Jump to content
The Education Forum

Are GM Crops Killing Bees?


Recommended Posts

16 May 2014

Rate of honey bee losses in the US ‘economically unsustainable’

===================

Losses of managed honey bee colonies in the US totalled 23.2% last winter, according to a report by the US Department of agriculture.
The report, produced with industry group the Bee Informed Partnership, showed that the death rate for October 2013 to April of this year was better than the 30.5% losses for 2012 to 2013, but worse than the 21.9% in 2011 to 2012.
Prior surveys found colony losses averaged 29.6% over the last eight-year span.
Bee populations have been dying at a rate which the US government says is economically unsustainable. Honey bees pollinate plants that produce about a quarter of US consumer foods.
Scientists, consumer groups, and bee keepers say the devastating rate of bee deaths is due at least in part to the growing use of pesticides sold by agri-chemical companies to boost yields of staple crops such as corn.
They pointed to a study issued on May 9 by Harvard School of Public Health that found two widely used neonicotinoids — a class of insecticide — may significantly harm honey bee colonies over the winter.
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

EU Buys Bees A Breather With Neonicotinoid Ban. Bees’ Goose Still Cookin’

  • ===================================
  • ===================================
Posted by Pterrafractyl February 3, 2014
  • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the quest to pre­vent a col­lapse in the global bee pop­u­la­tion, few approaches look more promis­ing than sim­ply ban­ning the use of neon­i­coti­noids in agri­cul­ture. To the EU’s credit, that’s exactly what was done last May when the EU passed a two-year ban on nicoti­noid usage. For life on earth it was the bee’s knees, although the Life Sci­ences indus­try wasn’t entirely pleased:

World On a Plate

Hosted By The Guardian

Lon­don bee sum­mit: pes­ti­cides or no pes­ti­cides?

The deci­sion to frame the argu­ment over neon­i­coti­noids as pro– or anti-pesticide ignores the myr­iad options

Posted by Emma Bryce

Tues­day 28 Jan­u­ary 2014 05.38 EST

In Lon­don last
, research sci­en­tists, chem­i­cal indus­try rep­re­sen­ta­tives, and jour­nal­ists gath­ered for an open dis­cus­sion ses­sion that con­cluded a three-day sum­mit about the impact of
on hon­ey­bees. The result was a rich debate about the future use of these chem­i­cals in agri­cul­ture, and impli­ca­tions for food pro­duc­tion. But the efforts by some indus­try rep­re­sen­ta­tives to over­sim­plify the issue gave an oth­er­wise intri­cate dis­cus­sion the aura of a highly polarised one.

Neon­i­coti­noids, which are widely used in Europe and Amer­ica, are applied as a coat­ing on seeds of crops like oilseed rape, maize, and sun­flow­ers before they are planted, in this way pro­tect­ing the plant from the start.
But since this class of chem­i­cals was linked with a
in honey– and bum­ble­bee health in 2012, fol­lowed by The Euro­pean Commission’s
on spe­cific uses of neon­i­con­ti­noids soon after, they have been recog­nised more for the con­tro­versy they are asso­ci­ated with than any­thing else.

The sci­ence can­not defin­i­tively link neon­i­coti­noid impact on indi­vid­ual pol­li­na­tors to the wide­spread, over­all decline of hon­ey­bee pop­u­la­tions going on in Europe and America—the phe­nom­e­non labelled
.
But a grow­ing body of research on the sub­ject is help­ing to cement the con­cerns of con­ser­va­tion­ists and sci­en­tists alike. Friday’s open dis­cus­sion helped air those con­cerns,
and yet, these were fore­grounded against a con­tro­ver­sial indus­try sug­ges­tion that if we stop using neon­i­coti­noids, we essen­tially com­mit to a future of envi­ron­men­tal ruin.

