# Is Bayer killing our bees? Imidacloprid as potential cause of CCD



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I found the following on the BBKA site:


>>French and Swiss researchers found that after Imidacloprid is dusted onto sunflower seed, or oilseed rape, it permeates the entire plant, including the nectar, pollen and seeds. The loss of bee colonies in France was concentrated in sunflower or oilseed rape growing areas. Imidacloprid only needs to be present at 10 parts per billion to kill bees outright. Bees exposed to 5 ppb simply do not return to their hives.

A definitive Swiss study reported:

ABSTRACT:

“Klaus Wallner confirmed in his study of Imidacloprid prepared Phacelia with a burden of 50 g/hectare, that the bee’s honey-sac average contamination was 5ppb and the pollen taken from the 'pollen baskets' of the bees contained 7ppb. The centrifuged honey contamination level could not (yet) be ascertained. The level was less than the 3ppb trace ability level for honey.

Clarification in France:
In a report issued by the French Agriculture Ministry it was stated: According to the sunflower variety the residues in the flower on the 65th day (at start of blossom period) varied between 2.5ppb (Pharon) and 8.7ppb (Natil). These values could possibly be higher at point of harvest. The sunflower pollen is contaminated at an average level of 3ppb (up to 11 ppb max.). In untreated plantings (sunflower, rape and corn), which were planted in Imidacloprid-contaminated-soil, up to 7.4ppb was detected in the flowers.

“The Bayer study produced a mortality rate due to Imidacloprid for bees as follows: The LD 50 (the lethal dose which kills 50% of test organisms within 48 hours) lay between 3.7 and 40.9 Nanogrammes of Imidacloprid per bee. Long term injury was investigated by Bonmatin. He achieved an LD 50 after 8 days by feeding individual bees an Imidacloprid/ sugar solution of 0.1 ppb. The substance showed itself to be highly toxic when delivered over time.”


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

But the symptoms of Imidacloprid poisoning are nothing like
what is seen with CCD.


----------



## thesurveyor (Aug 20, 2002)

Is this chemical in present in all sunflower seeds that are currently on the market. (ie. If you go purchase a package of sunflower seeds for planting will they be treated with the agent? )

If that is the case, our hives could be in real trouble if our neighbors plant sunflowers in there gardens.

Just a thought....


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Jim Fischer said:


> But the symptoms of Imidacloprid poisoning are nothing like
> what is seen with CCD.


Sounds like Jerry Hayes seems to think theres at least the possibility of a linkage:


HAYES: Um you know the ultimate answer on that is still out. But yes you're right Steve there is a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, of which, ah, an active ingredient called imidacloprid has been banned in some countries in Europe because of its association with damaging, ah, pollinators. It has a tendency to, at least in the European data, to have the bees forget how to get home. *And so this is one of the components that we're seeing here.* And these neonicotinoids and imidacloprid is used pervasively in agriculture in the U.S. Primarily it's a systemic. So it does what it's supposed to do on harmful agricultural pests but it's working its way through the plant up into the flowers and getting into the nectar. Ah, in doses that will not kill a honeybee out right. So the question is what are the chronic long-term 24/7 365 exposures doing to the honeybees and is this a component of the problem?


http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00009&segmentID=3


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm not trying to exonerate imidacloprid, neonicotinoids, Bayer, or anyone or anything else, but why now? What's different? What's changed?

Imidacloprid has been around since the late 1980s, and was already as heavily used in the mid 1990s as it is now. Why wouldn't "CCD," if imidacloprid is the cause, have shown up long before this?


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Kieck said:


> I'm not trying to exonerate imidacloprid, neonicotinoids, Bayer, or anyone or anything else, but why now? What's different? What's changed?
> 
> Imidacloprid has been around since the late 1980s, and was already as heavily used in the mid 1990s as it is now. Why wouldn't "CCD," if imidacloprid is the cause, have shown up long before this?


That's one of the questions for sure. I also wonder how imidacloprid could account for the wide geographical distribution of the reported losses. I could understand an impact in a localized region with a predominance of one kind of forage, bloom times, etc. It sure seems too widespread for a single insecticide.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>Why wouldn't "CCD," if imidacloprid is the cause, have shown up long before this?<<<
Increased saturation levels? Some substance have a cumulative effect which takes a while to show up in the environment. There are lots of examples. Heavy metals are an obvious one. Dioxins are all throughout our environment now. At a certain saturation point they are a big problem. 
DDT didn't outright kill birds but the effect was similar if it effected their reproductive cycles.
Theoretically, the cumulative effect of continued and increasing use of neonicotinoids could cause increasing problems as well. 

>>>But the symptoms of Imidacloprid poisoning are nothing like
what is seen with CCD.<<<
The fact that nonlethal doses interfere with the bees memories seems to be consistant with part of what we are seeing in CCD,ie bees that leave the colony and don't return. Not sure how the non-robbing would figure in though.

<<<It sure seems too widespread for a single insecticide.<<<
Read up on the uses of these pesticides. It isn't just one pesticide and it is also used just about everywhere, from what I can tell, from golf courses to suburban lawns to various agricultural uses.

About half the posters re neonicotinoids are saying this is an old syndrome so they can't be responsible. The other half is saying it is a new different syndrome so this class of substances can't be responsible. 

I'm not convinced it IS this class of substances but why are so many willing to consider beekeeper applied chemicals and poo poo to possibility of imidacloprid and the like? 
Sheri


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jim Fischer said:


> But the symptoms of Imidacloprid poisoning are nothing like
> what is seen with CCD.


"Imidacloprid only needs to be present at 10 parts per billion to kill bees outright. Bees exposed to 5 ppb simply do not return to their hives."

Isn't that the main symptom of CCD?


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> About half the posters re neonicotinoids are saying this is an old syndrome so they can't be responsible. The other half is saying it is a new different syndrome so this class of substances can't be responsible.
> 
> I'm not convinced it IS this class of substances but why are so many willing to consider beekeeper applied chemicals and poo poo to possibility of imidacloprid and the like?
> Sheri


I'm just asking questions. At this point everything's on the table. As far as I can tell, no one who is conducting the research has released much data, so I guess we'll just have to wait until the experts tell us what their conclusions are.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Coyote, my reply wasn't meant to be critical of your post. Questioning is a good thing, I was just adding my understanding as to the prevelance of these pesticides. 
I totally agree with you, everything SHOULD be on the table, that was my point as well. 
Sheri


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Kieck said:


> I'm not trying to exonerate imidacloprid, neonicotinoids, Bayer, or anyone or anything else, but why now? What's different? What's changed?
> 
> Imidacloprid has been around since the late 1980s, and was already as heavily used in the mid 1990s as it is now. Why wouldn't "CCD," if imidacloprid is the cause, have shown up long before this?



Change in imidacloprid formulation/application uses could be an answer. Also it may not be correct to attribute CCD or any other syndrome to a single cause. Parsing out cause and effect relationships frequently shows that permissive factors play a strong role. For instance, DWV usually does not cause apiary problems without varroa, but has been successgully treated with bacteriostatic antibiotics. Does this mean that bacteria cause DWV? How about varroa? Does Apistan kill DWV? What if your queen is infected and showing transovarial transmission. Epidemiology and pathology are complicated and their finding must be interpreted with care. If you don't ask essential questions, you only find misleading answers.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Change in imidacloprid formulation/application uses could be an answer. -Aspera


I agree that it COULD be. I doubt imidacloprid, or any changes in formulation or application, is solely responsible for CCD, though. 

Why not pick out a different chemical? Imidacloprid is widely used, but so are any number of other insecticides. Why not point fingers at them? What makes imidacloprid different under these circumstances?

And -- although this is along a different line -- why are bees apparently suddenly able to detect toxicity of imidacloprid or some other insecticide(s) (they don't rob out hives killed by CCD, right?), even though they apparently could not detect that toxicity when they collected the pollen (or possibly nectar)?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>What makes imidacloprid different under these circumstances?<<<
I think the reason there is focus on imidacloprid is the lawsuit and settlement by Bayer over this very issue in Europe.

>>>why are bees apparently suddenly able to detect toxicity of imidacloprid or some other insecticide(s) (they don't rob out hives killed by CCD, right?), even though they apparently could not detect that toxicity when they collected the pollen (or possibly nectar)?<<<
Good question.
Sheri


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*fromWikipedia via the BBKA board*

Imidacloprid (IUPAC name (EZ)-1-(6-chloro-3-pyridylmethyl)-N-nitroimidazolidin-2-ylideneamine) is an insecticide manufactured by Bayer Cropscience (part of the drug and chemical conglomerate Bayer AG). It is sold under the trade names Merit, Admire, Gaucho, Confidor, Premise and Winner, as well as Hachikusan (in Japan) and Premise for termite control, and Advantage in the US and Europe for flea control on pets.

Imidacloprid was first patented in the United States in U.S. Pat. No. 4,742,060, on May 3, 1988, by Nihon Tokushu Noyaku Seizo K.K. of Tokyo, Japan.

In France, its use (as Gaucho) has become controversial in terms of a possible link to derangement of behavior in domesticated honeybees. See Imidacloprid effects on bee population.

Contents [hide]
1 Biochemistry
2 Agricultural uses
3 Proper Use of Advantage
3.1 A systemic insecticide
4 References
5 External links



[edit] Biochemistry
A chlorinated analog of nicotine, the compound therefore belongs to the class of chloronicotinyl insecticides, and acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor; the chlorination inhibits degradation by acetylcholine-esterase. Imidacloprid is notable for its relatively low toxicity to most animals other than insects due to its specificity for this type of receptor, which is found more often in insect nervous systems and zooplankton than that of other animals (exceptions exist; earthworms and a few species of fish, for example). This improved ratio of toxicity allows the use of very low concentrations (e.g. 0.05-0.125 lbs/acre), making it safer for insect control than other neurotoxins (particularly organophosphates) and enabling its use in applications as diverse as flea treatments for pets, control of beetle larvae in lawns, eradication or prevention of termite infestation in buildings, and other uses where animals and people may be exposed. Imidacloprid is, for example, present as a main (or the sole) active ingredient in concentrations between five and ten percent in three out of the four most widely used flea treatment and preventative topical treatments for dogs in the United States; these manufacturers claim an effective killing persistence of at least four weeks. The compound is also used for flea treatment on cats, whose livers have only limited detoxification ability compared to dogs and humans.

Imidacloprid is rated as "moderately toxic" acutely by the WHO and the EPA (class II or III, requiring a "Warning" or "Caution" label), and a "potential" ground water contaminant. It is rated as an "unlikely" carcinogen by the EPA (group E), and is not listed for endocrine, reproductive, or developmental toxicity, or as a chemical of special concern by any agencies. It is not banned, restricted, cancelled, or illegal to import in any countries. Tolerances for imidacloprid residue in food range from 0.02 ppm in eggs to 3.0 ppm in hops.

Animal toxicity is similar to that of the parent compound, nicotine; fatigue, twitching, cramps, and weakness leading to asphyxia. The oral LD50 (the dose which resulted in mortality of half of the test animals) of imidacloprid is 450 mg/kg body weight in rats and 131 mg/kg in mice; the 24-hour dermal LD50 in rats is greater than 5,000 mg/kg. It is not irritating to eyes or skin in rabbits and guinea pigs (although some commercial preparations contain clay as an inert ingredient, which may be an irritant). The acute inhalation LD50 in rats was not reached at the greatest attainable concentrations, 69 mg/cubic meter of air as an aerosol, and 5,323 mg/cubic meter of air as a dust. In rats subjected to a two year feeding study, no observable effect was seen at 100 ppm. At 300 ppm females showed decreased body weight gain and males showed increased thyroid lesions, while females showed increased thyroid lesions at 900 ppm. In a one year feeding study in dogs, no observable effect was seen at 1,250 ppm, while levels up to 2,500 ppm led to hypercholesterolemia and elevated liver cytochrome p-450 measurements. Reproductive studies in rats resulted in no observable effect at 100 ppm and decreased pup weight at 250 ppm; developmental toxicity studies in rats showed no observable effect at 30 mg/kg/day and skeletal anomalies at 100 mg/kg/day, while in rabbits no observable effect was detected at 24 mg/kg/day and skeletal abnormalities at 72 mg/kg/day. Imidacloprid was negative for mutagenicity in 21 out of 23 different laboratory tests, but was positive for chromosomal changes in human lymphocytes and for genotoxicity in CHO cells. No carcinogenicity was seen in rats fed up to 1,800 ppm of imidacloprid for two years.

Imidacloprid has low vapor pressure. The chemical breaks down to inorganic molecules by both photolysis and microbial action, in the air and with a half-life of 30 days in water and 27 days in soil anaerobically. Although it is not "persistent" in the technical sense since it does degrade, it can, however, have a half-life in soil under aerobic conditions of as long as 997 days, which is the cause of the concern over possible water contamination as it gradually leaches out of a hypothetical soil reservoir. The manufacturer maintains that, when applied according to instructions, such long-term contamination is only found as the result of "repetitive application over several years" and spread to beneficial insect populations is minimal. In the body, 96% of the chemical is eliminated within 48 hours; the most important degradation product in the body is 6-chloronicotinic acid, another nicotinic neurotoxin with similar properties. Imidacloprid has, however, been reported to degrade into toxic, persistent, 2-chloropyridine.


[edit] Agricultural uses
The most widely used applications for imidacloprid in California are pest control in structures, turf pest control, grape growing, and head and leaf lettuce growing. Other widespread crop uses are rice, cereal, maize, potatoes, vegetables, sugar beets, fruit, cotton, and hops. Target insects include sucking insects (e.g. aphids, whiteflies, leafhoppers and planthoppers, thrips, scales, mealybugs, bugs, psyllids, and phylloxera), beetles (e.g. leaf beetles, Colorado potato beetles, rice water-weevils, wireworms, grubs, and flea beetles), and others (e.g. lepidopterous leaf*miners, some diptera, termites, locusts, and fleas).


[edit] Proper Use of Advantage
When using Advantage flea medicine on animals, make sure to use a soap-free shampoo. Bayer's website states it is safe to shampoo[1], however, the company's question hotline informs otherwise, stating that it is necessary to use a soap-free shampoo with an oatmeal base, otherwise the product will be removed.


[edit] A systemic insecticide
Imidacloprid is taken up by plant roots and diffuses in the plant vascular system, where insects ingest it by sucking the plant fluids. The products Confidor and Admire are meant for application via irrigation, application to the soil, or on foliage, while Gaucho is intended for use as a seed dressing, applied to the seed before sowing.

Seed applied insecticides are often used to deal with numerous insects as they are easy to use and comparable in cost to most traditional insecticides used at sowing time. Some also indicate that it might be better for the environment because less chemical is required than for broadcast or banded applications, or at least because less chemical is sprayed in the air. However, some note that the use of seed-applied insecticides at each season implies the chemical is used whether there is need to fight insects or not.

See also: Pesticide toxicity to bees


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

Kieck said:


> And -- although this is along a different line -- why are bees apparently suddenly able to detect toxicity of imidacloprid or some other insecticide(s) (they don't rob out hives killed by CCD, right?), even though they apparently could not detect that toxicity when they collected the pollen (or possibly nectar)?


I'm new here so don't take this out of line but maybe the robbers can't find their way back? Has anyone tried using the frames out of a CCD hive in a "normal" hive with no results?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

While researching this subject for Apr ABJ, I talked a number of researchers. A plant geneticist wondered if Nicotinoids were so prevalent that they were in the water used to mix HFCS. He was talking about the GROUND WATER. He wondered if the drought could have distilled the mix concentrating it as irrigation water was recycled. He was not a hydrologist. He sent me the link below. It's a letter from 2003. It frightens me. 

Jim, you're involved with Long Island. Did you know about this? Make the link work somehow and read it and weep.

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profile...lpara/imidacloprid/imidacloprid_let_1003.html

Dickm


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

There's a lot of potatoes grown on Long Island, and I have heard
of soil applications that may have been the root cause of this problem
("in-furrow applications of Admire in potatoes and vegetables...").

We have a meeting next Sunday (Larry Connor will be speaking)
so I will ask if there has been any problems noticed as a result
of this groundwater contamination.


----------



## Albert (Nov 12, 2006)

*Read it and weep...*

It figures...

Just another piece to an immense and deadly puzzle. I'm disgusted by the corporate agri-conglomerates and their complete and utter disregard for the rest of humanity's well being.

You may have heard that the FDA is approving one of the best and strongest antibiotics we have available for human bacterial infections, for the treatment of bovine pneumonia. These antibiotics are a last line lifesaver for bacterium that cannot be beat by other treatments. Now you're going to find them in trace ammounts in every bite of beef you ingest. Have you ever known any farmer/rancher to ever use products as labeled? Even Beeks use Tetracyclin as a prophylactic to control AFB. What do suppose happens? Think anything else builds resistances? 

So when some influenza attacks the human race, and the weak start to succumb to opportunistic bacterial infections, thank the cattle ranchers and milk producers for depriving us of a last ditch antibiotic.

All to make a few more bucks.

Next time you buy groceries, think about going to the local farmer's market and supporting local farmers working in a sustainable manner.

