neo-nics/ CCD

===

SEE ENTINE BS

see pollinator, includes gmo's

https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Bio-diversity#Insects

===

an comm dr no lnx 7 23

https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/10/epa-pesticide-toxic-seeds-lawsuit-environment-pollution

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/saving-bees-from-neonics

neonics are so dangerous, what is the Environmental Protection Agency doing about it? Not very much, as it turns out

I was reading about bumble bees recently—specifically, their looming demise, thanks to human greed and ignorance—and started thinking about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We should have eaten from it!

Well, we did, but then apparently upchucked everything we learned and, in the process, fooled ourselves into thinking that technology has allowed us to recreate the Garden of Eden from which we’d been banned. You might call it the Garden of Capitalism, in which humans can take what they want without consequences, forever and ever and ever. This seems to be the myth at the core of dominant global culture.

But of course there are consequences, which we officially refuse to let ourselves see. For instance, Amy van Saun, an attorney for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, writing about the shocking disappearance of bees and other pollinators of much of the food we eat (fruit, vegetables, nuts), notes that one of the primary causes is the ever-increasing use of pesticides, in particular, something called neonicotinoids (or “neonics”), which wreak their own special hell on the planet’s ecosystems.

Like cluster bombs, land mines, Agent Orange, depleted uranium, “they persist in the environment,” almost as though—forgive the analogy—commercial farming is like an ongoing war on nature.

Neonicotinoids “are the most widely used insecticides in the world,” she writes. “Unlike traditional pesticides, which are typically applied to plant surfaces, neonics... are absorbed and transported through all parts of the plant tissue.

“ ...Modeled after nicotine, neonicotinoids interfere with insects’ nervous systems, causing tremors, paralysis, and eventually, death. Neonicotinoids are so toxic that one corn seed treated with them contains enough insecticide to kill over 80,000 honey bees.”

And, like cluster bombs, land mines, Agent Orange, depleted uranium, “they persist in the environment,” almost as though—forgive the analogy—commercial farming is like an ongoing war on nature.

If neonics are so dangerous, what is the Environmental Protection Agency doing about it? Not very much, as it turns out, despite scientific evidence of their danger, which is why Center for Food Safety, along with the Pesticide Action Network North America, are suing the agency. As van Saun writes, “almost half of all U.S. farmland is planted with pesticide-coated seeds,” but the agency refuses to regulate them.

The result, according to a U.N. report, is that cropland is approximately 50 times more toxic than it was a quarter of a century ago, at the beginning of the 21st century, and the world is currently experiencing an “insect apocalypse.”

And indeed, it begins to appear that the EPA has a mission that transcends “environmental protection.” It may well be that this agency—part of a governmental culture that supports and benefits from wealth and war—has a mission that is more about official denial of the dangers of planetary exploitation. The EPA’s refusal to acknowledge the damage caused by neonics is just a small part of it.

“Critics accuse the EPA of being inappropriately cozy with the pesticide industry, and biasing its decisions to favor companies selling pesticides,” theGuardianwrites. “Several EPA scientists came forward last year, publicly alleging that EPA management routinely pressures EPA scientists to tamper with risk assessments of chemicals in ways that downplayed the harm the chemicals could pose...

“The scientists complained, among other things, that key managers move back and forth between industry jobs and positions at the EPA.”

This is when I started hearing an alarm go off in my head: Cultural malfunction alert! Cultural malfunction alert! This is what things look like when exploitation prevails: when grabbing all the goodies you can is at the cultural core, rather than something a bit more complex, such as understanding—and revering—the eco-reality (also known as nature) in which we live.

And beyond that, can we not create a culture that faces the paradoxes of life with a certain level of openness and a continued interest in learning? Life is not something to be reduced to simplistic opposites: win vs. lose, good vs. evil. There is darkness within all of us, but we can’t let it determine our fate or shape our understanding of the world. Yet I fear this is the nature of “modern,” as opposed to Indigenous, culture. Humanity, over the past few millennia, has moved its sense of reverence away from Mother Earth and essentially to Father Sky, rather than continuing to revere both. As a result, Mother Earth is ours to do with as we choose.

This is what things look like when exploitation prevails...

The opposite viewpoint—apparently the indigenous viewpoint, which European land-grabbers called “savage”—isn’t quite so simple. The natural world, while rife with struggle, can’t be reduced to “survival of the fittest.” Rather, it exists in a state of complex cooperation among all concerned—plants, animals—and evolves via the interdependence of all life.

As Rupert Ross wrote in his remarkable book about Indigenous culture, Returning to the Teachings: “The Lakotah had no language for insulting other orders of existence: pest... waste... weed.”

Back to pesticides then. Back to weed killers. Back to climate change and the apparent inability of the polluters who purport to be in charge of Planet Earth to address it adequately: Superficial change won’t do it. The change has to be cultural. It has to be spiritual.

Believe me, if we fail to change who we are and the bees—the pollinators—disappear, we’ll all feel the sting.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

CDC experts warn to 'exercise precaution' as viruses rise: report ›

I was stung by a so-called 'murder hornet' — here's the truth about them ›

If You Eat These Popular Candies, You're Also Eating Insect Secretions ›

Minnesota Nice, Bee Friendly

August 6, 2013 by Sarah Barker

University of Minnesota Macarthur Fellow and Distinguished McKnight Professor Marla Spivak is one of the foremost experts on bees. Spivak recently gave a TED talk about this catastrophic loss of bees, called titled Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). She pointed to four interrelated causes for of CCD, all tied to changes in farming practices since World War II. Since then, there has been:

a 300% increase in the production of crops that rely on bee pollination
a huge increase in use of synthetic fertilizer
monoculture farming that not only eliminates flowering plants bees need for survival, but also invites fungus and insects, and subsequent use of fungicides, herbicides and pesticides.

The dramatic rise in bee die-offs since 2005 coincides with the introduction of a type of systemic pesticide called neonicotinoids. Unlike pesticides that are applied externally to existing plants and degrade in a few days, neonicotinoids are embedded in the plant seed, making the plant poisonous to insects for weeks or months. Neonicotinoids disorient bees so they can’t find their way back to the hive, and in high enough doses, can be lethal.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Behind Big Pesticide’s Playbook

The introduction three decades ago of a new class of insecticides called neonicotinoids — derived from nicotine — dazzled farmers: It promised insect-killing efficiency with precision application. Before long, neonics became one of the most widely used insecticides, applied to agricultural crops, ornamental trees, and home gardens in every corner of the globe.

Problems began almost immediately. Neonicotinoids have been blamed for killing bees. But while the European Union moved to ban the insecticide, little has been done in the U.S.

What’s different here? Industry lobbying documents and emails obtained by The Intercept show a vast strategy by the pesticide industry to influence academics, beekeepers, and regulators, and divert attention away from the potential harm caused by pesticides and push the public into focusing only on other factors that could harm bees and other insects.

As a result, the pesticide industry has largely prevailed and continues to reap massive profits. Revenue has doubled over the past decade; the global neonic industry generated $4.42 billion in 2018. And in the meantime, the effects are being seen in massive die-offs of several insect species; the poison is even reaching birds and potentially large mammals. Certain species are nearing extinction.

no lnx many

Lee Fang

January 18 2020,

IN SEPTEMBER 2009, over 3,000 bee enthusiasts from around the world descended on the city of Montpellier in southern France for Apimondia — a festive beekeeper conference filled with scientific lectures, hobbyist demonstrations, and commercial beekeepers hawking honey. But that year, a cloud loomed over the event: bee colonies across the globe were collapsing, and billions of bees were dying.

Bee declines have been observed throughout recorded history, but the sudden, persistent and abnormally high annual hive losses had gotten so bad that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had commissioned two of the world’s most well-known entomologists — Dennis vanEngelsdorp, a chief apiary inspector in Pennsylvania, then studying at Penn State University, and Jeffrey Pettis, then working as a government scientist — to study the mysterious decline. They posited that there must be an underlying factor weakening bees’ immune systems.

At Le Corum, a conference center and opera house, the pair discussed their findings. They had fed bees with extremely small amounts of neonicotinoids, or neonics, the most commonly used class of insecticides in the world. Neonics are, of course, meant to kill insects, but they are marketed as safe for insects that aren’t being directly targeted. VanEngelsdorp and Pettis found that even at nonlethal doses, the bees in the trial became much more vulnerable to fungal infection. Bees carrying an infection will often fly off to die, a virtuous form of suicide designed to protect the larger hive from contagion.

“We exposed whole colonies to very low levels of neonicotinoids in this case, and then challenged bees from those colonies with Nosema, a pathogen, a gut pathogen,” said Pettis, speaking to filmmaker Mark Daniels in his documentary, “The Strange Disappearance of the Bees,” at Apimondia. “And we saw an increase, even if we fed the pesticide at very low levels — an increase in Nosema levels — in direct response to the low-level feeding of neonicotinoids.”

The dosages of the pesticide were so miniscule, said vanEngelsdorp, that it was “below the limit of detection.” The only reason they knew the bees had consumed the neonicotinoids, he added, was “because we exposed them.”

Bee health depends on a variety of synergistic factors, the scientists were careful to note. But in this study, Pettis said, they were able to isolate “one pesticide and one pathogen and we clearly see the interaction.”

The evidence was mounting. Shortly after vanEngelsdorp and Pettis revealed their findings, a number of French researchers produced a nearly identical study, feeding minute amounts of the same pesticide to bees, along with a control group. The study produced results that echoed what the Americans had found.

Drifting clouds of neonicotinoid dust from planting operations caused a series of massive bee die-offs in northern Italy and the Baden-Württemberg region of Germany. Studies have shown neonicotinoids impaired bees’ ability to navigate and forage for food, weakened bee colonies, and made them prone to infestation by parasitic mites.

In 2013, the European Union called for a temporary suspension of the most commonly used neonicotinoid-based products on flowering plants, citing the danger posed to bees — an effort that resulted in a permanent ban in 2018.

In the U.S., however, industry dug in, seeking not only to discredit the research but to cast pesticide companies as a solution to the problem. Lobbying documents and emails, many of which were obtained through open records requests, show a sophisticated effort over the last decade by the pesticide industry to obstruct any effort to restrict the use of neonicotinoids. Bayer and Syngenta, the largest manufacturers of neonics, and Monsanto, one of the leading producers of seeds pretreated with neonics, cultivated ties with prominent academics, including vanEngelsdorp, and other scientists who had once called for a greater focus on the threat posed by pesticides.

[Automobiles pass Syngenta AG's headquarters at dawn in Basel, Switzerland, on Feb. 4, 2015. Syngenta, the world's largest maker of crop protection chemicals, forecast stable earnings this year as the benefits of a cost-cutting program offset unfavorable currency shifts. Photographer: Philipp Schmidli/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesSyngenta AG’s headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, on Feb. 4, 2015. Photo: Philipp Schmidli/Bloomberg via Getty Images]

The companies also sought influence with beekeepers and regulators, and went to great lengths to shape public opinion. Pesticide firms launched new coalitions and seeded foundations with cash to focus on nonpesticide factors in pollinator decline.

“Position the industry as an active promoter of bee health, and advance best management practices which emphasize bee safety,” noted an internal planning memo from CropLife America, the lobby group for the largest pesticide companies in America, including Bayer and Syngenta. The ultimate goal of the bee health project, the document noted, was to ensure that member companies maintained market access for neonic products and other systemic pesticides.

CLA Pollinator Issue Management Plan

10 pages

The planning memo, helmed in part by Syngenta regulatory official John Abbott, charts a variety of strategies for advancing the pesticide industry’s interests, such as, “Challenge EPA on the size and breadth of the pollinator testing program.” CropLife America officials were also tapped to “proactively shape the conversation in the new media realm with respect to pollinators” and “minimize negative association of crop protection products with effects on pollinators.” The document, dated June 2014, calls for “outreach to university researchers who could be independent validators.”

The pesticide companies have used a variety of strategies to shift the public discourse.

“America’s Heartland,” a PBS series shown on affiliates throughout the country and underwritten by CropLife America, portrayed the pollinator declines as a mystery. One segment from early 2013 on the crisis made no mention of pesticides, with the host simply declaring that “experts aren’t sure why” bees and butterflies were disappearing.

Another segment, released in January 2015, quickly mentions pesticides as one of many possible factors for honeybee deaths. A representative of the “North American Bee Care Program,” Becky Langer, appeared on the program to discuss the “exotic pests that can affect the bees.”The program does not mention Langer’s position as a spokesperson for Bayer focused on managing fallout from the bee controversy.

Michael Sanford, a spokesperson for PBS KVIE, which produces “America’s Heartland,” wrote in an email to The Intercept that “consistent with strict PBS editorial standards and our own,” sponsors of the show provided no editorial input.

Bayer’s advocacy, designed to position the firm as a leader in protecting bee health, included a roadshow around the country, in which Bayer officials handed out oversized ceremonial checks to local beekeepers and students. The firm hosts splashy websites touting its leadership in promoting bee health and sponsors a number of beekeeping associations.

Meanwhile, Bayer has financed a series of online advertisements that depict individuals who fear that its pesticide products harm nontarget insects as deranged conspiracy theorists.

Honeybees have captured almost all the attention for the dangers of neonics, but they are hardly the only species in decline because of the chemical.

Other forms of influence have been far more covert.

Communications staff with CropLife America compiled a list of terms to shape on search engine results, including “neonicotinoid,” “pollinators,” and “neonics.” One of the consulting firms tapped to coordinate the industry’s outreach, Paradigm Communications, a subsidiary of the public relations giant Porter Novelli, helped lead the effort to shift how pesticide products were portrayed in search engine results.

A slide prepared by Paradigm Communications showcases its push to decouple Google search results for bee decline with neonic pesticides.

The greatest public relations coup has been the push to reframe the debate around bee decline to focus only on the threat of Varroa mites, a parasite native to Asia that began spreading to the U.S. in the 1980s. The mite is known to rapidly infest bee hives and carry a range of infectious diseases.

CropLife America, among other groups backed by pesticide companies, has financed research and advocacy around the mite — an effort designed to muddy the conversation around pesticide use. Meanwhile, research suggests the issues are interrelated; neonics make bees far more susceptible to mite infestations and attendant diseases.

Bayer even constructed a sculpture of the Varroa mite at its “Bee Care Center” in North Carolina and at its research center in Germany, hyping its role as the primary force fueling the decline of pollinators.

[pix FILE -- A model of honeybee with a varroa mite on its back at Bayer's Bee Care Center in Monheim am Rhein, Germany, Nov. 19, 2013. Scientists and biotechnology companies are developing a way to kill insects, like the mite, which is believed to be partly responsible for the mass die-offs of honeybees, by disabling their genes. (Joanna Nottebrock/The New York Times) -- EDITORIAL USE ONLYA model of honeybee with a Varroa mite on its back at Bayer’s Bee Care Center in Monheim am Rhein, Germany, on Nov. 19, 2013. Photo: Joanna Nottebrock/The New York Times via Redux]

The stunningly successful campaign has kept most neonic products in wide circulation in commercial agriculture as well as in home gardens. The result is a world awash in neonics — and massive profits for companies such as Syngenta and Bayer, which now counts Monsanto as a subsidiary.

Millions of pounds of the chemical are applied to 140 commercial crops every year. In the U.S., nearly all field-planted corn and two-thirds of soybean use neonic-coated seeds. The chemical is found in soil samples from coast to coast, in waterways and in drinking water. Neonics, which are water soluble, have been detected in the American River in California, the River Waveney in England, tap water in Iowa City, and hundreds of other streams and rivers across the world. In Brazil last year, after President Jair Bolsonaro’s government approved dozens of new pesticides, the use of neonics caused the death of more than 500 million bees across the country.