Speak­ing dur­ing his pre­sen­ta­tion on behalf of
the com­pany that makes imi­da­clo­prid, a neonicotinoid-based pes­ti­cide
—envi­ron­men­tal safety man­ager
con­cluded his talk by stat­ing that not only will food pro­duc­tion dip dra­mat­i­cally if we stop using neon­i­coti­noids, but that in an effort to make up for low­ered pro­duc­tion, coun­tries will have to con­vert untouched wild land into crops and ‘import’ land from devel­op­ing world coun­tries. That will result in decreased bio­di­ver­sity in Europe, Amer­ica, and abroad, he said.

This rather extreme argu­ment gives us just two options: a world with pes­ti­cides, or one with­out.
But it mis­rep­re­sents the approach of sci­en­tists and sev­eral con­ser­va­tion groups, and also con­tra­dicts what the chem­i­cal indus­tries them­selves say.

“I think it’s just an over­sim­pli­fi­ca­tion by the indus­try to suit their mes­sage,” says
, nature cam­paigner at Friends of the Earth UK who was present at Friday’s meet­ing. “We’re not nec­es­sar­ily talk­ing about ban­ning every pes­ti­cide. We’re talk­ing about min­imis­ing the use.”
A speaker at the con­fer­ence, Uni­ver­sity of Sus­sex Pro­fes­sor
, leader of one of the research groups that
on pol­li­na­tors in 2012, agreed, adding that in order to grow enough food to feed an increas­ing world pop­u­la­tion, he recog­nised that chem­i­cals would inevitably be part of the mix.

But the binary pesticide/no pes­ti­cide sce­nario over­writes a third option: using pes­ti­cides together with other con­trols
. This is one aspect of inte­grated pest man­age­ment (IPM), touted as a ‘
’ approach to farm­ing. “IPM is not a sys­tem that doesn’t use pes­ti­cides at all,” says Goul­son, “but you try and min­imise the pes­ti­cides and only ever use them respon­si­bly, and as a last resort.”
This ideal con­trasts starkly with the cur­rent real­ity of crops that receive up to
.

Rotation-cropping, organic farm­ing, pro­duc­tion of pest-resistant crops, and the use of state-funded agron­o­mists to eval­u­ate land and apply tai­lored pest con­trol, were all raised as alter­na­tive man­age­ment options dur­ing the open debate.
, a PhD stu­dent at the Uni­ver­sity of Giessen in Ger­many, who was there to present a poster about whether bees can sense neon­i­coti­noids, sug­gested that in an ideal future, farm­ers would be given finan­cial incen­tives for avoid­ing unnec­es­sary pes­ti­cide use. Cur­rently, he says, “there is no pos­si­bil­ity for farm­ers to get pesticide-undressed seeds from the big com­pa­nies. There­fore most agri­cul­tural land is exposed to insecticides.”

Bayer Crop­Science notes that alter­na­tives are part of its port­fo­lio, too
. “We are very open to find­ing the right syn­the­sis between inte­grated pest man­age­ment and pes­ti­cides,” said Bayer’s global pol­li­na­tor safety man­ager,
, adding that it is nec­es­sary to estab­lish a pesticide’s com­pat­i­bil­ity with IPM before it goes on the mar­ket. (He spoke on behalf of Richard Schmuck who was trav­el­ing and not avail­able for an interview.)

The real­ity, of course, is that the pesticide/no pes­ti­cide split exists because there is no finan­cial incen­tive right now to mould things dif­fer­ently. Alter­na­tive meth­ods of pest con­trol get lit­tle fund­ing, and less research. “There’s no profit to be made for any­one who devel­ops any­thing like that,” says Goul­son. “So really, most research into how to farm is focused on high-tech solu­tions that can be sold by the peo­ple that man­u­fac­ture them.”

The UK government’s seem­ingly
with major chem­i­cal com­pany
has only inten­si­fied the frus­tra­tions felt by those seek­ing alter­na­tives.
Industry-funded stud­ies that find no neon­i­coti­noid impact are a tar­get for crit­ics, and researchers high­light the gen­eral scarcity of peer-reviewed sci­ence on the subject.

