British MP Demands Immediate Ban on Neonicotinoid Pesticides that Kill Bees

[WLC]

There you go. Trying to extract contaminants from HFCS using solvents is a sticky business. Why do you think that I suggested binding contaminants to a PVPP column by running HFCS through it (diluted in distilled water would be a good idea), washing the column, and then extracting from the PVPP?

I've used many a column in my time (still do).

[Nabber86]

There you go. Trying to extract contaminants from HFCS using solvents is a sticky business. Why do you think that I suggested binding contaminants to a PVPP column by running HFCS through it (diluted in distilled water would be a good idea),......

More indication of what I pointed out in post number 101.

1. Using “distilled” water is a really bad idea. Anyone who has spent any time in an analytical lab knows that you use HPLC grade water.
2. Analytical labs use many solvents for extraction.
3. The laboratory method specifies which solvent(s) to use.
4. You do not get to choose an alternative solvent because the one that is specified smells like ether and you think it is dangerous.
5. Just because you have a high school chemistry set in your basement does not mean that you can go off and create your own off-spec extraction process.

Shall I go on?

[WLC]

As I've said before, PVPP has been used to to measure pesticides in water. You know, river water, pond water, etc. .

It's not a problem.

It's environmental testing.

[WLC]

I do design my own protocols and extraction methodologies based on the literature because it's often necessary and most importantly, my degrees say that I can.

Also, one of my key goals is to bring more environmentally responsible practices into the lab.

Less risk taking and less hazardous waste disposal. That's a good thing.

Regardless, there's obviously a need for testing of HFCS in a public and transparent manner.

That hasn't happened yet.

So, pardon me for daring to propose a less toxic approach to testing HFCS for contaminants.

Why? Because no one else has done so.

By the way, acetonitrile turns to cyanide in the blood once inhaled. Read them MSDSs.

[BlueDiamond]

It strikes me as odd that no one is concerned that we're eating the same stuff, and in much large quantities, as the bees.

The HFCS manufacturers test for pesticide residues all the time and they routinely find none detected. Just like the manufacturers of numerous other processed foods. The Harvard researchers have no food industry experience so they apparently don't realize that for decades processed food manufacturers test for pesticides. The sugar content of a food product does not impede testing. Just ask the chemists who work at the Dried Fruit Association Laboratory in California: http://www.dfaofca.com/Lab.html They test for pesticides in prune and raisins. What could be more sugary than a prune?

[Nabber86]

I do design my own protocols and extraction methodologies based on the literature because it's often necessary and most importantly, my degrees say that I can.

Yes perfessor, they also say that you have the ability to build a radio out of 2 coconut shells and some sea water...

[WLC]

My first job out of college was as a Physics lab supervisor. So, yes, I did build various electronic circuits.

No coconuts though.

PVPP is a hydrogel. Hydrogels are used to immobilized glucose isomerase which some say is the heart of HFCS production.

If HFCS can pass through a hydrogel, it can pass through PVPP.

Nabber, I think that you're trying to apply your experience in a chem plant to an HFCS plant. They're not the same technology. HFCS production is much closer to food processing/biotechnology than it is to chemical synthesis.

Hydrogels are a very common biotechnology. So, PVPP fits right in. It's used in making wine and beer for example. It's close cousin, PVP, has been used to immobilize glucose isomerase for example.

So, spare us the moans and groans.

Direct solvent extraction of HFCS isn't the best approach. Loading contaminants onto a PVPP column by running HFCS through it (gallons and gallons if you wish) is a better approach.

[Barry Digman]

Why doesn't someone just DO the different extractions and demonstrate which method works?

[Nabber86]

Why doesn't someone just DO the different extractions ?

What fun would that be? That sounds like work.

[Nellie]

The HFCS manufacturers test for pesticide residues all the time and they routinely find none detected.

But we already know that Neonicotinoids can have an affect in quantities too small to detect so finding none means nothing (and might explain my wife's lack of direction when driving).

[deknow]

Extractions were done...aparantly successfully, in the study, using a published method.
deknow

[WLC]

"But we already know that Neonicotinoids can have an affect in quantities too small to detect so finding none means nothing..."

That's the findings from the Alaux study. Undetectable amounts of a neonic (imidacloprid) affected the health of bees.

It doesn't get better. Neonics used for another crop could be contaminating crops that were rotated in, even years later.

"Extractions were done...aparantly successfully, in the study, using a published method."

Right, but that was a solvent extraction with acetonitrile performed on spiked samples.

It would take a whole lot of acetonitrile to extract from a whole lot of HFCS just to find trace amounts of contaminants.

As I've said before, I think that it's likely the contaminants were filtered out long before the HFCS left the plant.

But, if there was a change in how they produced HFCS around the time of CCD, it might help Lu's research hypothesis. (Contaminants in HFCS precipitated CCD.)

[WLC]

"Why doesn't someone just DO the different extractions and demonstrate which method works?"

I'm not volunteering for that. Too sticky.

However, if you want to clarify honey, just filter it through Polyclar (PVPP). It's the same stuff used on beer and wine so it's food safe.