In August, a study publishing in peer-reviewed journal PLOS One found that the American landscape has become 48 times more toxic to insects since the 1990s, a shift largely fueled by the rising application of neonics.

Honeybees have captured almost all the attention for the dangers of neonics, but they are hardly the only species in decline because of the chemical. Studies have tied neonics to the disappearance of native bees, butterflies, mayflies, dragonflies, amphipods, and a range of waterborne insects, as well as earthworms and other insect invertebrates. Several species of bumblebees in the U.S. and Europe are approaching extinction, a die-off researchers say is tied to the use of neonics and other pesticides.

In September, a study released in the academic journal Science revealed that migrating songbirds suffered immediate weight loss following the consumption of only one or two seeds treated with neonics. Previous research had linked disappearing insect life to dwindling food sources for birds in the Netherlands, but the Science study provided the evidence that bird species were directly affected by the chemical.

Another groundbreaking study published in Nature’s Scientific Reports showed that neonics are likely causing serious birth defects in white-tailed deer, the first time research has shown that the chemical compound could endanger large mammals.

“Bees are the canary in the cornfield,” said Lisa Archer, from Friends of the Earth. “The science linking pesticides to the extinction crisis has grown.”

Scientists are only now taking a closer look at the potential impact of neonics on humans and other mammals.

“Bees are the canary in the cornfield,” said Lisa Archer, the food and agriculture program director at Friends of the Earth. “The science linking pesticides to the extinction crisis has grown.”

Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex, told The Intercept, “I think perhaps we are reaching a tipping point where people finally begin to appreciate the importance of insects, the scale of their decline, and that blitzing the landscape with pesticides is not sustainable or desirable.”

Bayer and Syngenta reject any claim that their neonic products are harming the environment.

“Neonicotinoid products are critically important tools for farmers, and are approved for use in more than 100 countries due to their strong safety profile when used according to label,” said Susan Luke, a spokesperson for Bayer Crop Science North America, in a statement to The Intercept. “This is why Bayer continues to strongly support their continued safe use, even though the manufacture of neonic products is not a major part of our business.”

“Research claims that have been made questioning neonic safety all share common flaws, such as exposure levels that far exceed real-world scenarios, and the flawed idea that exposure to substances in the environment necessarily means harm,” adds Luke. “It does not, otherwise no one would go swimming in chlorine or drink caffeinated coffee.”

“Since neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990s, honey bee colonies have been increasing in the United States, Europe, Canada and indeed around the world,” Chris Tutino, a spokesperson for Syngenta, claimed in a statement to The Intercept. He added that “most scientists and bee experts agree that bee health is affected by multiple factors, including parasites, diseases, habitat and nutrition, weather and hive management practices.”

Tutino, in his email, noted that the neonic compound thiamethoxam, used in popular Syngenta products such as Cruiser and Dividend, had undergone “extensive tests evaluating effects on pollinators,” and providedlinks to five studies, all of which were produced by Syngenta consultants or employees.

Neither company responded directly to questions about the role of neonic products in fueling declines of butterflies, dragonflies, and other insect species beyond bee populations. Both companies highlighted company funding for honeybee health research.

The chemical industry’s comments were disputed by Willa Childress, an organizer with Pesticide Action Network North America.

While it’s true, Childress noted, that managed honeybee hive populations are growing, that is because of the commercial value of honeybees in pollinating a vast array of American agriculture. Beekeepers on average now lose around 40-50 percent of hives every year, well up from historical averages of 10 percent. Many commercial beekeepers are forced to constantly divide hives and buy queens to maintain hive populations, with many relying on government subsidies to scrape by.

“So no, honeybees aren’t doing ‘better than ever,’” said Childress. “And the scientists do agree that multiple interacting factors are driving pollinator decline, including, as chemical companies neglect to mention, pesticide use.”

“Honeybees will not go extinct in our lifetimes,” noted Childress. But, she added, “data on native bees and wild pollinators is far more ‘apocalyptic’ than even the most concerning reports on honey bee losses. Unprecedented numbers of wild pollinators are facing extinction — and we have very limited data on a number of other pollinators that are at risk.”

NOT LONG AGO, action in the U.S. to restrict neonics seemed imminent.

The pressure began to build in 2010 after Tom Theobald, a beekeeper in Boulder, Colorado, obtained an internal Environmental Protection Agency report showing that the agency’s own scientists had sharply criticized the research used to permit the sale of one of the most popular lines of neonic products.

In 2003, Bayer had secured the temporary right to use clothianidin, a neonic used widely for corn and canola, from the EPA — under the condition that the company conduct a “chronic life cycle study” showing how use of the neonic would affect honeybees by the end of the following year.

The Bayer-funded study, led by Cynthia Scott-Dupree, an environmental sciences professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, placed hives in clothianidin-treated fields of canola and hives in untreated fields of canola. The tests found little variation between the two sets of hives, but researchers later pointed out that the hives in the study were placed only 968 feet apart from one another. Honeybees forage for pollen up to six miles from their hives.

Scott-Dupree was later appointed the “Bayer CropScience Chair in Sustainable Pest Management” at the University of Guelph. Regulators in Canada and at the EPA used the study to clear clothianidin for unconditional use. Internally, however, EPA scientists expressed concerns.

The memo, written by two EPA scientists, noted that the previous Bayer-funded study failed baseline guidelines for pesticide research and warned that clothianidin posed a “major risk concern” to “nontarget insects (that is, honey bees).”

A dizzying array of research began pointing to problems with neonics. Despite claims that the compound represents a form of precision agriculture, a growing body of research shows that the chemical strays far from targeted crops, often traveling with the wind during planting operations, remaining in the soil for long periods of time, leaching into waterways, and causing acute problems for a wide variety of insect and animal life.

In 2014, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, introduced legislation to compel the EPA to take steps to suspend the pesticides. That year, in response to growing controversies around bee decline and the demands for greater accountability over loosely regulated pesticide use, President Barack Obama issued an executive memorandum calling attention to the “significant loss of pollinators, including honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies.”

Activists picketed the White House demanding action. Beekeepers and environmentalist groups filed lawsuits challenging the registration status of major neonic products, claiming that EPA had violated its own protocols when licensing products from Bayer and Syngenta. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a decision to phase out neonics in wildlife refuge areas in the Pacific region.

Around the country, legislators in states across the country proposed bills to restrict neonics. In Minnesota, a bill was signed into law to prevent nurseries from marketing plants as pollinator-friendly if they had been treated with neonics.

For a while, the movement seemed to be gaining traction, which some hoped would lead the U.S. to mirror the EU in moving to regulate the widely used insecticide.

In the end, little changed. The settlements related to the lawsuits removed small-market neonics. The private-public partnerships that grew out of the Obama memorandum lacked any enforcement mechanism to restrict neonic use in agriculture. President Donald Trump rescinded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule. Minnesota legislators quickly repealed the labeling requirement a year after it was passed.

After a hearing in which he pointed to pesticides, Jeffrey Pettis told the Washington Post that he was criticized him for failing to follow “the script.”

In almost every other state, with the exception of Vermont, Connecticut, and Maryland, lobbyists from the pesticide and agribusiness industry successfully killed any significant restriction on neonic products. The scientific community, once focused on studying the impact of pesticides, became splintered, with many of the leading voices going to work for industry or industry-backed nonprofits.

Critics of neonics were quickly sidelined. In April 2014, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture — then chaired by Rep. Austin Scott, a Georgia Republican — convened a hearing to discuss the pollinator crisis. The event featured David Fischer, a Bayer official, and Jeff Stone, lobbyist for commercial nurseries. Both men used the hearing to warn against any restrictions on neonics in response to bee decline. The third, Dan Cummings, a representative of the Almond Board, a trade group for almond growers, focused on the threat of the Varroa mite.

A fourth witness, the Department of Agriculture researcher Jeffrey Pettis — the scientist who had collaborated with vanEngelsdorp — noted that unlike traditional pesticides, neonics are found in pollen, increasing exposure to bees. Under questioning from Scott, the committee chair, Pettis reiterated that even without mites, bees would still be in decline, and pesticides raise concern “to a new level.”

After the hearing, Pettis told the Washington Post that he spoke privately with Scott, who criticized him for failing to follow “the script.”

CropLife America, notably, celebrated the hearing performance for its heavy focus on nonpesticide-related factors for bee decline. “One thing that we hope was made clear during the hearing was the crop protection industry’s commitment to addressing this issue,” Jay Vroom, then the president of CropLife America, said in a statement.

Campaign finance records show that CropLife America, just weeks after the hearing, gave $3,500 to Scott, who then sponsored legislation to solve the bee crisis through exemptions to expedite the approval of pesticides used to control the Varroa mite.

And two months after the hearing, according to the Post, Pettis was demoted, losing his role managing the USDA bee lab in Beltsville, Maryland. Pettis later left the government and now serves as president of Apimondia.

[BROOKINGS,SD-JAN 11: Entomologist Jonathan Lundgren is a USDA scientist who is struggling to get out his research that may provide some answers to the dwindling honey bee population. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)BROOKINGS,SD-JAN 11: Entomologist Jonathan Lundgren is a USDA scientist who is struggling to get out his research that may provide some answers to the dwindling honey bee population. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Entomologist Jonathan Lundgren, who is researching answers for what might be causing the dwindling honeybee population, on Jan. 9, 2016.Photos: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post/Getty Images]

The Post also details the story of a prominent USDA scientist, Jonathan Lundgren, who researched the dangers posed by neonics to pollinators and spoke publicly about the issue. In 2015, Lundgren suddenly faced suspensions and an internal government investigation over misconduct, a push he believes was motivated by industry for his role in speaking out on pesticides.

“I guess I started asking the wrong questions, pursuing risk assessments of neonicotinoids on a lot of different field crop seeds used throughout the U.S. and how they were affecting non-target species like pollinators,” Lundgren told The Intercept.

The USDA did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment. It told the Post that the suspensions had nothing to do with his research. They were for “conduct unbecoming a federal employee” and “violating travel regulations.”

Lundgren now runs Blue Dasher Farm in South Dakota, a research effort to develop ways to rotate diverse sets of crops as a way to increase yields and suppress pests naturally.There are few institutions, he noted, where researchers can pursue science independent of industry influence. “Universities have become dependent on extramural funds, entire programs are bankrolled by these pesticide companies, chemical companies,” he added.

The regulatory system in the U.S. assumes chemical products are generally safe until proven hazardous.

“Generally, we see the U.S. waiting longer than the EU to take action on a variety of pesticides and other chemicals,” said Childress, the organizer with Pesticide Action Network North America. Part of the divergence, Childress continued, stems from a regulatory system in the U.S. that assumes chemical products are generally safe until proven hazardous. In contrast, the EU tends to use the “precautionary principle,” removing products that may cause harm, and requiring proof of safety before allowing them to return to market.

Another major factor, Childress noted, is the widespread corporate capture of American regulatory institutions. The EPA, for instance, employs 11 former lobbyists — including its administrator, Andrew Wheeler,who previously worked for coal interests in opposition to climate regulations — in senior positions.

The pesticide industry also maintains a long history of underhanded methods to discredit its critics.

Monsanto deployed aggressive tactics to punish critics of Roundup,the most widely used herbicide in the world and the company’s marquee product over the last several decades. Emails released through ongoing litigation in California last year showed that the firm used its lobbyists to orchestrate a campaign in Congress to criticize and defund scientists with the World Health Organization’s cancer research affiliate, after that body had declared that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a “probable carcinogen.” Many of the documents detailing Monsanto’s role in shaping the public discourse around glyphosate were released during the course of class-action lawsuits filed by cancer victims who blame the company for their illnesses.

Syngenta became infamous after its tactics against University of California, Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes were reported. Hayes’s research showed that the company’s signature herbicide, atrazine, appeared to disrupt the sexual development of frogs.

The company dispatched people to follow and record Hayes at public speaking events, commissioned a psychological profile of the professor, and worked with a variety of writers to smear Hayes as “non-credible” and a liability to academics who considered working with him. The effort to sideline Hayes and his research, which included coordination with industry-friendly academics, was revealed in a series of court documents that were disclosed over litigation involving claims that Syngenta had polluted local water sources with atrazine.

In the two lawsuits against Syngenta and Monsanto, subpoenaed documents revealed that both Syngenta and Monsanto maintain a list of “third party stakeholders,” including free market think tanks and scientists the industry could turn to for messaging support.

Many of the think tanks and individuals included in the roster now play a prominent role in the neonic debate. The American Council on Health and Science,which has relied on corporate funding from Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta, has published over a dozen articles disputing the dangers posed by neonics.

In one email revealed through the Monsanto-Roundup litigation, Daniel Goldstein, a Monsanto official, wrote to colleagues in all-caps to support the council’s work: “I can assure you I am not all starry eyed about ACSH- they have PLENTY of warts- but: You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH.” The bottom of the email included hyperlinks to articles criticizing demands to regulate both glyphosate and neonic pesticides.

The Heartland Institute, one of the think tanks in Syngenta’s third-party stakeholder list, which has received Bayer donations in the past, has published articles deriding research critical of neonics as “junk science.”

“The pesticide industry is using Big Tobacco’s PR tactics to try and spin the science about their products’ links to bee declines and delay action while they keep profiting,” said Archer, whose group, Friends of the Earth, has documented the lobbying tactics of pesticide makers.

WHEN NEONICS HIT the market three decades ago, they were the first new class of insecticide invented in nearly 50 years, and their use skyrocketed.

As early as the late 17th century, farmers found that they could grind tobacco plants and use nicotine extract to kill beetles on crops. Nicotine acts as an organic insecticide, binding to nerve receptors and causing paralysis and death in aphids, white flies, and other plant-eating insects.

Attempts to use nicotine for a mass-market pesticide, however, frustrated scientists. In early research, sunlight diluted the effectiveness of nicotine-based products. But that changed just over three decades ago, when Bayer scientists at Nihon Bayer Agrochem, the firm’s Japanese subsidiary, first synthesized neonicotinoids in the 1980s — a compound that not only withstood heat and sunlight, but could be applied to the root or seed of a plant and remain effective for that plant’s entire lifespan.

Neonics were hailed as the “Goldilocks compound” because they are “not too hard, not too soft, but just right.”

The new chemical came just in time. Farmers and regulators were seeking alternatives to another class of pesticides — organophosphates, nerve agents sprayed on crops — that had been found to cause cancer in humans. Initial studies of neonics showed that the compound was acutely toxic to insects but unlikely to cause harm to mammals.

As one scientist for Bayer described the invention in a 1993 Science magazine article hailing the introduction of the new class of chemicals, neonics were the “Goldilocks compound” because they are “not too hard, not too soft, but just right.”

And because seeds could be pretreated with neonics, which were absorbed and expressed through the tissue, nectar, and pollen, they could be also produced on an industrial scale, providing agriculture crops with an efficient insect-killing capability without the need for expensive spray treatments or constant reapplication.

In other words, farmers could soak the ground and seeds with enormous amounts of the compound to avoid problems from pests in the future. The delivery mechanism saved money for farmers but set the conditions for chronic overuse of the pesticides.

[Imidacloprid-layout-3-tint-1579299443Estimated agricultural use of imidacloprid. Information compiled from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Pesticide National Synthesis Project. Map: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment, The Intercept]

The first commercial neonic, imidacloprid, was registered with the EPA in 1994 and sold as a potato seed treatment. Business boomed as neonic products spread worldwide to Japan, France, Germany, and South Africa. In the U.S., it became a popular standard seed and root treatment for corn, cotton, soybeans, almonds, and a range of fruits and vegetables.

Neonics were even used for household applications. Bayer produced imidacloprid as a flea treatment on pets throughout the U.S. The Advantage line of flea control took off, with a marketing campaign featuring the Jack Russell terrier “Eddie” from the television show “Frasier” and a 30-foot inflatable flea in Times Square.