Indeed, the con­fi­dent con­clu­sion in Schmuck’s pre­sen­ta­tion that a future with­out pes­ti­cides will amount to a loss of vir­gin land and bio­di­ver­sity comes from an
that he cited in his talk.
“It was a report by the agro­chem­i­cal indus­try,” says Goul­son. “I would strongly imag­ine it has no cred­i­bil­ity what­so­ever.” Yet, says Maus, every­thing Bayer Crop­Science pub­lishes is inde­pen­dently reg­u­lated, whether it appears in a jour­nal or not. “Our data are scru­ti­nised,” he states.

...

The binary argu­ment over neon­i­coti­noids, no mat­ter how super­fi­cial, denies the role that cre­ativ­ity has to play in find­ing other solu­tions. It per­pet­u­ates a threat­en­ing rhetoric in which the obvi­ous pres­sure exists to stick with the sta­tus quo. “It’s about a lack of invest­ment in the right kind of research,” says Bell.
“If sev­eral years ago more money had been directed towards [alter­na­tives] we might not be in this sit­u­a­tion now.“

The two-year EU ban on neon­i­coti­noids is going to be a crit­i­cal story to watch but it’s also a dif­fi­cult story. As the atten­dees to the Lon­don Bee Sum­mit often pointed out, bee colony col­lapse is an incred­i­bly com­pli­cated phe­nom­ena and nicoti­noids are just one piece of the puzzle.

Another piece of the puz­zle that adds uncer­tainty to the future of the neon­i­coti­noid ban is the fact that Ettore Capri, the direc­tor of the Italy based OPERA Research Cen­ter — a pes­ti­cide industry-friendly think tank with a his­tory of lob­by­ing the EU for laxer neon­i­coti­noid reg­u­la­tionsis also sit­ting on the EU’s pes­ti­cide panel. But it’s a big panel so we’ll see soon how the EU’s two year mora­to­rium works out. Major nicoti­noid man­u­fac­tur­ers like Bayer and Syn­genta may not like bans on neon­i­coti­noids but the bees do. And in two years we’ll see who wins, Big Pes­ti­cide or the bees. Hint: It’s look­ing like it’s going to be a cliff-hanger/catastrophe sort of expe­ri­ence.

It Isn’t Easy Being a Bee
Neon­i­coti­noids and lob­by­ists arent’t the only threats com­pli­cat­ing the fate of the bees. If your a bee, mites might make for a really bad day. Or a new farm where your deli­cious prairie flow­ers used to be. Or both. It isn’t being a bee, and its get­ting harder:

Inter­na­tional Busi­ness Times

How Can We Save Bees? 3 Pos­si­ble Solu­tions To Com­bat Hon­ey­bee Decline

By Rox­anne Palmer

on Jan­u­ary 22 2014 11:38 PM

The pleas­ant buzz of the hon­ey­bee is going silent across the nation, and the globe. But not every­one is plan­ning on let­ting bees bum­ble gen­tly into that good night.

Since 2006, U.S. bee­keep­ers have been see­ing colony losses of an aver­age of 33 per­cent a year
, with a third of that attrib­uted to colony col­lapse dis­or­der, or CCD, the abrupt dis­ap­pear­ance of worker bees from the hive.

...

Since no one can quite pin down a sin­gu­lar cause for the drop in bee pop­u­la­tions across the globe, a nest of dif­fer­ent approaches to sav­ing the hon­ey­bee is spring­ing up. Here are just a few of the mea­sures that are being taken to try and save the bees:

Europe’s pes­ti­cide ban

Last April, the Euro­pean Union voted to ban a cer­tain class of pes­ti­cides called neonicotinoids....

...

Nev­er­the­less, the EU ban went into effect this past Decem­ber and will last for two years.
Some sci­en­tists fear that Euro­pean farm­ers may turn to more toxic pes­ti­cides in the wake of the ban
, while oth­ers fear that crop pests may seize their advan­tage in the com­ing years. Only time will tell what the ban has wrought.