[BerkeyDavid]

Here is a study from 2008 on a method for detection:

Determination of neonicotinoid insecticides residues in bovine milk samples by solid-phase extraction clean-up and liquid chromatography with diode-array detection
Serenella Secciaa, , , Paola Fidenteb, 1, Domenico Montesanoa, Patrizia Morricaa
a Dipartimento di Chimica Farmaceutica e Tossicologica, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via D. Montesano 49, 80131 Naples, Italy
b ISS Istituto Superiore di Sanità (National Institute of Health), Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy
Abstract
In this paper we have developed an analytical method for the simultaneous determination of four nicotinoid insecticides [acetamiprid (ACT), imidacloprid (ICL), thiacloprid (TCL) and thiamethoxam (TMX)] in bovine whole milk. These analytes were extracted, in a single step with dichloromethane, from fortified milk samples, using Chem Elut cartridges, containing diatomaceous earth material. Insecticide's determination and quantification were performed by HPLC with diode-array detection (DAD). Average recoveries of the four insecticides from bovine milk samples were between 85.1 and 99.7% at spiking levels 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 mg kg−1. Relative standard deviations (RSDs) were no larger than 10% for all of the recovery tests. The calculated limits of quantitation (LOQ) ranged from 0.01 to 0.04 mg kg−1 for the four insecticides, being equal to or lower than the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by European legislation (0.01–0.05 mg kg−1). The developed method is linear at concentrations within the tested interval, with coefficients of determination higher than 0.9990. According to Commission Decision 2002/657/EC, decision limit (CCα) and detection capability (CCβ) have been calculated. The proposed method is rapid, simple and could be utilized for the routine analysis of pesticides residues

So it appears there is Eurpean legislation that contains limits. The question remains in my mind whether there is binding to the sugar molecule that would not be detected but could have a deleterious effect. THen you get into the uptake of the modified molecule and its effect on an organism.

It seems to me pretty simple: if there is a question, then why not simply avoid it? Don't feed HFCS until you are certain it is safe, and keep the neonics away from your bees in the field.

[deknow]

Regarding detection levels of imidacloprid in HFCS in the study:

See Table 2 (page 3): "Recoveries of imidacloprid in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) prepared in the quality assurance/quality control program."

The blank HFCS (control) "contained imidacloprid levels below the limit of detection at 0.1 ug/kg."

(my emphasis)

Ramona

[WLC]

Ramona:

They turn a phrase strangely.

Detection limits are one of those things that you read in the manufacturers instructions for various instruments and reagent kits.

It's an unreliable number.

You have to have significantly higher concentrations of imidacloprid in HFCS for detection because of mediocre extraction efficiencies (70-80%), and sampling error.

So, while you see detection limits of .5 and .1 ug/Kg (.5-.1 ppb), anything below 5ppb would be too unreliable to publish.

Besides, they spiked the HFCS with imidacloprid themselves.

I would like to know what the concentrations of imidacloprid actually are in commercially available HFCS. Know one seems to know.

[Barry Digman]

I would like to know what the concentrations of imidacloprid actually are in commercially available HFCS. Know one seems to know.

And this is the part that's confusing for non-chemists like me. It seems a simple matter for someone to test enough samples to get some sort of idea of how much is in the HFCS.

Why can't we know this?

[Nellie]

"But we already know that Neonicotinoids can have an affect in quantities too small to detect so finding none means nothing..."

That's the findings from the Alaux study. Undetectable amounts of a neonic (imidacloprid) affected the health of bees.

It doesn't get better. Neonics used for another crop could be contaminating crops that were rotated in, even years later.

"Extractions were done...aparantly successfully, in the study, using a published method."

Right, but that was a solvent extraction with acetonitrile performed on spiked samples.

It would take a whole lot of acetonitrile to extract from a whole lot of HFCS just to find trace amounts of contaminants.

As I've said before, I think that it's likely the contaminants were filtered out long before the HFCS left the plant.

But, if there was a change in how they produced HFCS around the time of CCD, it might help Lu's research hypothesis. (Contaminants in HFCS precipitated CCD.)

Well I'm not a scientist, but that's rubbish. Why not blame undetectable levels of marmite or coffee vapours or the assistant's aftershave or god punishing bees because of homosexuals? All seem to be equally plausible if we're blaming undetectable stuff but probably not conveniently fitting a desire to see a result that fits a pre-drawn conclusion. Is imidacloprid the first homeopathic pesticide, the more dilute it gets the deadlier it becomes?

[WLC]

"Why can't we know this?"

I don't know why it hasn't been done. Except that HFCS is problematic.
I don't see anyone volunteering to shake up some HFCS with acetonitrile in a seperatory funnel.
The only one's who have done it are associated with the Lu study.

There's also the likelyhood that the contaminants have been removed during HFCS production.

So, it could be a fool's errand.

[BlueDiamond]

I would like to know what the concentrations of imidacloprid
actually are in commercially available HFCS. Know one seems to know.

http://tinyurl.com/7e6pafd

"Although the study claims to have established a link between
imidacloprid and bee colony collapse, the symptoms observed
in the study bees are not consistent with, or even remotely
similar to, those of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). As such,
the authors’ claims that their study explains the causes of
CCD are spectacularly incorrect.* ***

Additionally, the authors assume erroneously that the
majority of corn grown in the United States has been
treated with imidacloprid. In actuality, over the past
8 years, the annual percentage of total corn acres in
the U.S. treated with imidacloprid has been less than
half a percent. Thus, the suggestion that imidacloprid
is affecting honey bee health via residue found on
corn or through corn products is also grossly inaccurate."*

http://tinyurl.com/boulljs

- "The authors disproved their own hypothesis by reporting
that they found anticipated levels of imidacloprid in the
4 spiked variables, but found NONE in the untreated HFCS
control.

- The study seems to have affirmatively refuted the authors’
HFCS hypothesis because the untreated HFCS used for the
experiment’s controls showed no comparable lethal effect.
This presumably demonstrates that effect-level traces of
imidacloprid could not be present in HFCS."