Chemical Week called the introduction of neonics a “renaissance for the U.S. insecticides industry” providing “environmentally friendly products.” The Columbus Dispatch, in an article for home gardeners about ways to deliver a “surgical strike” against pests, called for consumers to consider Bayer’s Merit soil treatment, which the paper called “virtually non-toxic.”

The swift adoption of the compound instantly made Bayer, which had previously profited largely from its pharmaceutical line of products, a worldwide player in the agrochemical industry.

“Imidacloprid is our most important product,” the head of Bayer’s pesticide division told investors in 2008.

In 2003, at a forum hosted by Goldman Sachs, Bayer listed Confidor, Premise, and Gaucho, several seed treatments based on neonic compounds, among its top-performing products in a presentation outlining the company’s performance metrics. Another investor presentation, given by Bayer executives in Lyon, France, projected rapid growth from the neonic products, estimating that the firm, which had sales of close to 400 million euros from the portfolio in 1998, would more than double to 850 million euros by 2010.

“Imidacloprid is our most important product,” Friedrich Berschauer, then-head of Bayer’s pesticide division, told investors during a conference call in 2008, according to a transcript of his remarks. Company disclosures underscore Berschauer’s remarks: During that fiscal year, the company reported 932 million euros in sales for its top two neonic compounds.

In 2009, the global neonic market brought in $2.1 billion dollars for the largest pesticide producers. Other agribusiness interests invested heavily in the market. Monsanto began offering neonic-based seed treatments through its popular Acceleron product for corn, soybeans, and cotton. Switzerland-based Syngenta rolled out two neonic seed treatments, Actara and Cruiser, quickly positioning itself as a leading insecticide firm alongside Bayer. Many of the early compounds of neonics are no longer patent-protected, allowing other businesses to compete for the market. Valent, BASF (which acquired part of Bayer’s neonic portfolio as a condition of its merger with Monsanto), and Sumitomo Chemical are also leading neonic producers.

The first restrictions on neonics in the EU, announced late in 2013, raised alarm in the industry.“The number for the full year as a consequence of the suspension is about $75 million,” noted John Mack, then-Syngenta’s chief executive officer on a call with investors the following year, referring to the decrease in revenue as a result of the decision. The executives were quick to point out, however, the full brunt of the restriction had been limited because many EU states obtained exemptions from the suspension rule.

In another call with investors, Mack declared that there “is no relationship between” the use of neonics “and the causality of bee decline,” and said he was certain regulators in the U.S. would not take the European approach.

Speaking with investors 2018, Liam Condon, a Bayer executive in charge of pesticide products, warned that the neonic ban in France alone had cost the firm 80 million euros. The wider restrictions imposed on the chemical, Condon continued, “drags our entire European results down.”

Bayer no longer breaks out individual product revenue in its investor reports. Previous financial reporting has suggested that neonics represent as much as 20 percent of its sales. The company’s annual report in 2018 showed that the company’s insecticide division produced more than 1.3 billion euros in revenue.

Werner Baumann, chair of Bayer’s board, announcing its acquisition of Monsanto in 2016, declared that the deal would create “a global leader in the agricultural industry,” delivering insecticides and seed treatments.

The global neonic market generated $4.42 billion in revenue in 2018, roughly doubling over the previous decade, according to new figures provided to The Intercept from Agranova, a research firm that tracks the industry.

[ pix Beekeepers take part in a demonstration at the Esplanade des Invalides in Paris on June 7, 2018, during a national day of action of French beekeepers. - The National Union of French Apiculture (Union Nationale de lApiculture Francaise - UNAF) and the French Federation of Professional Beekeepers (Federation Française des Apiculteurs Professionnels - FFAP) have called for a national day of action to ask the State and the President of the Republic to launch an exceptional support plan for French beekeepers and to restore a viable environment for bee colonies and pollinators. (Photo by FRANCOIS GUILLOT / AFP) (Photo credit should read FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP via Getty Images)Beekeepers take part in a demonstration at the Esplanade des Invalides in Paris on June 7, 2018, during a national day of action of French beekeepers. Photo: Francois Guillot/AFP/Getty Images]

THE EVIDENCE ENTANGLING neonicotinoids with bee die-offs began to surface almost as soon as they hit the market.

In the early 1990s, in France, several bee hives near fields planted with neonicotinoids collapsed suddenly, and beekeepers observed mass bee die-offs in the vicinity of sunflower fields treated with Bayer’s imidacloprid-based Gaucho.

The French beekeepers mounted a sustained pressure campaign, including demonstrations of hundreds marching in Paris and outside of Bayer’s factory in Cormery, in central France.

The beekeepers observed that their bees were disoriented and unable to forage, and weakened to a point where disease and parasitic infections spread rapidly, destroying thousands of hives. Beekeepers found bees trembling and dying on the ground, a syndrome they nicknamed “mad bee disease.” They blamed neonics, but Bayer maintained that the chemicals caused no harm.

“We don’t believe the insecticide poses any risks,” Peter Brain, a regulatory affairs official with Bayer, told reporters.

In 1999, facing mounting pressure from farmers, the French government moved to temporarily ban the use of imidacloprid, though other neonicotinoids continued to be used. Annual hive loss continued.

In 2008, officials in Italy, Germany, and Slovenia observed that the sowing of fields with neonic-treated seeds correlated with nearby mass bee die-offs. In one region of Germany, beekeepers reported the loss of 11,500 bee colonies following the planting of nearby canola fields with neonic-treated seeds. Similar observations across the continent led to the temporary restriction of commonly used neonic products in all three countries that year.

The following year, a group of 70 scientists, including prominent biologists, toxicologists, entomologists, and other specialists in Europe formed the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, an ad hoc group to study neonics and other systemic pesticides. The task force worked to conduct research independent of industry.

Over the years, more and more research appeared to confirm that neonics were not only endangering nontarget insects. In the journal Science, a study confirmed that field-realistic applications of neonics reduced bumblebee fertility by 85 percent. The United Kingdom-based advocacy group BugLife released research that compiled years of academic studies showing that neonicotinoids appeared to be damaging the populations of honeybees, native bees, and other nontarget invertebrates.

The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides brought together over a thousand peer-reviewed studies, concluding that wide-scale use of neonics, along with fipronil, another popular systemic pesticide, were causing “widespread, chronic impacts upon global biodiversity.” The group noted that neonic pesticides linger for long periods in the soil and were found to be contaminating fields and waterways far from agricultural sites. The scientists called for an urgent reduction in the use of the chemicals.

Growing backlash against neonics pushed the EU into action. In 2012, the European Food Safety Authority, the leading pesticide regulator in the EU, released a risk assessment finding that the three most widely used neonicotinoids posed acute risks to bees. The finding set into motion an effort backed by most EU states to suspend the use of neonicotinoids on outdoor flowering plants for two years.

The mounting pressure created a need for the pesticide industry to push back with its own research. In fact, one of the greatest victories for the industry was its effort to cultivate the most influential bee scientists in the U.S.

[bees019034-1579302860Dennis vanEngelsdorp. Photo: David Yellen]

THE FIRST WAVE of headlines in the U.S. about the rapid decline of bees started in 2006 as beekeepers in Pennsylvania reported drastic hive losses.Other beekeepers also reported staggering losses over the winter that year, at an average ranging around 30 percent, wiping out more than a fourth of the 2.4 million colonies in the country.

The mysterious crisis was termed “colony collapse disorder” in the media. Dennis vanEngelsdorp, then-serving as Pennsylvania acting chief apiary inspector and studying at Penn State University, found himself at the center of the story. “It’s just causing so much death so quickly that it’s startling,” he told the Philadelphia Inquirer. He started with autopsies of dead bees in Pennsylvania, but soon came into contact with beekeepers in Georgia, Florida, and California reporting similar losses.

A team of other prominent bee experts, including vanEngelsdorp, Washington State University entomologist Walter “Steve” Sheppard, and other prominent scientists worked to investigate the crisis. “This is like C.S.I. for agriculture,” said one of the academics on the project, Columbia University’s W. Ian Lipkin, in an interview with the New York Times.

VanEngelsdorp, alongside Jerry Hayes, then-Florida chief apiary inspector and president of the Apiary Inspectors of America, pioneered an effort to survey beekeepers throughout the country to track colony collapse disorder. Bees were sent to his lab and examined for cause of death. VanEngelsdorp started a foundation, the Bee Informed Partnership, to formalize the survey and continue research into possible factors for the disorder.

In interviews with national news outlets, local media, and television stations across the country, vanEngelsdorp became an overnight celebrity. In 2008, he appeared prominently in the award-winning documentary “Silence of the Bees,” depicted as leading the research effort around collapsing bee colonies, and also recorded a well-received TED Talk, “A Plea for Bees.”

In his TED Talk, vanEngelsdorp stressed that honeybee colonies could be rebuilt, given that commercial bee farmers can split a hive into two or buy queens through the mail. But the danger of collapsing bee colonies went beyond the European honeybee, which is used widely for pollinating American agriculture. Native bees were also disappearing at an alarming rate, with no commercial effort to revive them. Bats were disappearing too, he lamented, “and there’s no money to study that.”

“Imagine if every one of three cows died. The National Guard would be out,” vanEngelsdorp said in 2013.

The following year, in September 2009, vanEngelsdorp appeared alongside Pettis at Apimondia. During this period in his career, vanEngelsdorp generally suggested in media interviews that several factors were likely to blame for bee loss. The decline, he told a local paper in Missouri in 2007, could be attributed to “mites and associated diseases, some unknown pathogenic disease and pesticide contamination or poisoning.” The research he presented at Apimondia concluded that “interactions between pesticides and pathogens could be a major contributor to increased mortality of honey bee colonies.”

In the following years, vanEngelsdorp used his voice to dismiss concerns with neonics in the media. His shift in rhetoric coincided with a push by the pesticide industry, in response to rising calls for pesticide restrictions to stem bee losses, began a push to rebrand itself as bee-friendly.

In 2013, he told one reporter, “Imagine if every one of three cows died. The National Guard would be out.” He continued: “Sure, neonics may be a problem some of the time. But not all, or in my humble opinion, most of the time.”

“The jury’s still out,” he told the Raleigh News & Observer, when asked about role of the pesticide in bee decline in 2014. The Associated Press quoted vanEngelsdorp declaring, “I am not convinced that neonics are a major driver of colony loss” in 2016. “In many cases, [neonicotinoids] are actually the safest alternative,” he was quoted as saying in another article, expressing skepticism over the push to ban the compound.

When asked about his seeming shift, vanEngelsdorp said in an email that his work focused on honeybees, but he is concerned with the threat posed to other pollinators and insect life. In Maryland, he wrote, high levels of mite infestations “would explain lots of [honey bee] mortality.”

“I should stress that I am speaking about honey bees, not native bees, and the effects of neonics on non-target non-honey bees (Honey bees have a reserve work force that can be lost without consequence as they are social organisms and other non-honey bee bees don’t) is much more pronounced and concerning,” vanEngelsdorp wrote.

Around that time, vanEngelsdorp joined Monsanto’s Honey Bee Advisory Council, a company-backed effort, and appeared at the company’s Honey Bee Health Summit in 2013 as a spokesperson. That same year, Project Apis m., a foundation heavily funded by Bayer, donated to vanEngelsdorp’s nonprofit, the Bee Informed Project, and has since provided at least $700,000 to the lab, according to public tax filings.

In an email, vanEngelsdorp said that although that he has received one grant funding stream from Bayer, that award came in last year and “it would be hard to argue it influenced past work.” The funding from Project Apis m. to vanEngelsdorp’s Bee Informed Project, he added, came from Costco, not the agricultural industry. Other corporate interests, including the Almond Board of California and the General Mills Foundation, have also directly funded the Bee Informed Project.

VanEngelsdorp said that his lab has never received direct funding from pesticide companies.

Bayer, as part of its Healthy Hives 2020 initiative, has dedicated at least $1.3 million to the project in collaboration with Project Apis m., which counts Bayer as one of its largest donors, though the company does not break down individual donor amounts.

The University of Maryland professor also explained that he felt conflicted about joining Monsanto’s advisory board, a position that ended in 2019.

“The purpose of this board is to help guide the development of new tools to help control Varroa, which I think, and the data suggest – are the biggest drivers of loss,” wrote vanEngelsdorp. “So it was a big struggle when I was asked to join the advisory board (which included several beekeepers), because – who wants to have an association with Big Ag?”

“Do I feel conflicted? – all the time,” vanEngelsdorp told The Intercept. ”But do I think my involvement with encouraging the development of a desperately needed new mite control skews my view of drivers of honey [bee] health. No. I think the data is clear.”

He added, “The world is a complicated place. Full of gray. I just have to believe the science will show truth, and hope we can get there by keeping things cordial, and respectful of the idea that people taking different paths towards the same end (save the bees) is not bad.”

“I’m an environmentalist – so have been and continue to be very concerned and vocal about protecting the earth and its biome,” he wrote. “I am certain that in all interviews on this topic I clearly say – the widespread use of neonic coated seeds is a short sighted, wasteful and environmentally unsustainable way of using this product. I strongly advocate for wise use. Use it when you know you need it and not unless you know you do.’ But that quote never gets picked up. But it’s what I think and have thought for a long time.”

Danielle Downey, the executive of Project Apis m., said the group is “transparent about where donated funds come from and what we use them for, keeping in mind donor privacy,” in a statement to The Intercept. “Project Apis m. does keep abreast of the science regarding bee health, which allows us to support industry-relevant projects.”

Downey did not take a position on regulating neonics, and noted that “regarding bans and regulations of pesticides, countries which apply different precautionary and risk assessment paradigms, may reach different outcomes.”

In 2013, vanEngelsdorp also edited a controversial paper authored by a group of consultants that claimed that thiamethoxam, a neonic produced by Syngenta, posed “a low risk to honey bees” when applied to oilseed rape and maize. In a section of its website titled “Bee Decline,” Syngenta cites the study to claim that “there is no direct correlation between neonicotinoid use and poor bee health.”

The paper, which was cited by Syngenta to apply for an exemption in the United Kingdom to the EU’s newly imposed moratorium on neonic products, was later widely panned. In a scathing article for Environmental Sciences Europe, a group of entomologists claimed that the vanEngelsdorp-edited study was not based on “truthful data and methodologies,” arguing that it used seed treatment at lower-than-recommended rates and that the experiment was poorly designed.

“Do I feel conflicted? – all the time,” vanEngelsdorp said. “The world is a complicated place. Full of gray. I just have to believe the science will show truth.]

Another group of scientists at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland also eviscerated the vanEngelsdorp-edited paper, noting that it used no formal statistical analysis and came to its conclusion by vaguely inspecting the data. They mocked the method as simply reflecting “the prior beliefs of those involved.” The House of Commons Library, in a briefing paper on neonics, noted that the thiamethoxam study faced criticism for lacking rigor, and that all five of authors of the study “were current or former employees of Syngenta or had been paid by Syngenta for their work.”

VanEngelsdorp also lent his name to a splashy advocacy effort on behalf of the pesticide industry. CropLife America, Bayer, and Syngenta launched the Honey Bee Health Coalition, a new group focused on research into the Varroa mite and other nonpesticide-related causes of bee decline. The group was officially coordinated by the Keystone Policy Center, a supposedly independent third party, in conjunction with beekeeper associations and environmentalists. Records show, however, that the Keystone Policy Center is largely funded by major corporations, including Bayer and Syngenta. And internal documents from the Honey Bee Health Coalition show that its communications to beekeepers were reviewed by its bloc of growers and pesticide company members, including DuPont, CropLife America, Syngenta, and the Agricultural Retailers Association. Farmers and beekeepers paid as little as $500 to join the organization while corporate members paid as high as $100,000 in dues.

