Bees are dying and they act like it's a mystery

However, in Germany where they still teach science they published an article about the toxic nature of Monsantos Triple Hybrid GM corn and it's effect on bees in '05. Why won't the media here mention that GM corn is the likely cause of the bees disapearing? Could it be that Monsanto is a massive multinational corp with a market capitalization of 30 billion dollars?? Of course insects are seen as pests by most people. Most people who passed Earth Science class in highschool understand that every part of the food chain is important and some, but not most, understand that bees perform a task that vital to our survival.

Albert Einstein once predicted that if bees were to disappear, man would follow only a few years later.

That hypothesis could soon be put to the test.

Now in Spain, hundreds of thousands of colonies have been lost and beekeepers in northern Croatia estimated that five million bees had died in just 48 hours this week. In Poland, the Swietokrzyskie beekeeper association has estimated that up to 40 per cent of bees were wiped out last year. Greece, Switzerland, Italy and Portugal have also reported heavy losses.

The depopulation of bees could have a huge impact on the environment, which is reliant on the insects for pollination. If taken to the extreme, crops, fodder - and therefore livestock - could die off if there are no pollinating insects left.

German bee expert Professor Joergen Tautz from Wurzburg University said: "Bees are vital to bio diversity. There are 130,000 plants for example for which bees are essential to pollination, from melons to pumpkins, raspberries and all kind of fruit trees - as well as animal fodder - like clover.

"Bees are more important than poultry in terms of human nutrition. Bees from one hive can visit a million flowers within a 400 square kilometre area in just one day.

"Bees are not only working for our welfare, they are also perfect indicators of the state of the environment. We should take note."

•  We're so screwed it ain't even funny.

  And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

  Let's all pour a cup of our favorite instant flavored coffee to celebrate this special moment, shall we?

  by Mehitabel9 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:13:36 PM PDT

  •  A COLLAPSE moment

    Will we see what's happening and fix things before it's too late?  Or are we the doomed European colony on Greenland in Jared Diamond's Collapse?

    Is profit more important than life?

    The Music Room.

    by madhaus on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:05:53 PM PDT

    •  What are you talking about?

      There is no evidence whatsoever that GMOs are involved in the decline in bee numbers.

      by tmendoza on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:54:24 PM PDT

      •  See my next comment for possible causes

        I'm no biologist, but I know how to Google and I am a scientist. A little more research would have improved this diary greatly.

        by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:58:55 PM PDT

        •  See my diary for possible other theories

          Organic bees and Africanized bees seem immune to the disorder.

          Some bees are not dying.

          by Greenkermie in AZ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:29:46 PM PDT

    •  Do a little research, I heard the Con. committee

      by accident today. There are multiple suspected causes. A more likely cause than GMO corn is pesticide poisoning that interferes with bees sense of orientation.

      Bee Poisoning Can be Subtle

      Some pesticides cause direct kill of foragers. This happens when bees are on flowers when the pesticide application is conducted, or when the pesticide used is highly toxic to bees. The highly toxic pesticides actually leave no evidence because nearly all bees die in the field, before bees make their way home. Other types of pesticides allow bees to return home, and then die inside the hive. This type of poisoning is the easiest to diagnose, with a large pile of dead bees in front of a bee hive, usually with their tongues sticking out. Some chemicals do not directly harm adult bees, so they are brought back to the colony and cause damage to young, immature stages of bees (brood). Captan is of this type and does not kill adult bees but larvae exposed to it die or develop into malformed adults. The French beekeepers have experienced the "mad bee disease" recently, in which millions of bees simply become disoriented and not finding their way home. A suspected culprit was thought to be the chemical Gaucho (imidacloprid) applied to sunflowers to protect against parasites, but there is still much discussion about this issue. The French government in 2001 ordered a two-year extension of a ban on spraying this chemical on sunflowers, to allow more study of its impact on the nervous systems of bees. The take-home message is that diagnosis of bee poisoning can be difficult, and growers should take care with any use of pesticides during bloom, and follow the directions for bee safety.

      Colony Collapse Disorder

      Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD) is the name of the phenomenon that describes the massive die-off affecting an entire beehive or bee colony. The BBC have referred to it as VBS (Vanishing Bee Syndrome). It was originally apparently limited to colonies of the Western honey bee in North America,[1] but European beekeepers have recently claimed to be observing a similar phenomenon in Poland and Spain, with initial reports coming in from Switzerland and Germany, albeit to a smaller degree.[2] The cause (or causes) of the syndrome is not yet well understood and even the existence of this disorder remains disputed. Theories include environmental change-related stresses[3], malnutrition, unknown pathogens, mites, pesticides, disease[4], or genetically modified (GM) crops[5].

      From 1971 to 2006 approximately one half of the U.S. honey bee colonies have vanished, but this decline includes the cumulative losses from all factors such as urbanization, pesticide use, tracheal and Varroa mites and commercial beekeepers retiring and going out of business, and has been fairly gradual. Late in the year 2006 and in early 2007, however, the rate of attrition was alleged to have reached new proportions, and the term "Colony Collapse Disorder" was proposed to describe this sudden rash of disappearances.[1]

      Limited occurrences resembling CCD have been documented as early as 1896,[4] and this set of symptoms has in the past several decades been given many different names (disappearing disease, spring dwindle, May disease, autumn collapse, and fall dwindle disease). Most recently, a similar phenomenon in the winter of 2004/2005 occurred, and was attributed to Varroa mites (the "Vampire Mite" scare), though this was never ultimately confirmed. In none of the past appearances of this syndrome has anyone been able to determine its cause(s). Upon recognition that the syndrome does not seem to be seasonally-restricted, and that it may not be a "disease" in the standard sense (in that there may not be a specific causative agent), the syndrome was re-named.[6]

      Millions of Bees Dead

      Synthetic honey and GMO bees - Part II

      A French governmental report confirms suspicions of a mass poisoning of bees involving hundreds of thousands of colonies of honey bees. According to the report of the French Scientific and Technical Committee, Bayer's seed treatment GAUCHO pesticide is to blame - at least in part.