Albert


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Right there with you on all of that, Albert.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>and I have heard of soil applications >>>

I think it's only used as a soil application. It goes in with the seeds. In France they found it in nearby plants that were untreated.

In any case this was the first thing the CCD team looked at. Bees died where there no treated crops anywhere near. Re: pesticide in the hive...there was at least one organic guy who lost a lot of bees. There were varieties of treatments. 

Dickm


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Antibiotics have been found in ground water as well. After going through the mammal they don't just go away. Germs are adapting as we speak.

Dickm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Have you ever known any farmer/rancher to ever use products as labeled? -Albert


Yes. Many do. Farmers/ranchers can and are fined if they're caught NOT using the products as labeled.



> Next time you buy groceries, think about going to the local farmer's market and supporting local farmers working in a sustainable manner. -Albert


I realize you were on to a different subject here, but why would farmers (producers) at a local farmer's market be any more likely to follow labels than farmers (producers) selling bulk commodities? Are producers at farmer's markets necessarily "sustainable?"



> I think it's only used as a soil application. It goes in with the seeds. -dickm


No, it's also used as a foliar application, and a soil application, as well as a seed treatment. Imidacloprid is also used as a "top spot" treatment against fleas and ticks for dogs and cats. It's not just a seed treatment.

Despite all that, why would it take SO long for the effects to show up? The charges in France were leveled shortly after Gaucho (imidacloprid) was introduced there. Here, imidacloprid has been used for years without those sorts of accusations.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

So many different kinds of chemical cr*p are spread around by farmers, desperate to show a profit and clutching at and straw the agri-chem industry thows at them - surely it doesn't take much imagination to see that they are (a) cumulative and (b) interactive in their effects?

You may be able to say that chemical A interacts with chemical B in such a way, but as soon as you throw C and D into the equation and then mix in all the organic chemistry that goes on in the soil and in plants and animals, don't tell me there is a scientist on earth who can tell me exactly what the results will be.

These guys have been messing with nature for too long and its time we took a stand against them.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Sure, I agree, we don't have any idea what some of the long term effects will be, and we certainly don't have any idea of what the possible interactions among chemicals might be.

"Taking a stand against them," as I understood it, wasn't the topic of this thread.

Now, having said all that -- why single out imidacloprid?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*Imidacloprid killing bees*

1. Because it is deadly to insects, including bees, in very small amounts.
2. Because at a dose as low as 5 parts per billion, bees fail to return to their hives - a particular symptom of CCD.
3. Because it has had time to accumulate in amounts likely to cause these symptoms.
4. Because it is widespread throughout the USA.
5. Because once it was banned in France, the occurrence of the syndrome similar to CCD there has fallen off.
6. Because Bayer have always cared more about profits than public health.
7 Because I hate the idea of this stuff being put into the ground anywhere near anything I eat, other people eat or bees eat.
Will that do?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>"Taking a stand against them," as I understood it, wasn't the topic of this thread.


But Kieck, thats what Buckbee likes to talk about, in fact thats all he talks about. 
I'm just waiting for Buckbee to present us with another bogus study against the Ag community, mainly to get things spinning I guess,


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Buckbee:

1) So are many, many other chemicals -- including many chemicals that are not used as insecticides, but are simply "industrial pollutants."

2) That 5 ppb statement -- if you read all the information -- was a one-time finding. Even the authors who initially reported the 5 ppb also stated that it was likely an outlier. Be careful throwing around outlying data as generalities. (That's not saying that imidacloprid isn't dangerous at low concentrations, just that the number that's being cited is likely lower than the typical minimum concentration to cause problems.)

3) But it's had time to accumulate for many, many years. The "problems" in France were reported shortly after it was introduced. Why would American bees be different than French bees? Why would it accumulate in France more rapidly than in America?

4) (See "1.") Many, many insecticides, herbicides and pollutants are widespread.

5) Could be a nonsense correlation. Also, please reread "3." Why would the problem in France show up after just a short exposure, but only show up in America after a much longer exposure?

6) This, I suspect, is your real "beef." Why Bayer? Why not Dow? Why not Monsanto (although, I seem to recall, you railed against Monsanto a while back). Again, I think you'll find this with every big corporation, as well as most "little guys." Are you as outspoken about all big corporations, or just agricultural-related businesses?

7) I'm not so fond of it, either, but I may not like the alternatives much better. And I worry just as much about the pollution that is generated by driving cars, by heating and cooling large homes, by manufacturing items we all feel are "necessary" for modern living.

So, what do you propose doing, Buckbee? Do we take imidacloprid off the market? How about all the other insecticides? What about natural insecticides? After all, imidacloprid is an analog of nicotine; do we stop growing all tobacco because tobacco produces nicotine?

I hear you, Ian. Seems to me if the cause of CCD was as simple as imidacloprid poisoning, the fellows trying to come up with a cause would have pinpointed it a while ago. Others have brought up examples of losses similar to CCD long before imidacloprid was ever created, too, so it seems very unlikely to me that CCD is just a simple pesticide poisoning.

Does anyone know if the research teams have tested thepollen and/or honey from hives lost to CCD for imidacloprid (or any other pesticide) residues? If the oollen or honey is so contaminated that it is not robbed by other bees (as has been reported), pesticide residues should show up pretty easily.


----------



## kensfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

buckbee said:


> So many different kinds of chemical cr*p are spread around by farmers, desperate to show a profit and clutching at and straw the agri-chem industry thows at them - surely it doesn't take much imagination to see that they are (a) cumulative and (b) interactive in their effects?.


How many tons of fertilizer, pesticides, weed killer, etc.. does the HOMEOWNER buy & apply to their lawns compared to what the farmers use?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Because once it was banned in France, the occurrence of 
> the syndrome similar to CCD there has fallen off.

Buckbee, I've never heard that the French had the same
symptoms that have been associated with "CCD".

Can you provide any references, in French or English that
would help to nail down the specific symptoms that you
describe as "similar", and document that these symptoms
were seen in France? From what I _thought _I understood, 
there were very different symptoms seen in France.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Google search for "France imidacloprid bees" comes up with pages of references.

a couple....

""Many farmers were puzzled that the bees were not making it home to their hives""

BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3523453.stm
French beekeepers say about 90 billion of their insects have been killed over the last 10 years by a pesticide.
The chemical, used on crops including maize and sunflowers, damages the bees' sense of direction so they become lost. .... 

Technically I guess we don't know if the CCD bees have lost their memories, I am wondering how they knew that in France either, but their having left the hives and not returned is similar.

Sheri


----------



## Albert (Nov 12, 2006)

Hey fellows,

I don't want to create a climate of antagonist rejoinders to each others posts. My point was off topic sort of and bordered on a rant. But none-the-less, there are ranchers, dairymen, farmers, beekeepers, mechanics, homeowners, golf course agronomists, and sundry other groups that misapply chemical compunds to further their own agenda whatever that might be.

I know for a fact that organicly grown corn tastes a whole lot better than corn bought at Walmart. I know for a fact that my honey tastes better than the stuff that comes amalgamated and combined from who knows where, in a jar. I know, again for a fact, that eggs from my free range chickens will leave you about speechless the first time. (Especially if you can get a handmade sage sausage to go with it...) I can go on forever. When I said farmers market I should have cavaeted it by specifying an organic farmers market, or selecting the organic growers in the market. Or better yet, grow some yourself.

What I think we all probably agree on is that there is an overuse of synthesised products everywhere, and that we all would like to see that diminished. 

This year I put in a very large garden (for me anyway), and next year I'm doubleing it. I've planted cattails in the creek to try to draw some of the fertilizer pollution out of the water, that is put there by my tomatoe growing neighbor. (2000-3000 acre operation. Crappy tomatoes BTW.)Next on my agenda is bat boxes and owl nest boxes. I am going to try my hardest to leave this world with more than I took out of it.

Ok got WAY off topic, but you all started it! But truly, I'm not starting in with or disparaging anyone's remarks.

Regards,
Albert


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Technically I guess we don't know if the CCD bees have lost their 
> memories, I am wondering how they knew that in France either, 
> but their having left the hives and not returned is similar.

Well here is what was said at the time about the situation in France
(cribbed from the ApiServices website, based in France, and numbered
by me for easy reference):

"Symptoms (of Imadocloprid) are..."

*1) "...trembling, rotation on place, curving of the abdomen and a 
non-stop rubbing of legs together..."*

Not reported as a symptom of CCD

*2) "...Finally bees do not come back at the hive resulting in 
depopulation of adult bees and a desequilibrium in the 
ratio [of] brood/adults..."

*This is close enough to call a "match" with CCD symptoms

*3) "...cares to the brood are neglected and it cools off..."*

This may or may not be a symptom of CCD, but it makes sense
that without enough bees, brood would be lost due to chilling.

*4) "...and the colony dies after a few MONTHS after the 
beginning of intoxication."

*Nope, not a match at all, as if it took months for a colony to die,
beekeepers would have had time to notice and reoort the trembling
and so on mentioned in point (1). Further, it is known that CCD seems
to depopulate colonies that "looked fine" only a short time ago, so
we know that it is not taking months, we are talking weeks at most.

And here's another problem with trying to blame Imidacloprid - they
banned the use of the stuff in France, and the problems continued,
even with crops that had never seen Imidacloprid treatments, in
areas well away from any areas that had been treated with 
Imidacloprid in the past.

To underline the point, if we were going to see Imidacloprid problems
cause the symptoms at hand, we would have seen the problem follow
the specific crops where the pesticide is used, and we would have 
seen it show up in Prince Edward Island (Canada) where there was
an extensive set up research and data gathering done some years
ago in response to a claimed die-off of bees. They were not able to
link the die-offs to any pesticides, including Imidacloprid.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I would be interested to see if there are any common forage plants associated with CCD, if they were wild vs. cultivated, grains vs fruits, different from CCD vs the same etc. In particular, sunflowers are a big crop everywhere and I wonder if the climate, management, treatment performed of some common crops have changed. IF CCD is infectious, then sending so many of the remaining colonies to CA for pollination should facilitate CCD spread all over the nation in spite of declining hive numbers.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

BTW, at least with fleas, Advantage causes flea paralysis or death (probably both) within an hour of applying a single as labelled dose to a 2-3 cm area on the dorsum of a large dog (25 kg). I have been amazed to observe this repeatedly given that the label states that the drug is absorbed into the skin and slowly released over a period of weeks. Are fleas different from bees, yes, but both have similar neuromuscular junctions and central nervous systems. I wouldn't yet rule out any potential cause.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> 1) So are many, many other chemicals -- including many chemicals that are not used as insecticides, but are simply "industrial pollutants."
> 
> etc.....


I really don't have time for a detailed reply to yours, but ... there are very few substances in common agri use that cause such damage in such low concentrations...

Also - yes, it is no secret that I deeply distrust trans-national corporations, particularly Bayer and Monsanto, on the grounds that they consistently put profit before public safety and have been caught lying on more than one occasion.



Kieck said:


> So, what do you propose doing, Buckbee? Do we take imidacloprid off the market? How about all the other insecticides? What about natural insecticides? After all, imidacloprid is an analog of nicotine; do we stop growing all tobacco because tobacco produces nicotine?


Yes; Yes; irrelevant: they are nothing like as damaging and bio-degrade v. quickly, as you well know; there are other reasons to stop growing tobacco - peddled by TNCs to developing countries and proven carcinogen.

Now how about stop wasting time as an apologist for those who are destroying the planet and do something useful, like stopping them?


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

If only more people thought like you (and me, there are others here, too), Buckbee, these companies would not be able to run amok the way they do. Education is key, but you have to listen to the right sources.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>Does anyone know if the research teams have tested the pollen and/or honey from hives lost to CCD for imidacloprid (or any other pesticide) residues? If the pollen or honey is so contaminated that it is not robbed by other bees (as has been reported), pesticide residues should show up pretty easily.<<<<

This is the first thing they looked at and they are pretty good guys. Jerry Bromenshenk had his sniffer wand in hives that were OK, Dying and dead...looking for a chemical that dissipated over time. The bees will go back and rob, but after a little while. Ditto, SHBs. Jerry has a DOD contract to develop this equipment, so the DOD paid for some of this research. These samples were read by some of the most sophisticated gas chromatography on the planet.

If all the bees die it would be sad but we'd survive. If all the pesticides disappeared there would be world wide starvation. Perhaps, for balance, Kieck will post something on the breakdown of Imidacloprid. It doesn't just keep building up. I don't like the above situation but we are so dependent
on them there is no going back. 

Sugar beets just came off a tariff protected list. The growers petitioned for permission to use "Roundup" to enable them to compete on the world market. I suspect they will get it. It's a place where politics, business and market forces come together.

On The ban on Gaucho in France: The ban was upheld after review in Apr. 06.
I can't decide if they are smarter or less smart than we.

dickm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

dickm said:


> If all the bees die it would be sad but we'd survive. If all the pesticides disappeared there would be world wide starvation. Perhaps, for balance, Kieck will post something on the breakdown of Imidacloprid. It doesn't just keep building up. I don't like the above situation but we are so dependent


Nonsense. Ever heard of organic farming? That is, the way everything was farmed until corporations discovered they could get rich by scaring people into buying pesticides? Sure, in some places and for some crops we are dependant on them - but that is down to poor soil health as a result of a century of abuse with chemicals and massive monoculture of crops such as wheat and rice.

The people who would starve are the ones who only eat from MacDonalds. I don't think we'll miss them.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I really don't have time for a detailed reply to yours, but ... there are very few substances in common agri use that cause such damage in such low concentrations... -buckbee


As far as acute toxicity, there are many, many agriculture chemicals commonly used that are far more toxic in low concentrations.

The World Health Organization categorizes acute toxicity of chemicals. Imidacloprid is classified as "Class II," moderately hazardous. Their most acutely toxic group is "Class Ia," extremely hazardous.

Parathion -- which is a very widely used insecticide -- just to name one example, is a Class Ia chemical.



> Also - yes, it is no secret that I deeply distrust trans-national corporations, particularly Bayer and Monsanto, on the grounds that they consistently put profit before public safety and have been caught lying on more than one occasion. -buckbee


Distrust is one thing, and understandable. Unless you have some solid evidence that imidacloprid is specifically to blame for CCD in the U.S. -- and Bayer's formulation of imidacloprid even more specifically -- I would hesitate to point fingers.

If Jerry Bromenshenk has already been checking for chemicals, then I would say it's very unlikely that imidacloprid (or any other chemical) is the cause of CCD. Not too suprising -- those guys know what they're doing, and pesticide poisoning of any sort should be easy to find.



> Perhaps, for balance, Kieck will post something on the breakdown of Imidacloprid. It doesn't just keep building up. -dickm


The longest half-life that I've seen reported for imidacloprid is roughly 1000 days. Not exceptionally long, but longer than some other chemicals. That's under ideal lab conditions, though.

In water exposed to light, the half-life (time until half of the chemical has decomposed) is less than three hours. Under field conditions -- even percolating into ground water -- the longest half-life recorded for imidacloprid is less than 250 days.

So it seems to break down fairly rapidly.

Specifically, in reference to the colonies collapsing from CCD, imidacloprid breaks down rapidly, but not so rapidly that it would kill a colony and then be indetectible when the researchers were testing for it.



> I don't like the above situation but we are so dependent
> on them there is no going back. -dickm


I agree. I think we should make every effort to reduce our dependence on these chemicals, but I doubt we would be able to simply eliminate them.



> Nonsense. Ever heard of organic farming? That is, the way everything was farmed until corporations discovered they could get rich by scaring people into buying pesticides? -buckbee


Did the corporations scare farmers into buying pesticides, or did farmers discover they could make more money be using the pesticides?



> The people who would starve are the ones who only eat from MacDonalds. I don't think we'll miss them. -buckbee


WOW! Harsh! Have you ever visited agricultural areas in North America, particularly, buckbee? Have you tried understanding how farming works in these areas?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Unfortunately I have to agree with Kieck on this one...there was no good old days of agriculture and the first people to starve will be the poorest, because they can't afford to buy food the way you and I do. On the positive side, agriculture and economics can be improved greatly. My hope is for more local food production, using less land, less water and fewer insecticides...and I know people who are doing it, and even earning a modest living. The real test will be to see if these people can reproduce these farms around they world, in all economies.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

*Are irregation ponds a common factor in CCD?*

Hey dickm,
You seem to be close to the ongoing investigations regarding CCD. Do you happen to know the answer to this question? I'm suspicous of these ponds because they collect the runoff from surrounding fields and tend to become a stew of fertilizer/pest control chemicals and the bees drink the water. I know there's supposed to be a buffer area around ponds, but I also know fields are plowed right up to the pond bank. I still have 15 pollination colonies located next to one such pond and have lost 2 colonies to what I think is CCD. In any case, I plan to relocate these colonies asap, hopefully close to clean, flowing water.


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

Aspera said:


> Unfortunately I have to agree with Kieck on this one...there was no good old days of agriculture and the first people to starve will be the poorest, because they can't afford to buy food the way you and I do. On the positive side, agriculture and economics can be improved greatly. My hope is for more local food production, using less land, less water and fewer insecticides...and I know people who are doing it, and even earning a modest living. The real test will be to see if these people can reproduce these farms around they world, in all economies.