Com­bat­ing the var­roa mite

One of the other prime sus­pects in CCD is the var­roa mite, a tiny arach­nid that can hitch a ride back to bee­hives on the backs of for­ag­ing worker bees
. Once it invades the hive, the mite lays its eggs in hon­ey­combs along­side young bees. The mite brings its own hitch­hik­ers into the colony as well: bac­te­ria, viruses and other pathogens that can sweep through the bees.

Bayer sci­en­tists and bee researchers from Frank­furt
to nip the var­roa mite right at the entrance of the hive, using a spe­cially designed entry­way for com­mer­cial hives
. When bees pass through this var­roa gate through small entry holes, they brush up against a coat­ing of poi­son that tar­gets the mite (it’s based on the same prin­ci­ple as a flea col­lar for dogs or cats).

In Aus­tralia, where the mite has yet to gain a foothold, sci­en­tist Denis Ander­son has been search­ing for a chem­i­cal switch that would allow him to turn off the mite’s breed­ing cycle. But, Ander­son says his work has been ham­pered by a lack of funds,
.

Fill­ing empty bee bellies

Any hun­gry crea­ture is vul­ner­a­ble to ill­ness and calamity, and bees are no excep­tion.
And the spread of mod­ern agri­cul­ture, cou­pled with sky­rock­et­ing demand for bio­fu­els, may be chew­ing up the bees’ sources of food.

Amer­i­can grass­lands are rich in wild­flow­ers, which pro­vide food for a host of pol­li­nat­ing insects, includ­ing hon­ey­bees. But these grass­lands are being destroyed as a study pub­lished last year in the Pro­ceed­ings of the National Acad­emy of Sci­ences found.
The study found that 1.3 mil­lion acres of grass­land and wet­land were con­verted to crop­land in the Dako­tas, Nebraska and parts of Min­nesota and Iowa between 2006 and 2011,
at a rate not seen since before the Dust Bowl
.

...

So even when neon­i­coti­noids are banned, the farm­ers might just use some­thing even worse, mites might infest your colony with bac­te­ria and viruses, and, in the US, native bee habi­tat loss from 2006–2011 was at a rate not seen since the Dust Bowl! It’s sure not easy being bee, neon­i­coti­noids or not.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
U.S. Sets Plan to Save Honey Bees and Other Pollinators
E6E79F87-E084-43E0-B5D2562D8081A22B.jpg
Jun 20, 2014

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday announced a federal strategy to reverse a rapid decline in the number of honey bees and other pollinators in the United States that threatens the development of billions of dollars in crops.

As part of the plan, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced $8 million in funding for farmers and ranchers in five states who establish new habitats for honey bee populations.

"Honey bee pollination alone adds more than $15 billion in value to agricultural crops each year in the United States," the White House said in a statement announcing the establishment of a multi-agency task force and other measures.

The contribution of native wild pollinators such as bumble bees were valued at $9 billion in 2009.

In May, an annual report from USDA and the "Bee Informed Partnership," an industry group, estimated that total losses of managed honey bee colonies was 23 percent percent over the winter of 2013-14, just the latest in a series of declines.

Over recent years, bees have been dying at a rate the U.S. government says is economically unsustainable. Honey bees pollinate plants that produce about a quarter of the food consumed by Americans, including apples, watermelons and beans.

Crops such as almonds are almost exclusively pollinated by honey bees.

"The problem is serious, and poses a significant challenge that needs to be addressed to ensure the sustainability of our food production systems," the White House said.

The recent increased loss of honey bee colonies is thought to be caused by factors including a loss of natural forage and inadequate diets, mite infestations and diseases, loss of genetic diversity, and exposure to certain pesticides.

