Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Beekeepers suing EPA

35K views 122 replies 31 participants last post by  shinbone 
#1 ·
A group of beekeepers and environmentalists announced today that they are suing the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to curb the use of insecticides they say are decimating bee populations and putting our nation’s food supply in jeopardy.

The four beekeepers and five environmental and consumer groups involved in the lawsuit, including the Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety and Beyond Pesticides, say the link between neonicotinoids—a nicotine-like class of pesticides that include clothianidin and thiamethoxam—and bee die offs is crystal clear. And they claim the EPA acted outside the law when it allowed for “conditional registration” of their use. Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science are the primary manufacturers of clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

http://news.yahoo.com/epa-slapped-lawsuit-over-ongoing-bee-deaths-174235089.html
 
#50 ·
I feel about this like I feel about new beekeepers who say they can't see eggs or can't keep a smoker lit.

Virtually anyone can see eggs if they work to find appropriate lighting/magnification. Anyone can keep a smoker lit...if they try and learn from their own mistakes and the success of others.

If you are not opening up these studies and trying to make sense of them...and figuring out what you don't understand, you simply aren't trying. If you aren't trying, I'm not sure what the point of discussing it is.

deknow
 
#56 ·
I feel about this like I feel about new beekeepers who say they can't see eggs or can't keep a smoker lit.
I can't see eggs without a lot of magnification. Eyesight is a limitation. Keeping a smoker lit is more of a learned skill. One has a chance of improving over time and one usually doesn't. Most magnification devices reduce the focal point to a point that is too close or even inside the veil. I have learned that seeing eggs is not necessary for beekeeping and I never had an issue with keeping my smoker lit.

If you are not opening up these studies and trying to make sense of them...and figuring out what you don't understand, you simply aren't trying.
Maybe you would like to discuss what difference it makes where you drill a hole in a beam. If you haven't studied the subject you may never understand why it makes a difference no matter how much you try to understand it.
 
#53 ·
To everyone, let's keep the comparing of different discussion groups out of the conversation please. I don't think it does any good to pit the various forums against each other. If someone is going to bring into the discussion here, something that someone said in another group, then it should be perfectly acceptable for members to reply to it here.
 
#64 ·
Thanks, going over it now. And already, I can say that what he's reading from the study, and what I'm reading from the study seem to be quite conflicting. For instance:

"When the investigators failed to prove their case after a month of feeding spiked syrup—they changed the protocol, and ramped up the doses of insecticide in the syrup to sky high and overtly toxic levels, and then made a series of compounding mistakes, notably by not performing the sort of necessary parasite management required for colonies to survive the winter. And then, even though the symptoms of the colonies when they died did not match the symptoms of CCD, yet the Harvard press agent claimed that they did!"

I find nothing in the study to indicate that there was any change in the dosing protocol during the timeframe of the study. The lack of parasite management means zilch in this case since the people doing the study DID actually have a control group that also did not have parasite management. The study can be found here: http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/Lu%20final%20proof.pdf

The argument that they "dumped a lot of pesticide" on the bees is asinine at the best, and perhaps someone should "do some basic research" before making that accusation.

They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself.

Then there's the dosage levels. In 2008, a study was done to find out what concentration of imadocloprid (the neonicotinoid in question) was actually found in the guttation of corn to be around 47mg/L. If my admittedly shabby math is correct, this works out to very (very) roughly to 470,000 micrograms per kilogram. In other words, over a thousand times MORE pesticide could be found in corn's nectar than was actually used in this study.

Then Randy Oliver states that no CCD was observed. Except that it was. CCD is the sudden absconding of the vast majority of live honey bees without bodies of the dead to be found, leaving the queen and a handful of very young bees behind. Now, if we want to change the definition of what we're calling CCD, then by all means let's do that before saying that they didn't experience any CCD in the study, since this was precisely the result they got. (And for those that don't like to read, they have pictures.)