The problem will be increased cost in food. Sure they are turning a profit now they are also selling to a niche market. Please don't take this as a flame I agree we need a return to a simpler (harder?) life but it is basically the cities that make the demand and the rural areas (ours or another country)
that do what it takes to meet it. Money talks and ....


----------



## Albert (Nov 12, 2006)

Folks,

I think everyone has made very good points here. I suppose that the onus is on each of us to decide what type of life we will lead and what our epitaph will read like.

I guess many of us have the luxury of buying organic, raising our own food, and still be able to pay the mortgage, cable bill, sit in a hot tub after lfiting a rake, etc. (Guilty of most of the above! lol) So it is easier to pontificate with a full belly and a glass of Port or Cape. (Also VERY guilty!)

Just some thoughts...
Regards,
Albert


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Prince Edward Island (Canada) where there was
an extensive set up research and data gathering done some years
ago in response to a claimed die-off of bees. They were not able to
link the die-offs to any pesticides, including Imidacloprid.


Not that this is really relevant to this continuing conversation, but this is applied to the potatoes in and around the potato land here. Manitoba being the biggest potato producer in Canada. I dont have yards close, but know of beekeepers who do.
There was a time a few years back when all the talk was this Imidacloprid was killing off the hives here. But with all the searching, and investigating we couldnt find even a trace of evidence of it affecting the hives at the very least. 
Many beekeepers swore up and down that Imidacloprid was the culprit, and moved thier hives out. Others move into thier spots, and are still beekeeping there today without complaint.
All the long while, other beekeepers beside the same fields, exposed to the same conditions were not affected.

Nobody talks about Imidacloprid poisoning anymore.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I think that perhaps the problems in France can be "explained" as a
connection to the use of the pesticide with Sunflowers. he

I won't claim that the French beekeepers were imagining all this,
but I do think that the reaction in Canada was based more upon
the claims made in France than on any specific match between
the symptoms seen in France (as I listed in a prior post in this 
thread) and the symptoms they were seeing.

I agree that if the problem with this pesticide was "real" when it
is used on potatoes, we would have seen widespread impact in 
Canada, but the ground application of the chemical is very different
from the seed treatment as was used with Sunflowers.

I am not aware of any large Sunflower growers anywhere in Canada
or the USA, so I don't know how one might verify/refute this.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>France can be "explained" as a
connection to the use of the pesticide with Sunflowers

Yes, thats correct. The beekeepers were linking the colony losses of the France hives due to Imidacloprid to the problem of colony losses that were currently occuring to Imidacloprid aplied to the potatos. Guilty by association.

Bees dont get honey from potatoes, but they will gather pollen. But, not usually, for there is a termendious abundance of nectar and pollen availiable at the same time, limiting the bees vuisits to a potatoe flower very small. They were thinking that the pollen comiing in was killing them inside out. 


>> am not aware of any large Sunflower growers anywhere in Canada
or the USA, so I don't know how one might verify/refute this.


Not being used in Canada to the extent of my knolegde. I would know if it was available.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

You guys really should learn to use Google. Here is what the French Beekeepers really said (it's long, but do read it anyway):

-snip-

Since 1997, more than half of the sunflower seed has been treated with "GAUCHO", (BAYER), formulated with the active neurotoxic material Imidacloprid - and as its introduction onto sunflower coincided with the debut of apicultural problems, the treatment with "GAUCHO" had to be considered as the probable cause of beehive depopulation.

THE GAUCHO DOSSIER.

From its introduction, "Imidacloprid" the active substance was announced as the first systemic soil insecticide applied as a seed treatment ("GAUCHO"). Neuro toxic, it works by contact as well as ingestion, on the nervous system by maintaining neural activity, inducing a tetanic condition resulting in the death of the insect. It presents a wide spectrum of effectiveness: soil pests as well as piercing/sucking insects are affected.

Even just coating a seed, due to its persistence it will be present throughout the whole of the plants growing cycle, and due to its remarkable systemic properties, it will be transported by the sap circulation to all parts of the plant. It is very toxic for the bee, but the formulation "GAUCHO" was not supposed to contaminate pollen and nectar, which are susceptibly harvested by bees during the flowering of the crop. "GAUCHO" is authorized as a seed treatment for Beet, Maize, all straw cereals and sunflowers.

Imidacloprid is found in other formulations in France: "CONFIDOR" (spray treatments for fruit trees), "POLYAXE" (Horticulture), "ADVANTAGE" (treatment against fleas on dogs and cats).

The principal stages and diverse studies characterizing the research on the possible effects on bees following applications of "GAUCHO" to sunflower seed are as follows:

* Autumn 1994, the beekeepers of the central areas of France, faced with problems following the recent sunflower nectar flow questioned BAYER on the subject of "GAUCHO", introduced the same year on sunflowers. Field and tunnel trials are put in place by BAYER: notably in 1995 and in 1997 in the area of central France and in 1996 in Germany. BAYER concluded the strict innocuousness for bees of GAUCHO on sunflowers.

* From 1995 and as "GAUCHO"/sunflower took hold in other areas of France, their beekeepers asked about the causes following the phenomenon of depopulation on sunflower honey flows. The symptomatic features led to thoughts of a sub-lethal intoxication via a neuro toxin. According to beekeepers, BAYER was unable to furnish guarantees allowing for the exoneration of its product. (meeting of ACTA, 24th Oct. 1997)

* The " Commission des Toxiques" asked its experts Mr's Belzunces and Tasei to make an appraisal using the known and available facts (studies from BAYER, beekeeper witnesses, and articles). Following the presentation of the report (11th Dec. 1997), the Commission noticed the urgent need to study the different hypothesis's.

* An extensive program of studies, taking in a number of research groups, and at a cost of 6.000 kF. was realized during the year of 1998. The resulting rapport concluded with "an apparent contradiction": the laboratory trials after analytical results on residues indicated a danger for bees from Imidacloprid at concentrations levels of a few parts per billion (ppb.) possibly encountered by bees in natural conditions. This uncovered risk was not corroborated by observations in the field (this sentence really should not have been written - as contested by beekeepers, there was nothing done!)

* The, 16th Dec. 1998, the Commission des Toxiques didn't want to get involved and proposed to renew trials in 1999. Instead the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Glavany, on the 22nd Jan. 1999 stated that the use of "GAUCHO" on sunflowers was to be suspended for the whole of the French Territory, whilst studies to be carried out in years 1999 and 2000 produced results. This was the first time that the "Principal of Precaution" had been applied to an environmental problem.

* Notably BAYER before the State Council attacked this ministerial decision. The three Apicultural Unions intervened in the procedure, on the side of the Minister of Agriculture: on the 29th Dec. 1999, the inquest on the cancellation of the decision was rejected! 

On the 13th of August 1999, the Dutch Government decided to withdraw all authorizations for the use of Imidacloprid in open-air conditions from 1st Jan. 2000. The reasons invoked were: the too long persistence in soils of the molecule with regard to European Standards, a intolerable toxicity vis a vis birds (A beet treated seed ingested by a bird the size of a sparrow was lethal), toxicity vis a vis bees did not conform to Uniform Principles. BAYER blocked the process notably by submerging the Dutch administration with "new scientific data". A decision is to be taken 1st Nov. 2000.

It seems that France is the only country in the world to authorize the use of GAUCHO on sunflowers: it was also troubling to see that French beekeepers were originally alone in announcing grave problems on "colony melt down" in areas of arable agriculture. 

Recently, beekeepers in Spain, Italy, some states in the U.S.A. are encountering problems that cannot be explained other than by sub-lethal intoxication caused by Imidacloprid, very notably from maize treated with "GAUCHO": bees harvest the pollen from maize plants.



See http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/gaucho_france.htm for the full story.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*Part 2*

4. THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE RELATING TO GAUCHO - BEES AT THE DATE OF 15th Oct 2000.

It is true that certain study reports ordered in January 1999, by the Minister J. Glavany have still not seen the light of day (Rapport N° 4 from CNRS / Orleans - Dr Bonmatin: residues in pollen, nectars and honeys), and that others are reserved for a selected public (the rapport's of BAYER and of CETIOM). It is still possible to propose a synthesis.

The resulting analyses on residues undertaken by CNRS/Orleans confirm the strong hypotheses of 1998 or reveal the following:

*
Sunflowers and maize treated with "GAUCHO" contain Imidacloprid in all parts of the plant. It is to be noted that there is even an increase in quantity at the moment of flowering (Increased metabolic action in the plant). Several metabolites are present, with toxic properties comparable to the original molecule.
*

Imidacloprid resides in the soil at significant levels, two years at least after a crop treated with "GAUCHO" The transfer of this residual Imidacloprid in the soil towards a non-treated plant is particularly effective in the case of sunflowers and maize, hence, foraged by bees.
*

The bioavailability of the Imidacloprid is notably illustrated by its presence in pollen and nectar, at a level of some ppb. (Confirmation by CNRS to be completed). The organization CETIOM by press release announced that nectar from sunflowers treated with "GAUCHO" may contain 0.4 to 5 ppb. of Imidacloprid.
*

Note that fruit trees having been treated with CONFIDOR at authorized levels frequently produced fruits containing 100ppb of Imidacloprid after respecting the delay period before harvesting (the maximum residue limit for fruits is fixed at 300ppb.) 

The biological effects on bees are reported as follows:

* Dr. Marc Colin (INRA) studied the effects on the frequentation, characterized by several criteria, by bees at sources of food (contaminated and non-contaminated), under semi-controlled conditions. For Imidacloprid, the effects are always present at 6 ppb. At 3 ppb., the effects are present under certain conditions. The toxicity of the Olefin metabolite is clear at 1.5ppb.: they are still present at 0.75ppb., but less regular.

* Dr. M.H. Pham- Delègue (INRA) reported in October 2000 that the prolonged ingestion of syrups contaminated with Imidacloprid induces a significant reduction in olfactory learning performances at levels equal or above 12 ppb.

* Dr. Belzunces (INRA) notably reported that the prolonged ingestion by the bee at 4.5pg (picogram)/ 24 hr., of either Imidacloprid or its metabolites caused the appearance of significant mortalities three or four days after the start of treatment (for comparison, and with regard to the weight of the individual, this is equivalent to a daily diet for a human of only four millionths of a gram!). He insists on toxicity of the Imidacloprid metabolites, bio-available or resulting from the rapid metabolism of Imidacloprid within the bee. 

5. QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THIS ACCOUNT.

Wouldn't it be a grave error of judgment not to correlate the sub-lethal toxic effects of Imidacloprid, which start at a level of some ppb. in laboratory conditions with those of hive depopulation in the field, knowing that it is biologically available at levels of several ppb.?

One may read today: " that "GAUCHO" risks to come into play at a level of a few ppb.". Remarking that in the risk evaluation of a pesticide in relation to human health, there is a security factor resulting from strict tests of 100 put in place for tolerated exposure levels; (undertaken upon animals such as rats, mice, dogs, cats and rabbits). It seems normal that Man should benefits from these safeguards, since apparently in the domain of toxic risk assessment science is not exact. Believing Albert Einstein, Man survives thanks to the bee, "No bees, no pollination, no plants, no animals, no Man". Would it not be better to apply in all cases the results of toxicological studies undertaken in laboratories to bees, with a coefficient of security greater than 1, to fix tolerable limits in bio-availability?

Does "GAUCHO", also used as a preventative treatment against aphid attack not pose a problem as aphids cause harm only one year in six. When the former situation arises only one year in six. Is this compatible with the concept of "reasoned agriculture"?

The bee is considered as a true indicator of the environment's state of the health. As it is not a question anymore that the available Imidacloprid in the natural environment is a danger for bees does it not suggest that other useful insects are being aggressed?

If with the domesticated bee, other auxiliary insects are being attacked, does it not inevitably lead to a lack in pollination plus an absence of predator insects preying on pests? The too long persistence in soils of Imidacloprid, added to its frequent and multiple use result in a fear that there will be an accumulation of it and its metabolites in soil?

The extreme toxicity of Imidacloprid for earthworms has been shown, notably by A.C.T.A.: according to BAYER, the worm population recovers after six to nine months. In these conditions, do we not need to worry for the survival of earthworms, indispensable agents for the working of soils and development of the microbial mass?

- snip -

Beekeepers have observed that where sunflowers are treated with "REGENT", bees become ill once the sunflowers start to flower and produce nectar 

The report from studies undertaken by Dr.M.E. Colin (INRA-Avignon), show that the bees have a foraging behavior less efficient and less conform when compared too the one seen on organically grown sunflowers. "FIPRONIL" concerning its chronic toxicity for bees, is as least as toxic as "GAUCHO". "FIPRONIL" is present in the plant and is very persistent in soil.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Buckbee:

Do you have any experience with treated seeds, or insecticides, or growing sunflowers or corn?

First, have you ever considered the amount of imidacloprid (or other seed treatments) on seeds? Compare that to the amounts of insecticides in foliar treatments. Now, go back to that seed treatment. That chemical is in the soil, and gets taken up by the plant. The plant grows for months, then flowers. You really believe the chemical is present in enough concentration months afterward in a different place (the plant has grown, remember?) to harm insects? Why doesn't it harm insects that are feeding directly on the plants, then? Seed treatments protect seeds and seedlings. Later protection is typically provided by later applications of insecticides.

Having worked in sunflower fields, the amounts of chemicals that are sprayed when the plants are flowering are staggering. Moths and weevils, in particular, attack the developing seeds, and sunflower growers spray to control those pests. Insects present in the fields at the time of spraying or shortly after are affected by those applications. (That's one consideration that has prevented me from placing bees near sunflowers -- the risk of pesticide poisoning is pretty great, given the number and timing of insecticide applications.)

So, why then would that tiny residual amount of insecticide used as a seed treatment be more likely to cause problems than the direct applications of insecticides to the flower heads when the bees are most likely to be visiting the flowers?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

DB_Land,
Water was one of the first things looked at. With CCD in 25 states it's hard to imagine that they would all have the same toxic water supply. I don't doubt that they are finding stuff but it needs to be consistent to mean something. See Kiecks post on breakdown in water. I shudder a little when I see some of the places where bees drink.

Buckbee: Thank you for the long history. I'm going to call on you for research until I learn how to use the Internet <;o). But seriously. I thought as you do until about 10 years ago when I started cruising the country in my RV. Do you still call them "Caravans?" As a basis for learning I have a HS Degree in agriculture. (I saw the advent of 2-4D, the origional defoliant). Once in awhile I write something to convey the immensity of agriculture. I once talked to a farmer in 1996, who was about to go broke, because he was too small. He was only farming a square MILE of corn. 

The midwest has many, many miles of corn harvested by $230,000 machines that take a 32 ft. swath. There are about 20 pests and 12 pesticides to contend with and it's GM corn to begin with. (Puts out its own BT).

To think that you could even think of the word "organic" as a replacement for what exists displays a naivete and an innocence I wish you could keep. To sit in a truck in a Florida orchard and look down a row of trees that you know goes for miles, is an experience. To see immense fields of sunflowers, all with their little heads turned to the east, as far as one can see...is an experience. You never think the same way again. Try:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/opinion/14niman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

for a glimpse into our agriculture. Read the 10 million pounds of antibiotics used and weep. It's the same in every sphere.

Sadly, it's the same in beekeeping. The wonder may be that they live as long as they do. They may be the "canaries in the mine" that tell us we've crossed some sort of line with the background of pollution that been created. Sorry buddy. It's far too late to go back. Have a good day.

dickm


----------



## magnet-man (Jul 10, 2004)

Been away from the board for a while and just scanned this thread and haven't seen this hypothesis yet mentioned anywhere. I saw an article that mentioned that CCD started showing up around two years ago but was only recently recognized. I wonder if the package bees from Austria brought something with them? The timing is about right but that doesn’t prove anything. Has anybody else thought of this?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Well, no one here discussed it at length BEFORE importing the packages, but many of the CCD investigators are very suspicious of viruses. Everyone lieks to gripe about USDA inspections, but periodically an exotic disease reminds us that it only takes a few selfish individuals to destroy entire agricultural economies or native ecosystems. 
I think that the imported bees are being discussed now, and this is the primary reason that PSU is so heavily involved: Dr. Cox-Foster is one of a handful of researchers expert in the narrow field of insect virology. Had CCD actually occurred in Hawaii, then vector born viruses could have been ruled out and the focus directed more towards transovarial and direct disease transmission models. Currently it is too soon to even say with certainty that CCD an infectious disease. To definitely diagnose it as such would necessitate growing the virus in cultured cells and then giving it back to healthy colonies. This is difficult, especially if the 'disease' must first pass through an intermediate host such as varroa.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Jim Fisher,

If you read the directions on the label for treating for termites....sounds a little like ccd. Also as you probably know if (more likely when) it is determined the nico....... pesticides are the cause of ccd there will be numerous class action lawsuites(me included) researchers not only have to prove that nico.....was the cause...but ELIMINATE the other causes! This takes time! Why did Bayer approach Penn St and try to get them to back off? It is well known chemical companies and for that matter most big companies care for but one think...$$$$$. What I dont understand is why you are so convinced that is is NOT imidacloprid and related nico...insectidides? why do you so aggressively defend them as not the cause?????