(Reporting by Ros Krasny; Editing by Richard Chang)

***************************************
PLEASE NOTE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION (REAL REASON FOR BEE DEPOPULATION IS PLACED AT END OF ARTICLE,GAAL)

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32399907

Bees 'get a buzz' from pesticides
By Helen Briggs BBC Environment Correspondent

Bees prefer food containing neonicotinoid pesticides, research suggests.

They may "get a buzz" from the nicotine-like chemicals in the same way smokers crave cigarettes, according to scientists at Newcastle University.

The experiments raise the question of whether bees can be exposed to harmful doses of pesticides because they are attracted to the chemicals.

Another study found neonicotinoids had a negative effect on bees in the wild.

The Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide producers, questioned the findings of the studies, published in the journal, Nature.

Scientific controversy

Bees are in decline in Europe and North America due to a number of factors, including pesticides, habitat loss and diseases.

In 2013, the EU imposed a two-year ban on using three neonicotinoid pesticides on flowering crops amid concern about their effects on bees.

Neonicotinoids contain synthetic chemicals similar to nicotine, which as a plant toxin is damaging to insects.

Neuroscientists at Newcastle University tested whether honeybees and bumblebees preferred food containing neonicotinoids over untreated food in the laboratory.

They were surprised to find that sugar solution containing two of three neonicotinoid pesticides appeared to be attractive to bees and "may act like a drug" targeting the brain.

"Bees can't taste neonicotinoids in their food and therefore do not avoid these pesticides," said lead researcher Prof Geraldine Wright. "This is putting them at risk of poisoning when they eat contaminated nectar.

"Even worse, we now have evidence that bees prefer to eat pesticide-contaminated food. Neonicotinoids target the same mechanisms in the bee brain that are affected by nicotine in the human brain."

The next step is to study whether bees can become addicted to the substances, Prof Wright added.

"As soon as it gets into their blood they're getting a little buzz, as it were, and they're responding to that... We don't have any evidence that it's addictive, but it could be."

Commenting on the research, Dr Christopher Connolly of the University of Dundee said it would be interesting to find out if insects "become addicted to neonicotinoids over time as humans become addicted to nicotine".

"Given that the neonicotinoids are commonly found in our farmed environment at these levels, this may have already occurred."

EU moratorium

Scientific evidence over the impact of neonicotinoids has proved controversial, with debate over the relevance of laboratory studies and whether there is strong enough evidence to justify a ban.

There have been few field trials on wild bees and the results of these are disputed.

In an attempt to resolve the arguments, Dr Maj Rundlof from Lund University looked at the effects of neonicotinoids on wild bees and honeybees foraging on farmland in Sweden.

Half of oilseed rape fields were sown with seeds coated in neonicotinoids; while the other half were left untreated.

Half the number of wild bumblebees and solitary bees were found in oilseed rape fields treated with pesticides.

Bumblebee colonies stopped growing where the chemicals were present, with reduced reproduction observed in solitary bees and bumblebees. Significant effects were not found in honeybees.

Renewed debate

Prof Simon Potts of the University of Reading said the research suggests an interim ban on the use of neonicotinoids is justified but leaves regulators with a "huge conundrum".

"A return to old-fashioned products sprayed against pests could be disastrous for pollinators, but the other options available to European agriculture, such as natural pest management, would lead to lower yields in the short term and a big increase in food prices."

Nick von Westenholz, CEO of the Crop Protection Association, which represents neonicotinoid producers, questioned the latest research.

"The latest studies in Nature must be seen in the context of ongoing campaign to discredit neonicotinoid pesticides, regardless of what the real evidence shows," he said.

The UK government enforces the moratorium but has publicly stated it does not support it.

A spokesperson from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "The EU will be reviewing the evidence on the effects of neonicotinoids on pollinators. Until this work is complete, the current restrictions remain in place."