Marques Chavez, a spokesperson for the Keystone Policy Center, which organizes the Honey Bee Health Coalition, noted in a statement to The Intercept that the group “supports honey bee health and tackles complex problems in agriculture and beyond by bringing diverse perspectives together.” The statement did not address the proportion of pesticide industry influence, but said that the group maintains a public charter that “outlines the structure and decision-making process utilized by the coalition to identify, refine, and finalize the idea and deliverables that reflect the diverse input and collaborative effort of our members.”

Jerry Hayes, the former Florida apiary inspector, joined Monsanto and became the company’s representative at beekeeper conferences around the country and helped pitch Monsanto’s research into genetic solutions for bees to skeptical beekeepers. Hayes also helped with the launch of the Honey Bee Health Coalition. He recruited vanEngelsdorp to serve as one of the first scientists on the coalition’s steering committee.

They weren’t only ones. The industry also recruited bee industry voices to be the face of the new rebranding. Richard Rogers, an academic consultant and former adjunct professor at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, produced Bayer-backed research in Canada in the early 2000s discounting the dangers posed to bees by neonics applied to potato plants on Prince Edward Island. Rogers was brought on to help lead the Bayer Bee Care initiative when the center was opened in 2012. Dr. Helen Thompson, a leading official environmental official in the United Kingdom who had opposed the E.U.’s directive to suspend the use of neonics, joined Syngenta.

Washington State University entomologist Sheppard was also among the other prominent bee scientists to accept the pesticide industry’s outreach. The same year of the launch of the Honey Bee Health Coalition, Sheppard joined Bayer for a roadshow the company sponsored called the Bee Care Tour. He later joined the company steering committee for its “Healthy Hives 2020” initiative.

Emails obtained by The Intercept show a friendly relationship between the pesticide firms and the recruited academics.

In one exchange, with David Fischer, the manager of Bayer’s Bee Care Center, vanEngelsdorp was asked how to respond to reporters on how to calculate annual hive loss. The Maryland academic suggested a method that diminishes any winter losses of hives by factoring in new hives that have been split off from strong hives, though he noted that such a method “‘lowers’ the loss rate” and has been rejected by European beekeepers.

[WSU-emailDaniel Schmehl, an official with Bayer, asked bee scientist Walter “Steve” Sheppard to provide quotes explaining why “the partnership with Bayer Bee Care Center is important for your bee research.” Screenshot: The Intercept]

Daniel Schmehl, an official with Bayer, asked Sheppard to provide quotes explaining why “the partnership with Bayer Bee Care Center is important for your bee research,” as well as other blurbs the company could use. Sheppard appears regularly on Bayer press releases and publications as part of the company’s commitment to bee health.

In another exchange, Rogers, the former adjunct Acadia University professor and now official with Bayer’s Bee Care Center, wrote in 2015 to Sheppard and Jamie Ellis, an associate professor at the University of Florida, to publish a “paper on the definition of a healthy honey bee colony.” Rogers noted that he had worked on a draft but suggested that, “for the best optics, maybe you or Steve, or someone other than a Bayer staff member should be the lead author.” Ellis agreed and wrote back that he “understood your concern about Bayer staff taking the lead.”

VanEngelsdorp’s shift away from concern about the role of neonics is captured in another documentary about the plight of the bees.

In 2015, the website FiveThirtyEight produced a mini-documentary series, including a feature on the “Fight to Save the Mighty Honeybee.” The film, which was accepted into the Sundance Film Festival, traces vanEngelsdorp in his lab and in the field, exclusively discussing the Varroa mite. Unlike his previous appearance in documentaries about bee decline, the video made no mention of neonics or any other pesticide stress to bee health.

Bayer was thrilled with the documentary. Sarah Myers, an event manager with the chemical company, asked vanEngelsdorp for permission to feature the video on the company’s website. VanEngelsdorp politely let the company know that he did not own the copyright and referred Myers to the producers at FiveThirtyEight’s parent company. Bayer’s Bee Care Center showcased the film.

In an exchange with Paul Hoekstra, a regulatory official with Syngenta, vanEngelsdorp was thanked for agreeing to speak to John Brown, a Canadian attorney helping fight a contentious lawsuit over the registration of neonics.

“I think they were using this group as a PR advantage, but by the same token we have no money in the beekeeping industry,” Hayes said.

The relationship has continued. Earlier this month, the American Beekeeping Federation hosted its 2020 convention. The largest sponsor of the event was Bayer, which showcased a series of talks at the conference to tout the company’s commitment to bee health. Sheppard was featured in a Bayer promotional video screened at the event. Among the presentations was an address by vanEngelsdorp about mites.

“My association with Bayer has had no influence on my research focus nor my research,” said Sheppard, in a statement to The Intercept that detailed his work helping Project Apis m. identify research proposals for honeybee health using over $1 million in funding from Bayer.

“I cannot speak for Bayer – but the projects funded with their money and administered through Project Apis m. appear to be completely unrelated to any effort to ‘prevent the restriction’ of the use of neonicotinoids,” wrote Sheppard. “I am not naïve enough to think such a major company does not have their own agenda for the promotion or support of their insect control products. However, and emphatically, in the case of the funds distributed by Project Apis m., no such connection was apparent to either Project Apis m. or myself.”

Jerry Hayes retired two years ago from Monsanto after the project he was hired to promote “just didn’t work out.” He now works as an editor at Bee Culture magazine.

In an interview, Hayes said that he was proud of the work the Honey Bee Health Coalition achieved, including the development of guides for beekeepers to manage Varroa infestations. And he views the effort to bring various stakeholders together in one coalition as a unique accomplishment. But he said that pesticide corporations were largely in the drivers’ seat.

“I think they were using this group as a PR advantage, but by the same token we have no money in the beekeeping industry,” said Hayes.

“These guys were funding the organization, they were funding meetings, all of us knew there were perhaps ulterior motives,” he noted. “Without those resources, we wouldn’t be down the road a little bit to making honeybees a little less endangered.”

Hayes said he had followed the controversies around neonics and was concerned about the growing number of studies showing the threat to nontarget insects. Though he’s concerned that restricting the chemical could reintroduce older pesticides with a greater risk to mammals, he added that the drive for profits have fueled the overuse of neonics.

“It all comes down to money. Bayer is taking care of stockholders,” said Hayes.

Hayes said he doesn’t believe vanEngelsdorp’s views on pesticides have been shaped by his ties to industry.

“He’s a good scientist,” said Hayes. “Science changes over time. I think that science progresses and data shows different things at times, but I don’t think Dennis is influenced by money from these other people.”

“But,” Hayes added, when “chemical companies want to support Dennis because if he can come up with solutions to honey bee health, it takes pressure off of them, doesn’t it?”

[HOMESTEAD, FL - MAY 19: John Gentzel, the owner of J & P Apiary and Gentzel's Bees, Honey and Pollination Company, works with his honeybees on May 19, 2015 in Homestead, Florida. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration announced May 19, that the government would provide money for more bee habitat as well as research into ways to protect bees from disease and pesticides to reduce the honeybee colony losses that have reached alarming rates. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)The owner of J&P Apiary and Gentzel’s Bees, Honey and Pollination Company, works with his honeybees on May 19, 2015, in Homestead, Florida. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images]

DESPITE A SOPHISTICATED lobbying campaign to defeat neonic restrictions, Maryland was one of the few states to pass a law banning neonic-based products in consumer products. Industry threw its weight against even this minor bill, which exempts neonics in landscaping and agriculture.

And vanEngelsdorp played a prominent role in nearly defeating the legislation.

In January 2016, the University of Maryland, College Park campus held a summit bringing corporate representatives and researchers together to talk about solutions to the bee crisis. Maryland, California, Massachusetts, and other states were considering restrictions on neonic products. The Obama administration had encouraged an approach that brought together a wide array of stakeholders, known as the Managed Pollinator Protection Plan, or MP3, method of resolving the issue.

State officials tapped the Keystone Policy Center — the same chemical industry-funded nonprofit in charge of CropLife America’s Honey Bee Health Coalition — to manage the process.

VanEngelsdorp, addressing the summit, presided over a PowerPoint that listed a Monsanto affiliation in small type at the bottom, according to Luke Goembel, an official with the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association.

The presentation, said Goembel, made the case that “Varroa mites, not pesticides, were the primary cause of hive losses” and included “an image of a vampire baby to represent a Varroa mite.” VanEngelsdorp, he said, made a mocking comparison, showing a graph with a chart showing the rise of pirate next to a chart showing the increasing loss of hives over time, an “attempt to present the concept ‘correlation does not prove causation,’” and to “ridicule the concern over increasing pesticide use.”

“I was shocked,” Goembel said, “because the journals are full of research that describes many avenues by which pesticides, especially neonicotinoids, almost certainly lead to hive losses.”

The summit included a broad range of speakers, but beekeeper activists complained the discussion was dominated by pesticide makers.

Speaker after speaker claimed that hive loss was only “due to Varroa mites, not pesticides,” according to Bonnie Raindrop, another official with the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association, who attended the event. Only a small percentage of the attendees, Raindrop said, were beekeepers, and those who did make it were separated from one another. The rest, she said, “were people who knew nothing about bees,” including lobbyists, lawn care professionals, and representatives of agribusiness.

“They had a very controlled format,” said Raindrop, “with one beekeeper at each table, the rest industry people, and we were asked to make recommendations for what the MP3 policy should look like.”

Both Raindrop and Goembel brought up the role of neonicotinoids and other systemic pesticides killing bees, but said other participants at the summit shot them down.

The Keystone Policy Center moderators kept the conversation focused largely on mites, “and said beekeepers weren’t doing their due diligence to control mites using chemicals,” she added.

Asked about the beekeeper’s criticism of the Maryland summit, the Keystone Policy Center’s spokesperson, Chavez, said in a statement that the event “involved outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders” and encouraged the public to view the final report produced from the event.

One month after the summit, legislators in Annapolis, Maryland, took up a bill to ban consumer neonics. During the House of Delegates debate over the legislation, a panel of opponents — including representatives from Republican Gov. Larry Hogan’s administration, pesticide industry representatives, and the owner of commercial nursery — repeatedly cited the survey taken by the Keystone Policy Center at the summit as evidence that researchers did not think pesticides were a problem.

Several cited vanEngelsdorp by name, claiming the University of Maryland professor had provided research showing that neonicotinoids did not pose a threat to Maryland hives.

At the hearing, state delegate Clarence Lam, a Democrat, noted that hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles identified neonicotinoids as a prime driver of bee decline and scoffed at the industry attempt to use the MP3 summit as a counterexample.

“Presenting data like this is pretty specious,” Lam said. “It’s marginally better than presenting data from a Facebook poll and saying this is what the data shows and this is what the science shows.”

In the end, the industry blitz failed, and, later in 2016, Maryland passed the Pollinator Protection Act. A similar measure passed that year in Connecticut to limit the use of neonics on flowering plants, and last year, Vermont enacted restrictions on consumer use of neonics.

Regulators in Oregon, after outcry following an incident in which 50,000 bees suddenly died in a Target parking lot as the result of the spraying of a neonic-based pesticide, have moved to prevent the use of neonics on linden trees. But in most of the country, there are largely no limitations on the chemical. California regulators also announced an effort to freeze new applications by pesticide companies that would expand the use of neonics.

Gary Ruskin, the co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a watchdog group following pesticide industry influence, which shared some of the emails obtained via records requests between industry and academics with The Intercept, said, “vanEnglesdorp’s close ties to the pesticide industry raise serious questions about the worth and reliability of his research.”

“As companies are increasingly threatened by scientific findings, they search for ways to blunt any independent science that may detract from profits,” Ruskin said. “One great way to do this is to co-opt scientists from public universities, who typically enjoy the public’s trust.”

In one of the emails revealed by Ruskin’s group, vanEngelsdorp wrote to Fischer, the manager of Bayer’s Bee Care Center, apparently irritated that Bayer had published confidential research from his lab, and claiming the data had been misused and posted without his permission.

“Tech team data is confidential so it should not be published — especially by a chemical company!” vanEngelsdorp wrote.

In a response, Fischer removed the line from Bayer’s blog. He also reminded the University of Maryland academic that Bayer had invested significant financial resources into the relationship and made it a priority for the company.

“We value our work with you and other researchers and stakeholders who have committed themselves to addressing this significant problem,” Fischer wrote.

“As you are aware, perception is everything,” vanEngelsdorp responded.

Nick Surgey contributed research.

Angela Ramirez looks out the window of her home in Waukegan, Ill. on Jan. 2, 2020. Ramirez, who was diagnosed with breast cancer, lives less than six miles away from two factories that emit ethylene oxide, a gas known to cause cancer. Pat Nabong for The Intercept.Trump’s Gutting of Toxics Regulations Will Mean Higher Profits for Polluters and Higher Cancer Rates for the American PeopleEmails Show Monsanto Orchestrated GOP Effort to Intimidate Cancer ResearchersU.S. Lobbyists Prepare to Seize “Historic Opportunity” in Tory-Led Brexit to Shred Consumer Safeguards, Raise Drug PricesToxic PFAS Chemicals Found in Artificial Turf

CONTACT THE AUTHOR:

Lee Fang

lee.fang@?theintercept.com

@lhfang

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/18/bees-insecticides-pesticides-neonicotinoids-bayer-monsanto-syngenta/

===

https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/not-just-the-bees-first-of-its-kind-study-shows-neonics-may-be-killing-birds-too

===

omfg

https://www.ecowatch.com/bee-killing-pesticides-in-national-wildlife-refuges-2593236939.html

trump Admin Reverses Ban on 'Bee-Killing' Pesticides in National Wildlife Refuges

The Trump administration has lifted an Obama-era ban on the use of genetically modified crops and pesticides linked to bee decline in certain national wildlife refuges where farming is allowed, :{Reuters reported}::{ Saturday}:.

In a memo signed Aug. 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Principal Deputy Director Gregory J. Sheehan said the move was necessary to provide adequate food for waterfowl.

"There may be situations, however, where use of GMO crop seeds is essential to best fulfill the purposes of the refuge and the needs of birds and other wildlife," Sheehan wrote.

Boosting waterfowl populations dovetails with the interests of sportspeople whohunt ducks and other birds, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has made expanding hunting on national lands a priority, Reuters reported.

But environmental groups argue the decision comes at the expense of other species.

"Industrial agriculture has no place on public lands dedicated to conservation of biological diversity and the protection of our most vulnerable species, including pollinators like bumble bees and monarch butterflies. The Trump administration's approval to use toxic pesticides and genetically modified crops is an insult to our national wildlife refuges and the wildlife that rely on them," President and CEO ofDefenders of Wildlife Jamie Rappaport Clark said in a statement.

The pesticides in question, neonicotinoids, have been banned in the EU after research linked them to the decline in the populations of bees and other pollinators.

Jim Kurth, head of the refuge system under Obama, announced the ban in 2014, arguing that the use of neonicotinoids led to plants whose tissues harmed "non-target" species. Moreover, he said that "refuges throughout the country successfully meet wildlife management objectives without" genetically modified crops or the pesticides they are engineered to withstand, Reuters reported.

Defenders of Wildlife further noted that the populations of game birds like geese and ducks are currently doing fine without the help of genetically modified crops.

Sheehan, however, has reversed the blanket ban and said that the use of genetically modified crops and neonicotinoids would be considered in the more than 50 farming-friendly refuges on a case-by-case basis.

The move came aday after California's Department of Pesticide Regulation released a risk assessment finding that the use of four neonicotinoids on certain crops, including the corn and sorghum often grown in refuges, could cause more harm to pollinators than previously thought, The Center for Biological Diversity reported.

