Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

scientist studies on gmo and roundup

14K views 90 replies 27 participants last post by  Baja 
#1 ·
i am looking for factual studies on gmo and roundup ready products in relation to bees. can anyone point me the right direction. my personal studies having concluded they will cause harm. but without a degree or government backing.. no one listens. thanks in advance. dennis
 
#42 ·
And while we are off topic...it's hardly a leap of faith to acknowledge that over a billion motor vehicles' exhaust is contributing to the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. That has not happened ever before, regardless of natural cyclic temperature fluctuations. When the scientific process becomes so political and polarizing as this has, the facts always take a back seat to perception.


The US publisher Ward's, estimates that as of 2010 there were 1.015 billion motor vehicles in use in the world. This figure represents the number of cars; light, medium and heavy duty trucks; and buses, but does not include off-road vehicles or heavy construction equipment.
 
#45 ·
So the positions so far are -

1. Global warming is a hoax and is not happening. Anyone who thinks it is, is a retard.

2. Global warming is happening but is a natural cycle and is not our fault.

3. Global warming is happening and human activity is contributing to it.

4. Co2 levels are rising

5. Co2 levels are not rising, it is a plot invented by governments and is very profitable.
 
#49 ·
Just remember you must trust your government, they tell you they can take care of all our problems if we will just do as they say and pay more taxes. We have caused all these problems with the climate as we all live to well and use too much energy. Funny thing all these guys telling us folks that we are living too high on the hog are flitting around the world in their gulf stars, wining and dining on the best the world can offer and driving around in their convoys of SUV's with the aircon going full blast, their homes using 6 times the energy of the average American home one of the biggest perpetrators ol Al Gore comes to mind. Remember you must trust what these wizards of smart tell you, like if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Been there and done that so don't do stupid anymore.
Johno
 
#52 ·
What you cited is not science. At best it is unsubstantiated opinion. Science is published in peer reviewed journals. Who do you think turned Craven in to the EPA? Monsanto turned him in. Had Monsanto not turned him in there is no telling how many more years he would have dry labbed experiments before EPA caught up with what he was doing. Just like the SEC could not catch Madoff even after being told how he was cheating by a person in industry.

Did you know there is a direct relationship between the % of cloudy weather where a kid lives and his or her odds of being autistic? Correlation does not prove causation. I can conclude that water is the cause of opium addiction because everyone addicted to opium drank water before he became addicted. Perfect correlation and perfect nonsense.

There is zero scientific evidence that Roundup has anything at all to do with autism. Further, there is a mountain of scientific evidence that Roundup does not cause autism. That goes for every other pesticide on the market in the US and their non-relationship to autism. The multi generation feeding studies required as part of the registration package would clearly show any such relationship.

If you want to talk science please submit scientific papers, not nonsense like you cited.

I fully expected you to cite non science sources and you met my expectations.
 
#53 ·
I don't know about corralation and cause and effect but do think that it is hard for experts and layman to really come to any conclusion of what is really going on.

I think that sometimes the diffinitions of what something is called may change so things that in the old days that may not have been given a name now meet a critirea to be called autism that may not have been counted that way in the past.

It is like blaming for the health care rise in cost with out taking into count all the new things that used to not be able to be treated for but now can.

The picture changes and to me (not a smart guy or one that keeps up) it seems that finding a way to compare apples with apples would be half the battle.

It is like knowing how much booze was sold during proabition compared to how much was sold before.

Is there really an increase in things like autism or is it more of a case of more people getting diagnosed now and more things falling under the umbrella now.

I don't know but these are some of the things that circle around in my head when I hear all the numbers that get thrown around. I don't even know if it has anything to do with anything but is what I think.
Cheers
gww
 
#54 ·
There is no question at all that many cases are now diagnosed as autism that would never have been diagnosed as such even 20 years ago. It is entirely unclear if there has been a real increase in incidence or not. What is 100% clear is vaccines have absolutely nothing at all to do with causing autism. I do believe in freedom to the extent that if a parent wishes to not vaccinate their kid I am ok with that. But, I also think society should be protected from such kids so the kids should be confined to the parents lot of land 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If for some reason they need medical attention the parents should either be required to get the kid vaccinated immediately or they can find a doctor that will make a home call. Those kids should not be allowed to have unvaccinated guests visit, they should not be allowed to go to school or the mall or movies or disney land. If the parents feel this is ok I am fine with them not vaccinating their kid.

The idea that half of all kids will be autistic in 25 years is simply flat out nuts. No one with a brain thinks anything like that will happen.
 
#58 · (Edited)
Officially the official story on most anything is officially correct. You can be a doubter of the official story but you will be labeled as a crack-pot loonie.

Officially roundup is not carcinogenic (yet) and is safe to drink. (try and get someone to officially drink some)

Officially GMO products are so safe that they need not be labeled and separated from the rest of the food we buy in a market.
(or are they?)