Both research studies are published in the journal, Nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Front Groups Exposed—50 Industry Groups Form a New Alliance to Manipulate Public Opinion About Junk Food, GMOs, and Harmful Additives

===================

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/29/codex-front-groups.aspx

==========================================

Front Man Steven Milloy, and Other Non-Profit Front Organizations with Ties to Industry

=

Steven Milloy, author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, and owner and operator of Junkscience.com8 — a site dedicated to denying environmental and health concerns related to pollutants and chemicals, including those used in agriculture and food production — appears to have been registered as a lobbyist with The EOP Group, a lobbying firm based in Washington, DC. Clients of the firm have included the American Crop Protection Association, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, and Edison Electric Institute.9

Milloy’s clients10 included both Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council (IFAC). Milloy has denied ever being a lobbyist, claiming that he was “a technical consultant" for the lobbying firm.

“However, Milloy shows up in federal lobbyist registration data for 1997 as having lobbying expenditures on his behalf, indicating his firm, the EOP Group, believed him to be an active lobbyist, 'technical' or otherwise,” TRWNews11 states in its expose of the industry front man.

Milloy also headed up the now defunct corporate front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). According to TRWNews,12 TASSC and the Junkscience.com site were one and the same. Integrity in Science,13 which lists non-profit organizations with close ties to industry, reports that TASSC received financial support from hundreds of corporations, including the likes of Procter & Gamble, Exxon, Dow Chemical, and Philip Morris. I’ll leave it up to you to guess what kind of ‘sound science’ was advanced by those sources...

“Its objective is to act as a speakers bureau to deliver the corporate message that environmental public policy is not currently based on 'sound science,' and to counter excessive regulations that are based on what it considers 'junk' science,” Integrity in Science states. [Emphasis mine]

Other non-profit organizations that are in actuality doing the bidding of various industry giants include:
•Air Quality Standards Coalition, “created specifically to battle the clean air proposals, the coalition operates out of the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based trade group. Its leadership includes top managers of petroleum, automotive and utility companies”
•Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, while sounding like it would work for your benefit, actually gets “unrestricted grants” from a long list of pharmaceutical companies
• Alliance to Save Energy, which “supports energy efficiency as a cost-effective energy resource under existing market conditions and advocates energy-efficiency policies that minimize costs to society and individual consumers,” was founded by, among others: BP...
•American Academy of Pediatrics receives $1 million annually from infant formula manufacturers. Other donors include (but is not limited to) the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, both Wyeth’s and Merck’s vaccine divisions, the Food Marketing Institute, the Sugar Association, and the International Food Information Council (IFIC) — which you will see below, is not only a front group for the glutamate industry; it’s also the coordinating agent for a new alliance of over 50 industry groups aimed at directing the dialogue and altering public opinion about large-scale, genetically engineered and chemical-based food production
•American Council for Fitness and Nutrition. This one takes the cake with a member list that includes the American Bakers Association, the American Meat Institute, the Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers Association, Chocolate Manufacturers Association, Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, National Confectioners Association and many others that are FAR from suited to devise appropriate “comprehensive, long-term strategies and constructive public policies for improving the health and wellness of all Americans”

===============

American Crop Protection Association PAID HACKS ,GAAL

=======================================================

37 Million Bees Dropped Dead After Farms In Ontario, Canada Sprayed Neonictinoids On Their GMO Crops
— April 24, 2015

By Steve

deadbees

Bees’ importance to the planet cannot be overstated. The tiny, bumbling bee is responsible for pollinating one-sixth of flowering plants in the world, and also about 400 different types of agricultural plants. In fact, it is estimated that just last year, the honey-producing pollinators helped provide over $19 billion worth of agricultural crops with their pollination services. Globally, they are responsible for helping to create a $300 billion revenue.

Just based on those facts alone, it’s pretty clear that bees are important and need to be preserved: not just because they help keep the food chain flowering and producing food, but because they are a hard-working, selfless species that are incremental to the sustainability and the future of this earth.

But as has been shown multiple times in recent years – and in Ontario, Canada – certain agricultural methods which are far from sustainable are causing bee populations to decrease.