"Agricultural pesticides, especially bee-killing neonics, have no place on our national wildlife refuges," senior C**enter for Biological Diversity** attorney Hannah Connor said. "This huge backward step will harm bees and other pollinators already in steep decline simply to appease pesticide-makers and promote mono-culture farming techniques that trigger increased pesticide use. It's senseless and shameful."

===

EPA Considers Allowing Bee-Killing Pesticide to Be Sprayed on 165 Million Acres of U.S. Farmland

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider allowing the bee-killing pesticide thiamethoxam to be sprayed on the most widely grown crops in the U.S. The application, if approved, would allow the highly toxic pesticide to be sprayed directly on 165 million acres of wheat, barley, corn, sorghum, alfalfa, rice and potato.

The proposal by the agrochemical giant Syngenta to dramatically escalate use of the harmful neonicotinoid pesticide came last Friday, on the same day the EPA released new assessments of the extensive dangers posed by neonicotinoids, including thiamethoxam.

"If the EPA grants Syngenta's wish, it will spur catastrophic declines of aquatic invertebrates and pollinator populations that are already in serious trouble," said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program. "You know the pesticide-approval process is broken when the EPA announces it will consider expanding the use of this dangerous pesticide on the same day its own scientists reveal that the chemical kills birds and aquatic invertebrates."

Neonicotinoids have long been known to pose serious harm to bee populations. But the new EPA assessments found the commonly used pesticides can kill and harm birds of all sizes and pose significant dangers to aquatic invertebrates.

Thiamethoxam is currently widely used as a seed coating for these crops. This application would allow it to be sprayed directly on the crops, greatly increasing the amount of pesticide that could be used.

The just-released aquatic and non-pollinator risk assessment found that the majority of uses of the neonicotinoid on currently registered crops resulted in risks to freshwater invertebrates that exceeded levels of concern—the threshold at which harm is known to occur.

The EPA did not assess risks associated with spraying the pesticides on the crops it announced it was considering expanding use to on Friday. But it is likely that increasing the number of crops approved for spraying would dramatically increase that risk.

In January the EPA released a preliminary assessment of on-field exposures to thiamethoxam that found all uses of the pesticide—on foliar, soil and seeds—result in exposures that exceed the level of concern for acute and chronic risk to adult bees. But the agency has taken no steps to restrict use of these products and is now considering expanding their use.

Despite growing scientific and public concern about neonicotinoids, the application for expanded use of thiamethoxam was not announced by the EPA but quietly posted in the Federal Register.

"For years the EPA and pesticide companies bragged that by using treated seeds they were avoiding spraying insecticides, and despite the science showing that these treated seeds were deadly to birds, claimed that they were environmentally beneficial," said Burd. "But we can expect the Trump EPA to now ignore the risks to birds and bees and approve these ultra-toxic pesticides to be sprayed across hundreds of millions of U.S. acres."

Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on aquatic invertebrates, honeybees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species; they are a major factor in overall pollinator declines. These systemic insecticides cause entire plants, including pollen and fruit, to become toxic to pollinators; they are also slow to break down and therefore build up in the environment.

A large and growing body of independent science links neonicotinoids to catastrophic bee declines. Twenty-nine independent scientists who conducted a global review of more than 1,000 independent studies on neonicotinoids found overwhelming evidence linking the pesticides to declines in populations of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.

Judge: EPA's Approval of Bee-Killing Pesticides Violated Federal Law

A federal court has ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) systematically violated the Endangered Species Act—a key wildlife protection law—when it approved bee-killing insecticides known as neonicotinoids.

In a case ongoing for the last four years, brought by beekeepers, wildlife conservation groups and food safety and consumer advocates, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that EPA had unlawfully issued 59 pesticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for a wide variety of agricultural, landscaping and ornamental uses.

"This is a vital victory," George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety legal director, said. "Science shows these toxic pesticidesharm bees, endangered species and the broader environment. More than fifty years ago, Rachel Carson warned us to avoid such toxic chemicals, and the court's ruling may bring us one step closer to preventing another Silent Spring."

Seeds coated with bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides are now used on more than 150 million acres of U.S. corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops—totaling an area bigger than the state of California and Florida combined—the largest use of any insecticides in the country by far. Additional proceedings have been ordered to determine the correct remedy for EPA's legal violations, which may lead to cancelling the 59 pesticide products and registrations, including many seed coating insecticides approved for scores of different crop uses.

The court's ruling went against other claims in the lawsuit based on the plaintiffs' 2012 petition and their procedural argument that EPA had not published several required Federal Register Notices. The beekeepers and others plaintiffs were relying on a petition filed in March of 2012, at which time the scientific evidence of the harm to bees, other critical species and the broader environment was far less developed. The original petition however is still lodged with EPA, and as such, its resolution is not yet fully decided.

"Vast amounts of scientific literature show the hazards these chemicals pose are far worse than we knew five years ago—and it was bad even then," Peter Jenkins, Center for Food Safety attorney, said. "The nation's beekeepers continue to suffer unacceptable mortality of 40 percent annually and higher. Water contamination by these insecticides is virtually out of control. Wild pollinators and wetland-dependent birds are in danger. EPA must act to protect bees and the environment."

The case is Ellis v. Housenger. The plaintiffs in the case are beekeepers Steve Ellis, Tom Theobald, Jim Doan and Bill Rhodes; Center for Food Safety; Beyond Pesticides; Sierra Club; and Center for Environmental Health. They are represented by Center for Food Safety's legal team.

PR BS bus tour

1. Pretending to care – PR blitz

Big Tobacco perfected the art of self-serving public relations, to appear to care about the very problems your products cause and offer alleged solutions.

A key element of the pesticide industry’s PR strategy is to go on the offensive by creating an elaborate appearance of being “out in front” and taking a lead role in “saving bees”. For example, last year, Bayer launched its mobile“Bee Care Tour” at the Ag Issues Forum and Commodity Classic in Orlando, Florida. Thetour continues in 2014, with stops at Oregon State University, Washington State University, University of California, Davis, South Dakota State University, and Purdue University. In June, the Bee Care Tour will be on hand for National Pollinator Week in Washington, DC.

===

Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, an expert on the risk assessment of pesticides and genetically modified crops, worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research for more than a decade. But when his findings on the ill effects of systemic pesticides and RNAi (a biological process in which RNA molecules inhibit gene expression) on pollinators began to gain traction and visibility, the harassment and punishments did as well.

The 40-year-old agro-ecologist and entomologist hoped that if he kept his head down, the increasing aggression would dissipate. But it didn’t. His scientific work continued to be disrupted along with his ability to communicate with other colleagues and the press.

Ultimately, the coercion and intimidation derailed Lundgren’s career and he stepped down as lead scientist and lab supervisor.

“USDA is blocking science,” Lundgren affirms. “And I refused to be silenced.”

On behalf of Lundgren, The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed an official Whistleblower complaint.

“Censorship of public agency science does not affect only scientists—it concerns the public at large as well as every entity relying upon the integrity of USDA science,” PEER executive director Jeff Ruch stated. “USDA cannot piously pledge its devotion to scientific integrity while at the same rebuffing any attempts to safeguard it.”

Separately, PEER has also filed a lawsuit against the USDA to strengthen its Scientific Integrity Policy. The suit targets official restraints on USDA scientists who publish or speak about their findings in peer-reviewed journals before professional societies and other unofficial settings.

In June, USDA Chief Scientist Catherine Wotecki wrote a letter which stated that the agency refused to consider the substance of the petition because scientific integrity only affected its “internal personnel rules and practices” and was therefore exempt from the public notice and comment process normally required of agency rules.

Sublethal Low-Level Harassment

Neonicotinoid seed treatments, manufactured by Bayer and Syngenta,have been harminghoneybees since they were introduced on the marketplace in the mid ’90s. They are the most widely used insecticides with sales of about $2.6 billion. Today they’ve infected our soil, waterways and have even been fond in our blood stream. They’re harming our pollinators as well as developing human brains.

“Neonics are 5 to 10 thousand times more toxic than DDT, and the environment and everything in it is being poisoned by the toxic equivalent of hundreds of billions of pounds of DDT every year,” Tom Theobald, activist, beekeeper and founding member of the Boulder County Beekeepers Association, said.

Lundgren’s troubles began around March when he submitted an article to the scientific journal Naturwissenschaften (The Science of Nature). His data illustrated that the seed treatment and systemic pesticide Clothianidin kills **monarch** butterfly larvae in the laboratory and that these pesticides were found in milkweed plants, the only food source for developing larvae, under field conditions.

Several months after Lundrgen’s article was published, his direct supervisor Sharon Papiernik confronted him and informed him that the paper shouldn’t have been submitted without “official” approval. She was also upset that he’d conducted a radio interview on the topic.

“The USDA gave me the okay [to publish the study] and then after the paper drew international attention from the media, said they never did,” Lundgren recalled.

Not long after that incident, TheNational Academy of Sciences and Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance scheduled Lundgren to give presentations on his research on the effects of genetically modified crops on farmland ecology. It is customary for these organizations to cover his travel expenses to Pennsylvania and Washington, DC.

Lundgren was literally boarding the plane when his superiors instructed him to return home and reimburse airfare costs out of his pocket. He was reprimanded for not completing the requisite paperwork. He was told to return to his duty station immediately, that he was officially AWOL and would not be paid for the week. This was his first accidental oversight on travel paperwork in 11 years and three other employees had had similar travel oversights within six weeks before Lundgren and received no discipline.

Next, he was suspended for 30 days before they reduced it to two weeks without pay.

“That’s a severe punishment for doing my job,” Lundgren said in an interview from his South Dakota homestead Blue Dasher Farms. “The tax payers, farmers and beekeepers paid for this research to be done. I don’t work for the government, I work for the people of the U.S. They deserve to know the latest science on these issues, even if that data is politically inconvenient.” The suspension affected his personnel file, harmed his reputation and cost him more than $9,000 in lost pay and expenses.

In total, the USDA cited two infractions: providing some of his research to a scientific journal without proper approval and violating official travel policies in connection with lectures he delivered in Philadelphia and Washington, DC.

However, Lundgren said these actions were not justified and in reality they were trying to block his research.

“I am not even anti-gmo or anti-pesticide,” Lundgren said. “I just believe that if there are safer methods they should be used first. If you do things right, you don’t need them.”

Lundgren criticized GMOs and systemic pesticides in the past. One paper he coauthored suggested that soybean seeds pretreated with Syngenta’s thiamethoxam (another nicotine-based systemic pesticide) produces no yield benefits to farmers, who pay extra for the seeds and may even be hurting beneficial predators in soybean fields that farmers need to manage the aphids that the insecticide isn’t controlling. And in 2013, he wrote a paper in Bioscience on the potential dangers of “gene splicing” pesticides or RNAi, which he said require further study to determine if they would possibly harm other organisms.

He also peer reviewed a report published by the Center for Foods Safety, Heavy Costs, which was critical of neonicotinoid pesticides for proving little to no benefit to farmers and adversely affecting bees.

Politics of Science

We put a lot of emphasis on the importance of science without taking into consideration the politics involved. For starters, science is not independent. Many universities who conduct research, for instance, are indirectly funded by big corporations who give them donations. cf

Meanwhile, many studies are conducted by Big Ag. For instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not conduct its own studies on neonics. Rather, it relies on manufacturers such as Syngenta or Bayer to do due diligence. According to a paper published in Bioscience, the EPA’s pesticide evaluation process may be riddled with flaws, allowing industry too much power and influence. What ends up happening is that the companies, who benefit from allowing these poisons on the market, design, fund and conduct toxicity studies.

This corruption puts our planet and health in danger.

And science is also not impartial. For instance, when it came to the hormone-disrupting herbicide Atrazine, the EPA accepted only one industry-funded study for review in its 2007 and 2012 assessments. That study, which looked at an amphibian that doesn’t even live on this continent, determined atrazine is safe.

There were plenty of other researchers, but they either couldn’t afford to conduct the research or their papers were conveniently disqualified for technicalities. Incidentally, the EU banned atrazine 12 years ago.

For many, these shenanigans represent a deep-rooted corruption in the USDA and EPA that have gone unaddressed for a long time.

“The USDA and EPA have become cheerleaders, enablers and marketing agents for the mega-corporations,” Theobald said. “We no longer have a government, we are governed by an un-elected cabal of industrialists. Agencies we rely on to protect us from this are in bed with the poisoners and are running away from the science. It is a crowded bed and congress is right in there with the rest of them or we wouldn’t be where we are.”

According to Lundgren, he is not alone. There are other scientists from the EPA, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service and USDA-Agricultural Research who have been hushed and harassed. They just haven’t come forward. Yet. In the suit, PEER cited instances where USDA scientists have been ordered to retract studies, water-down findings, remove their name from authorship (this happened to Lundgren in a paper involving the unintended adverse consequences of genetically modified corn crops) and endure long indefinitive delays in approving publication of papers that may be controversial. While media requests are either delayed or denied.

Sounds like bureaucratic red tape hell, not science.

Future is Sustainble Farming

Lundgren is embracing his new-found freedom. He is pouring his energy into the Blue Dasher Farm initiative and believes that the future hinges on diversifying our food production. He wants to bridge science with innovative farmers in what will hopefully become a national network of centers of excellence in regenerative agriculture. “And through crowdfunding, we will allow the people to decide what research questions will be tackled. Independent risk assessments and beekeeper-driven science will be key to helping the bees,” Lundgren said.

“I’d like to usher in an innovation in food production and help solve the bee problem. The issues we are having with our bees has to do with the way we produce food.”

Check out his new project Blue Dasher Farm on Indiegogo and support and share.

What’s the Latest?

According to The Washington Post:

Judge Patricia M. Miller rejected earlier this month the USDA’s request to dismiss research entomologist Jonathan Lundgren’s complaint as “frivolous.” The USDA had argued that Lundgren’s complaint was based purely on “speculative and unsupported” allegations.

Miller, an administrative law judge with the Merit Systems Protection Board, also set a Jan. 6 status conference for th

http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/new-research-links-neonicotinoid-pesticides-to-monarch-butterfly-declines/

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/14/epa-pesticide-overturned

A federal court has overturned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of sulfoxaflor, a pesticide linked to the mass die-off of honeybees that pollinate a third of the world’s food supply.

The three-judge panel said the EPA green-lit sulfoxaflor even though initial studies showed the product was highly toxic to pollinators such as bees. The chemical compound belongs to a class of insecticides, known as neonicotinoids, that scientific studies have implicated in bee deaths.

“Because the EPA’s decision to unconditionally register sulfoxaflor was based on flawed and limited data, we conclude that the unconditional approval was not supported by substantial evidence,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel wrote in its opinion.

In her opinion, Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote that the EPA had initially decided to conditionally approve the chemical but ordered more studies done to better understand the effects the systemic insecticide would have on bees.

“A few months later, however, the EPA unconditionally registered the insecticides with certain mitigation measures and a lowering of the maximum application rate,” Schroeder wrote. “It did so without obtaining any further studies.”

The product, sold in the U.S. as Transform or Closer, must be pulled from store shelves by Oct. 18.

Gregory Loarie, lead counsel for environmental group Earthjustice, which represented beekeepers and beekeeping groups in the case, said the ruling could lead to reviews of other EPA-approved pesticides.

“The EPA rarely, if ever, has reliable information regarding the impact that insecticides have onhoneybee colonies writ large, as opposed to individual, adult worker bees,” Loarie said in an email. “With the findings in this case, EPA should move quickly to re-examine other registrations for possible flawed and limited data.”

Sulfoxaflor, created by Indianapolis-based Dow AgroSciences, is a systemic insecticide. When it’s sprayed on soybean, cotton, citrus, fruit and vegetable crops, it kills bugs on contact and is also absorbed into the plant’s flowers, stems and roots. When insects ingest any part of the plant, they die too.

