on topic, so I'll say Honeybee colony losses and CCD.


----------



## Ian

BayHighlandBees said:


> what are the terrible impacts that you are worried about?


There has not been any, 

yet generalized statements are still made against GM tech causing Honeybee colony losses and CCD

seems to me, the benefits of GM cropping tech is being weighed against made up problems


----------



## WLC

Ian:

I wouldn't say that colony losses and CCD being caused by GM technology is a 'made up' claim.

It seems to be that you can find studies that either support or refute those claims if you take the time to look for them.

I think the technology can, and sometimes does, cause colony losses. I don't think that it causes CCD.

But, so what? I not an EU policymaker.


----------



## hpm08161947

But so far no links between GMO technology and colony loss.... right? I distinguish GMO tech from neonic seed coating..... at least in this discussion.


----------



## delber

If I read the one post on the previous page, Monsanto has bought the company that was doing the research. This is what happens in a MONOPOLY it seems. I have heard that there are several law suits going on now regarding all of this. Are there perks? Sure. Are there problems? Sure. With change in any arena there are both benefits and drawbacks. That's called "progression". Persnoally I'd like to go back w/o this "progression" and am seeking to do that, but Obviously I have NO power nor desire to do anything about all of this. I honestly don't even understand most of what is going on here, but I have also researched articles from good doctors and nutrationalists that say that GMO isn't good. So My question is still the same as before (I'm sorry to go back. Have I missed the answer?) Does anyone have any idea of the nurtitional differences of the pollen from GMO vs Non GMO plants? Lets say soy. I know there's nectar there, but how about the pollen? How about other plants?


----------



## hpm08161947

delber said:


> I honestly don't even understand most of what is going on here, but I have also researched articles from good doctors and nutrationalists that say that GMO isn't good.


OK... this is where you point how where we can also read these articles..... who wrote them.


----------



## WLC

hpm:

You know that I can come up with the links when the spirit moves me. 

But, there's no real issue here without the neonic contaminated talc.

That's what happens if you focus only on the transgenics.

I could probably come up with a relationship between RNAi, RNAI supression in Honeybees, and a possible increase in CCD. But, that's not a current issue.


----------



## hpm08161947

WLC said:


> But, there's no real issue here without the neonic contaminated talc.


Agreed. I have seen nothing to even hint at GMO tech causing colony loss or CCD.

Contaminated Neonic Talc dust is a separate issue, which reminds me of sprayer/applicator malfunctions of the old days.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Ian:
> 
> I wouldn't say that colony losses and CCD being caused by GM technology is a 'made up' claim.


Yup, made up claim
WLC, how about you actually go find one of these credited studdies and,... oh right, there are none, 
lets look for the answer to delber's question then, 

>>Does anyone have any idea of the nurtitional differences of the pollen from GMO vs Non GMO plants?<<

anyone?


----------



## Barry

hpm08161947 said:


> Agreed. I have seen nothing to even hint at GMO tech causing colony loss or CCD.


OK, can I close this thread now?


----------



## sqkcrk

Yes, please.


----------



## Barry

I need three separate yeses.  Anyone?


----------



## hpm08161947

Yes... I agree... the horse is dead.


----------



## Ian

Barry said:


> OK, can I close this thread now?


oh ya
just a thought, why not delete the whole thing


----------



## WLC

I would say yes, but the thread is about GMO products causing CCD.

I've always considered neonic seed coats to part of the package for GM products.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

what does neonic pesticide have anything to do with GMO seeds? How are they part of the package? They're apples and oranges. If anything GMO could feasibly be a replacement of neonic-based pesticides and other pesticides. Bayer makes imidacloprid. Does Bayer as a company have anything to do with GMO seeds?


----------