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim Fisher,
>
> If you read the directions on the label for treating for termites....sounds 
> a little like ccd.... What I dont understand is why you are so convinced 
> that is is NOT imidacloprid and related nico...insectidides? why do you 
> so aggressively defend them as not the cause????

I "defend" nothing, I simply pointed out that the overt symptoms are
VERY different between Imidacloprid and "CCD". I know of much
better matches. 

Here's a little hint. Go back in history to 1976 and the 1960s, and you 
will find very very similar symptoms to what we are now calling "CCD". 
But lets just keep this between us for the moment, as I need confirm
a few points before I can stick my neck out on this. ("Us" being me
and "you". All 4594 of you BeeSource members, or at least the 1,266
who have viewed this thread so far.)

Just as I "defend" nothing, I also want to avoid blaming anything or
anyone without much much better evidence, but there a *much* better
matches with the symptoms of CCD, and they pre-date the development
of Imidacloprid. For example, here's a published list of symptoms from 2002, 
almost an exact match with the symptoms being seen at present, and being
called "CCD":

*Characteristics: *
*1.* Adult bee loss with no accumulation at hive entrance

*2.* Adult bee loss after a cool damp spring-losses also
reported in the summer and Autumn.

*3.* Queens are the last hive individuals to be affected

*4.* Pollen and honey stores are strangely normal

*5.* A disproportionate brood/adult bee ratio

*6.* Spotty outbreaks

Back in 2002, it was called "Disappearing Disease".
In 1976 it was called "Disappearing Disease".
In the 1960s, it was ALSO called "Disappearing Disease".

Do I have enough data for a speculative article in _Bee Culture_?
Almost, but not quite.
Do I have the brass balls to publish an armchair diagnosis before
the folks looking at the problem first hand make any conclusions?
I'm not sure I am that brash.

But the symptoms of CCD are very unique and distinctive, and we *
have* seen them before, *more than once*.

And could I be completely wrong on this?
Of course I could.
If I had all my data in a neat row, I would publish it.
I can't do that yet.
I may be wrong.
Such is the risk of thinking rather than waiting to be spoon-fed
"solutions" by others.

More news as it happens...


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Buckbee:
> 
> Do you have any experience with treated seeds, or insecticides, or growing sunflowers or corn?
> 
> ...


Whay ask me to provide evidence or expert opinion on a matter in which I have no expertise - when the answers to your question are in the paper above, which you clearly have not bothered to read.

Here is why the Dutch Government acted:

>>On the 13th of August 1999, the Dutch Government decided to withdraw all authorizations for the use of Imidacloprid in open-air conditions from 1st Jan. 2000. The reasons invoked were: the too long persistence in soils of the molecule with regard to European Standards, a intolerable toxicity vis a vis birds (A beet treated seed ingested by a bird the size of a sparrow was lethal), toxicity vis a vis bees did not conform to Uniform Principles. BAYER blocked the process notably by submerging the Dutch administration with "new scientific data". A decision is to be taken 1st Nov. 2000.<<

And the rest of your questions are answerd by:

>>The resulting analyses on residues undertaken by CNRS/Orleans confirm the strong hypotheses of 1998 or reveal the following:

*
Sunflowers and maize treated with "GAUCHO" contain Imidacloprid in all parts of the plant. It is to be noted that there is even an increase in quantity at the moment of flowering (Increased metabolic action in the plant). Several metabolites are present, with toxic properties comparable to the original molecule.
*

Imidacloprid resides in the soil at significant levels, two years at least after a crop treated with "GAUCHO" The transfer of this residual Imidacloprid in the soil towards a non-treated plant is particularly effective in the case of sunflowers and maize, hence, foraged by bees.
*

The bioavailability of the Imidacloprid is notably illustrated by its presence in pollen and nectar, at a level of some ppb. (Confirmation by CNRS to be completed). The organization CETIOM by press release announced that nectar from sunflowers treated with "GAUCHO" may contain 0.4 to 5 ppb. of Imidacloprid.

etc


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

.>>>>What I dont understand is why you are so convinced that is is NOT imidacloprid and related nico...insectidides?<<<<<

How about: Because holding yards far from any place where it (any pesticide)was used went down to a man. A major 'keeper made up 400 solid 4 frame nucs in Oct. in Penn. He moved them to FL shortly thereafter to an orange grove. No pesticides in either location. 30 days later every nuc was dead. 
the weather in FL was fine at that time. Give the investigators some credit. They know about pesticides and it was the first thing they thought about. The guys that run thousands of hives stay on the case too. They know what get sprayed and when. Both the growers and the inspectors help. No-one wants to see bees die. Jim is scientific man! (Remember "The King and I?"). If it were in the pollen that was stored, it would kill the brood and leave the oldest bees alone--th opposite of reality.

Now that is out of the way, the possibility remains that it is simply everything at once. 

dickm


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Dick m

Ok here we go!!! Yes the beekeeper made 400 nucs...not in Oct but earlier....he did move them to FLorida in early OCt. But not into a orange grove.....nothing there to work in fall! They were moved into pepper locations in Fl. When he first discovered dead bees he had lost 380 out of 400. The dead outs were moved to his home yard and shortly he had 1 left. THe bees were moved from the pepper locations to willow locations in early Jan then to orange tWO weeks ago. Now it just happens that my bees were 1/2 mile from his!!!!!! On orange some of my bees are across the road from his! Also some of his colonies collapsed and died last month after some frost in south Fl. We(he) thinks they got into some stored pollen as the pollen flow stopped there for a period of time. It is believed that the pollen came from Maize(corn) gathered BEFORE the trip to Fl. Now in Jan I wa present when the researchers cut comb from frames and wraped it for the trip to Penn for testing. I park my euipment at the beekeepers home you were referring to and talk to home 2-3 times a week.....have been to his home numerous times since Jan....was on phone with him this morning! HIs belief.....imadcloprid!!!!!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> They were moved into pepper locations in Fl. 

And with what, if anything, were the peppers treated?

> When he first discovered dead bees he had lost 380 out of 400. 

And what symptoms were observed? Please recall that the classic
imidcloprid "flag" symptom is bees that get "the shakes" before
dying.

> It is believed that the pollen came from Maize(corn) gathered BEFORE 
> the trip to Fl. 

But who thinks this? The beekeeper? The CCD investigation team?
Random visitors to Weeki Wachee Springs?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>Because holding yards far from any place where it (any pesticide)was used went down to a man<<<
I keep hearing this, Jim. Do you know if the investigators surveyed every site within foraging distance of every location the bees were in for the past few months prior to absconding/disappearing? Did they sample all possible sources of pollen and nector, including peoples backyard gardens in these areas? Or are they assuming/have they determined that all colonies were in the middle of a monocrop environment with no additional sources of pollen or nutrients?
Maybe someone could clarify on the Florida peppers. These weren't edible peppers, right, but the invasive shrub brazilian pepper? If so, I don't think this is a monocrop and hardly think it would have the benefits of pesticide protection,  . 

>>>Please recall that the classic imidcloprid "flag" symptom is bees that get "the shakes" before dying.<<<
I am curious if anyone has handy the research Bayer did as to _non-lethal_ dosages and their possible cumulative effect, if any? Any research at all out there on that? I seem to remember reading that these chemicals caused nuerological problems in insects reflected by memory loss and confusion. Or is this some other pesticide I am thinking about? Hard to keep them straight.....
Sheri


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I am curious if anyone has handy the research Bayer did as to 
> _non-lethal_ dosages and their possible cumulative effect, if any? 

> Any research at all out there on that? I seem to remember reading that
> these chemicals caused nuerological problems in insects reflected by
> memory loss and confusion. Or is this some other pesticide I am thinking
> about? Hard to keep them straight....

Oh dear, Sheri.... get to a doctor quickly, as *you yourself *seem to be 
showing the symptoms of sub-lethal exposure to Imidacloprid, which are
memory loss and confusion! 

I don't think that Bayer did the research, but it is well-known that
sub-lethal exposure can do all sorts of things, and at very low doses,
but if the French experience with Imidacloprid is considered, one finds
very different symptoms from the ones associated with "CCD", both
in the lethal and sub-lethal exposure scenarios.

I wish we could blame a single pesticide for all this mess, but I'm afraid
it is not going to be that simple.


----------



## Trevor Mansell (Jan 16, 2005)

Sherri ,Jim Fischer
They dont treat Brazilian Pepper with anything it is a imported weed. But it makes alot of honey.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

suttonbeeman said:


> Dick m
> 
> It is believed that the pollen came from Maize(corn) gathered BEFORE the trip to Fl. ... HIs belief.....imadcloprid!!!!!


Or GM Maize????


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Suttonbeeman

>>>>Ok here we go!!!<<<<<<

Sounds like you want to fight. I think we agree more than not. 

>>> Now in Jan I was present when the researchers cut comb from frames and wrapped it for the trip to Penn for testing. <<<<

Did we meet? I met Dennis at the house you mention and a bunch of us folks went looking at bees. They belonged to 5 'keepers. I got to be good at wrapping samples and mapping yards.

>>>I park my equipment at the beekeepers home you were referring to<<<<

Did you happen to see an old 72 Chevy RV there? I spent 2 nights.

>>>>and talk to home 2-3 times a week.....have been to his home numerous times since Jan....was on phone with him this morning! His belief.....imadcloprid!!!!!<<<<<

He actually turned me on to this angle. I researched it for a month

I will stipulate that you are better connected to him than I am and that you know more about bees than I do. I'm just reporting the facts. This guy is knowledgeable too. Did you know that he had 1,000 boxes irradiated to kill any possible fungus or virus? At that point he wasn't deeply convinced it was imidacloprid. Since the pollen is used to feed the larvae, wouldn't one expect that it would kill the larvae and the nurse bees. (youngest adults). Instead it kills the oldest and leaves the brood alone, doing the exact opposite. He had some bees that were "recovering." Do you know the status on those? Say hello for me.

Thanks for the corrections. It goes to show, I should never make assumptions. If you write to me at dickm_at_snet.net. (Substitute @ for _at_) Perhaps we can find something to agree on.

Dick Marron


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Jim Fischer said:


> > Sheri said" Or is this some other pesticide I am thinking
> > about? Hard to keep them straight...."
> 
> Oh dear, Sheri.... get to a doctor quickly, as *you yourself *seem to be
> ...


 yourself, Jim, what is overdefensiveness a symptom of?  
Confusion and memory loss on my part is _always_ a possibility and I had already alluded to_ that_.  

I never said anything about simple solutions and am not convinced imidacloprid is the culprit here either. I just asked for a reference to the research......if you don't know the reference you can just say so. No one requires you to know everything. 
Anyone else have a quick link to the research on sublethal doses?
Sheri


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Whay ask me to provide evidence or expert opinion on a matter in which I have no expertise - when the answers to your question are in the paper above, which you clearly have not bothered to read. -buckbee


I know YOU read them, buckbee, but did you understand that what you posted is not a peer-reviewed article? Anyone can say or print anything, but that does not make it accurate. The process of peer review helps increase accuracy in articles.

A big part of my problem lies in the difference between types of applications. Seed treatments use very, very small amounts of chemicals. Foliar treatments use much more. Imidacloprid is used for both seed treatments and foliar treatments. I very much doubt that imidacloprid from seed treatments remains in sunflowers (or other plants) at very high levels. I wonder, in fact, if it would be detectable at the "ppb" level. Foliar treatments almost certainly could be detectable.



> The transfer of this residual Imidacloprid in the soil towards a non-treated plant is particularly effective in the case of sunflowers and maize, hence, foraged by bees. -buckbee


So WHY doesn't it affect pest insects? If it remains in soil in concentrations high enough to become systemic in future plants and affect honey bees (relatively large insects), why doesn't it affect insect pests (especially the pests that are significantly smaller than honey bees)?



> Give the investigators some credit. They know about pesticides and it was the first thing they thought about. -dickm


Precisely.

From what I've read, the investigators have pesticide poisoning high on their list of suspects. They've been checking pretty carefully for any and all pesticides. Beekeepers keep bringing up "imidacloprid" as a possible cause, so I'm confident the researchers would be checking carefully for imidacloprid.



> Or GM Maize???? -buckbee


Wow. Have you really thought about the timing of the introduction and subsequent wide-spread use of GM crops and CCD?


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Dick

I amy have not been there at the exact same time you were....I think it was the second time they were cutting comb out that I was there(was around Jan 27) I was there when he was loading boxes to get iriadated (sp) around Jan 10. In fact I helped him switch pallets on some. The bees he put in those boxes dont appear to be doing any differant as bees in boxes that were not treated as of a couple of weeks ago. Maybe its not imadcloproid or related insecticide .....but from what he feels it is although all the evidence isnt in yet. My bees have been diagnosed with Nosema scaroma(sp?) it may also play a part. Regardless all the insceticide we use cant be good for us or the bees......bet we agree on that!!!! lol What we are eating is alot of our problem along with all the stress mites and chemicals put n the bees! Take care!


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Suttonbeeman. 

>>My bees have been diagnosed with Nosema scaroma<<<

I'll take a shot at the spelling. Nosema Ceranae, named after the bee it jumped from. This is bad but responds to Fumidol-B. Don't skip a treatment. 
As you may know this has decimated hives in other countries. They looked for it a lot in the CCD thing. I thought they hadn't found any. Tom Webster of KYU is doing work on this and I contacted him. He had a clean experimental hive in KY that was moved to FL. When checked there later it had the new nosema. Sounds like it's around in FL. Without mentioning names, do you know if others have it? Who did the diagnosis? Did you lose bees to it? I've read that it can take a hive down in a very short time.

Dickm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> I know YOU read them, buckbee, but did you understand that what you posted is not a peer-reviewed article?


It wasn't a science paper - peer review is irrelevant in this context.



Kieck said:


> ...I very much doubt that imidacloprid from seed treatments remains in sunflowers (or other plants) at very high levels. I wonder, in fact, if it would be detectable at the "ppb" level. Foliar treatments almost certainly could be detectable.


I quite clearly is detectable at this level, or how do you explain the Dutch ban?



Kieck said:


> So WHY doesn't it affect pest insects? If it remains in soil in concentrations high enough to become systemic in future plants and affect honey bees (relatively large insects), why doesn't it affect insect pests (especially the pests that are significantly smaller than honey bees)?


Who says it doesn't affect 'pest' insects? What the heck is the point of a pesticide that doesn't affect pests? 



Kieck said:


> ... so I'm confident the researchers would be checking carefully for imidacloprid.


Unless the lab happens to be funded by Bayer, of course.



Kieck said:


> Wow. Have you really thought about the timing of the introduction and subsequent wide-spread use of GM crops and CCD?


Oh yes, I have thought long and hard about it. So has Professor Joe Cummins:

From: "jcummins" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: [SANET-MG] Sierra Club on bee decline