Paul Towers, spokesperson for advocacy group Pesticide Action Network, said that because sulfoxaflor was only approved in 2013, it hasn’t been widely used. “The prospect of greater use loomed, especially as other neonicotinoids are under increased scrutiny and pressure for phase-out,” Towers said.

That phase-out already has started in Europe; EU member nations banned three neonicotinoids in 2013 for two years after the chemicals were linked to the dramatic decline in bee populations there.

“This is the classic pesticide industry shell game,” Towers said. “As more science underscores the harms of a pesticide, they shift to newer, less studied products. And it takes regulators years to catch up.”

see Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,

Barack Obama may be pushing America into an abyss of gay-loving, Iran-hugging, welfare-splurging socialist ruin, but conservatives can console themselves with at least one piece of good news: the “beepocalypse [3]” is over.

Market forces have helped tame the mysterious plague which wiped out bee colonies over the past decade – a phenomenon more formally known as colony collapse disorder – and the US need no longer fear a future without honey, pollination or food.

This was the message delivered to Republican legislators and lobbyists at this week’s annual meeting in San Diego of the American Legislative Exchange Council [4] (Alec), one of the nation’s most controversial and powerful lobbying networks.

It was a striking gleam of optimism amid dour fulminations against same-sex marriage, the Iran nuclear deal and Obamacare from keynote speakers such as presidential candidates Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee.

“The term ‘beepocalypse’ was hype and focused on the wrong issues,” Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Guardian on Friday before giving an official conference talk titled: “Beepocalypse Not”.

“The issue has been way overblown. We’re not in a battle against nature. It’s an agricultural management issue.”

This being Alec, where corporations and politicians forge common interests, Logomasini had a pointed conclusion: pesticides are OK.

Other factors hurt bees, not pesticides, and so the US should resist pressure to ban them. “The reality,” Logomasini said, “is without these products we can’t produce enough food at low cost.”

Companies such as Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto, in other words, were innocent of colony collapse disorder – also known as “beemaggedon” – and the Obama administration should avoid following the European Union’s “unscientific” crackdown on a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids [5].

“The Europeans jumped the gun. The US hasn’t regulated yet but federal policy is drifting in the wrong direction,” said Logomasini.

Tiffany Finck-Haynes, a bee specialist with Friends of the Earth, disagreed. US bees are in bad shape and scientific research increasingly blames neonicotinoids, she said, prompting pesticide makers to wage a public relations campaign to avert action by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“They’re worried,” Finck-Haynes. “They’re trying to manufacture doubt and spin the science to downplay the role of pesticides.”

A Friends of the Earth report last year titled “Follow the honey [6]” accused the industry of mimicking underhand public relations tactics used by tobacco and fossil fuel companies.

Both sides agree the stakes are high. Bee pollination of crops has been valued at $20bn in the US and $217bn worldwide. Honeybee pollination benefits about one third of US food production, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Since about 2006 beekeepers have recorded mysterious mass die-offs ranging from 20% to 40% of managed honeybee colonies each winter. A sustained net loss of 30% per year would swiftly lead to no colonies at all.

Environmentalists say neonicotinoids, which are used as seed treatments on more than 140 crops, attack bees’ nervous and immune systems and disrupt their navigation, learning, communication, memory and foraging abilities, leaving them vulnerable to disease and pests.

The pesticide makers concede problems with hive health exist but say the real culprits are the varroa mite, degraded foraging habitats and poor land management, including the overuse of pesticides. In an increasingly polarised, politicised battle, each side cites scientific studies [7]to support its claims.

Honeybees are at no risk of extinction. In the past decade the number of colonies in the US has actually risen, from 2.4m to 2.7m [8]. The explanation: beekeepers are more than replenishing the losses by splitting healthy colonies into two separate colonies, and by simply buying packages of bees which include queens. It is an apparent triumph of market forces.

Even so, concern over hive health prompted a recent White House policy framework – the National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators [9]. Few expect it to emulate the EU’s suspension of the three major neonicicotinoids – imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam – but it may curb usage.

Finck-Haynes said the “Beepocalypse Not” narrative in San Diego, where hundreds of legislators and lobbyists charted conservative policies over three days, reflected the pesticide industry’s public relations fightback.

Logomasini’s group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute [10], is a libertarian thinktank. It does not reveal funding sources but the Koch brothers and fossil fuel companies are believed to be big donors.

“They have a stake in conservative policies,” said Finck-Haynes.

The Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog group, said that until recently Bayer, which sells more than $1bn worth of neonicotinoids each year, had a representative on Alec’s corporate board and wished to sow scientific doubt in San Diego.

“At this meeting, Alec is denying more than climate change,” a CMD statement said [11]. “It also is apparently denying the mass die-off of bees.”

Colin Dunn, a spokesperson for Bayer, said no company representative attended the conference. Bill Meierling, a spokesperson for Alec, was unable to immediately confirm that. The “Beepocalypse Not” session, like other non-plenary talks, was off-limits to media.

In a phone interview from Bayer CropScience’s headquarters in North Carolina, Becky Langer, director of the company’s bee care programme, said she had nothing to do with the lobbying fest in California.

“I don’t know what Alec is,” she said.

Langer said Bayer CropScience had promoted education through a “Bee Care Tour” in 2013 and 2014, which spread the message that there was no bee apocalypse. Neonicotinoids were safe if used correctly, she said, but farmers and ordinary gardeners were not always “reading the label correctly”.

Logomasini, speaking in an interview before her official talk, said her approval of pesticides was rooted in scientific evidence. They were “not zero risk” but accounted for just a small part of the bees’ problems and in return provided huge benefits, such as freeing up land for nature rather than agriculture.

She said she had intellectual freedom and was not beholden to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s donors. “I can do what I want,” she said.

Independent experts, Logomasini said, had praised her “Beepocalypse Not [12]” report, which came out in April.

The other speaker at Alec’s closed-door bee session was Todd Myers, the environmental director at the Washington Policy Center, a pro-business think tank in Seattle, and the owner of four hives which do not use pesticides. Multiple factors were killing hives, he said, and pesticides were a minor culprit.

The solution to the crisis, said Myers, expressing a core conservative principle, lay with beekeepers, not government.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/the-costly-lobbying-war-over-america-s-dying-honeybees-20140701

July 1, 2014 The insect world's biggest murder mystery is moving to K Street.

Honeybees—pollinators that serve as the matchmakers of the floral kingdom—are dying off in droves, frightening environmentalists and scientists who fear the unfilled natural niche that collapsing bee colonies leave behind. Those concerns hit the national stage last month when President Obama launched a federal investigation to find out what is driving the decline.

All of that has made the pesticide industry nervous. Environmentalists have long argued that a widely used class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, or neonics for short, are a major cause of bee die-offs. And green groups are hoping that White House attention—combined with a growing body of scientific evidence that points the finger at chemical crop treatments—will lead to an all-out ban on the pesticides.

For the industry, that would be a major dent in sales. In 2009, neonics accounted for $2.6 billion in profits industry-wide.

In an effort to protect their product, pesticide makers are loading up on high-powered lobbyists. Bayer, the largest manufacturer of neonics, has signed former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt's firm to lobby on the issue, according to disclosure records filed at the end of June. Gephardt himself is listed as a lobbyist for the company, along with his former chief of staff, Thomas O'Donnell, and aide Sharon Daniels.

Bayer also signed a contract in April with Cornerstone Government Affairs as part of its honeybee lobbying push.

A Bayer spokesperson declined to comment on the message its lobbyists plan to push. But the company confirmed that it recently hired both lobbying firms, and its line on pesticides has been well-publicized.

"Some critics contend that neonicotinoids may be involved in honeybee losses," Bayer's website proclaims. "However, there has been no demonstrated effect on colony health associated with neonicotinoid-based insecticides."

In addition to its honeybee lobbying, Bayer has launched a public-relations offensive. The chemical giant opened the doors to its North American Bee Care Center in North Carolina in April. And last month, Bayer hosted a reception for members of Congress in Washington to talk about its efforts to help honeybees during National Pollinator Week.

Bayer isn't the only pesticides maker fixing for a fight. Syngenta, the second-largest neonic manufacturer, is registered to lobby on pesticides. A Syngenta spokesperson said the company actively discusses "the pollinator issue" with government officials.

The lobbying push is backed by deep pockets. Bayer ponied up more than $2 million for all of its lobbying efforts in the first quarter of the year, according to lobbying disclosure records. Syngenta, meanwhile, paid out $350,000 in the same interval for total lobbying expenditures.

Environmentalists and public-health and food-safety advocates are also shelling out to make the case that pesticides are killing honeybees, but have spent considerably less cash. The Center for Food Safety, which lobbies against neonics, spent only $10,000 total on lobbying efforts in the first quarter of the year. Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, which contends neonics are the leading cause of bee deaths, spent just under $13,000 in the fourth quarter of last year.

As long as the cause of the declines remains in question, both sides will continue to make their case to the administration and on Capitol Hill. "This issue isn't going away, and what we're starting to see now is lobbying efforts really ramp up," Larissa Walker, the policy and campaign coordinator with the Center for Food Safety said.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which is reviewing neonics, has indicated that it views the link between pesticides and honeybee deaths as far from settled science.

A five-year scientific review of the academic literature released last month reported that pollinators are "highly vulnerable" to neonics. Environmentalists seized on the study as the latest evidence that the chemicals are killing bees.

Pesticide manufacturers, however, say that's simply not true, pointing instead to a host of other factors as likely reasons for a recent decline in native bee populations. One of those factors is the varroa mite, a parasite that preys on bees by drinking their blood.

Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon has put forward legislation that would require EPA to halt use of the pesticides until a conclusive determination over the link between pesticides and bee health has been either established or disproved. The legislation has little chance of passing, but the European Union has already instituted a temporary, two-year ban on the use of the pesticides, and green groups are hoping the U.S. will do the same.

Meanwhile, bee declines continue at an alarming rate.

Starting in 2006, commercial beekeepers in the U.S. began reporting a loss of nearly one-third of their hives during the winter. Losses last winter were lower than they have been on average during the past eight years. But scientists, beekeepers, and green groups say the rate of decline remains alarmingly high.

Researchers have struggled to explain the insect epidemic, but generally cite stressors—including pesticides, parasites, poor nutrition, and genetics—as likely reasons for the decline.

Pollination is essential to the survival of crops such as apples, avocados, and lemons. Last month, the White House said bee pollination produces $15 billion worth of agricultural yields annually.

"We're at a crisis point here," said Lisa Archer, the food and technology program director for Friends of the Earth. "The question now is whether we're going to listen to the alarm bells that are going off."

This article appears in the July 2, 2014 edition of NJ Daily.

===

Follow the Honey: 7 ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect profits

Posted Apr. 28, 2014 / Posted by: Adam Russell

By Michele Simon

If you like to eat, then you should care about what’s happening to bees. Did you know that two-thirds of our food crops require pollination -- the very foods that we rely on for healthy eating -- such as apples, berries, and almonds, just to name a few. That’s why the serious declines in bee populations are getting more attention, with entire campaigns devoted to saving bees.

A strong and growing body of evidence points to exposure to a class of neurotoxic pesticides called neonicotinoids -- the fastest-growing and most widely used class of synthetic pesticides -- as a key contributing factor to bee declines.

Enter the corporate spin doctors. As my new report with Friends of the Earth details, three of the leading pesticide corporations -- Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto -- are engaged in a massive public relations disinformation campaign to distract the public and policymakers from thinking that pesticides might have something to do with bee death and destruction.

Big Tobacco honed these strategies for decades, stalling action that resulted in millions of preventable deaths. As Bayer stockholders meet in Germany this week, this report shines a critical light on these destructive corporate practices.

Here are the seven tactics pesticide companies are using to spin the bee crisis:

1. Pretending to care – PR blitz

Big Tobacco perfected the art of self-serving public relations, to appear to care about the very problems your products cause and offer alleged solutions.

A key element of the pesticide industry’s PR strategy is to go on the offensive by creating an elaborate appearance of being “out in front” and taking a lead role in “saving bees”. For example, last year, Bayer launched its mobile “Bee Care Tour” at the Ag Issues Forum and Commodity Classic in Orlando, Florida. Thetour continues in 2014, with stops at Oregon State University, Washington State University, University of California, Davis, South Dakota State University, and Purdue University. In June, the Bee Care Tour will be on hand for National Pollinator Week in Washington, DC.

2. Creating distractions: Blame anything but pesticides

Big Tobacco was a master at inventing diversions, to ensure the public wouldn’t place blame where it belonged. The idea is to create uncertainty; as one tobacco industry executive famously put it: “Doubt is our product.”

Similarly, Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto have deployed a mix of PR tactics to divert attention away from neonicotinoids as a key contributor to bee declines. They have typically promoted a “multiple factors” argument that downplays and manufactures doubt about pesticides’ role, while emphasizing varroa mites, pathogens, and bee forage as primary forces threatening bees.

For example, Helmut Schramm, head of Bayer CropScience Germany,: “It’s generally known that the varroa mite is the main enemy of the bee.” To further distract attention, Bayer has even erected a giant sculpture of the varroa mite on a bee at its “Bee Care” Center in Germany. As the New York Times notes, “Conveniently, Bayer markets products to kill the mites too”.

3. Spinning science

Big Tobacco was so intent on twisting the science of smoking that they created “The Tobacco Institute” for the purpose of funding industry-friendly science.

All three companies -- Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto -- are strengthening their reach into the scientific community to enhance the credibility of their case that anything but pesticides are to blame for the honeybee collapse. Companies are funding scientific studies, cultivating alliances and strategic partnerships with farmers, beekeepers, and agricultural organizations in order to bolster the legitimacy of their arguments and position themselves as “friends of the bees”.

4. Buying credibility: Putting experts on payrolls and co-opting groups

A related way that Big Tobacco distorts science is to pay fund researchers and co-opt professional organizations. Once again, pesticide companies are following that lead. For example, last June, Monsanto hosted a three-day “Bee Health Summit”, where the company greatly expanded its reach and influence in the scientific community.

At the summit, Monsanto announced the formation of a Honey Bee Advisory Council, a strategic alliance comprised of Monsanto executives themselves along with others. Even with a friendly audience, a post-summit survey found that only 14 percent of attendees felt pesticides were covered well or usefully.

Also, the British Bee Keepers Association has received significant funding from Bayer, Syngenta and other pesticide companies, an arrangement that some critics have called a quid pro quo for the organization’s endorsement of insecticides as “bee-friendly.”

5. Blaming farmers

Another common tactic of Big Tobacco is to blame smokers who “should have known” that smoking was deadly. This shameless strategy is now being used by pesticide companies. For example, Bayer’s Bee Care websiteemphasizes the “bee-responsible use” of its products and implies that any problem with neonics is because of improper use of its products by farmers and others.

Similarly, Syngenta claims: “The small number of instances of damage to bee health from these pesticides has come from the very rare occasions when farmers have used the product incorrectly (e.g. not followed label instructions).”

Syngenta even blames human fear for bee declines saying: “Many people are afraid of bees, wasps, hornets, and many other flying insects. This fear converts, unfortunately, into a major health threat to bees, as too many people simply kill them if they fly into a home or too near to people”.

6. Targeting children

Just as Phillip Morris aimed the Joe Camel character at youth, now comes the children’s book from Bayer called “Toby and the Bees” in which a friendly neighborhood beekeeper explains to young Toby that bees are getting sick but "not to worry" as it's just a problem with mites, and a special medicine will make the bees healthy -- made by Bayer. In another attempt to mold young minds, The Bayer Bee Center is now promoting a coloring contest dubbed “Color Me Bee-autifully” to “encourage students 12 and under to learn about bee health.”