      Earlier this year, I published an article by French journalist Michel Dogna, who had investigated the ecological catastrophe and pointed a finger at Bayer's toxic product. His article - Synthetic honey and GMO bees? - can be found here.

      Coalition against Bayer-Dangers, as well as French and German beekepers' unions are calling for an immediate ban of the pesticide.

      France: Governmental report claims BAYER-pesticide GAUCHO responsible for bee-deaths

      Coalition against Bayer-Dangers is calling for a ban

      November 25th, 2003

      The report on bee-deaths, published by the French Comité Scientifique et Technique (CST), shows that the use of the pesticide GAUCHO is jointly responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of bee colonies. Environmental activists and beekeeper unions are calling for a ban on the agricultural toxin.

      The summary of the report states: "The results of the examination on the risks of the seeds-treatment GAUCHO are alarming. The treatment of seeds by GAUCHO is a significant risk to bees in several stages of life." The 108-page report was made by order of the agricultural ministry of France by the universities of Caen and Metz as well as by the Pasteur Institute.

      The use of GAUCHO on sunflowers was prohibited in France four years ago because of the high risk to bees. However after this step, the bee-deaths did not decrease noticeably - beekeepers are blaming this on the extensive use of agricultural toxins in maize cultivation. The concluding-report of the CST agrees, stating: "Concerning the treatment of maize-seeds by GAUCHO, the results are as alarming as with sunflowers. The consumption of contaminated pollen can lead to an increased mortality of care-taking-bees, which can explain the persisting bee-deaths even after the ban of the treatment on sunflowers".

      The pesticide GAUCHO (containing the active substance Imidacloprid) is produced by the German BAYER-group. With an annual turnover of more than 500 million Euro this is the group´s top selling agricultural agent. Critics assume that the high sales figures are the reason why the company is contesting a ban on its use.

      The thesis, as stated by bee institutes, that infestation by Varroa mites was responsible for the bee deaths, appears to be an excuse, according to Fridolin Brandt of the Coalition against Bayer-Dangers: "We have been concerned with Varroa mites since 1977, and for decades they haven't been a danger. It is the extensive use of pesticides and the accompanying weakening of the bees which is leading to the bee-deaths." Brandt has been a full-time beekeeper for more than 30 years.

      Maurice Mary, spokesman of the French beekeepers union Union National d'Apiculteurs (UNAF): "Since the first application of GAUCHO we have had great losses in the harvest of sunflower honey. Since the agent is staying in the soil up to three years, even untreated plants can contain a concentration which is lethal for bees." The UNAF representing about 50.000 beekeepers is calling for a total ban of GAUCHO, following the presentation of the CST report.

      The German beekeepers united in the Deutsche Berufsimkerbund (DBIB) and the Coalition against Bayer-Dangers are also calling for a ban on its use. In Germany, Imidacloprid is used mainly in the production of rape, sugar beet and maize. The situation in German agriculture is comparable to the French: In the past years almost half of the bee-colonies have died, which led to a loss of output of several thousand tonnes of honey per year. Furthermore, because bees do the most pollination, there are also losses of output on apples, pears and rape.

      We would be pleased to send to you the 108-page report of the Comité Scientifique et Technique (in French) and a statement by the Coordination des Apiculteurs de France (in English)

      Coalition against BAYER-dangers
      www.CBGnetwork.org
      [e-mail]
      Fax: [phone] Tel: [phone]

      See also more recent (Feb. 2004) articles:

      France bans use of six Fipronil insecticides PARIS, Feb 23 (Reuters) - France said on Monday it would ban the use of six insecticides containing Fipronil, an active ingredient notably used in the Regent TS insecticide produced by BASF Agro , because it is suspected of killing bees. Fipronil was marketed under the trade name Regent for use against major pests on a wide range of field and horticultural crops but it is also marketed under other names for insecticides against fleas, ticks or mites (Reuters AlertNet, UK).

      Bayer shares fall on insecticide, Roche bid worries

      French ban pesticides sold in Australia

      Update May 2004:

      26 May 2004 - France suspends use of Gaucho insecticide for corn

      French Agriculture Minister Herve Gaymard on Tuesday announced it planned to stop use of the Gaucho pesticide to treat corn seeds until it is reviewed by the European Commission in 2006.

      In January last year, Gaymard had already extended for three years suspension of the use of Gaucho, a chemical produced by the German chemicals and pharmaceuticals giant Bayer, for treatment of sunflower seeds.

      Gaucho, like another pesticide Regent TS produced by German chemicals giant BASF, has been accused by French bee-keepers of causing a high mortality rate among bees. Sales of Regent TS was suspended in France last February.

      An agriculture ministry report deemed that the government's decision to give farmers till June to use up their remaining stocks of pesticide was much less costly that destroying the crop seeds already sprayed. But the national association of bee-keepers says massive damage is being done to bee populations, which are crucial to plant pollination.

      Subisidiaries of Bayer and BASF, which sold Regent TS, are under criminal investigation in France for selling an agricultural product that is toxic to humans or animals. (sourche: AFP)

      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. It is used in the UK on several crops, though not in exactly the way it is used in France, and British beekeepers have been urged to be on their guard. UK apiarists say the value of bees to the agricultural economy is immense, and they fear bees are becoming rarer.