The letter below makes a case that was more or less ignored in the US NRC 
2006 report on honey bee decline. The problem is not only honey bee death 
> but the tunnel vision of a US government-academic cabal who wish to 
> ignore agricultural pesticides and most strikingly GM crops. Like the 
> problem of global warming US science funding is tied more to political 
> ideology than to full and truthful enquiry.l
> Genetic Engineering
> GE and bee Colony Collapse Disorder -- science needed!
>
> Dear Senator Thomas Harkin,
> We share similar concerns. The viability of a robust food supply is 
> paramount to the American people.
>
> One out of every three bites of food that we consume is due to the work of 
> honeybees, serving as crucial pollinators in agriculture and farming 
> communities. Yet agriculture and food production may be severely impacted 
> by Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a trend documented in honey bee 
> colonies and prominently featured in a New York Times story (1). 
> Beekeepers are reporting estimates as high as 80% loss of their honey bee 
> colonies. Such a huge loss of the services of bees is extremely serious 
> and beekeepers report it's a growing trend.
>
> The cause of CCD is unknown. Although factors being considered include 
> pesticides, mites, microbial disease and habitat decline, there's a 
> possible link that's not being investigated. Highly respected scientists 
> believe that exposure to genetically engineered crops and their 
> plant-produced pesticides merit serious consideration as either the cause 
> or a contributory factor to the development and spread of 
> CCD.(2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) In searching for the cause of massive honey bee 
> losses nationwide, we must leave no stone unturned to find the answer.
>
> This past decade we are seeing releases into the environment that we have 
> never before seen on this planet. Genetic engineering involves the 
> artificial transfer of genes from one organism into another, bypassing the 
> protective barrier between species. Scientists admit that "unintended 
> consequences" may occur due to the lack of precision and specificity in 
> the DNA sites on different plant chromosomes where the inserted genes 
> randomly end up. According to the prominent biologist Dr. Barry Commoner 
> and pioneer in ecology, "Genetically engineered crops represent a huge 
> uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The 
> results could be catastrophic."(11) Dr. David Schubert has expressed 
> similar concerns in pointing out some of the significant holes existing in 
> current genetic engineering technology that raise serious questions about 
> how well we understand it and how to apply such a new emerging 
> science.(12) An issue Dr. Schubert raises is the "unpredictability" in the 
> artificial gene splicing technology that is routinely performed in genetic 
> engineering because it may lead to unpredictable consequences. Are the 
> honey bees trying to tell us about the "unintended consequences" from 
> large-scale genetic engineering in agriculture?
>
> Investigators have raised the possibility that honey bees are experiencing 
> a sublethal effect such as a "suppressed immune system" from an unknown 
> toxin. However, sublethal effects have not been fully investigated. Dennis 
> van Engelsdorp, a bee specialist with the state of Pennsylvania who is 
> part of the team studying the bee colony collapses, said the "strong 
> immune suppression" investigators have observed "could be the AIDS of the 
> bee industry," making bees more susceptible to other diseases that 
> eventually kill them off. (1) Nonetheless, a concern is that genetically 
> engineered crops are being ignored as a possible culprit, especially with 
> tens of millions of acres now being planted each year of cultivars 
> producing large concentrations of pesticides that did not exist on such a 
> scale just a decade ago.
>
>
> Currently regulators fail to require adequate analysis of transgene 
> insertion sites. This omission results from the failure to appreciate the 
> magnitude of genetic damage sustained by transgenic plants.(11,12) 
> Regulators have also failed to adequately assess the potential for lethal 
> and sublethal impacts of engineered crop pesticides on pollinators like 
> honey bees and wild bees, including the larvae brood and young bees. 
> Studies are needed to evaluate the impact of GE crops on sublethal effects 
> such as learning and feeding behavior. In addition, honey bee colonies are 
> being fed GE corn syrups and parts of recycled hives containing additional 
> GE food residues. The effect of these feeding practices on bees needs 
> study.
>
> Considering that loss of honeybee pollinators can leave a huge void in the 
> kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion 
> dollars to farmers, it would be prudent to use caution. If genetically 
> engineered crops are killing honeybees, a moratorium on their planting 
> should be considered.
>
> Senator Harkin, as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, you are 
> in a key position to initiate investigations to determine if exposure to 
> genetically engineered crops is the missing link. Emergency funding for 
> research on the pollinator decline needs to be available to researchers 
> and the USDA.
>
>
>
> Most sincerely,
>
> Laurel Hopwood, Chair
>
> Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee
>
>
> References:
>
> 1. Alexei Barrioneuva, "Honeybees, Gone With the Wind, Leave Crops and 
> Keepers in Peril," The New York Times, February 27, 2007: 
> http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B1FF8355A0C748EDDAB0894DF404482
>
> 2. Malone,L and Pham-Delègue,M. "Effects of transgene products on honey 
> bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus sp.)" Apidologie 
> 2001,32,287-304.
>
> 3. Obrycki,J, Losey, J, Taylor,O, Jesee,L. "Transgenic insecticidal corn: 
> Beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity." Bioscience May 
> 2001/Vol 51 No. 5
>
> 4. Pham-Delègue, M.H., et. al. 2002. "Direct and Indirect Effects of 
> Genetically Modified Plants on the Honey Bee," Honey Bees: Estimating the 
> Environmental Impact of Chemicals, pp. 312-326.
>
> 5. Picard-Nioi, A.L,.et al. Pham-Delegue, M.H. "Impact of proteins used in 
> plant genetic engineering: Toxicity and behavioral study in the honeybee." 
> J. Econ. Entomol.997,90,1710-1716.
>
> 6. Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, "Risks associated with ingestion of Chardon LL 
> maize, The reversal of N-acetyl-L- glufosinate to the active herbicide 
> L-glufosinate in the gut of animals," Chardon LL Hearing, May 2002, 
> London.
>
> 7. Mohr KI and Tebbe CC. "Field study results on the probability and risk 
> of a horizontal gene transfer from transgenic herbicide-resistant oilseed 
> rape pollen to gut bacteria of bees." Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 in 
> press,DOI 10.1007/s00253, 007-0846-7.
>
> 8. Ramirez-Romero,R,Chaufaux,J and Pham-Delègue,M. "Effects of Cry1Ab 
> protoxin, deltamethrin and imidacloprid on the foraging activity and the 
> learning performances of the honeybee Apis mellifera, a comparative 
> approach" Apidologie 36 (2005) 601-11.
>
> 9. Hilbeck,A and Schmid,J. "Another view of Bt proteins-How specific are 
> they and what else might they do" Biopestic. Int. 2006,2,1-50.
>
> 10. Morandin,L and Winston,M. "Wild bee abundance and seed production in 
> conventional, organic and genetically modified canola" Ecological 
> Applications 2004,15,871-81.
>
> 11. Commoner, B. "Unraveling the DNA Myth: The spurious foundation of 
> genetic engineering." Harper's Magazine, February 2002, 39-47.
>
> 12. Schubert, D. "Regulatory regimes for transgenic crops." Nature 
> Biotechnology 23,785 - 787 (2005).


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> It wasn't a science paper - peer review is irrelevant in this context. -buckbee


Why is peer review "irrelevant?" Because you personally agree with the "finding," opinions of persons with expertise in the field no longer apply?



> I quite clearly is detectable at this level, or how do you explain the Dutch ban? -buckbee


Foliar applications, soil applications later in the season, or simple hysteria. The Dutch ban was political in nature, so allegations and political clout could combine to produce the ban.

Have you been out to observe agricultural applications of insecticides, buckbee? Which do you suppose is more likely to be detectible in sunflower crops -- tiny amounts of a chemical coated onto seeds before the seeds that grow the crops are planted, or much larger amounts of that same chemical applied to the plants shortly before blooming?



> Who says it doesn't affect 'pest' insects? What the heck is the point of a pesticide that doesn't affect pests? -buckbee


It DOES affect pest insects AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. Not a year or more later. If it did, farmers would be rejoicing! Think of their side of it: spray now, and get years of control! You don't have to spray next year!



> Unless the lab happens to be funded by Bayer, of course. -buckbee


Several different labs are working on CCD here. They are not funded by Bayer, at least not all of them. Some of them may receive some funding from Bayer, but some of them receive no funding from Bayer.



> Oh yes, I have thought long and hard about it. So has Professor Joe Cummins:. . . . -buckbee


Please consider my statement again, buckbee. Notice the "TIMING" portion of it. Again, why would CCD only show up in 2006 after GM crops have been heavily used for more than 15 years? Why wouldn't the locations with the greatest amounts of GM crops have the greatest deaths from CCD (they don't, by the way)?

I suggest you look up and read this source that was cited in your citation, buckbee:



> 7. Mohr KI and Tebbe CC. "Field study results on the probability and risk of a horizontal gene transfer from transgenic herbicide-resistant oilseed rape pollen to gut bacteria of bees." Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 in press,DOI 10.1007/s00253, 007-0846-7.


You'll find that exactly what happens "artificially" with GM crops also happens "naturally," despite the "protective barrier between species."


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

IN SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING QUOTES:

Quote:
>>>7. Mohr KI and Tebbe CC. "Field study results on the probability and risk of a horizontal gene transfer from transgenic herbicide-resistant oilseed rape pollen to gut bacteria of bees." Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 in press,DOI 10.1007/s00253, 007-0846-7.<<<< 

}}}}You'll find that exactly what happens "artificially" with GM crops also happens "naturally," despite the "protective barrier between species."]]]]]]

I INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL I HAD FROM A SCOTTISH GENETICIST ON THE ABOVE TOPIC. "COULD GM GENES GET INTO SOMETHING ELSE IN A BEES GUT?"

I met Hans-Heinrich Kaatz, the scientist responsible for the bee gut yeast story. One of the things they wanted me to do was to check out the gut bug gene transfer story.
I emailed Prof Kaatz, and later briefly met him at a conference. He seemed reluctant to discuss it, and I wasn't sure if that was due to the pressure he'd felt when the press took an interest (I can understand that from personal experience!), or if he was uncertain of their own findings. I've never seen a paper in a journal on this work, but did see a presentation in Italy. My memory of it is hazy, and no doubt I was paying more attention to the talk I was about to give or just coming down after it, but I seem to recall being sceptical about their evidence.

http://web.uniud.it/eurbee/Proceedings/Genetically modified plants.pdf

Others, including Klaus Amman (who I do respect) seems to have the same opinion. I wouldn't normally regard Monsanto as an authoritative source, but this may be worth reading:

http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=5756

So, my off-the-record hunch is that I don't think that Kaatz proved beyond doubt that he actually found gene transfer. Apart from that, will it happen and does it matter? It might happen. Bugs can take up DNA and occasionally incorporate genes from other bacteria. There could be enough plant DNA surviving in the insect gut for this to happen. But of course honeybees (and people) have been eating DNA-laced foods ever since ... well, for ever. The pat gene might be different from most in that the presence of herbicide could select for strains that contain it, but there must be other plant genes that could help bacteria (or yeasts) in some way, and there is no sign that any others have moved across. The pat gene could move between bacteria easily in nature (it came from a soil bacterium source in the first place). However this study seems to be on yeast, and I'm not sure how effectively yeast can take up genes from bacteria.[/I]

THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. I WENT TO THE UK FOR THIS BUCKBEE. COOL, NO?


DICKM


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Bugs can take up DNA and occasionally incorporate genes from other bacteria"

Actually - they do it very often.

Keith


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

People and higher plants do similar things on a regular basis as well. A large percentage of many of the sequenced genomes has been identified as inherited viruses or transposons ("jumping gene"). It was through the exploitation of virus and transposons that geneticists working on things like corn and viruses first learned the tools of genetic engineering.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Dick_M said
>>I WENT TO THE UK FOR THIS BUCKBEE. COOL, NO?

Seriously cool. I'm impressed.

Kiek
We could go on like this for ever, but I see no point - we are never going to see this issue the same way. I cannot 'prove' that GM is to blame for this or anything else, any more than you can prove that it is 100% benign.

All I am trying to do is to draw the issue to people's attention as one that DESERVES THOROUGH INVESTIGATION by INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS if such creatures still exist - as most of them are in the pay of corporations with a vested interest in NOT finding a problem. You yourself admitted that some of the labs working on CCD are likely to receive funding from Bayer. Given their track record, what are the chances of these labs finding a problem with Imidacloprid or any other Bayer product? Close to zero, I suggest. And given that most if not all the other labs will be funded by Monsanto or some other corporation with big money in GM, what do you think the chances are of them finding a problem with GM, given what happened to Arpad Putztai when he found that GM potatoes were killing rats?

Don't be naiive - the world is run by money and vested interests - if they don't want us to find out the real truth, we will only learn it from whistleblowers.

And no, i am not a 'conspiracy theorist'.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I cannot 'prove' that GM is to blame for this or anything else, any more than you can prove that it is 100% benign. -buckbee


True, for the most part. However, GM have been studied more carefully, in more ways, by more people, than any previous technology used in producing crops. Nothing to date has been found. Could some harm be found? Sure. But it hasn't been, and seems unlikely at this time.



> . . .given what happened to Arpad Putztai when he found that GM potatoes were killing rats? -buckbee


As I recall from reading the study quite a while back, the research suffered from one really, really big flaw: Dr. Putztai was feeding rats raw potatoes to check the effects (since cooking the potatoes destroys the transgenic products), but rats will starve before eating raw potatoes. In fact, he had to cut the experiment short because the rats were all starving to death.

In my opinion, that doesn't say much about the effects of transgenic potatoes on rats. It does say a lot about the effects of providing rats with only raw potatoes as a source of food.



> . . . DESERVES THOROUGH INVESTIGATION by INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS. . . . -buckbee


Absolutely. And it has been investigated heavily by "independent scientists," in many instances. And, so far, no real harm has been found in studies that can be replicated (a few studies have suggested problems, but the results have not been replicated).



> You yourself admitted that some of the labs working on CCD are likely to receive funding from Bayer. -buckbee


Yes, although some of that "funding" may not be in the form you're imagining. Let me give you an example: in some of the research I do, I receive seed from seed companies, donated for the research. These donations qualify in part as "funding." Specifically, since much of that seed contains genes patented by Monsanto (RoundUp Ready), Monsanto is contributing to the funding of the research. However, the research does not involve an examination of RoundUp Ready traits -- the plants just happen to have those traits -- so, is it a "conflict of interest?" Is the research no longer "independent?" I would argue that it still is independent, but I realize that those who might not like the results may claim that the work was influenced by the donation.



> Given their track record, what are the chances of these labs finding a problem with Imidacloprid or any other Bayer product? Close to zero, I suggest. And given that most if not all the other labs will be funded by Monsanto or some other corporation with big money in GM,. . . . -buckbee


Interesting, to me, that you name both "Bayer" and "Monsanto" in the same paragraph. Do you know the historic reasons why Europeans tend to be much more opposed to GM crops than Americans are? I'll give you a hint: one of the big reasons lies in the names you listed and "money and vested interests."


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

You are wrong about Pusztai and when I find my references I will post them.

Meanwhile.... (note esp. the last sentence):



> _http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473166,00.html_
> (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473166,00.html)
> COLLAPSING COLONIES
> Are GM Crops Killing Bees?
> By Gunther Latsch
> edited
> A mysterious decimation of bee populations has German beekeepers worried,
> while a similar phenomenon in the United States is gradually assuming
> catastrophic proportions. The consequences for agriculture and the 
> economy could be
> enormous.
>
>
> Is the mysterous decimation of bee populations in the US and Germany a
> result of GM crops?
> Walter Haefeker is a man who is used to painting grim scenarios. He sits 
> on
> the board of directors of the German Beekeepers Association (DBIB) and is
> vice president of the European Professional Beekeepers Association. And 
> because
> griping is part of a lobbyist's trade, it is practically his professional
> duty to warn that "the very existence of beekeeping is at stake."
>
> The problem, says Haefeker, has a number of causes, one being the varroa
> mite, introduced from Asia, and another is the widespread practice in
> agriculture of spraying wildflowers with herbicides and practicing 
> monoculture. Another
> possible cause, according to Haefeker, is the controversial and growing 
> use
> of genetic engineering in agriculture.
>
> As far back as 2005, Haefeker ended an article he contributed to the 
> journal
> Der Kritischer Agrarbericht (Critical Agricultural Report) with an Albert
> Einstein quote: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then 
> man
> would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more 
> pollination, no
> more plants, no more animals, no more man."
>
> Mysterious events in recent months have suddenly made Einstein's 
> apocalyptic
> vision seem all the more topical. For unknown reasons, bee populations
> throughout Germany are disappearing -- something that is so far only 
> harming
> beekeepers. But the situation is different in the United States, where 
> bees are
> dying in such dramatic numbers that the economic consequences could soon 
> be
> dire. No one knows what is causing the bees to perish, but some experts 
> believe
> that the large-scale use of genetically modified plants in the US could 
> be a
> factor.
>
>
> FROM THE MAGAZINE
> The scientists are also surprised that bees and other insects usually 
> leave
> the abandoned hives untouched. Nearby bee populations or parasites would
> normally raid the honey and pollen stores of colonies that have died for 
> other
> reasons, such as excessive winter cold. "This suggests that there is 
> something
> toxic in the colony itself which is repelling them," says Cox-Foster.
>
>
> Walter Haefeker, the German beekeeping official, speculates that "besides 
> a
> number of other factors," the fact that genetically modified, 
> insect-resistant
> plants are now used in 40 percent of cornfields in the United States could
> be playing a role. The figure is much lower in Germany -- only 0.06 
> percent -- 
> and most of that occurs in the eastern states of Mecklenburg-Western
> Pomerania and Brandenburg. Haefeker recently sent a researcher at the CCD 
> Working
> Group some data from a bee study that he has long felt shows a possible
> connection between genetic engineering and diseases in bees.
>
> The study in question is a small research project conducted at the
> University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the 
> effects of pollen
> from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A 
> gene
> from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the 
> plant to
> produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that
> there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee
> populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.
>
> According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle 
> in
> eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the
> genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's 
> intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know."
>
>
> Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the
> experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was
> administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period.
> Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research," says the professor, "and those who are interested don't have the money."
>
>


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

The full study gives a context.

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/safety_science/68.docu.html

Is this the study you meant, Buckbee?

Dickm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Let's be clear that it was not me who referenced this study, but the writer of the article I posted. It seems odd to me that anyone would do such a study using GM maize, when everyone knows that bees hardly touch maize pollen. A study using GM oilseed rape/canola would be far more useful.

Nevertheless, these references are worth reading:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2001/06/7636.php

http://www.biobees.com/docs/transgenic_environmental_risk_assessment.pdf

http://www.biobees.com/docs/GM_side_effects_bees.pdf

A possible factor for bee memory loss here - it's an academic study, but if there is a mechanism by which metabotropic glutamate receptors could be affected by transgenic elements, there could be a fit - http://www.springerlink.com/content/m51776827144vu34/

I don't claim any high level scientific knowledge, but it seems to me that nature has her own built-in safeguards against genetic disasters. Genes in fish do not, in nature, find their way into tomatoes. Neither do kangaroos cross with alligators to make jumping things with big teeth. Of course, different strains of the same species can cross freely - in rice and in bees - and the resulting cross may or may not have one or more survival advantages, which is all that matters in terms of 'natural selection'. 

We have other criteria than just survival value that we apply to our food crops and domesticated animals, so we deliberately cross for yield, resistance to disease, rapid weight gain, etc. By doing so we are attempting to bend nature to our will, and, insomuch as we make the right selections and continue to provide the appropriate environment to sustain them, there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with this. That approach to breeding has enabled us to develop relatively stable civilisations that are no longer dependent on hunting and gathering and makes cities like New York possible. (Come to think of it, was that such a good idea? 