7. Attacking regulators

The European Union is far ahead of the United States when it comes to taking action to protect bees from the harmful impacts of neonics. Just as Big Tobacco curries favor with policymakers, so does the pesticide industry.

Documents obtained by the Corporate Europe Observatory revealed that Syngenta, Bayer, and the European Crop Protection Association (the pesticides makers’ lobbying group) were engaged in a private behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign that began as early as June 2012 to prevent a ban on neonicotinoids in the European Union. Through a series of letters, these companies made accusations with questionable scientific or factual backing in an effort to convince European Commissioners that neonicotinoids were not the problem.

Action needed now to save the bees and our food supply

Policymakers, the media and the public should be aware of these tobacco-style tactics, which were used for years to mislead and delay policy action for decades. We cannot afford the same delay in protecting bees from further harm.

It’s time for the United States government to follow the lead of the European Union to protect bees and our food. EPA should heed the growing body of science linking neonics to bee declines and limit the use of these pesticides. Congress should pass the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. The White House should push both Congress and federal agencies to move quickly.

We must act before it’s too late. Our very food supply is at stake.

Read “Follow the Honey: 7 ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect profits” here.

Michele Simon, JD, MPH is a public health lawyer specializing in legal strategies to counter corporate tactics that harm the public’s health. Simon has been researching and writing about the food industry and food politics since 1996. Her book, Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back, was published by Nation Books in 2006. www.eatdrinkpolitics.com

Categories: Blog, Food And Technology / Tags: Adam Russell, Bees, Food Safety

- See more at: http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2014-04-follow-the-honey-7-ways-pesticide-companies-are-spinning-bee-crisis#sthash.4hCwQeGd.dpuf

dl 7/15

Big Money in Neonics

Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto all have a great deal at stake in the fight over who and what gets blamed for widespread bee deaths. With sales of $14.2 billion in 2012,33 Switzerlandbased Syngenta consistently ranks among the world’s top petrochemical and seed corporations. Syngenta stands to lose significant profits from its leading neonic product, thiamethoxam, worth $627 million in sales, if limits are placed on its use.34 Germany-based Bayer’s “Crop Protection” products (including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and seed growth) topped $10 billion35 in 2012. With its leading neonic product, imidaclorprid worth $1.1 billion and its shared interest in clothianidin, worth over $439 million, Bayer stands to lose even more than Syngenta.36 While Monsanto does not manufacture neonics per se, as the world’s largest seed corporation and a top agrochemical manufacturer, Monsanto has a lot of business at stake in the bee crisis because it sells seeds pre-treated with neonics.

Sales in the corporation’s “Seeds and Genomics” segment netted $9.8 billion in 2012.37 In the U.S., roughly 90 percent of corn is treated with neonicotinoids.38 Monsanto promotes “Acceleron®” as a designer seed treatment for its genetically-modified seeds -- corn, soy and cotton. Several Acceleron® seed treatments contain the neonicotinoids imidacloprid and clothianadin.39,40 Divert Attention from Pesticides In recent years, Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto have deployed a mix of PR tactics designed to deny and divert attention away from neonicotinoids as a key contributor to bee declines. They have typically promoted a “multiple factors” argument that downplays and manufactures doubt as to pesticides’ key role. This argument emphasizes varroa mites, pathogens and bee forage as primary forces threatening bees, blames pesticide users (farmers and consumers) for “misusing” otherwise “safe” neonicotinoid pesticide products and accuses beekeepers of poor bee stewardship. In the European Union, where criticism and the regulation of pesticides and corporate power tend to be more strenuous than in the U.S., Germany-based Bayer CropScience has waged a sophisticated public relations campaign to divert attention away from its neonicotinoid products....

“Bee Care” PR Buzz

The major element of industry’s PR strategy has been to go on the offensive by creating an elaborate appearance of “being out in front” and taking a lead role in “saving bees” through the creation and promotion of “bee health,” “Bee Care Centers” and a “Bee Care Tour.” In May 2013, about the same time that the USDA published its report implicating neonics, Bayer CropScience broke ground on its North American Bee Care Center at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.65 Through this, Bayer engaged in a PR strategy to shape media coverage of the story: its Bee Care Center was designed to establish scientific credibility as well as proactive “feel good” public relations. “Ultimately what we’re trying to do is provide good scientific support to this epidemic and help understand why bee populations

declining and really put our money where our mouth is and enable a more scientific approach,” said David Hollinrake, Bayer CropScience agricultural commercial operations marketing vice president.66 While Bayer’s North Carolina site was being constructed, Bayer was already producing Bee Care Center videos, such as “We Care for Bees: Challenge and Solutions,” featuring company executives declaring their passion for bee health. “The health of bees and their future is in our hearts,” says Annette Schurmann, Global Bee Health Manager for Bayer CropScience AG, in front of soft-toned images of flowers and bees. In 2013, Bayer launched its mobile “Bee Care Tour” at the Ag Issues Forum and Commodity Classic in Orlando, Florida. According to the company:67 “The specially-wrapped vehicle and interactive exhibit traveled to university agriculture schools and farm communities across the Midwest. Everyone who visited the exhibit had the opportunity to commit to be a Champion for Bee Health encouraging everyone to make pollinator health and stewardship a priority.” The tour continues in 2014, with stops at Oregon State University, Washington State University, University of California, Davis, South Dakota State University and Purdue University. In June, the Bee Care Tour will be in Washington, D.C. for National Pollinator Week.68

...

===

PAm’s “mission is to fund and direct research

to enhance the health and vitality of honey bee

colonies while improving crop production.”

PAm, which counts Monsanto’s Jerry Hayes as

one of its three scientific advisers, touts itself

as “the go-to organization at the interface of

honeybees and pollinated crops.”79 The Project

Apis m. monthly newsletter reported that,

“Jerry Hayes, Honey Bee Lead for Monsanto,

announced on September 19th that PAm

has been fortified with funding to further

promote forage resources for honey bees.”80

By emphasizing the loss of forage, Monsanto is

again attempting to deflect attention away from

harmful pesticides.

Hayes, a former apiary inspector for the Florida

Department of Agriculture, has become one

of Monsanto’s most effective and visible

spokespeople on the bee crisis. In one blog

entry, Hayes wrote: “Monsanto is committed to

sustainable agriculture. It makes good business

sense to support sustainable agriculture and

that’s why they want to use their time, talents

and resources to contribute positively to honey

bee health. This is not a PR stunt; this is a smart

business move to help agriculture globally.”81

Beekeeper Larry Johnson, who Monsanto

tapped for its “Honey Bee Advisory Council”,

blogged that Hayes and his team “truly care

about the problems beekeepers face.” In a

welcoming speech at the bee summit, Johnson

made his appreciation for the company clear:

“this is a great company that does a lot of great

things … this is a great thing for Monsanto and

the bee industry to get together.”82

Randy Oliver, one of three key advisors to

PAm, consistently praised the company’s role

in addressing the bee crisis, while repeating

key message points that divert the focus away

from pesticides: “the key common consensus

was that the main causes of colony health

problems are poor nutrition and the varroa/

virus complex, sometimes exacerbated by

pesticide issues.”83 At the end of his extensive

report on the Monsanto bee summit – which,

he emphasized, was “not a corporate sales

pitch” – Oliver discloses: “Disclaimer: I received

payment from Monsanto this year for the rental

of hives and the labor involved in running a

research trial.” After attending the company’s

Bee Summit, Oliver authored a lengthy article

applauding and defending Monsanto and urging

critics to “drop the demonization,” adding,

“Monsanto appears to genuinely want to be a

good corporate citizen.”84

The industry’s reach with beekeepers extends

to Europe, where the British BeeKeepers

Association (BBKA) has received significant

funding from Bayer, Syngenta and other

pesticide companies, an arrangement that

some critics have called a quid pro quo, as the

organization has endorsed insecticides as “beefriendly.”85,

In 2009, after the BBKA took a pro-pesticide

stance, one of its members, beekeeper Philip

Chandler, stated “In my opinion ... they should

not be endorsing pesticides or other toxins

under any conditions whatsoever. There

is something very wrongheaded about an

organization that claims to be defending the

interests of bees and beekeepers taking money

from the manufacturers of pesticides. Having a

dialog with them is one thing, but taking money

from them is another.” 87

...

Company Videos Masquerading

as News

Syngenta’s attempts at creating distraction also

include company-produced “news interviews,”

and direct attacks on critics and regulators.

In one Syngenta-produced video “news

interview” about neonicotinoids, chief operating

officer John Atkins assures a seemingly sincere

actor-journalist, that “we are completely

convinced … that bee declines have nothing to

do with this class of chemistry [neonics]” and

“millions of hectares have been tested to verify

that these products are safe to bee populations

… the combination of their benefits and the lack

of impact on the bee populations is why they

are so important worldwide.”92

Atkins later goes on the offensive: “we are doing

much more, truly, to support the health of bees,

than many people who are attacking us… there

is much more at stake than money, this is about

the principles of scientific evaluation, it’s about

the benefits of this product, it’s about the facts.”

He then criticizes the European Commission

move to restrict neonicotinoids, insisting the

agency “ignored plenty of evidence from the

real world that these pesticides do not damage

the health of bees.”93

Blaming the Farmer

While denying criticism of pesticides, Syngenta

adds another element of diversion by blaming

pesticide users (i.e., farmers) for any “rare”

negative effects on bees. Listing “misused

pesticides” as one of its 11 causes of bee

declines, Syngenta claims, “Some theoretical

research recently has purported to show that...

attack sci:

used in sustainable agriculture.” Once again, Bayer pointed to “multiple factors” that can cause poor bee health and colony losses, and suggested that the EU’s precautionary principle need not apply here.101 By March 2013, Syngenta and Bayer proposed an alternative plan to support bee health. Their suggestions in this “comprehensive” plan included planting more flowering field margins and monitoring neonicotinoids.102 During this time, Bayer103 and Syngenta104 also used PR to amplify any lack of consensus on the ban amongst EU member countries and publicize this lack of compromise as recognition of the safety of neonicotinoids.105 The same diversionary messaging is incorporated into lobbying documents. Documents obtained by the Corporate Europe Observatory revealed that, from as early as June 2012, Syngenta, Bayer and the European Crop Protection Association (the pesticide makers’ lobbying group) were engaged in a private behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to prevent a ban on neonicotinoids in the EU.106 Through a series of letters, these companies made accusations with questionable scientific and factual backing in an effort to convince European commissioners that neonicotinoids were not the problem.

....

Whilelobbying disclosures are not bill-specific, Bayer lobbied Congress during the first115 and second116 quarters of 2013 on the issue of bee health and specifically had “discussions on EPA regulatory actions involving pollinator protection.” In April 2014, according to Politico, within a week of opening its new “Bee Care Center” in Triangle Park, North Carolina, Bayer increased its lobbying muscle by hiring Cornerstone Government Affairs, a D.C.-based lobby firm, “to help ‘pollinator health and habitat promotion’ after a growing campaign, which includes reports from the European Union, has accused the chemical company of causing large-scale harm to the bee population with its pesticides.”117 Current clients of Cornerstone Government Affairs also include Syngenta and CropLife America (a trade association representing the manufacturers of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals).118 While bee health was not listed as a specific issue on Monsanto’s119 and Syngenta’s120 lobbying records, the documents do indicate that the companies lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency in 2013 on agricultural research, biotech regulations and pesticides. The EPA is currently charged with reevaluating neonicotinoids through its pesticide registration review program, which is not set to be completed until at least 2018.121

Despite the EPA’s scientific conclusions,

similar to that of the European Food Security Association, on the high risk that neonicotinoids pose to bees,122 the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture have indicated that a ban in the U.S. is not necessary.123 This failure to act persists despite leaked documents from EPA that indicate the agency is ignoring warnings from its own scientists about the dangers of the neonic clothianidin. Here is how agriculture journalist Tom Philpott described the leaked memo in 2010: “EPA scientists have essentially rejected the findings of a study conducted on behalf of Bayer that the agency had used to justify the registration of clothianidin. And they reiterated concerns that widespread use of clothianidin imperils the health of the nation’s honeybees.”124 Nevertheless, instead of a ban, the EPA has developed a new pesticide label that will allegedly help to protect bees from toxic exposure to neonicotinoids by prohibiting their use where bees are present. However, the labels ignore the widest application of neonicotinoid pesticides: the seed treatments that enable the uptake of pesticides into the plant and later into pollen and nectar, which are gathered and eaten by bees and other key pollinators. The proposed labels would therefore do little to address the problem of bee declines.....

obama seems to move on bees, but

following reports that scientists at the United States Department of Agriculture are being harrassed and their research on bee-killing pesticides is being censored or suppressed, a broad coalition of farmers, environmentalists, fisheries and food-safety organizations urged an investigation in a May 5 letter sent to Phyllis K. Fong, USDA Inspector General.

"The possibility that the USDA is prioritizing the interests of the chemical industry over those of the American public is unacceptable," states the letter, which was signed by more than 25 citizens' groups concerned that a forthcoming report by the White House Task Force on Pollinator Health, which is co-chaired by the USDA, will be compromised.

The signatories include the American Bird Conservancy, Avaaz, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Farmworkers Association of Florida, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Green America, Organic Consumers Association and Sierra Club.

"It is imperative that the American people can trust that their government and its employees are serving their constituents and not the profits of private companies," they wrote. "All of the research that the USDA conducts must maintain scientific integrity and transparency to ensure it is guiding sound policy decisions."

The research in question centers on neonicotinoids, a nicotine-like class of insecticides that impair the neurological systems of insects and which studies have linked to die-offs of bees and monarch butterflies—two key pollinators—as well as birds. Neonicotinoids have been strongly linked to honey-bee colony collapse disorder (CCD), a syndrome first observed in Germany that has been blamed for massive bee population declines across the globe. In 2013, certain neonicotinoids were banned by the European Union and a few non-EU nations.

The global food system relies on bees to pollinate at least 30 percent of the world's crops. Bees are responsible for pollinating a host of American crops, from apples and almonds to cantaloupes and cucumbers, impacting $15 billion a year in U.S. crops.

In March, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an environmental activist group supporting local, state and federal researchers, filed a legal petition with the USDA seeking new rules meant to increase the job protection for government scientists and citing censorship and harassment. At least 10 USDA scientists have come under fire for research into farm chemical safety that conflicts with the interests of the agribusiness sector, according to PEER executive director Jeff Ruch.

"They have very little in the way of legal rights and have career paths that are extremely vulnerable," he said. He said the scientific work under scrutiny is the research into the effects of neonicotinoids and glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide, which the World Health Organization recently concluded likely causes cancer.

"Your words are changed, your papers are censored or edited or you are not allowed to submit them at all," a senior scientist at the USDA's Agricultural Research Service told Reuters.

“Censorship and harassment poison good science and good policy,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "There’s no question that neonicotinoids are killing bees, and it’s long past time for our government to take action. The European Union has already banned neonicotinoids. The reports that USDA is harassing and suppressing its scientists for doing their jobs instead of using their findings to protect our pollinators are extremely disturbing."

“How can the American public expect USDA to develop a federal strategy that will protect bees instead of pesticide industry profits if it is harassing and suppressing its own scientists for conducting research that runs counter to industry claims?" said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, food futures campaigner with Friends of the Earth.

In April 2014, the group released “Follow the Honey: 7 ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect profits,” a report documenting the deceptive tactics used by agrochemical companies to deflect blame from their chemicals to pollinator declines and stall governmental regulation on neonicotinoids. The companies named in the report include U.S.-based Monsanto, Switzerland-based Syngenta and Germany-based Bayer, which patented the first commercial neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid, the world's most widely used insecticide.