      The chemical implicated in the loss of French bees is imidacloprid, marketed under a variety of names including Gaucho. It is slowly released in the plants, protecting them against insect attack by destroying their ability to find their way.

      A London newspaper, the Observer, reported: "Almost immediately after the chemicals were introduced 10 years ago, beekeepers reported that their bees were becoming disoriented and dying.

      Used in UK

      "Within a few years honey production in south-west France fell by 60%. According to the chairman of the national beekeepers' association, Jean-Marie Sirvins, a third of the country's 1.5 million registered hives disappeared. "As a result, France has had to import up to 24,000 tons of honey annually." The pesticide companies say their products are not responsible for killing the bees.

      There are no reports of any ill effects from applications of imidacloprid in the UK, where it is licensed for use on beet. There are restrictions on its use when the plants are in flower, or for spraying the foliage. But Richard Jones, the director of the International Bee Research Association, told BBC News Online: "Beekeepers here have to be on the alert.

      More needed

      "The verroa mite, which feeds on the bees' blood, arrived from mainland Europe, and we know that bees' nests can travel a long way on container ships.

      "People hear about bees and think only about honey, but it's the other side of the problem that's worrying. "They add billions of pounds to the value of the agricultural economy every year because of their work in pollinating crops like apples.

      "We don't have enough bees in the UK, and we have very few feral bees. Every time a hedgerow is destroyed, that means the loss of nesting places for bumblebees."

      By Alex Kirby, 1 March 2004
      BBC News Online environment correspondent

      From: Coalition against BAYER-dangers
      [e-mail]
      Fax: [phone] Tel: [phone]

      • - -

      by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:56:52 PM PDT

      •  The Gaucho connection makes sense.

        It has to be a factor that isn't bound geographically  Deep bark cracks in nursery stock appeared all over the United States and after serious study, it turned out it was from spraying RoundUp(glysophate) directly on young trees.  The bark absorbed the chemical and damage appeared up to two or three years after application.  (No link.  Sorry.  Got this from a professional conference.  Also have a young cherry tree with the damage.  Pissed me off when I found out why, too late.)

        So, yes.  Chemicals spread by humans creates a outbreak profile that differs from natural stresses.  I'd be willing to bet that my local beekeeper hasn't had problems.  He gave up commercial pollination and moved out to rural OH where there is less agriculture.

        by Fabian on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:37:02 PM PDT

        •  If it is related to chemical agriculture ...

          ... that would of course increase the likelihood that it is correlated with some of the GM crops, since one of the targets for GM is the creation of crops that are less sensitive to dumping poisons of various sorts on top, and the reduced sensitivity of the plants gives greater freedom to explore what other parts of the ecosystem are affected by the higher doses of poison.

          by BruceMcF on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:19:27 PM PDT

          •  not necessarily....

            GMO with Bt is designed to greatly reduce chemical use for pesticides.  GMO for Roundup herbicide is intended to increase herbicide tolerance.  This herbicide affects chloroplasts, found in plants not animals.

            by murrayewv on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:46:55 PM PDT

            •  I'm no great fan of GM agriculture

              But using it as a scapegoat for every little thing is not very scientific, and a lot like fear mongering.

              So it annoys me when people reflexively holler "GMO!".  

              by Fabian on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:05:30 AM PDT

            •  Isn't the statement 'one of the' ...

              ... intrinsically "not necessarily"?

              by BruceMcF on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:16:03 AM PDT

              •  Intentionally inaccurate?

                RoundUp Ready(tm) crops are the only chemically(herbicide) resistant GM crops that I know of.  That is exactly ONE chemical - glysophate.  Glysophate is a plant growth regulator(someone correct me if I am wrong) - without any effect on animals.  Glysophate is either absorbed by the plant or binds to the soil.  Either way, it has a very short effective life in the environment.

                The suspect chemical in Gaucho is acts against insects.  An insecticide, not a herbicide.   I note with a certain sense of irony that the active chemical is derived from nicotine, a naturally occuring insect poison.

                by Fabian on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:22:31 AM PDT

                •  It is, rather, intentionally general.

                  Where a proven commercial advantage has been exploited in making plants resistent to one poison, the search will already be on to extent that to other poisons. That's how our economic system works.

                  by BruceMcF on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:59:22 AM PDT

                  •  Yes

                    But it's best to be as accurate as you can be when talking about particulars.  Painting with a broad brush is rarely a good idea.

                    Probably the chemical industry started a strong marketing program in advance of one or more of their older chemicals being phased out due to regulations.  Once an old chemical gets forcibly retired, it opens the markets for replacements.  

                    Farmers aren't stupid.  If they realize that they'll be paying for pest protection twice - once for the chemical and once again in reduced crops due to pollinator loss, the bottom line will win out.  

                    by Fabian on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:12:59 AM PDT

                •  FYI, glyphosate, not glysophate n/t

                  by DrReason on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:43:33 AM PDT

      •  The Verroa mite

        I had a Apidae colony in my house walls for years (6). I eventually had to get rid of it because it was attracting ants (Argentine) to my Cicindela population in aquaria (Formica of many Genus will swarm, kill and sometimes eat other insects - but like humans, Formica will swarm and kill for no apparent reason).

        My honey bees were infected with Verroa mites. They are very large in comparison to the honey bee's body. It would be as if you had a house cat-sized parasite attached to your stomach and chest. But, somehow this colony did just fine with the infected bees and the colony continued to work, albeit more slowly, and the individuals which were infected  did not live as long (not all bees were - some just never 'got' them).