Roundup is a herbicide that doesn't kill bugs BUT the GMO plants that are not affected by roundup have their own insecticide built into the plants. The two are related when it comes to gathering nectar and pollen for a bee colony. That is the source of much of the confusion among beekeepers about what is bad for bees. The whole system is bad for bees but you can not prove what directly affects them (bees) the most so it's not worth the trouble of discussing (officially)
Officially you have to be officially crazy to go after the people in charge of manufacturing the food we eat.
"It's safe and there's tons of it (food) so quit belly-aching" is the official stance on this topic.
 
#61 ·
After reading the valuable information presented here I've just figured it out. Monsanto is secretly feeding everyone roundup to turn them into retards, so they are too dumb to know better and keep buying more roundup. Which suits perfectly the doctors cos they want everyone to be sick so they can make more money.

One world view :)
 
#63 ·
This persecution mania will lead nowhere because the world is like it is.

But don´t call people who care retards. Science is not one sided, science can be helpful to find better ways. If there are no studies about the negative aspects of chemicals we would all be at the mercy of chemical industry profits.

Watch the scandal about fipronil we have in germany and europe just now. We are fed what we don´t want and it´s dangerous for the newborn.

I´m of the "contergan" generation. Thank the lord my mother never used this medicamentation when she was with child.
It was declared harmless.
I would probably not have any arms or legs to work the bees.
 
#64 ·
>Officially roundup is not carcinogenic (yet)

Actually I believe it "officially" is a likely cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It has been classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and Monsanto is being sued by people who have been exposed to Glyphosate and gotten non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

http://www.brownandcrouppen.com/defective-products/roundup-non-hodgkin-lymphoma/

And several other cancers are being linked to it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27058477
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

Agent orange and DDT were other chemicals that used to be "officially" harmless and were also produced by Monsanto... and I think we know how that worked out...
 
#67 ·
Agent orange and DDT were other chemicals that used to be "officially" harmless and were also produced by Monsanto... and I think we know how that worked out...
Agent Orange was a mix of 2,4D and 2,4,5T. This was a very effective herbicide and also both these components were quite safe to use. You can buy 2,4D at most any store that sells any kind of pesticides today. The problem was simple. During manufacture of 2,4,5T you made very tiny amounts of a byproduct named 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dioxin. This tiny amount of byproduct was horribly toxic and accumulates badly in biological organisms and is very difficult to remove from the 2,4,5T. Its primary effect is to cause very severe chlor-acne. Industry has a lot of experience with worker exposure issues with this dioxin and had no interest in making the 2,4,5T as a result. The government did not give industry a choice. Quite a few companies in addition to Monsanto were ordered by the Government to produce agent orange for the war effort. You younger people do not have a clue what the government can and has done in the past to force industry to support various war efforts. I will give you one hint. Go and try to find a 1944 Ford or General Motors or American Motors or Studebaker car to buy. They do not exist for the simple reason that during the war the Government ordered all car companies to stop making cars and make stuff the Government wanted for the war. Anyone who holds Monsanto in a negative light because they and many other chemical companies were ordered by the government to make agent orange is simply totally ignorant of reality and needs to grow up.

DDT is still widely used in some parts of the world and is causing no environmental issues. The lies that Carson told in her book about DDT are legion. Of course now we know they were lies as studies such as feeding studies done by the government to birds have shown that egg shell thinning by DDT was a myth. Even the Audubon Society during the hearings to ban DDT in 1972 admitted there was no evidence at all that DDT was the cause of the decline in raptor populations during the 1930s and 1940s as DDT was not even known then and they also admitted that their own bird count data showed most raptor populations were starting to recover by about 1960 when DDT use was at its greatest. All of this is a matter of public record as it all came out during the hearings to ban DDT held by the government. So, if you do not believe me go look it up and stop making up facts.
 
#68 ·
The big problem with DDT was the amount that was used and its persistence in the environment. It led to development of resistance in insects relatively quickly which made it ineffective.

This will happen with glyphosate and other pesticides if they are overused. Look at miticide use on honey bees.

Products used in the past were often worse for bees than ones currently used.

Tom
 
#72 ·
I have been fighting for a year now 6 cancers, two which should of killed me within weeks or months. how am I alive... diet and non gmo products . clean foods. If you eat any roundup ready foods get ready for it too shorten your life. now the big pharms will say its not true because they are making the money from it , and the scientist.lol
 
#74 ·
None of the studies has an influence about how they are used and how the are mixed with other chemicals in practical use by farmers and what the result of this is.

The extensive use of chemicals is like throwing waste into the ocean and believing it went away because it´s not here anymore before your eyes.
Resistance does not happen because of over use. Resistance happens when some pre existing metabolic path can be re-optimized to degrade or stop the transport of the toxin. A lot degree of use simply slows the development of resistance. That is why when you use a pesticide you really should generally not attempt to get more than about a 70% kill rate on the target. This low kill will leave lots of wild types available so any resistant individuals will have their genetics diluted every generation.
This started a new kind of use with antibiotics, if I get that right. First antibiotics ( for humans) were used prophylactically ( like they are still used with animals for food), then you should have used them until all bacteria was dead, now you use them until you have no symptoms anymore. Needed years to find out, the science. Now many bacteria are resistant.