The only problem I have with the Harvard study is the incredibly small sample size that was tested, but even the scientists themselves state that. The entire point of these studies is to give us a basis for further investigation. This study shows a clear correlation between CCD and neonicotinoids. It does not necessarily show causality (correlation does not prove causation) but it most certainly is the ONLY study I've found to date that has given it an honest and unbiased try. I can't say the same for Randy Oliver's rebuttal if I'm understanding both his rebuttal and the study itself correctly. But again, don't take my word for it. Read the study yourself. That's why I've posted the links.
 
#57 ·
Nice post Jonathan. I'm still trying to wrap my head why Monsanto gets mentioned in a Neonic thread... Just shows how confused people are on the subject. One other trend I see is people always link Neonics to GMO's which is pure folly. A lot of non gmo's are treated as well so people need to realize that as well. I for one would just like to see a meaningful study done and maybe Bayer funding some independent research done by 3rd parties.
 
#61 ·
Then you too are confused on the subject. Nobody's claiming that the GMOs (which have their own sets of problems) are producing the Neonicotinoids. What is fact, however, is that Monsanto and Bayer are quite in bed with each other. Bayer producing the neonics that Monsanto covers its seeds with. Those seeds then grow, carrying the neonics through the plant and into the pollen. Over time, those neonics become concentrated enough in the hive to cause CCD, or so goes the theory.
 
#63 ·
>I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal.

thanks javin, i look forward to what you have to say about that.

just curious, and not looking for anything too specific, but can you give us a general idea of what your scientific background is?
 
#65 ·
Certainly. I was a 91T in the U.S. Army. I specialized in medical research and worked at the Naval Medical Research Lab #3 (NAMRU-3) in Cairo, Egypt until the year 2000 - mostly doing insect parasite and viral research. Since then I've gotten out of the field, opting for the higher paying world of computer programming, but I've never lost the research itch.
 
#66 ·
They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself.
Go read it again then, half way down the paragraph titled 'materials and methods'
The initial part looked at 0.1 to 10ug/kg
 
#69 ·
And? Please read my statement that you quoted. You're saying that since they started the study with INCREDIBLY tiny doses, then switched the doses that this somehow invalidates the study? Except you fail to understand that this WAS the study. They were attempting to emulate the dosages as found in nature. In nature, the dosages wouldn't go from 0 to 20 (some hives received a max of 20 for the bulk of the study, some received a max of 40, 200, and 400). The reason for this was a.) In the "wild" they would not be exposed to no poison, and suddenly, a ton of it. The growth of the plants that had the imadocloprid covered seeds would cause a gradual increase in the environmental pesticide, and they were duplicating this pattern to eliminate the potential argument that the bees just died from the "shock" of the pesticide. If you want a pretty little snapshot of what was done in the study, simply scroll down to Figure 2 to see the results.

The point of this study, in their own words, was not to prove that the pesticide kills bugs. We know it does. Duh. It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.
 
#70 ·
In nature bees are typically exposed to values of 1-5ppb in pollen and nectar.
That is why an experiment which exposed them to 20-400 ppb is pointless.
It is way over field realistic levels.

Do your research about levels in pollen and nectar.
Google papers by Bonmatin for example.

It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.
These are massive doses and clearly they will kill bees.
Check your LD50s

I don't know why you have started to argue this stuff without checking the most basic facts.
 