        Pesticides of all sorts are not only lodged in our soils, drift in our water, but also in our bodies because of industrial and home use. Home use is all about appearances.... so, many times pesticides are over used in urban settings. The other problem in our environment which effects insect and vertebrates alike is toxic heavy metals brought to us by Standard Oil and Coal burning (lead and mercury).  Oh, I forgot, nickel.... which is used to make ferric metal compounds not rust.... like in your car/truck/train.... Nickel is pretty much everywhere. Some plants take up the nickel from the soil and use it as an insecticide!

        The point I want to make is...You and I and the bugs suffer from heavy body burdens of high concentrations of anthropomorphic toxins.

        SO, why are the honey bees dying? People have not yet pin-pointed THE reason - but, you and I and the bugs do have immune systems and they can be over burdened. Perhaps, it is a confluence of all the stuff we do plus their own parasites.... We all have DDT in our bodies...

        Poor little creepy guys....

        by tardigrade on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:39:08 PM PDT

        •  the food chain...

          It seems sometimes a toxic substance or deleterious change in conditions strikes low on the food chain (see re the phytoplankton dieoff and the potential and already realized consequences in the Pacific West) and sometimes it needs to acumulate through multiple relays (see mercury buildup in large fish...)

          Either way the effects on one species or niche of the ecosystem represent a bellweather for a greater problem... (or, much worse, a weakening in the system that could not only herald but in fact cause collapse.)

          by shademar on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:16:06 AM PDT

      •  Just bought Merit 75WP

        It has the same ingredient, imidacloprid as Gaucho.

        The label clearly warns about toxicity to bees.

        The active ingredient interferes with neuronal pathways which are common to insects but not to "higher" creatures.

        Right now it is my only hope to keep 5 beautify Carolina Hemlocks alive on my property.  They are being attacked by wooly adelgids.  I will drench it into the ground in a 3 to 4 foot circle.  There should be little contamination.

        I would prefer another means.  Biologists are trying some imported beetles which are only supposed to eat only adelgids.  I hope it works.  We are losing thousands of acres of hemlocks.  The Linville Gorge Wilderness Area is almost dead.  It is too late for the hemlocks there.
        

        
        
        
        (Click to enlarge)

        
        The little white hemlock blood suckers are killing the trees.

        by SomeStones on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:52:51 PM PDT

        •  Wooly adelgids

          Where did they come from? Why are they on your property now, and not before?

          Is it a global warming effect? Something else?

          Sounds mean for me to say this, but I do not intend it that way: what good will pesticides do?

          I am asking myself this same question here in northern CA, re trees on my property. Sudden Oak Death Syndrome is in my neighborhood, for one thing. Also I am looking to plant a tree in memory of my recently deceased mother, and I want to choose well.

          The devastation in Linville Gorge sounds dreadful.

          by DBunn on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:45:46 PM PDT

          •  Adelgids are an import.

            In the 1920's they came in from Asia by accident.

            More than you ever wanted to know: Hemlock Wooly Adelgid.

            by SomeStones on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:19:35 AM PDT

          •  Linville Gorge is severly damaged.

            From the top overlook at Linville Falls, big patches... hundreds of acres, are mostly grey.  In those areas, the skeletons of the dead trees still stand.  When a tree starts to die, it takes several years during which it goes from vibrant green to ashen grey.

            I found this photo whichs shows the devastation.  If you look between the two men, about belly high, you see a grove of green hemlocks.  Now notice that most of the mountainside is a dirty grey.  It should all be green.

            by SomeStones on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

            •  Oh man

              That's a sad photo. Beyond sad, but I have no words to say it.

              BTW you have a great sig line. Who are you quoting?

              by DBunn on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:17:24 AM PDT

              •  Molly Ivins... or another patriot. n/t

                by SomeStones on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:34:13 PM PDT

      •  I'm a little unsure here

        GAUCHO is a chemical sprayed on plants?  Right?  So how is that GMOs?  (Not that I like them, they have the potential to devastate butterfly populations as well).

        NTL, I've seen a decline in  bees around my region too...

        I think there may be a number of factors that bees are vulnerable to.  This is why I organically garden and encourage the bees. (ya, I even talk to them!)

        by Hummingbird on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:11:23 AM PDT

  •  link to

    the article the diarist uses, via a discussion in Salon. My apologies for using your comment as a hitching post, but I'd like commenters to have the source material.
    but, yeah - without bees we're screwed.
    Why couldn't it be the @#$!! yellowjackets?

    by HiBob on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:31:44 PM PDT

  •  Bees are essential to the pollination of 130,000

    plants, but none of them is corn.  Or wheat or any of the major grain crops, which are the major recipients of genetic engineering.

    by MadScientist on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:09:03 PM PDT

    •  Not only not essentail to pollination, but ...

      they don't feed on them.  I grew up in central Illinois and had relatives who were farmers.  I spent a good bit of my youth in cornfields.  There were plenty of bees around, which I found out as a child by running barefoot across the yard and stepping on one that was feeding on a clover blossom.  I don't think I ever saw a bee on a corn tassel, and the last time I saw a diary on this, I was able to find an article that said bees apparently don't like corn pollen, and will feed on it only when there is no other food available.

      by leevank on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:28:23 PM PDT

      •  corn is windpollinated

        and not bee-pollinated, quite right.  But the corn pollen is shed and lands on other plants and there was an issue of BT corn could kill monarch larvae eating milkweeds dusted with Bt corn pollen.  However, and I think this is important, bees are dying off right now and there is no Bt corn pollen around, we are in the wrong season.  Plus, bees goes for the nectar inside flowers, and since the nectar is usually hidden inside spurs or tubes of the flowers, I think the BT corn pollen wouldn't make it there anyway.  