Please correct me if I do not understand, dick, I´m no scientist.
 
#75 ·
This started a new kind of use with antibiotics, if I get that right. First antibiotics ( for humans) were used prophylactically ( like they are still used with animals for food), then you should have used them until all bacteria was dead, now you use them until you have no symptoms anymore. Needed years to find out, the science. Now many bacteria are resistant.

Please correct me if I do not understand, dick, I´m no scientist.
At the doses used in treatments many antibiotics never kill any bacteria at all. Instead what they do is slow the growth rate of the bacteria way down and in the process give you several days for your immune system to engage and actually clear the bacteria from your body. For many diseases this is the whole objective. So, how long you need to treat depends greatly on the particular bacteria and how fast your immune system will respond. That can range from two or three days for some diseases to months for things like TB. Like many things there is no one rule fits all.

Stopping as soon as you feel better can be highly risky. For instance I have responded dramatically to antibiotic treatment in as little as eight hours and I have seen my wife and kids do the same. Eight hours is no place close to the time needed to activate your immune system. In general stopping before a minimum of four days is risky regardless of how great you feel and the most likely result will be the disease symptoms will be back 48 or 72 hours after you stopped. Actually, if you do not get a response within 36 hours you most likely do not even have a bacterial problem and it is a virus instead. In that case you are wasting the antibiotics as they are not going to help you other than perhaps stop a secondary infection from establishing.
 
#77 ·
Livestock drenches are a classic example of resistance developing.
For years there were only 2 basic families of drench, white & clear. Poor use be it under dosing, putting stock back into contaminated pastures, drenching to frequently, using only one type etc lead to resistance. Once there is some resistance then the only option is to drench more frequently and resistance builds even faster.

The ivermectin family of drenches were a god send when they became available not only where they a new family for which there was no existing resistance the fact they continue to work for 3 weeks or so after administration increases their effectiveness.
Still it only took a short while before resistance started to be noticed in isolated pockets due to the same poor practises that had lead to resistance to the other families.
 
#78 ·
It was reported on TV that the inventer of penicillin had said (as I remember and maby not right) that his invention would not last for long due to humans not using enough. I took that to mean that if you were using it and did not go far enough to kill all the stuff you were trying to kill, some would be left to grow resistance.
Just mentioned this due to apparrently the last research company has quit working on antibodies due to the profit margin potential compared to other things they could put their research dollars toward.
Cheers
gww
 
#79 ·
This is a little off-topic but has already become part of the thread. Mosquito's and house flies grab the headlines with searches on DDT resistance. There are other pests of crops that quickly became resistant and now have other products/methods for control. One of the classic ones was San Jose scale on citrus. Mode of action and life cycles can be key to development of resistance. The fog of time has made me a little shaky on details. I took Biological Control if Insects close to 30 years ago.

Tom
 
#80 ·
An interesting aside. Here in NZ we got varroa mites in year 2000, or at least that's when they were first identified and treatment programs started.

The treatments used were apistan and bayvarol, (synthetic pyrethroid), a little later apivar (amitraz) became available. These worked well but there was a sense of foreboding because the overseas experience was that mites develop resistance to apistan and bayvarol in sometimes just a few seasons.
Yet 17 years later, all these products are working fine. Every now and then somebody claims they treated and it failed, but seems there may have been other factors at play because in following seasons there has not been resistance.

The very interesting thing, would be a research project to discover why in some countries resistance has developed so fast, and here it has not. This could be a more useful use of time for all those scientists who run constant studies based on the theme of force feeding poison to bees, to prove it hurts them. Which any reasonably intelligent person already knows.
 
#81 ·
Yet 17 years later, all these products are working fine. Every now and then somebody claims they treated and it failed, but seems there may have been other factors at play because in following seasons there has not been resistance.
I don't really know OT, but my friends in Otorohanga and Wellington are both facing Bayvarol resistance...according to them. One lost half his bees and the other couple lost lots and their colonies were above the mite threshold to be able to send packages to Canada (1%). 200-500 colony operations. You met the couple when they dropped Lesley and I at the War Museum. Are they wrong? Is it something else?
 
#82 ·
Yes I know of it, and others have claimed bayvarol resistance.

But even quite a few years ago some commercial beekeepers were finding apistan or bayvarol resistance, yet a few years later they'll be back using it again, the resistance seems to have gone.

My own hives were treated with bayvarol last fall, and now during the spring round I have found maybe a 1/2 dozen hives with mite damage and had to re treat them with apivar before the normal time. But I'm rotating a number of treatment types and I'll bet next time they get treated with bayvarol it will work.
 
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