However, once we start down the road of gene splicing, we are into entirely new territory, as we are introducing into the natural environment life forms that have never previously existed and of which, therefore, no other life forms have any 'experience'. Anything could happen - and has happened and will continue to happen - so long as we act as if we have total control of nature, which we have not and never can have.

We (by which I mean the GM-sceptic movement in the UK) managed to abort many of the open-air GM experiments in Britain and we did so because we were deeply concerned about the potential dangers of letting herbicide-resistant genes loose among agricultural crops and by default into the wild. The fact that Roundup-resistant wheat has spread so quickly across the USA, even in places where it has never been planted, I think demonstrates that we took the right position.

(I put the use of GM for medical applications, such as insulin, in a different category, as they do not involve the spread of novel genes into the environment.) 

If we take the example of what we call oilseed rape/canola - Brassica napa, to avoid confusion. Some varieties are largely self-pollinating, while other rely more on insect pollination. And we all know how much bees love either kind. Any gene introduced artificially into the OSR genome has the potential to affect the gut of foraging insects, such that unpredictable and unexpected results may occur, including some that may be damaging to the bees' survival. The point is, we just don't know what could happen until proper, exended tests are done, over a decent amount of time. That is why I challenged Norman Carreck of Rothamstead (UK agricultural research station) to produce the results of such tests before giving the green light to open-air GM experiments. He could not produce such results.

We must also remember that GM is being pushed by giant corporations, who care more about taking control of the world's food chain than they do about beekeepers' interests. Personally, I have no desire to entrust the future of our food supply to the likes of Aventis, Monsanto and Bayer.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*Prof. Joe Cummins - Honey Bees and the toxicity of genetically modified crops*

October 10, 2002
Prof. Joe Cummins
e-mail: [email protected]

“Honey Bees and the toxicity of genetically modified crops”

Genetically modified (GM) crops incorporate novel changes in the genetics of crops. Bees have an essential but subtle relationship to the crops and to the environment. It is essential that GM crops should not damage the bees and if commercial GM crops are found to injure bees that those crops be removed from production. Gm crops can affect bees directly or indirectly through affecting flowering and pollen production. A good deal of effort has been directed to evaluating the impact of GM crops, particularly those crops genetically engineered to contain insect toxins or toxins of fungi which have components such as chitin which are common to fungi and arthropods. The results of such studies have uncovered important threats to bees but the evidence of injury to bees did not seem to influence the release of crops capable of injuring bees for commercial production.
Studies the impact of GM crops on bees included both behavior and toxicity studies of the GM crops and studies of the purified toxins produced in GM crops. A number of excellent reviews of studies of the impact of GM crops or their toxins have been published (1,2,3). The effect of insect toxins called protease inhibitors has been studied in bee larvae (4) and the effect of a protease inhibitor (trypsin inhibitor) on bee flight and longevity (5). The results of the studies show that GM crops modified with bacillus thuringiensis toxins have little or no effect on bees, as does the enzyme chitinase while protease inhibitors consistently have detrimental impacts and the glucanase enzyme modification to resist fungi also was found to effect bees detrimentally.
The Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene modifications are designated Cry but there are numerous alleles and these have distinct characteristics. Cry 1 alleles were studied extensively along with Cry 9C and Cry 3B but Cry II and CryV alleles have not yet been reported but probably should. Here-to-fore the Cry genes have not proven detrimental to bees. In contrast the protease inhibitors proved to be detrimental to the longevity and behavior of bees. Chitinase (protection from insects and fungi) did not prove detrimental to bees while glucanase (protection from fungi) affected conditioned responses in bees.
Of the GM toxins genes in crops released for commercial production in the United States, only the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry genes and the protease inhibitors have seen widespread release. The GM crops with protease inhibitors released for commercial production included potato, canola (rapeseed) and creeping bentgrass (6).
The sound and logical approach would be to totally ban commercial production of GM crops modified with protease inhibitor genes to protect bees and to prevent long-term damage to the entire environment. Those crops released for commercial production containing the protease inhibitor gene should be withdrawn. The impact of all GM releases on bees should be carefully studied prior to release and crops injuring bees should not be released for production.




References

1.Malone,L and Pham-Delegue,M “Effect of transgene products on honey bees and bumblebees” 2001 Apidologie 32,287-304

2.Malone,L,Burgess,E,Philip,B,Tregida,E and Todd,J “Do GM crops and their products have side effects on bees and bumblebees?” 2001 Apimondia ISBN:0-620-27768-8 Proc 37th Int Apic,28Oct-1Nov 2001 Durban,South Africa

3.Picard-Nizou,A,Grison,R,Olsen,L,Pioche,C,Arnold,G and Pham-Delegue,M “Impact of proteins used in plant genetic engineering: toxicity and behavioral study in the honeybee”1997 J Econ Entomology 90,1710-16

4.Brodsgaard,H,Brodsgaard,C,Hansen,H and Lovei,G “Environmental risk assessement of transgenic plants using honey bee larvae” 2001 Apimondia ISBN:0-620-27768-8 Proc 37th Int Apic,28Oct-1Nov 2001 Durban,South Africa

5.Malone,E,Burgess,E, Gatehouse,H,Voisy,C,Tregida,E and Philip,B “Effect of ingestion of a Bacillus thuringiernsis toxin and a trypsin inhibitor on honey bee flight activity and longevity” 2001 Apidologie 32,57-68

6.Crops No Longer Regulated By USDA http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/biopetitions1.cfm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> You are wrong about Pusztai and when I find my references I will post them. -buckbee


How was I wrong? Did he not feed raw potatoes to rats? Did he not end his study prematurely because all the rats (the group fed conventional potatoes and the group fed GM potatoes) were starving or malnourished? Is a diet of only raw potato, in contradiction to what I said, actually adequate and desireable for rats?



> However, once we start down the road of gene splicing, we are into entirely new territory, as we are introducing into the natural environment life forms that have never previously existed and of which, therefore, no other life forms have any 'experience'. -buckbee


It's a matter of degrees, buckbee, it's a matter of degrees, and a matter of speed. That's all. It's not really as "revolutionary," or as "scary," as some persons want to make it out to be.

Think about "wheat." What's natural about wheat? Wheat is a combination of several species to create a novel, desireable species.

The biggest difference is that, prior to transgenics, breeders had to wait and hope that the traits they desired might appear in their breeding lines. Now, they can deliberately add them.

What I find really, really ironic about this whole "GM" argument is summed up by the end of your quotation from Cummins. Paraphrasing: "We have found no problems to date, so we need to ban GM until we KNOW that transgenic organisms will cause no problems."


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> "We have found no problems to date, so we need to ban GM until we KNOW that transgenic organisms will cause no problems."


Buckbee's quote from the paper he cited would tend to rebut your
argument:



> The results of such studies have uncovered important threats to
> bees but the evidence of injury to bees did not seem to influence the
> release of crops capable of injuring bees for commercial production...
> 
> ...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Protease inhibitors -- if produced artificially and fed in large quantities to honey bees -- seem to have some effect on the bees. The tests did not allow bees to feed on pollen or nectar from GM plants.



> Genes in fish do not, in nature, find their way into tomatoes. Neither do kangaroos cross with alligators to make jumping things with big teeth. Of course, different strains of the same species can cross freely - in rice and in bees - and the resulting cross may or may not have one or more survival advantages, which is all that matters in terms of 'natural selection'. -buckbee


I would argue that DNA does cross species. A virus picks up a bit of DNA from one species, then moves to another species; the second species may now have a bit of DNA from the first species.



> However, once we start down the road of gene splicing, we are into entirely new territory, as we are introducing into the natural environment life forms that have never previously existed and of which, therefore, no other life forms have any 'experience'. -buckbee


Wheat.

Mules.

A mutant form of a plant that arose naturally and was selected by plant breeders.

Honey bees in the Americas.

You see where we're headed with this?



> The fact that Roundup-resistant wheat has spread so quickly across the USA, even in places where it has never been planted, I think demonstrates that we took the right position. -buckbee


Are you sure you have your crop right? RoundUp Ready wheat has not been released in the U.S., to my knowledge. It was "put on the back burner" after wheat growers resisted an GM plants because they feared losing their foreign markets.



> (I put the use of GM for medical applications, such as insulin, in a different category, as they do not involve the spread of novel genes into the environment.) -buckbee


Why? Because GM Escherichia coli could, under no circumstances, survive in the environment? What if that E. coli transferred the novel genes to another E. coli (bacteria do such things, you know), and that second E. coli "escaped" into the environment?



> We must also remember that GM is being pushed by giant corporations, who care more about taking control of the world's food chain than they do about beekeepers' interests. Personally, I have no desire to entrust the future of our food supply to the likes of Aventis, Monsanto and Bayer. -buckbee


And, who is pushing against GM crops so hard in Europe? Bayer, historically, lobbied hard against GM crops because they feared their markets for pesticides would decrease. Bayer, for what it's worth, is a European company. And Aventis, as far as I know, is now only a pharmeceutical company.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>growers resisted an GM plants because they feared losing their foreign markets.


Yup, thats what happened here in Canada.


>>The fact that Roundup-resistant wheat has spread so quickly across the USA, even in places where it has never been planted, I think demonstrates that we took the right position. -buckbee 

buckbee, if that were really the case, then my own roundup applications made to my field would not be removing the volunteer wheat in my cropping rotations.
Would you like to start relaying accurate information please, especially if your working here on credibility.
Your speaking of the cross pollination in RR canola. We are seeing it in our canola planting here. Simple cross pollination of the same species of plants. Nothing new here at all. What are you so surprised about?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

No offence Buckbee, but all of England and most of the UK essencially is a garden anyway. There is very little in the way of wild places or natural ecology left to protect. The decision to not use GM crops there was more a matter of protecting markets than it was of protecting ecosystems or public health. Likewise, the crop seed prices, and biodiversity are not the same issue that they are in the tropics or even parts of North America.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Wheat.
> Mules.
> etc


You know full well that this is a specious argument - crossing by pollination has built-in safeguards: mules are sterile, for example, while GM OSR is not and can subsequently cross out with other brassicas to produce novel organisms.



> Are you sure you have your crop right? RoundUp Ready wheat has not been released in the U.S., to my knowledge. It was "put on the back burner" after wheat growers resisted an GM plants because they feared losing their foreign markets.


That was quoted from stuff I wrote some years ago, presumably before Monsanto pulled it. Apologies if it was out of date - that was laziness on my part.



> And, who is pushing against GM crops so hard in Europe? Bayer, historically, lobbied hard against GM crops because they feared their markets for pesticides would decrease. Bayer, for what it's worth, is a European company. And Aventis, as far as I know, is now only a pharmeceutical company.


Hard to explain this, then:

March 21, 2007, Farm Futures
Bayer, Syngenta: EU Removes Five GM Corn and Rapeseed Varieties

European Union members vote to remove two strains of biotech corn and three strains of biotech rapeseed.

Five biotech crops may no longer be able to be sold in the European Union. Tuesday EU member governments agreed to remove three strains of Bayer Ag's genetically modified oilseed rape, one strain of Syngenta AG's biotech corn and one strain of Monsanto Co.'s GM corn. All of the varieties are sold legally in the EU now, but would have to submit for reapproval by April 18 this year for their producers to keep marketing them in the EU after that date.

A statement from the EU Commission said that it is not expected the companies will seek renewal because the varieties "are no longer being used and the companies no longer have any commercial interest in them." The EU first called for the removal of the varieties in 2004.

March 21, 2007


----------



## annette (Mar 27, 2007)

Please, Please, tell me asap, Is is safe to plant sunflower seeds. I have my hives at a friends house who has a huge garden. He is planning on planting sunflowers this year especially those big beautiful ones. 

I need to know from someone will it be safe to plant these seeds????

Hurry
Annette


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Your bees should be fine on your friend's sunflowers, especially if he grows them in a garden.

If he's growing them commercially, he may be planning to spray them with insecticides. If he is, have him tell you when and what he's applying so you can confine your bees temporarily.


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

Aspera said:


> No offence Buckbee, but all of England and most of the UK essencially is a garden anyway. There is very little in the way of wild places or natural ecology left to protect. The decision to not use GM crops there was more a matter of protecting markets than it was of protecting ecosystems or public health. Likewise, the crop seed prices, and biodiversity are not the same issue that they are in the tropics or even parts of North America.


Have you been there? Sure, there are great gardens there, but there are also farms, there is countryside. The decision was because they don't want to artificially muck around with their or anyone else's food supply - and I think that's a good decision.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

...and there are thousands of square miles of open moorland, salt marshes, chalk downs, nature reserves, over 12,000 km of coastline...


----------



## JohnBeeMan (Feb 24, 2004)

Imidacloprid looks to be too easy of an out IMO. True, it may be a very large factor and possible should be ban but there are other large remaining questions: why so localized, what keeps other bees/moths/beetles from entering the hive - surely the half live of Imidacloprid is more than 3 weeks.

Are we also at fault: managed foundation sizes, breed diversity loss, poor management ( $$ count).


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> That was quoted from stuff I wrote some years ago, presumably before Monsanto pulled it. Apologies if it was out of date - that was laziness on my part. -buckbee


Yes, it is "out of date." Also, seems to me that it's incorrect. GM wheat was not released, and, therefore, has NOT spread across North America.

Actually, many of your arguments against GM seem to be about 5 or 6 years old. If you're against it, that's fine. That's your choice. But, if you wish to convince others, take time to do your research.

One of the biggest arguments against GM right now is that genes can and do frequently jump species, without interbreeding taking place. Numerous examples have been found in plants where genes from one species have moved to another species, especially if the species are similar. One of the points in the fight against GM alfalfa, right now, is that genes from alfalfa can and are likely to jump into other legumes, possibly creating "GM" clovers and such.

Therefore, one of the biggest arguments against GM right now is concerned with exactly what you state cannot and does not happen: genes transferring from species to species. Think of it as "natural GM," if you like. It does happen.



> . . .crossing by pollination has built-in safeguards. . . . -buckbee


Have you looked up the ancestry of wheat? Have you noticed that at least three species (probably more) were artificially hybridized by humans to "create" wheat as we know it? Seems to me that, 1) wheat is no more "natural" than "GM" crops, and, 2) no "safeguard" existed to prevent the crossing.

Sure, mules tend to be sterile, but what about hinnies? Mules were a poor example on my part, but what I was driving at was that humans have crossed species in the past in attempts to get desired traits from more than one species in a single organism.

Bayer was behind Monsanto in developing transgenic technology. At the time that American companies were creating the first GM crops, Bayer did not have the technology and opposed it simply because Bayer was/is a huge (the biggest) producer of pesticides and herbicides. Bayer was concerned about their market slipping away because fewer chemicals might be needed on GM crops.

Bayer launched a PR campaign to turn Germans, particularly, but also all Europeans against GM in an effort to protect their chemical markets. Since Bayer embraced transgenics, they haven't undone the work their PR campaign accomplished.

The article you quote, buckbee, makes it very clear to me that GM crops ARE grown in Europe, perhaps more widely than most of us may have realized.

Also, note this last part:



> statement from the EU Commission said that it is not expected the companies will seek renewal because the varieties "are no longer being used and the companies no longer have any commercial interest in them."
> 
> 
> > Seems to me that the EU isn't trying to remove GM crops, but, rather, that the licenses for those strains are expiring and the companies that produce them have moved on and no longer see profit in those forms.
> ...


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> Have you looked up the ancestry of wheat? Have you noticed that at least three species (probably more) were artificially hybridized by humans to "create" wheat as we know it? Seems to me that, 1) wheat is no more "natural" than "GM" crops, and, 2) no "safeguard" existed to prevent the crossing.


Hybridizing is one thing. Inserting genes that have nothing to do with that plant is quite another (ala roundup resistance, or creating blood protein from rice, etc). Please don't try to equate the two, is a disingenuous argument at best.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Inserting genes that have nothing to do with that plant is quite another. . . . -Ann


So, "wheat" likely began as a diploid grass, Triticum monococcum. "Hybridization" turned "wheat" into a tetraploid grass when likely Triticum dicoccoides was crossed with T. monococcum.

Then, Aegilops tauschii and possibly Aegilops speltoides were crossed with that tetraploid grass, creating what we consider our modern "wheat." Wheat is now a hexaploid organism.

So, distinct species and even distinct genera were crossed artificially to insert traits (genes) from one form into another. Keep in mind that Triticum and Aegilops are analogous to Apis (honey bees) and Bombus (bumble bees). Would you consider it "inserting" genes if someone successfully interbred a bumble bee with a honey bee? What if they cut a few genes out of the bumble bee with a virus, and infected a honey bee with that virus, thereby transferring those genes from the bumble bee to the honey bee?

By the way, domesticated wheat is unlikely to survive in the wild. With all the crossing that took place, wheat has apparently lost the mechanisms that grasses use for seed dispersal.


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

As I said, you aren't making a good comparison. You are blatantly ignoring the laboratory insertion of foreign genes by artificial means. This is absolutely *not* the same thing as hybridization, no matter how hard you try to say it is.