        The other hypothesis about pesticides sounds much more likely.

        by profmom on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:06:41 PM PDT

        •  Lots of research on Bt in pollen on milkweed....

          inital reports done in labs with a lot of pollen and caterpillars put on the leaves and indeed, they suffered.  But in the wild and agricultural settings, not much of a problem. link

          by murrayewv on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:52:16 PM PDT

        •  I don't think it's Bt corn

          Bees are dying in large numbers in places where Bt corn is not being used.  It's not the corn. I think that people are reading stories about Bt corn and stories about bee deaths and assuming that A must lead to B, but there is no evidence to support it.

          by dianem on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:03:19 PM PDT

  •  Bullshit

    We have to blame those who were willing to sell a product that they knew was harmful and to keep their knowledge of that potential harm from the public so they could make 15-30% more in profit.

    I'm not saying that the me generation public bears no culpibility for not pressing harder for thing we should know are right. But let's not use our liberal self guilt to deny the true perpretators the accountability they deserve.

    Evil fucks at corporations wake up every morning with one objective - maximise profit. And, since that one objective excludes all other considerations, they inevitably find themselves doing the most monstrously evil things to their fellow human beings.

    They deserve to pay first before we all start kicking ourselves for letting it happen.

    by TocqueDeville on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:55:32 PM PDT

•  When I read the story...

  ... my first thought was it might be related to GM crops or something. It's a reasonably big issue in other countries, but when you talk to Americans about GM anything, they think you're talking about General Motors.

  I'm allergic to bees myself, so it's a little hard for me to feel sorry for the guys, but I do love all the fruits and vegetables they pollinate!

  by droogie6655321 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:14:13 PM PDT

  •  agriculture would collapse.

    Hadn't thought of that.

    by Salo on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:49:27 PM PDT

  •  if the article is the one I read,

    they found that the strain of BT toxin (which is fatal to lots of caterpillars) that's used in corn isn't fatal for honeybees, even if they are fed a much larger amount (10x) than they would eat in the wild. However, the large dose does make the bees susceptible to parasites they would otherwise be able to fight off.

    here's a link to the der spiegel article the diarist is talking about, and a conversation about it on Salon

    by HiBob on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:26:27 PM PDT

    •  Paging Dr. Doolittle

      Sure they tested to see if bees would be susceptible.  But did they just test adult bees, or did they go so far as to see the effect on the larval stage?  We know the bees are disappearing, but are the larval bees in the combs all dead, or what?

      On the other hand, I understand that Colony Collapse disorder is not new, and that they've never understood what caused it.

      Reminds me of whale beachings...

      Where the hell is Dr. Doolittle when you need him?!

      by spotDawa on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:21:20 PM PDT

      •  Bt toxin is sold as a pesticide....

        and has been wodely used in organic gardening since 1961.  The straight up bacterial B.t. has been extensively tested for toxicity to honeybees.  The amount in pollen would be much less.
        Link to EPA factsheet

        Honey Bees and Nontarget Insects

        154A-24. Honey bee toxicity/pathogenicity test -

        MRID No. 435681-01. The study demonstrates that AbleTM technical powder is slightly toxic to adult honeybees with a 10-day per os LC50 of 633 ppm when calculated on the amount the bees were exposed to, and 118 g/bee when calculated on the total quantity actually consumed per bee. However, it is not expected that the use of AbleTM according to its label would pose any hazard to honeybees. The no effect concentration (NOEC) and lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) were 156 and 625 ppm, respectively. According to the honeybee toxicity rating of Atkins, 1976, CGA-269941 is practically nontoxic to adult honeybees. The study was classified as satisfactory.

        There is more than one kind of Bt used in this form- as bacterial which are killed and sprinkled on plants or in water to kill insects.  The plants usually use fewer Bt types and they are usually ones which are extensively tested as insecticides before engineering them into the plants.

        The insect midgut has basic pH (around ph 10) and receptors for Bt toxin.  We have acid guts and no receptors.  This EPA factsheet reports no alergic reactions confirmed in humans from Bt toxin.  

        by murrayewv on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:06:36 PM PDT

•  Can We Have a 9-11 Conspiracy Diary Instead?

  At least those are banned

  by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:15:06 PM PDT

  •  Not a conspiracy.

    While the diarist would have done well to include some links, the recent bee die-off has been well recorded:

    Google search results: bee die off

    by pattyp on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:21:40 PM PDT

    •  The issue is causation.

      Like, how can GM corn be killing bees in Poland when Poland banned GM corn in 2005?

      by cityduck on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:23:15 PM PDT

      •  I got the impression

        the commenter was questioning the whole premise that bees are dying off. There are numerous reliable reports on it, and several possible causes are being put forth, including GM foods.

        by pattyp on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:28:56 PM PDT

        •  I did not get that impression

          I assumed it was a (caustic) reference to the lack of independently verifiable links provided by the diarist, along with the assertion the GM corn is the "likely" cause. I'm prepared to accept that possibility, but I'd like to hear what other's views on the subject are, ya know.

          And troll rating of the comment is out of bounds, IMO.

          by mrblifil on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:43:19 PM PDT

          •  This diary is a conspiracy theory

            The thrust of this diary is not that bees are dying... I'm not sure anyone credible is debating that, nor is anyone credible saying it is not cause for alarm.

            This diary seems to think its obvious that the cause is Monsanto and a its status as a large MNC shields it from any media reporting of this "obvious" conclusion.