[more…]

Visit Site http://alternative-news-network.net/37-million-bees-dropped-dead-after-farms-in-ontario-canada-sprayed-neonictinoids-on-their-gmo-crops/

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pesticides alter bees' brains, making them unable to live and reproduce adequately

Thursday, April 30, 2015

=

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/04/pesticides-alter-bees-brains-making.html

=

New research in The FASEB Journal suggests that the neonicotinoid class of pesticides do not kill bees but impair their brain function to disturb learning, blunt food gathering skills and harm reproduction

In research report published in the May 2015 issue of The FASEB Journal, scientists report that a particular class of pesticides called "neonicotinoids" wreaks havoc on the bee populations, ultimately putting some crops that rely on pollination in jeopardy. Specifically, these pesticides kill bee brain cells, rendering them unable to learn, gather food and reproduce. The report, however, also suggests that the effects of these pesticides on bee colonies may be reversible by decreasing or eliminating the use of these pesticides on plants pollenated by bees and increasing the availability of "bee-friendly" plants available to the insects.

"Our study shows that the neonicotinoid pesticides are a risk to our bees and we should stop using them on plants that bees visit," said Christopher N. Connolly, Ph.D., a researcher involved in the work from the Medical Research Institute at the Ninewells Medical School at the University of Dundee in Dundee, UK. "Neonicotinoids are just a few examples of hundreds of pesticides we use on our crops and in our gardens. Stop using all pesticides in your garden and see insect damage as a success. You are providing for your native wildlife. Nasty caterpillars grow into beautiful butterflies."

To make their discovery, Connolly and colleagues fed bees a sugar solution with very low neonicotinoid pesticide levels typically found in flowers (2.5 parts per billion) and tracked the toxins to the bee brain. They found that pesticide levels in the bees' brains were sufficient to cause the learning cells to run out of energy. Additionally, the brain cells were even vulnerable to this effect at just one tenth of the level present. When the ability of the bee's brain to learn is limited, the bee is unable to master key skills such as recognizing the presence of nectar and pollen from the smell emitted from flowers. In addition, scientists fed bumblebee colonies this same very low level of pesticide in a remote site in the Scottish Highlands where they were unlikely to be exposed to any other pesticides. They found that just a few of the exposed colonies performed well, colonies were smaller, and nests were in poor condition with fungus taking over. This further suggests that bumblebees exposed to this type of pesticide become poor learners, become unable to properly gather food, and become unable to properly nurture the next generation of bees.

"It is ironic that neonicotinoids, pesticides developed to preserve the health of plants, ultimately inflict tremendous damage on plant life," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "These chemicals destroy the insect communities required by plants for their own reproduction."

==
- See more at: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/04/pesticides-alter-bees-brains-making.html#sthash.P0Su2c8Y.dpuf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Asked

Health Research

You Asked: Are the Honeybees Still Disappearing?

Markham Heid @markhamh
April 15, 2015
    

You Asked: Are Honeybees Still Disappearing?

Beekeepers continue to grapple with historically high death rates. And now something’s up with the queens.

From almonds to cherries, dozens of food crops are partially or totally dependent on honeybee pollination. And while media attention has waned, there’s still reason to worry about the country’s smallest and most indispensable farm workers.

Bee researchers first reported massive die-offs back in the 1990s. But the plight of the honeybee didn’t truly buzz into the national consciousness until the spring of 2013, when data revealed the average beekeeper had lost 45% of her colonies the previous winter. A mysterious phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder (CCD) further stoked the fires of public interest.

Jump to 2015. While last winter’s bee death data won’t be published for a few more weeks, things appear to be “status quo,” says Dr. Greg Hunt, a honeybee expert at Purdue University. Unfortunately, the status quo is grim. “We’ve been seeing about 30% loss in an average winter,” Hunt says. “The winter before last was particularly bad and got a lot of attention, but things have been bad for a while.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...