And yes, I would consider it 'inserting' genes if someone took the genes of a bumblebee and inserted them into a honeybee. Totally different than breeding them together (which I understand is impossible). Understand the difference?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Hey Kieck,

I wonder if it will at all be possible to "domesticate" the honeybee?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> You are blatantly ignoring the laboratory insertion of foreign genes by artificial means. This is absolutely not the same thing as hybridization, no matter how hard you try to say it is. -Ann


What's the difference? One occurs in a "lab," while the other occurs in the "field?" One includes random bits of DNA, while the other is more specific? What if you deliberately select the plants after hybridization that only show the traits you desired -- is it specific, too?

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, if someone inserts genes from one plant into another willy-nilly, it's "OK," but if someone inserts specific genes from one plant into another, it's "dangerous?"



> And yes, I would consider it 'inserting' genes if someone took the genes of a bumblebee and inserted them into a honeybee. Totally different than breeding them together (which I understand is impossible). Understand the difference? -Ann


No. I don't understand the difference. One involves moving genes from one organism to another at the behest of the "breeder," the other involves moving genes from one organism to another at the behest of the "breeder."

Sure, Bombus and Apis are unlikely to hybridize successfully. But so are Aegilops and Triticum. The fact that they lost their dispersal mechanisms means that "wheat" is rendered as evolutionarily "unfit" as sterile animals.

Ian: Bumble bee, or honey bee? I doubt either one will ever truly be "domesticated."


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

Since you don't understand (and I can't understand why you can't, other than that you don't _want_ to understand) I guess this conversation is over.

You may love to 'debate', but what's going on here is not debating.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think I COULD understand, but so far, all I've heard is, "It's different."

And I'll acknowledge that. I already have. First, the mechanics are different (although gene insertion does occur naturally in organisms, it isn't specific for the traits that are desired; "artificial" gene transfers try to be specific). Secondly, one (hybridization) is a random, large-scale insertion of a number of genes, while the other (transgenics) tries to be a selected, small-scale insertion of one or a few genes.

Which could cause more "problems?" The one that adds a few novel genes to a species, or the one that adds a wide range of novel genes to a species?

All that gets back to the second assertion: "It's dangerous."

Possibly, but, again, if you read my arguments above, gene insertions happen regularly and naturally. Are "artificial" gene insertions more "dangerous" than random, "natural" insertions? Why?

Let me give you a more concrete example of genetic engineering:

First, the "natural" form. A person contracts {polio or smallpox or chickenpox or insert your virus of choice here}. Viruses are bits of DNA or RNA that insert themselves into the genomes of other organisms and code for "novel" genes. In other words, the person with {your choice of virus here} now has additional genes inserted into his genome. The cells with those additional genes produce those "traits" (aka, "viruses"). This is an example of a natural insertion of genes. (Just for reference, viruses often carry along other bits of DNA or RNA that they happen to pick up; those bits may code for other traits, which is one way that genes get moved around naturally.)

Secondly, a person gets a vaccination or immunization against {your choice of the virus from above}. In this case, certain parts of the virus are inserted into the genome of that person, but not enough to produce a severe infection. Again, those genes (bits of DNA or RNA) are inserted into the human genome to provide that person with an immunity. This example is a form of genetic engineering.

Which one is "more dangerous?" How do they differ, other than severity of infection or choice?

I understand this is not "debating." Facts are fairly simple in this case: GM is exceedingly unlikely to be the cause of CCD. Imidacloprid is unlikely to be the cause of CCD.

If you don't like either or both, fine. If you do, fine. Please don't accuse one or the other of something for which it's not responsible simply because you dislike it.


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

Kieck, Being intentionally obtuse doesn't make your argument any more compelling.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I've been trying to cross an onion with a donkey for decades.

Sometimes, I get onions with long ears and tails.
Sometimes, I get donkeys that smell very bad.

What I'm hoping to get someday is an ass that makes your eyes water.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Being intentionally obtuse doesn't make your argument any more compelling. -Ann


I'm sorry. I definitely wasn't intentional. What part do you not understand? I'll try to explain it more clearly if you wish.

Do I need to simply say, "Hybridization and transgenic events are no different?" That's the argument counter to the one I'm hearing from those opposed to GM.

As I've said on other threads, if you're opposed to genetic engineering (GM or transgenics or whatever you wish to call it), that's your choice. No problem. In my opinion, eliminating the market for those products will be your best tool to end the use of GM.

So, here's what you need to do:

Don't burn gasoline. Almost all gasoline in the U.S. now contains at least some ethanol, and much of the ethanol is produced from transgenic corn.

Don't burn biodiesel. Some of the biodiesel is made from transgenic oilseed crops, such as soybeans.

Don't wear cotton, at least produced from cotton grown in the U.S. Most of the cotton grown in the U.S. is transgenic.

Don't eat cheeses or yogurts. Many of the cultures used to create these foods are genetically-modified.

Don't consume foods that contain HFCS. At least some transgenic corn is used in the production of virtually all HFCS.

Don't use insulin. Most of the insulin sold to diabetics now comes from transformed ("GM") bacteria.

Don't use any vaccinations. Vaccinations are a form of genetic modification (GM).

The list goes on. . . .

Can the technology be taken too far? Absolutely. Is it inherently "wrong" or "bad?" That has to be your decision.


----------



## kensfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jim Fischer said:


> What I'm hoping to get someday is an ass that makes your eyes water.


If you just eat the onion raw.. you'll have your wish.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> So, here's what you need to do:
> 
> Don't burn gasoline. Almost all gasoline in the U.S. now contains at least some ethanol, and much of the ethanol is produced from transgenic corn.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the recipe. I already do my best to avoid most of those things that are not produced by organic farming. I work for a company that trades in organic fabrics and I keep non-transgenic bees without using any Bayer products. I don't believe in vaccination as practiced these days for the reason you give. Hopefully, I will never develop diabetes.

And I'm with Ann on this - IMO you are being deliberately obtuse and trying - like Monsanto did - to fudge the issue and pretend that crossing and transgenics are the same thing. My eldest son is a world class expert in leading-edge RNA interference in cancer research and he backs me up on this.

I'm done on this subject - bang on some more if you wish.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

And finally, here is a link to the most even-handed discussion I have yet read about whether or not we should grow GM crops. It gives about equal weight to both sides and is an excellent primer for anyone who has not yet taken a good look at the issues:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html

Now I really am done.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> . . . you are being deliberately obtuse. . . . -buckbee


I'm calling you on this one, again. You're wrong. You said, "deliberately obtuse." While you may find my arguments "obtuse," it is NOT deliberate. 



> . . . pretend that crossing and transgenics are the same thing. My eldest son is a world class expert in leading-edge RNA interference in cancer research and he backs me up on this. -buckbee


Good. So you know the differences? Let's hear them, then!

You keep saying, "They're different."

I keep asking, "How?"

And you keep responding, "They're different; my son backs me up, and he's an expert."

See, you're really not answering my question. If you don't truly know the difference, but your son does, ask him, and post his response. I'd be much interested in reading WHERE and HOW he feels the two differ. (Be sure he's answering about not just hybridization, but about hybridization of organisms in different genera.)



> I don't believe in vaccination as practiced these days for the reason you give. -buckbee


Good. That's your choice, and I admire you for living the values you profess.

You do realize, though, that when you contract a disease "naturally," it's still a direct insertion of genes, right? So it's still "GM."

And, to finish this post, I'll say yet again, if you oppose transgenic technology, fine. Please don't blame problems (CCD, for example) on transgenics unless you have some evidence to back up what you allege.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Please don't blame problems (CCD, for example) on transgenics unless you have some evidence to back up what you allege.


I second that thought!! Kieck your right on the money!


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

For the record, I have never blamed anything on GM - I simply suggested if as a POSSIBLE CAUSE. Of course, if either of you know FOR CERTAIN that neither GM nor imidacloprid are to blame for CCD, then I would love to see your evidence.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

I see a lot of irony in life. There seems to be a lot of it in reading a bee "board" and finding a post from Brother Adams' old base that is so worried about GM. (I'm worrried bout it too). Brother Adam scoured the world available to him to bring genetic material (In the form of queens), to Buckfast Abbey. There he tinkered with it to make the Buckfast Bee. It was a bee. It was modified. It was genetically different. 

I'm worried about GM too. I think it's a sort of general mistrust of how fast this moved and how little testing was done. Also, the profit motive that drives the research scares me because it's usually short sighted.

I bumped into a couple of genetists in my research that I think may be unknown to you. (They take no sides) If you like I'll contact them with your questions. If I do that, can we just simply learn from them?

Create say 5 clear concise questions. AGREE ON THEM. I''ll forward the results with their bios.

I now have the feeling that the mistrust I feel is misplaced. Certainly it's not based on what I know because genetics makes my eyes cross. 

How about it?

Dickm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Dick - please try to understand - what Bro. Adam was doing was called CROSS BREEDING using VARIETIES or STRAINS of the SAME SPECIES. GM is when you take genetic material from ONE SPECIES and insert it into ANOTHER SPECIES (mostly) to see if certain traits existing in the second can be transferred to teh first.
BRO. ADAM DID NOT DO GENETIC ENGINEERING IN ANY SENSIBLE, SCIENTIFIC MEANING OF THE TERM. At no time did he attempt to take genetic material from a tomato and try to add it to a bee. 

Do you get it now?


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Now you did it. You shouted at me. Confucious said (or somebody said), "...the man who first raises his voice, concedes the arguement."

dickm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Sorry Dick, I do get a little over-excited at times...


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"By the way, domesticated wheat is unlikely to survive in the wild. With all the crossing that took place, wheat has apparently lost the mechanisms that grasses use for seed dispersal."


I am not really interested in getting into this debate , however, this statement just about says it all for transginitic transfer in the wild. Most species either don't survive, or survive on such a small scale as to render the plant harmless.

GM crops are being propagated at such a large extent, not only in this country but also world wide, that any unknown threat could place our entire food chain into jeperdey. We don't know what the future ramifications are of these types of plants, but are willing to plant MILLIONS of ACERS of them with little or no testing.

And you can say all you want that there is no differance between this happening in the wild or in the lab all you want, there is a differance. In the wild the genes transfered may or may not make it, may or may not contain useful genes for the species it is transfered into, and most of the results don't survive.

In the lab specfic genes are transfered, usually for the express purpose of producing a toxicin to defend the plant from a bug of sometype, these plants are then pampered and propagaited until there is enough seed to plant. Then they are placed on the market and proclaimed to be the next great plant to reduce chemical use, which in reality generally requires greater use of pesticides or herbicides. It's win/win for the big compaines like Montisano, and lose/lose for the farmer.

Enough said.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*anti-GM protest grows*

[From GM Watch]

+ SIGN THE MILLION-SIGNATURE PETITION AGAINST GM RICE
Go to the "Week of Rice Action" - WORA - webpage and sign on to show your
support via
http://www.panap.net
===============================================================

GM RICE UPDATES FROM GM WATCH

+ S. KOREA SAYS NO TO GM RICE IMPORTS
S. Korea's leading civil and farmer organizations this week voiced an
unequivocal "NO!" to the import of GM rice and their stand is being
supported by the Korean Ministry of Agriculture.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7710

+ 30,000 PEOPLE IN NEPAL RAISE THEIR VOICES FOR RICE
The All Nepal Peasant's Association (ANPA) announced that to date 30,000
people have signed the WORA (Week of Rice Action) statement, Save OUR RICE.
80 members of the Nepali Parliament are among the signatories. Balram
Banskota of ANPA said, "We do not want nor need GE rice and we do not want
any technologies that deplete our rice diversity and culture".
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7688
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7696

+ PHILIPPINES: PEOPLE WANT RICE GM-FREE
Hundreds of text messages stating "I love my rice GMO-free" kept Philippines
Dept of Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap's phone busy on March 15. His new
textmates: Filipino consumers demanding GM-free rice and rice production.
The text barrage was the World Consumers' Day activity that is part of
Greenpeace's campaign against GM rice.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7696

+ MEXICO MAINTAINING BLOCK ON GM-CONTAMINATED RICE
Reuters reports that Mexico will not let its guard down in the search for
unauthorized GM material in rice imports from the United States, according
to a top government biosecurity official. Marco Antonio Meraz, who heads
Mexico's biosecurity commission, said all shipments of US rice were required
to show certification they contained no GM material. He said health
officials also were taking samples from some rice shipments to ensure
exporters were telling the truth. Mexico is the biggest overseas market for
US rice.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7707

+ MULTIPLE CONTAMINATION OF US RICE
FOUR different Bayer GM rice varieties have been discovered in US long-grain
rice stocks, although not all have been announced by USDA. The four GM
traits now known to be in the supply are: LL601, LL62, LL06 and (most
recently) LL604.
In addition, there are still other "mystery (GM) traits", with a lot
oftsting still going on. All the contamination appears to be the result of
GM rice trials.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7707

+ USA RICE FEDERATION SAYS "NO!" TO RICE TRIALS
USA Rice Federation, which describes itself as "the national advocate for
all segments of the rice industry", has filed comments with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture asking "in the strongest possible terms that the
permit for Ventria [Bioscience]'s pharmaceutical rice be denied." "If
Ventria's pharmaceutical rice were to escape into the commercial rice
supply, the financial devastation to the U.S. rice industry would likely be
absolute," the USA Rice comments say.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7708
=============================================
ADDITIONAL SIGNING CAMPAIGNS

+ BERKELEY: DON'T SIGN THE BP DEAL!
Sign the petition at
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/147963846
For more info see BIOFUELS (below) and
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/

+ SIGN THE GLOBAL APPEAL AGAINST PATENTS ON SEEDS
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=39

+ HELP STOP POLAND'S 'GMO ACT'
The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside is calling
upon Polish Parliamentarians and Senators to reject the proposed new 'GMO
Act', which allows for the planting of commercial GM crops in currently self
designated GMO Free Zones. Show solidarity with the Polish people by
signing-on as a matter of urgency at: http://icppc.pl/pl/gmo/open_letter.php

+ SIGN THE PETITION AGAINST GM POTATO TRIALS IN YORKSHIRE, UK
http://www.hedonagainstgm.org.uk/

+ *URGENT*: TELL FDA - NO FOOD FROM CLONES!
The US Food and Drug Administration needs to hear you don't want food from
animal clones - a public comment period is only open until *April 2* - so if
you see this by Monday please send your letter immediately!
http://ga3.org/campaign/Cloning
For more info see ANIMAL BIOTECH (below)


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

buckbee said:


> Thanks for the recipe. I already do my best to avoid most of those things that are not produced by organic farming. I work for a company that trades in organic fabrics and I keep non-transgenic bees without using any Bayer products. I don't believe in vaccination as practiced these days for the reason you give. Hopefully, I will never develop diabetes.


Yes, I do the same. What I can do green or organic I do. 



> And I'm with Ann on this - IMO you are being deliberately obtuse and trying - like Monsanto did - to fudge the issue and pretend that crossing and transgenics are the same thing. My eldest son is a world class expert in leading-edge RNA interference in cancer research and he backs me up on this.Which is why I'm done with Kieck's 'debate', also.
> 
> I'm done on this subject - bang on some more if you wish.


Which is why I'm done with Kieck's 'debate', also.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

dickm:

I appreciate your consideration. Like you, I am not directly involved in breeding efforts, especially for commercial markets, and my understanding of genetics is limited.

But I like your suggestion/offer, and I'd like to offer a few questions. Whether or not buckbee and/or Ann agree with the questions, I'd like to see what geneticists come up with.

1) Practically (not mechanically), how do transgenic events and hybridization -- especially across genera (i.e. "wheat") -- differ?

2) How likely are genes to move across species without hybridization (i.e., viruses or bacteria infecting more than one species and carrying fragments of DNA with them)? Is this transfer any different than "artificial" transgenic events?

3) How specific are current transgenic events? Are genes or pieces of DNA that may code for other traits transferred, too, or are ONLY the "desired" traits moved? How likely are problems from unintentional "piggybacks?"

What I'd really, really like is a clear, "lay-person level" explanation of how transgenics differ from selective breeding and hybridization, if they differ much at all. (I understand the methods used to create transgenics, but what I'd like to hear is why the experts think the results differ.)



> And you can say all you want that there is no differance between this happening in the wild or in the lab all you want, there is a differance. In the wild the genes transfered may or may not make it, may or may not contain useful genes for the species it is transfered into, and most of the results don't survive. -peggjam


True, to a point, but then I think you're not considering all the aspects. The genes that get transfered may or may not be "useful," but they may also be far more "dangerous" than we'd ever expect. In the lab, humans attempt to control which genes are moved, while in nature, the movement could be completely detrimental to humans. For example, a gene that codes for a toxin in nightshades could be moved into a potato or a tomato, and the edible parts could become completely toxic to humans.



> Then they are placed on the market and proclaimed to be the next great plant to reduce chemical use, which in reality generally requires greater use of pesticides or herbicides. -peggjam


And, so far, they seem to reduce the use of insecticides and herbicides. "Greater use?" How so?