            This conclusion is not obvious. No one knows precisely why the bees are dying. IT IS A MYSTERY.

            The troll raters are absolutely out of bounds.

            by swalker007 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:24:48 PM PDT

            •  GMOs are wicked bad for the environment & people.

              Greenpeace weighs in on GMS.

              We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.

              From another link on the site:

              Genetic scientists are altering life itself. The products of genetic engineering are living organisms that could never have evolved naturally and do not have a natural habitat.

              That is the basic objection to GMOs. Greenpeace cites a report stating that '06 was the worst year ever for "contamination of crops by rogue genetically engineered variants".

              On March 13th, a German study revealed the first conclusive link of GMOs in damaging livers and kidneys in mice. "This is the first time that a GE product which has been cleared for use as food for humans and animals has shown signs of toxic effects on internal organs."

              Ingesting even small amounts of GMOs alters gut bacteria.

              Be alert. Be informed. GMOs may be contributing our loss of bees and they may be impacting our health.

              by 4Freedom on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:00:38 PM PDT

              •  People have been altering "life itself"

                ever since agriculture was invented.  How long do you think a barnyard turkey would last in the wild?  How about a miniature schnauzer?  And of course strawberries the size of your fist have always been around, haven't they?

                Genetic engineering is a just a faster way to do what we've done by selective breeding for millenia.

                by MadScientist on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:17:09 PM PDT

                •  You are both wrong!

                  Some genetic engineering speeds up the breeding process, some does things that are impossible in nature.

                  For example, genes from fireflies have been injected into a number of different organisms to make them light up. That would have never happened in nature.

                  by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:41:34 PM PDT

                  •  How did it happen to the fireflies?

                    ?

                    by mem from somerville on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:50:10 PM PDT

                    •  Naturally (details unknown) , not like

                      this

                      The goal of this work is to develop a method for the functional analysis of malaria genes using the method of DNA transfection. We have developed a transient transfection vector by constructing a chimeric gene in which the firefly luciferase gene was inserted in frame into the coding region of the pgs28 gene of Plasmodium gallinaceum. This plasmid DNA was introduced into P. gallinaceum gametes and fertilized zygotes by electroporation, and luciferase expression was assayed after 24 hr. This report of successful introduction and expression of a foreign gene in a malaria parasite demonstrates the feasibility of this approach to developing methods for the functional analysis of parasite genes.

                      by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 05:58:17 PM PDT

                      •  If you look closely

                        all the agents used in the laboratory (pcr polymerases, restriction endonucleases, DNA ligases, etc) for gene cloning, genetic engineering, etc are directly taken from Nature, who uses them for similar purposes.  So actually, what you describe can happen quite nicely, naturally (with the possible exception that genes would be introduced into cell via viruses, not by electroporation).

                        If such things didn't happen, how could humans have (at least) 40 bacterial genes in their genome?

                        The human genome was analyzed for evidence that genes had been laterally transferred into the genome from prokaryotic organisms. Protein sequence comparisons of the proteomes of human, fruit fly, nematode worm, yeast, mustard weed, eukaryotic parasites, and all completed prokaryote genomes were performed, and all genes shared between human and each of the other groups of organisms were collected. About 40 genes were found to be exclusively shared by humans and bacteria and are candidate examples of horizontal transfer from bacteria to vertebrates

                        from Science Magazine

                        by Roadbed Guy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:46:23 AM PDT

                    •  Genes from fireflies....

                      are used in research settings to test gene expression- the light is measured when the enzyme luciferase is given substrate luciferin and ATP.  Although this can work in plants, it is not usually used for GM plants.  I agree that genetically enigeered organisms are something different than natural breeding.

                      However, natural breeding is a lot riskier and more unnatural than you might expect.  Potatoes are put into tissue culture and brought out and plants regenrated in order to induce novel mutations and recombinations.  two species are interbred artificially that would never be fertile unless they were aided by research.  If a novel chemical (like prussic acid) produces insect resistant plants, they can be selected for and introduced without any FDA approval.  Fortunately, prussic acid in celery made it taste bad, so we were spared that.

                      If you develop a food allergy, widely regarded as a real but rare risk, who is responsible?  Can you sue the peanut breeders?  No- you just don't eat peanuts anymore.  But if you were to develop an alergy to a plant with a genetically modified protein, you might want to know that protein was in other plants too.  But how likely are you to be allergic to the genetically modified protein?  some proteins are very allergenic and should be avoided.  These lectins can be protective against fungus or insects, but can cause you to be alergic to soybeans or peanuts.  these have been bad actors in trials and were eliminated as safe candidates for GMOs.  But these lectins (and some storage proteins from brazil nuts and trypsin inhibitors in peas) did not become approved commercial products.  I will not say these foods are completely without risk.  No food is risk free.  You can get Listeria in your organic milk and E. coli O157 in your alfalfa sprouts.  If you have a healthy immune system, you might feel a little under the weather.  If you are a kid or a pregnant woman or an older person, you might die.

                      This whole pet food scandal lets you realize you have no idea how much crappy chemical is in your food.  The GMOs are not necessarily worse than the chemicals they were deigned to replace.  

                      by murrayewv on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:46:17 PM PDT

                    •  A process known colloqially as

                      evolution. Read up on it while you still can.

                      by Snarcalita on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:45:18 PM PDT

                      •  I know.

                        It was a joke, honey.  I  have a PhD in molecular biology and I worked in an lab doing early experiements on Green Fluourescent Protein.

                        by mem from somerville on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:32:11 AM PDT

                        •  I've been somewhat dissappointed

                          in the lack of imagination in the uses of luciferin genes.
                          How cool would it be to have a glowing cat? Or bait-worms that glow?