#72 · (Edited)
HFCS samples from Tate and Lyle, Archer Daniels Midland,
Roquette and Mann Lake were sent to the Carl Hayden Bee Research
Center in Tucson, AZ, USA in 2008. These companies are among the largest commercial suppliers of HFCS to beekeepers. The HFCS was used in a study to investigate the relationship between temperature and HMF formation (LeBlanc et al., 2009). A 50ml sample of HFCS from each supplier was shipped on ice to the USDA-AMS-National Science Lab in (NSL) Gastonia, NC for pesticide analysis. The HFCS samples were extracted for analysis of agrochemicals using an official pesticide extraction method (AOAC 2007.01, also known as the QuEChERS method), and analyzed by gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS, GC/MS/MS, LC/MS/MS). Samples were analyzed for the presence of 174 different agrochemicals including 17 neonicotinoids and their metabolites (Table 1). Quantification was performed using external calibration standards prepared from certified standard reference
material. The National Science Laboratory is ISO 17025 accredited to perform pesticide residue analysis.
There were no pesticides detected in any of the HFCS samples.
Are agrochemicals present in High Fructose Corn
Syrup fed to honey bees
(Apis mellifera L.)?
Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman1*, Diana Sammataro1 and Roger Simonds2
1Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS, 2000 East Allen Road, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
2National Science Laboratory, USDA-AMS, 801 Summit Crossing Pl. Ste. B, Gastonia, NC 28054, USA.

Lets go back to basics here.
The harvard study fed HFCS to bees with added Imidacloprid.
This is in spite of the fact that corn in the US is treated with Clothianidin rather than Imidacloprid.

The link above shows that HFCS does not contain pesticide residue anyway, either Imidacloprid or Clothianidin.

leaving aside Corn syrup for the moment, there are various routes of exposure to pesticides, the main ones are via pollen, nectar or in the case of corn, planter dust during seed drilling.

The Krupke et al paper discusses this.
The biggest risk to bees is planter dust as this is highly toxic.
 
#83 ·
javin, i take it your opinion on the harvard study was unchanged by oliver's review?

regarding bees feeding on guttation drops, a challenge was made on the other forum to produce a picture of a bee feeding on corn guttation. so far no pictures.
 
#96 ·
I have a yard close to some sweet corn. My bees are in it a lot at tassel time. I have a yard adjacent to a large field of silage corn. I never see my bees in it although they often are flying over it to get to other forage. I have NEVER seen a bee drinking guttation fluid from either source. And I have looked. Also my bees are doing pretty nicely next to that field of corn. Experience trumps all the studies for me about neonics. I have seen the devastation that the organophosphates do to hives at times. Never seen that with the neonics.
 
#97 ·
I would agree with that. But even the 5% mark is highly variable depending on how much water has been available to the plant. But that also doesn't make guttation attractive just as "a water source."

This is the last I have to say on the subject. I promise. But the neonicotinoids (read: poisons we know for a fact kill bees) are not ONLY found in the guttation, but in the pollen and nectar in large amounts as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/
 
#98 ·
This is the last I have to say on the subject. I promise. But the neonicotinoids (read: poisons we know for a fact kill bees) are not ONLY found in the guttation, but in the pollen and nectar in large amounts as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/
High concentrations of neonicotinoids in corn (as well as other moncrops) do not bother me a great deal, but I would be interested if they were found in: fetterbush, clethra, sumac, button bush, zenobia, gallberry and several other bay/swamp dwellers....
 
#108 · (Edited)
>

Try this search on google:
monsanto revolving door list

You'll get 63,000 results and many lists.
Yes you will get ~63,000 google hits if you do this. You will also get 3.2 million hits if you google "flying saucers". The number of hits doesnt mean much.

As a side note, the pay is much higher at Monsanto so the natural migration of jobs would be away from the EPA to Monsanto, not the other way around.
 
#106 ·
Michael,

I did a google search as you suggests. The hits I checked had a list of about 20-25 prominent people who worked for both Monsanto and the US government at some points in their careers. It seemed like the majority were lawyers or MBA/management types. It also seemed like most of the activity listed was from the Clinton although, that dates ranged from the early 1980's to the present.

Not many scientists were listed. However, those in the top spots can steer policy in certain directions if they desire.

I also did a Bayer revolving door search and didn't find the same results.

I still don't believe a link has been found between bee colony deaths and neonics. There is also the question what will replace neonics if they are banned?

Personally, I think the neonics are better than the products used in the past. I also feel that neonics are not the biggest problem facing honey bees today. Given my druthers I would prefer my bees were not exposed to any pesticides or mites!

Tom
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top