Let me give two specific examples that I know first-hand that contradict what you suggest:

First, RoundUp Ready (RR) corn. Opponents of GM claim that the use of herbicide has increased, while in fact, it's changed. Prior to RR corn, farmers around here applied roughly 4 pounds (64 ounces) per acre active ingredient of atrazine when they planted their corn. Now, they typically use just over 1 1/3 pounds (22 ounces) per acre active ingredient glyphosate (RoundUp) to get the same weed control. By the way, atrazine shows up in just about everybody's drinking water these days, largely because it's been so heavily used for so long. While RoundUp probably isn't any "better" for you, it does seem less likely to contaminate drinking water, it's used in smaller quantities, and it's "different," so at least it isn't still adding to an already-high accumulation.

Secondly, insecticides on corn to control European corn borer. First generation Bt corn provides good control of European corn borer populations. Previously, or currently on conventional corn, farmers have to scout for corn borers and try to time their chemical application very carefully to coincide with the emergence of the larvae. Often two or more (especially if two or more generations of corn borers occur each year in corn) applications of insecticides were/are made to corn specifically to kill European corn borers. If the weather doesn't cooperate (i.e., rain washes off the insectide), or if the farmers miss their timing (or just to "make sure"), more applications of insecticide were/are made.

Since this thread started with an accusation against imidacloprid, look at France. France has been very careful to ban neonicotinoids. In place, the growers there are using far more neurotoxic insecticides than growers in countries that allow neonicotinoids. While neonicotinoids may cause some problems, which is worse: small amounts of neonicotinoids, or large amounts of nerve poisons?

I know, I know, buckbee in particular will argue that it's not a dichotomy. It isn't necessarily "one or the other." But in practicality, it DOES seem to be one or the other.



> Yes, I do the same. What I can do green or organic I do. -Ann


Wow! No driving?!? I'm impressed! (Just to clarify, riding public transportation that uses gasoline or biodiesel means you're using GM, too.) By the way "green" or "organic" is not the opposite of "GM." In some ways, GM can be more "green" than conventional.



> Which is why I'm done with Kieck's 'debate', also. -Ann


Too bad. You guys are bailing out before really answering the questions I posed to you. Sincerely, I'd like to hear your responses. Not to "debate," and not just repetitions of "They're different," but thoughtful, considered explanations of how they differ practically.


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

Kieck said:


> Wow! No driving?!? I'm impressed! (Just to clarify, riding public transportation that uses gasoline or biodiesel means you're using GM, too.) By the way "green" or "organic" is not the opposite of "GM." In some ways, GM can be more "green" than conventional.


This is _exactly_ why I can't be bothered with you. I said nothing about not driving. But you twist and turn just to make your misbegotten points. There is nothing sincere about your desire to hear our answers, you just want to wordsmith to make people look like fools. You've proved my point, now I am truly done.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Heres one take on RR crop system:

https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpub...6868704323f07ba287256f920010d901?OpenDocument

I'll add some more in a few minitues .


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

http://www.biotech-info.net/caution.html

Then there's this one, which is not a study or research paper, but an article that qoutes the reseacher who issued the Monarch butterfly warning concerning Bt corn.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

peggjam:

Alfalfa is very different from the other RoundUp Ready crops on the market, as the link you provided states. That does not, however, change the dynamics of the RoundUp versus atrazine comparison I listed in corn.

And, as the link points out, the perennial nature of the alfalfa is a significant change. I'm not saying that GM crops have no risk, just that some of the "risks" that are listed here and some of the perceived risks are not real.

Despite all that, I understand that demand for a RoundUp Ready Kentucky bluegrass (another perennial) is high in this country. People want a grass that can withstand RoundUp so they can have monocultural lawns with minimum effort.



> This is exactly why I can't be bothered with you. I said nothing about not driving. -Ann


Ann:

buckbee responded to my post of the "recipe" by saying he already does what I listed, including avoiding vaccinations (I don't know how he avoided viral infections, since those turn humans into GMOs, too). You responded that you do the same.

I simply have a hard time believing that Americans can really avoid GM products. If you can, great! But don't imply that you follow the "recipe" if, in fact, you only follow parts of it.



> There is nothing sincere about your desire to hear our answers,. . . . -Ann


I don't hear ANY answer. I've asked and asked the same question over and over, in different ways, yet neither you nor buckbee will even take a stab at answering.

First, it was, "They're different." (The question was "how," not "are.")

Now, it's, "You're not sincere," or, "You're twisting our words."

Honestly, I've got no words as an answer to twist. Neither one of you has answered my question.

I'll ask it again:

How do transgenic events and hybridization between species, or, more significantly, between genera, differ practically?

Again, I know how they differ mechanically, but how do the results differ?

(I suspect that you don't really know, like most things, the unknown is "scary," or you've been indoctrinated that it's "unnatural" without learning any explanation about the "why" of it. Prove me wrong, please.)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

peggjam:

The monarch research has been discredited. The researchers claimed the pollen was harming the caterpillars, but, really, the bracts (the structures that hold the pollen) were somewhat toxic to the monarchs.

The researchers, rightly, claimed that pollen is spread widely on the wind, and, if the pollen is toxic, monarchs could be consuming it and dying. However, they fed pollen with the bracts to the caterpillars. Bracts are not naturally spread; they release the pollen, and the bracts remain on the plants.
So, it's unlikely that the caterpillars would be consuming bracts.

Besides all that:

1) How many milkweed plants (the only food of monarch caterpillars) do you see growing in corn fields? Can perennial milkweed plants survive the constant disruptions that go with growing corn?

2) How likely are monarch caterpillars to eat corn pollen? The caterpillars do not eat indiscriminately; they select their bites carefully, and they do not like corn pollen. (If you force them to eat corn pollen and bracts, like the Cornell study, they will.)

3) Most importantly, the Bt corn variety that was tested used different forms of the Cry proteins than the Bt corn varieties on the market currently. That variety (StarLink) has been off the market for years, and all of the current varieties are tested carefully by the EPA for toxicity to monarch caterpillars specifically before release.

In reality, the research on the monarchs and Bt corn is faulty and out-of-date. (Even the link you provided is from 2001.)



> Currently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of reviewing all Bt crops. These crops are up for renewal at the end of September 2001. -link provided by peggjam


I think that says a lot. The EPA reviewed all Bt (not all transgenic or GM crops) on the market in 2001, and Bt products (not just corn) are still on the market.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Alfalfa is very different from the other RoundUp Ready crops on the market, as the link you provided states. That does not, however, change the dynamics of the RoundUp versus atrazine comparison I listed in corn.

And, as the link points out, the perennial nature of the alfalfa is a significant change. I'm not saying that GM crops have no risk, just that some of the "risks" that are listed here and some of the perceived risks are not real."


You asked about GMO crops, you can't pick and choose which ones you want to discuss, they are all fair game. You asked why I don't like GMO crops, I have answered that there hasn't been enough testing done. 

You stated that my comment that increased pesticide or herbicide useage was wrong, I have shown that it is not. Most of the studies I have linked to in past conversations have indicated that there is and has been an ongoing and steady increase in the use of chemical controls regardless of what kind of crop it is.

I have also stated that another reason that GMO crops are different than transgenic crops are definded by the plants ability to survive in the wild, and that when this happens in the wild, it usually affects only a small region. GMO plants are pampered, and released for massive plantings that remove it from the small regional aspect and places them in all regions, with little or no testing. GMO is different, not only in the way it takes place, but also in the areas that it takes place, are you really willing to place our food chain in such danger?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"I think that says a lot. The EPA reviewed all Bt (not all transgenic or GM crops) on the market in 2001, and Bt products (not just corn) are still on the market."


I find the EPA most often rules in favor of big business, irregardless of the impact on the public interest, so just because the EPA hasn't pulled them, doesn't make them safe .


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> You asked about GMO crops, you can't pick and choose which ones you want to discuss, they are all fair game. You asked why I don't like GMO crops, I have answered that there hasn't been enough testing done. -peggjam


I never said that "wasn't fair." So, do I understand you correctly (Ann would say I'm twisting words here): you don't like any transgenic technology because one or two examples might prove "bad?"



> have also stated that another reason that GMO crops are different than transgenic crops are definded by the plants ability to survive in the wild, and that when this happens in the wild, it usually affects only a small region. GMO plants are pampered, and released for massive plantings that remove it from the small regional aspect and places them in all regions, with little or no testing. GMO is different, not only in the way it takes place, but also in the areas that it takes place, are you really willing to place our food chain in such danger? -peggjam


One of the biggest arguments AGAINST some transgenics (same thing as GMOs, just a different word for it) is that the possibility of them spreading through the environment is too great. In other words, one of the biggest current arguments directly refutes what you're saying.

GM plants (GMOs are "genetically-modified organisms") do NOT have to be pampered before released, any more than any other variety is "pampered" before release. In fact, if they're so likely to spread so rapidly, they must have some significant evolutionary advantage, right? Which means that they're not, at this time, "threatening" our food chain because they're likely to fail, but, rather, because you're concerned about the effects they may have on humans.

Like buckbee pointed out, GM crops have been released and used for more than 30 years, perhaps as long as 40 years. So, what damage has shown up so far?



> Most of the studies I have linked to in past conversations have indicated that there is and has been an ongoing and steady increase in the use of chemical controls regardless of what kind of crop it is. -peggjam


Not the ones I've seen. Of course, the main ones I've seen are the statistics provided by my state's department of agriculture on the percentages of acres grown in transgenic crops and the amounts of active ingredients of each herbicide and pesticide applied in the state. Those numbers show what I mentioned earlier: atrazine applications are few and far between now, RoundUp applications are greater, but the amount of active ingredient (think "toxin") applied is less now than with the atrazine. Fewer cases of point-source pollution of water have occurred since the switch to RoundUp from atrazine. Fewer applications of insecticides have been made against European corn borer. Less active ingredient of pesticide has been applied per acre to corn since Bt corn became widespread.

And, really, the "little or no testing" comment seems to be a matter of perspective. The companies producing the products test the stuff. Universities and research facilities across the country test the stuff. The EPA tests the stuff. Then it gets released.

Before it can be used for human consumption (and many of these can, now), the FDA tests the stuff, too.

(All these accusations of "not enough" testing by the EPA seem ironic to me, coming from the same group that largely seems to be saying that the EPA should just accept others' tests on oxalic acid, rather than testing it directly. Those same standards that are "too strict" when it comes to OA are "too lax" concerning transgenic varieties. Ironic.)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I find the EPA most often rules in favor of big business, irregardless of the impact on the public interest, so just because the EPA hasn't pulled them, doesn't make them safe. -peggjam


Then why did you quote that as an example of the "risk" associated with GM? The quotation about EPA reviewing Bt crops came directly from the link you provided, really as the summary and "point" of the article.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"I never said that "wasn't fair." So, do I understand you correctly (Ann would say I'm twisting words here): you don't like any transgenic technology because one or two examples might prove "bad?""

It will only take one or two major crops turning bad to screw up our food chain. And when you say they test these before allowing human consumption, I don't think that that is acurate at all. They allowed these crops to be used to feed livestock, who eats the livestock?

Mad Cow is a perfect example of what used to be considered safe for our livestock to eat........mainly the addition of rendered byproducts to the livestock feed. That was supposed to be perfectly safe.......it went on for decades........AND then we found out what the effects of that decision by our government really ment. That we could be infected by a brain wasteing desiease that would make for a horrible death.

Now think GMO.....and how much WE don't know about the results of these activies. What may seem perfectly safe today, could bite us a few decades down the road.......but we don't need to worry about it right......cause our reseachers and government agencies have our best interest to heart......right? 


"And, really, the "little or no testing" comment seems to be a matter of perspective. The companies producing the products test the stuff. Universities and research facilities across the country test the stuff. The EPA tests the stuff. Then it gets released."

Who funds the testing done by the companies? The companies.....what do you expect them to say........smoking doesn't cause cancer either .

Also, who do you suppose funds the testing done by Universities, and research facilities? . Who does the EPA support? 

You call that testing ???????


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Ever since Buckbee yelled at me I'v been reading. Since it's possible to cherry pick...one must read carefully. A piece of dna in a microbe Ingested possibly as food or carried by a virus is like a mutation. The (now) transgenic animal is altered as it incorporates that dna. The population of altered microbes is "purified" by the environment as the new animal comes up against the forces of nature. Most will die. If it provides an advantage it will live on. Done in the lab viruses are also used but they are aided by materials that promote the insertion. I've got a lot more to go but I nclude what is below from my friend. 


And I quote:
Something that does occur in nature is the snipping out, or copying, of genes and their insertion at a new place on the chromosome. There are DNA elements (called transposons) in all of us that do this copying and jumping all the time. Some bits of DNA may have been taken between organisms with viruses as the vector - there is fairly good evidence of this. Also - and this is a big one - way back in the evolution of life one type of organism entered into a symbiotic relationship with another. Cells with normal nuclei took up primitive bacteria or blue-green algae. These bacteria-like organisms became 'stuck' inside and eventually evolved into the powerhouses (mitochondria) inside the cells of all higher organisms. A second type became the chloroplasts in all green plants. These captured symbiotic organisms lost many of their own genes, many of which migrated to the chromosomes of its host - but a remnant set of genes remains in chloroplasts and mitochondria. So, there has already been a mass movement of bacteria-like genes into all higher organisms!
Unquote:

Chew on that for awhile.

Dickm


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

All of that aside, Dick, it doesn't mean we arn't engaging in risky business......things that were ment to be can be found in nature, those that weren't....well they just arn't there.......we shouldn't be doing these types of things.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Cheer up Pegjam,
We are going to blow ourselves up in a pointless religious war long before GMOs can hurt us. 
I agree we should have been cautious and many people feel that way. The trouble is the fear is sort of like fear of the unknown. If we keep this thread going at least we can "know" it. I think it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle so let's understand it.

Dickm


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Kieck,
I presented your questions. This is what I got back. It’s long but if one wants to understand this segment of nature.. one should plow through it. I know you will. The rest of you ought to as well. I usually scan the longer posts because they usually have less data in them. This is dense with data.

Quote:
1. Differences between transgenic and hybridization?

With hybridization you are using, sometimes abusing, the normal process you get with sex. Genes in chromosomes: In some cases (e.g. wheat) chromosomes come in pairs and more or less keep themselves to themselves - you have pairs of chromosomes from 3 different parents in wheat which pair with themselves when gametes are about to be produced and consequently all genes are inherited in a stable manner. The same set - a full set of all genes from 3 parent species - gets passed down the generations. Some wild species do this too. Another way is for chromosomes *not* to be doubled. Species A x species B makes a hybrid. Chromosomes pair and swap chunks (Googling for meiosis may help here). However because chromosomes pair by a zip-fastener that recognises similar sequence before they swap sections, any exchange of genes usually puts a slice of a chromosome from species B into the right place in the equivalent chromosome in species A.

So you have an individual that has a section of one chromosome of species A replaced by a piece from species B. That piece (and there will be many in each individual) will be quite big, with many, many genes. If you are a plant breeder and species A was a crop, you might have moved a useful gene in, but in the process displaced quite a few useful crop genes too. The answer then is to backcross to species A again and again (and again) whilst selecting your new trait. You'll never get all the foreign DNA out, there will always be some around the gene controlling the trait you are interested in.

The transgenic way? Extract the DNA, snip it in the right places, add whatever suitable switches and filters take your fancy, and plop it into the genome somewhere. Drawbacks? You need to understand your genes well, and breeders usually don't. Traits are often controlled by many genes working together and transgenic methods have a hard job coping with this. You will be dumping it into a random part of the genome, and that may (will) affect the way it behaves. Advantages? It is a lot more controlled than normal breeding. Those switches and filters may (or may not) be a useful addition. You can turn genes off quite easily as well as add new ones. If you are starting with a useful variety of a crop, you will not change it much (though you may change it more than you like). But here's the big one - with a little tweaking, you can use genes from *any* organism, not just those you can hybridize.

2. How likely is gene transfer by viruses, bacteria?

To animals and plants - not very likely at all, but possible. Between bacteria and viruses - happens naturally all the time.

2b Is this transfer any different than "artificial" transgenic events?

Not really. You can make transgenics by any approach that gets the DNA into a chromosome - hijacking Agrobacterium's natural GM system, blasting it in on tungsten beads, dunking little plants into solutions of DNA, whatever.

3. How specific are current transgenic events?

With a few exceptions, the folk involved knew what they were doing and only the genes they had in mind were transferred. There are a few examples of additional genes, but these days the quality control of the process is better. So almost always, it is just the genes that you snipped out and which you planned to use that make it. 
Hope that helps - all the best


Supplementary: 'but what I'd like to hear is why the experts think the results differ'

1. DNA from any source, not just sexually compatible.
2. Novel combinations of genes with promoters and other trans-acting factors (switches and filters)
3. Only the DNA of interest transferred.
4. Positioning in the genome not usually under control, so effectively this creates new genetic loci.

UnQuote

New words: Meosis, Agrobacterium, 



Dick Marron


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

dickm:

Nice work! I appreciate your post; thank you for asking the questions and posting the responses!

Seems to me, from the responses posted above, the hybridization presents greater risks of introducing unintended genes/traits than does transgenic events, but the "positioning" of those genes within the genomes may be better controlled with simple hybridization. I'm not sure exactly what that may mean, practically. My opinion is that genes in the "wrong" places most likely make survival of the organisms almost impossible, and, if they do survive, the genes probably do not code for what was intended. Whether they code for anything at all, or are simple "ignored," probably varies.


----------