                          OTOH, that would constitute a hugely irresponsible sin against nature.

                          by Snarcalita on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:47:11 AM PDT

                    •  fun stuff!

                      The enzyme is called: Luciferase

                      Who says scientists don't have a sence of humor?

                      by shademar on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:34:42 AM PDT

                  •  Bacteria would never make human insulin

                    in "nature" either.  We have placed the genes for human insulin synthesis into them via genetic engineering.  As a result millions of diabetics can now get cheap insulin instead of, well dying.  I'm afraid we're in charge of nature now whether some people like it or not.  I understand why many leftists don't trust corporate America but I see far too much of a kind of outright anti-science romantic spirit in many environmental organizations to really trust them.  The constant appeal to "nature" in particular makes me feel like I'm listening some Republican drone on about gay marriage sometimes.

                    by Event Horizon on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:52:26 PM PDT

                •  Selective breeding differs from genetic

                  engineering. Selection occurs over time without direct gene manipulation. DNA is altered more slowly than with genetic modification. Genetic modification directly tampers with foodstock DNA, without good science to determine, as you seem to be interested in ascertaining, as to benefit or harm potential. To date, the only GMO benefit seems to be corporate profits.

                  Genetically altering our food supply does change gut bacteria. Check the above link. It takes years of experimentation and observation, usually done in third world countries on unsuspecting and/or unsophisticated populations, to ascertain food safety.

                  Today, we are the guinea pigs, with GMOs in most prepared foods we purchase. A study, cited today, reported that organics foods contain measurably higher amounts of nutrients than non-organics. If organic food is better for us than non-organic, how much further do you have to look to ascertain that food that is both non-organic and GMO-linked is not as good for people?

                  by 4Freedom on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:16:52 PM PDT

                  •  There are now over 2500 types of crops

                    that are being grown that have been 'genetically modified'- and not by the 'selective breeding' methods you claim, rather

                    Both Grun and Ramsay (editorial comment: and most posters in this thread) maintain that meaningful discourse requires making a distinction between "traditional selective breeding" and "biotechnology based on recombinant DNA." I disagree. It is precisely this distinction that has created the widely accepted, albeit mythical, view that "traditional" plant breeding is somehow gradual, and, yes, natural, whereas contemporary techniques are rapid and unnatural.

                    According to the Mutant Variety Database, established by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (http://www-infocris.iaea.org/MVD/), more than 2000 (today, 2541) crop varieties grown today were created using chemical or radiation mutagenesis. Is using neutron radiation to create the popular Rio Red grapefruit variety gradual and natural? Is using the somaclonal variation arising as a result of passage through tissue culture to create mutant herbicide-tolerant Clearfield Corn less rapid and unnatural than introducing bacterial or mutant genes cloned by molecular techniques to create Round-up Ready corn and soybeans?

                    Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler ask, "Why, in the debate on natural versus unnatural, should we draw the line right here, right now, at the point where genetic engineering has entered the scene?" [(2 ), p. 80-81]. And it is indeed a puzzle that people blithely accept churning up genomes with radiation, mutagenic chemicals, and a variety of other techniques, including intergeneric crosses, while looking askance at the newer, very much less disruptive molecular methods. But maybe they don't know what traditional breeders do.

                    
                    Moreover, the ability to move genes between species is not a recent, or even a human invention. Agrobacterium and its plant-transforming plasmids are natural: Quite without human intervention, these bacteria developed a set of plant genes useful to the bacterium, as well as the ability to transfer them to plant cells without killing the plant. Why is using this natural genetic engineering system to introduce genes coding for bacterial Bt proteins to protect plants from insect attack less natural than spraying fields with concentrated preparations of the Bt bacteria grown in huge fermenters and sold in stores? If you have followed the monarch butterfly flap, you will know that the consensus of a very large U.S.-Canadian project to assess the impact of GM corn on the monarch came to the conclusion that only about 3 in 10,000 larvae will be in danger of getting sick or dying from eating corn pollen expressing Bt genes (3). This seems as benign and sensible an approach to crop protection as replacing a drug with a vaccine is in human health care.

                    from Nature 403, 12 (06 January 2000); doi:10.1038/47345

                    by Roadbed Guy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:12:56 AM PDT

                    •  Again, I will assert for the third time that GMOs

                      when ingested, alter gut bacteria.

                      Inflammation is being discovered as the root cause of many diseases, including cancer, arthritis and coronary disease. Altered gut bacteria have to be observed over time to see if such bacteria are inflammatory to the digestive tract or not, as poor digestion is often the source of inflammation for many.

                      Science, as applied to human health, can't be compartmentalized as you attempt to do. The human body has to be viewed wholistically to assess the impact of altered diet. GMOs have altered the bacteria balance in people who have ingested them. With the rise of diabetes and other autoimmune and degenerative diseases. diet has to be examined as a potentially causal element.

                      It is much simpler to avoid questionable food than to provide agribusiness and Montsanto your body as a testing laboratory.

                      by 4Freedom on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:52:02 AM PDT

                      •  Anything you ingest

                        will alter gut bacteria - so it stands to reason the GMOs will do likewise - d'uh!

                        Referring to these bacteria - they have been referred to as 'the forgotten organ' - in essence they provide the body with vital functions that keep people alive. Interestingly, from a microscopic point of view, the human body contains more bacterial cells - about 35 trillion (and more bacterial genes) than eukaryotic cells (about 5 trillion if you count those that make up tissues and organ or about 30 trillion if you also count all the blood cells).

                        Having agreed with you on the importance of these bacteria - it is noteworthy that they will be considerably different in composition if you are on a vegetarian diet compared to an all-beef diet (for example).  Such differences dwarf any changes postulated to arise from GM foods.

                        Besides, genetically modified crops are so pervasive - virtually every bite of food eaten today (see the 2500+ crops referred to in the post you responded to) is genetically modified compared to the food eaten when the symbiotic relationships between human gut flora and humans was evolving - that anything Monsato can do to you is insignificant.  But maybe that was your point, I really couldn't tell.

                        by Roadbed Guy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:32:03 AM PDT

                        •  Food alters bacteria..........

                          in different ways. It depends upon the modification.

                          There is approximately a kilo of bacteria in the human gut. Small amounts of GM DNA have been found transferred into the gut after ingestion of GM food. This finding occurred in '02, without followup research that I am aware of. It is a topic that agribusiness would rather not address.

                          GM food can be avoided by eating organic and local non-GMO food. Many small farmers and health food stores and health food isles in grocery stores are becoming primary resources for families wishing to eat off the commercial food chain. It is possible, I have done so, and have improved some chronic health conditions like allergies and asthma by doing this.

                          As Monsanto's primary concern is profit, and mine is health, I avoid all GMO food.

                          by 4Freedom on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:34:31 AM PDT

                          •  The links you provide tend to be rather

                            orthogonal to the points you make.

                            In general, they do not provide any information on exactly how the GM food alters gut bacteria, or what these alterations are.  I suspect that there is not peer-reviewed data on this topic because natural variations from eating different things would be much greater than eating the so-called GM v. non-GM foods.

                            For a specific example, in the post immediately above you provide a link about the dangers of pesticides - fair enough - but in general crops have been genetically modified to reduce pesticide use.  Hence, the logical conclusion from this link is that these crops are safer.

                            BTW, DNA is broadly transferred throughout the natural world - it would be surprising if it wasn't.  I'd suggest you read up on the Theory of Evolution to learn about that, and to gain some insight into why it really isn't that scary (hint: the natural selection part of the theory).

                            Finally, you must be very hungry if you avoid all GMO food because, as I provided information above, virtually everything eaten by modern humans has been genetically modified in an evolutionary heartbeat (i.e., within the last 4000 years).

                            by Roadbed Guy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:59:15 AM PDT

                            •  Survival of the fittest will quite possibly

                              weed out those who believe in the benevolence of agribusiness. The EU has little truck with GMs, and requires labeling for same where sold. I doubt the continent is riddled with poor science and incompetent scientists.

                              To what do you attribute the rise of degenerative disease at earlier and earlier ages in our population? Our infant and adult mortality rates are high for our supposed standard of living. Obesity plagues Americans from infancy to grave.

                              Our foodstock is manipulated for greater yield and disease resistance. Alien genes have been introduced into it. These have not undergone or withstood the test of time. Our society is already dying younger and aging faster than countries with comparable living standards. Could part of the cause be our food supply?

                              The unknowing who adhere to the hollow tenents of "hard science" and believe as a logical conclusion that genetically altered crops, without adequate safety testing, are indeed safe, might be exposing themselves to risk.

                              I hope you live long and prosper, but I would have concerns for the diet of anyone whose trust in GMO food lacked adequate qualification. The 4000 years of human modification of foodstock pales in comparison to the insertion of human genes into rice. Nothing comparable has been done in recorded history, and the true results of such actions won't be completely understood for a generation.

                              by 4Freedom on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:23:07 AM PDT

              •  German study...

                is a reanalysis of a study paid for by Monsanto and done by a company named Covance.  Monsanto analyzed the data and reported there were no risks between rats fed the GM Bt corn and those fed regular corn.  Germans sued, got the original data, reanalyzed it, bublished it and contend there are statistically significant and harmful differences between the white blood cells and kidney tubules of the two groups of rats.  Monsanto contends that the differences within the standard error of the normal diet rats.

                They did not do another study, just relooked at the data.

                This is legitimate science of course- people reanalyze data all the time.  

                I haven't really looked at this study in detail, but the original data still convinced the Europeans to allow the Bt to be used in animal feed.

                Bt is used to reduce other pesticides, which are known to harm humans and other beneficial insects like honeybees.  Proper assessment of risk should compare not just corn with Bt with corn with no Bt, but corn grown with a typical pesticide regime.

                by murrayewv on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:25:20 PM PDT

              •  GMOs are neither inherently good nor bad

                They are fundamentally neutral. Yes, there exists always the law of unintended consequence, and with the haziness of the understanding of the food chain and ecological balance that law is writ especially large, but to argue that GMOs are somehow fundamentally corrupt or evil is to create a strawman on which to pin the corruption of human institutions. Monsanto is a goddamned rat bastard of a corperation, yes, but it is not because GMOs are inherently bad...it's because they are a goddamned rat bastard of a corperation.

                Fuck Monsanto, but don't look for a convenient boogieman just because Monsanto supports it...

                by shademar on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 01:33:02 AM PDT

          •  Troll rate?

            I haven't knowingly troll rated any comments on this diary. If so, it was an accident, although one I'm really unlikely to make. Can you tell me which one so I can fix it?

            by pattyp on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:10:17 AM PDT

        •  does anyone know if

          the bee keepers in Poland feed their bees with corn syrup? And where they purchase their bee food?

          GM corn could be getting to the bee that way..

          by ilyana on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:31:15 PM PDT

          •  here's a NYT article

            about the bee collapse. Check out the picture of the bee keeper feeding the bees corn syrup with a garden hose!

            by ilyana on