"If USDA wants to employ a kill-the-messenger approach," said Finck-Haynes, "it will only delay critical action to address the bee crisis that threatens our nation’s food supply."

===

woohoo

http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/10/lowes-neonicotinoid-pesticides

===

dow enlist duo epa nrdc suit monarch, earth justice

not neo nic

The Enlist Duo herbicide contains glyphosate as well as a new form of 2,4-D, which is already used on other crops like wheat and on pastureland and golf courses." bs

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/17/natural-resources-defense-council-sues-epa-to-block-rollout-of-dow-enlist-duo-gmo-system/:{ :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:

sierrrarise

Leahy, Stephen (2014 June 24). "How 'the New DDT' Wreaks Havoc on the Bottom of the Food Chain."Motherboard.

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/insecticides-are-causing-widespread-damage-at-the-bottom-of-the-food-chain

The same insecticide nerve poison that is contributing to the shocking declines in bees and other pollinators is also behind the sharp declines in many other insect species, along with insect-eating birds and bats. Even important creatures like earthworms, which keep our soils healthy, are being damaged by systemic insecticides called neonicotinoids (neonics) and fipronil, a new four-year international meta-analysis has found.

“It’s the new DDT but different,” said Ole Hendrickson, a former scientist at Environment Canada and member of the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides that complete the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) analysis. It's the first examination of all the science on the topic—more than 800 studies. The task force is compromised of 50 independent scientists from all over the world who spent the last four years trying to figure out why so many bees, butterflies, and other insects are disappearing.

“Instead of wiping out the top of the food chain, killing hawks and eagles as DDT did, neonics are wiping out the bottom of the food chain,” Hendrickson told me. “Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson once said if we wipe out the world’s insects, we will soon follow them to extinction.”

Over the past 15 years, neonics have become the most widely used insecticides on the planet. They’re everywhere: in homes, gardens, farms, lakes, rivers and forests. The six main types of neonics in use are very, very good at destroying the nerve cells of anything that ingests them.

“Neonics are 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT,” said Jean-Marc Bonmatin of The National Centre for Scientific Research in France.

Many corn, soy, and wheat seeds planted today are coated with neonics. If a bird eats a seed or two, they die. Clouds of toxic dust that are stirred up during planting are also dangerous to birds and insects in the vicinity. As the crops grow, they incorporate the neonic into their tissue, making them poisonous to any insect that nibbles on them. Pollen, nectar, sap and even dead leaves contain neonics. So does the soil, and because neonics readily mix with water, they're contaminating streams, ponds, rivers, and possibly coastal zones, the analysis found.

Neonics can last and build up in soil and water for more than year. “Even at extraordinarily low levels neonics have impacts on many species,” said Bonmatin, the lead author of the WIA analysis, which will be published as a series of articles in the peer-reviewed journal Environment Science and Pollution Research.

At non-lethal levels, exposure to these nerve poisons can screw up nervous systems. The documented impacts include impaired sense of smell or memory; reduced fertility; altered feeding behaviour and reduced food intake; difficulty in flight and increased susceptibility to disease and altered tunnelling behaviour in earthworms. Hardest hit by all this is not bees, contrary to popular belief, but worms, and other invertebrates that live in the soil, the study found.

"These are the organisms that cycle nutrients and keep soil fertile. Without them farmers will have to add more chemical fertilizer," Bonmatin told me in an interview.

He said these toxic pesticides aren't even necessary—they're just "convenient." This is nothing like a farmer spraying when there is a pest problem; neonics are in the plant 24/7, from seed to harvest. "At least 90 percent of the time the neonics aren't even needed, according to our studies," he said. There are many effective, pre-existing alternatives for dealing with insect pests, including crop rotation, the analysis also shows.

Now there is some emerging evidence of neonics' potential impacts on human health.

"The insects are showing us to be very careful with neonics," Bonmatin said. “They're dangerous and probably should be banned." The official position of the Task Force is to ask governments to restrict their use.

Europe already placed atwo-year moratorium on use of some neonics in April 2013 because of the impact on bees, and on June 20, just four days before the release of the WIA analysis, the Obama administration told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the impacts of neonics on bees and other pollinators. The EPA has 180 days to report.

"There is no question that neonics are behind colony collapse disorder," said Chensheng (Alex) Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology at Harvard School of Public Health. Lu recently replicated an early studyshowing low doses of neonics result in the loss of honey bee colonies known as colony collapse disorder (CCD).

The new study showed that only half of the colonies survived the winter when healthy bees were exposed to neonics. Lu believes neonics impair the bee's neurological functions. "The health situation of bees in the US is dire and getting worse," he said.

The EPA is "misreporting" what's happening to bees by claiming CCD losses have improved dramatically since 2008, Lu said. According to him, Ohio and nearby states lost up to 90% of their colonies last winter while the EPA reported losses of only 30% nationwide. The biggest losses of bees are in the midwest, where the highest levels of neonics are.

Lu criticised the EPA's strategy of spending millions on improving bee habitat in the midwest, which he said was pushed by the pesticide lobby, and also wondered why the USDA, the ultimate authority on the use of neonics, has been silent on amajor study by the American Bird Conservancy in 2013 that clearly documented “massive impacts on American songbirds.” That report criticized the EPA for underestimating the risk and then failing to act when impacts were documented.

"This is a not a controversial problem," Lu said. "We know what to do."

TOPICS: insecticides, neonicotinoids, Bees, colony collapse disorder, insects,pesticides, Earth

2. vanEnglesdorp, Dennis et al (2014 May 23). "Honey Bee Colony Losses in the United States, 2013-2014." Bee Informed.

3. Grossman, Elizabeth (2013 April 30). "Declining Bee Populations Pose A Threat to Global Agriculture."Yale e360.

4. Eban, Catherine (2010 October 10). "What a Scientist Didn't Tell the New York Times About His Study on Bee Deaths." CommonDreams.

===

http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/22/california-honeybees/

dpr stalls

As more and more proof emerges that the widespread die-off of honeybee colonies in the last decade is linked to use of neonicotinoid pesticides, the California legislature has passed a bill that would allow its Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to do nothing until 2020.

The DRP has been studying the issues for five years (a study that was supposed to take two years under the current law) without taking meaningful action. AB 1789 extends the study window and the time frame for taking action another six years.

Nonprofit environmental law organization Earthjustice is representing a coalition of groups—Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety and Beyond Pesticides—which has filed a challenge in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, asking the DPR to ban the pesticides prior to the study completion.

Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie said:

We’re disappointed that California legislators have just passed a bill that allows the California agencies to do nothing about widespread bee die-offs until 2020. While bee colonies are collapsing at historic rates and a huge California growing economy depends on these pollinators, we don’t have time to kick this problem that far down the road. We urge Gov. Brown to veto this bill and get to work with the state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and commit to addressing this problem much sooner than 2020.

Since honeybees are essential to the pollination of many crops, including California’s lucrative almond crop, and California is the leading agriculture state in the U.S., the loss of honeybees there would have a widespread impact on U.S. food production.

YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE

As Pesticides Fail, California Citrus Growers Turn to Natural Solutions

USDA Reports Honeybee Death Rate Too High for Long-Term Survival

Two New Studies Address the Ongoing Plight of Honeybees

===

Everything we know about neonic pesticides is awful see also audio/text interview 6/14.

White House Protects Pollinators 6/14.

Bee Killers Sponsor National Pollinator Week (And 3 Ways They Are Killing Bees)Insecticides known as neonicotinoids, or “neonics” for short, are the smoking gun of Colony Collapse Disorder. see Greenwashing.

Concerned about the bees and the butterflies? Interested in celebrating National Pollinator Week? It’s happening next week, June 16-22.

And it’s brought to you, in part, by none other than Monsanto and Bayer.

In 2007, the U.S. Senate designated a week in June as National Pollinator Week. Every year, the Secretary of Agriculture signs a National Pollinator Week proclamation. As the public has grown increasingly concerned about the link between toxic chemicals and the die-off of bees and monarch butterflies, National Pollinator Week has evolved into the Pollinator Partnership. The Pollinator Partnership is a nonprofit that describes itself as “the largest organization in the world dedicated exclusively to the protection and promotion of pollinators and their ecosystems.”

Who supports (i.e. funds) the Pollinator Partnership? Among others, Bayer and Monsanto—the very companies that are killing pollinators with insecticides and genetically engineered crops.

It’s all part of a well-documented, well-funded (and shameless) public relations campaign by the pesticide industry to give the appearance of “caring” about the die-off of bees and butterflies, while diverting attention from the cause of those die-offs—highly profitable products made by Monsanto and Bayer.

Let’s take back National Pollinators Week. By spreading the truth about the connections between Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops, Bayer’s neonicotinoid insecticides andColony Collapse Disorder.

In honor of Pollinator Week, share this article. And make plans to join a pollinators celebration that hasn’t been taken over by the agrichemical and biotech companies: Bee Against Monsanto’s Global Swarm to Save the Bees on Aug. 16.

Three ways Monsanto and Bayer are killing the bees:

1. Monsanto’s genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant “Roundup Ready” crops

In 2000, scientists discovered that genetically engineered traits in pollen can be transferred to bees though their digestive systems.

Researcher Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a leading German zoologist, released bees in a field of canola that had been genetically engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. He then fed the canola pollen to younger bees and observed that the bacteria in the guts of the young bees took on the traits of the canola’s modified genes.

Kaatz’s research predated Colony Collapse Disorder. That term, for the disappearance of bees from the hive, wasn’t coined by scientists until 2006.

With the mass death of bees yet to come, the discussion of Kaatz’s findings focused less on how Monsanto’s genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant “Roundup Ready” crops could harm bees, and more on his research’s suggestion that all types of bacteria could be contaminated by engineered genes, including those that live inside the human digestive system. Scientists warned that this would impact the bacteria’s vital role in helping the human body fight disease and aid digestion. Even worse, if the antibiotic-resistant gene used in genetically engineered crops crossed over to bacteria, it would cause human infections to become resistant to antibiotics.

The warnings were prescient. Kaatz’s work foreshadowed the correlation between the increase of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops in the human diet, and the rise of gastrointestinal disorders, immune diseases and antibiotic resistant infections.

Inadvertently, he also predicted how the increased use of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops would spur Colony Collapse Disorder in bees.

When Colony Collapse Disorder hit in 2006, others picked up where Kaatz left off.

In 2010, Terrence N. Ingram, a commercial beekeeper for 55 years, published an article in 2010 in Mother Earth News that detailed the struggles he’d had since his neighbors started spraying Roundup on their genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant soy in 1996. He went from producing 15 tons of honey a year down to four.

“The bees never had a chance,” he wrote, “and all of the hives were dead before winter.”

In 2012, his bees disappeared while he was out of town. This time it wasn’t the neighbor’s herbicide sprays, it was the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDA). Under the pretense that Ingram’s hives were infected with foulbrood, the agency destroyed them to prevent the spread of the disease.

Ingram believed IDA’s action had more to do with his 15 years of research into the effect of Roundup on honeybees. His suspicions were fueled by the fact that IDA’s theft included the hive of a queen bee that may have had a genetic resistance to Roundup.

“Knowing that Monsanto and the Department of Agriculture are in bed together, one has to wonder if Monsanto was behind the theft to ruin my research that may prove Roundup was, and is, killing honeybees,” Ingram told local Prairie Advocate reporter Tom Kocal.

Ingram hasn’t been able to get his bees back. But his hunch that Roundup was killing his bees is gathering support.

The suspicions voiced in Ingram’s 2010 Mother Earth News article were backed up with scientific evidence in 2013, when plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber published a paperwritten for the Center for Honeybee Research that names glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, as a possible cause of Colony Collapse Disorder.

According to Huber, “The exposure, physiological damage, and biological impact of glyphosate are consistent with all of the known conditions related to CCD. Of all of the potential individual factors implicated in CCD, glyphosate is the only compound extensively used worldwide where CCD occurs that impacts all of them.”

2. Monsanto’s insecticide-producing, genetically engineered “Bt” Crops

In research from 2001-2004, Hans-Hinrich Kaatz conducted another investigation into the impact of Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops on honeybees. This time, he looked at “Bt crops” that have been genetically engineered to produce insecticide.

Kaatz found that genetically engineered Bt toxin didn’t kill healthy honeybees.

But as it turned out, not all the bees in his study were healthy. Just by chance, some of the bees were simultaneously exposed to a parasite along with the engineered toxin. In that group, there was a “significantly stronger decline in the number of bees.” According to Kaatz, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have “altered the surface of the bee’s intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry.”

Because of the harmful effect that the pollen of Bt crops could have on bees, in 2012, Poland’s Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki imposed a complete ban on growing MON810 corn, a Bt crop that is the only genetically engineered crop grown in the EU.

3. Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds treated with Bayer’s insecticides

Looking at the science, it’s hard not to wonder if Monsanto isn’t killing bees intentionally. Especially when the company buys out a bee research firm and proposes use genetic engineering to address Colony Collapse Disorder. http://farmindustrynews.com/crop-protection/monsanto-buys-biological-research-firm (see below)

It’s bad enough that Monsanto produces genetically engineered crops that screw with honeybees’ gastrointestinal health, making them more susceptible to disease. But here’s the kicker: Monsanto also treats its genetically engineered seeds with a class of systemic insecticides that’s straight-up toxic to bees.

Insecticides known as neonicotinoids, or “neonics” for short, are the smoking gun of Colony Collapse Disorder. Bee colonies began disappearing in the U.S. one year after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowed these new insecticides on the market in 2004-2005.

A pile of studies implicate neonics in bee die-offs. Neonics are nerve poisons that disorient bees so they can’t make it back to the hive. They also trigger immune system failure, causing the bees to fall prey to opportunistic infections. Last year, the EU imposed a two-year ban on all neonics.

Monsanto routinely treats its seeds with neonics. Unlike insecticide sprays, neonic seed treatments cause the insecticide to spread through every cell of the plant as it grows. The insecticide is present and active in the plant’s pollen and nectar.

Take something that’s toxic to bees, get it to grow in plants’ pollen and nectar, and you’ve got a bee-killing machine.

Monsanto has a partner in this crime. It’s Bayer, the main manufacturer of neonic insecticides, as well as Syngenta, who together with Bayer controls the neonic market. They’re partners in Pollinator.org, part of their massive public relations disinformation campaign to distract the public and policymakers from thinking that pesticides might have something to do with bee death and destruction.

We can’t let these companies control what the American public knows about Colony Collapse Disorder. Celebrate National Pollinator Week by exposing their crime and the cover-up. Share this article and make plans to join the Global Swarm to Save the Bees on Aug. 16.

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director of the Organic Consumers Association. Ronnie Cummins is national director of the Organic Consumers Association.

---

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Monsanto Genetically Engineering Bees

After being blamed by massive amounts of bee keepers for the Honey Bee collapse, Monsanto purchased the largest bee research firm called Beeologics back in September of 2011.

Their website says:

"Beeologics LLC is an international firm dedicated to restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination. While its primary goal is to control the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection crises, Beeologics' mission is to become the guardian of bee health worldwide. Through continuous research, scientific innovation, and a focus on applicable solutions, Beeologics is developing a line of RNAi-based products to specifically address the long-term well being of the bees. "

In case you don't know RNAi-based products are a mechanism meant to block gene expression. RNAi-based products are genetically engineered products that Monsanto is now planning to use on the honey bees! The same bees who's health, (many beekeepers believe) has already been compromised by Monsanto's genetically engineered plants that produce pesticides. Their answer to this problem should be to stop making GM food, but instead it is to make more genetically engineered products that they will unleash on our planet without research to show any of them are safe.

RNAi (ribonucleic acid interference) is a process within living cells that moderates the activity of genes. It has been known by other names, including co-suppression, post transcriptional gene silencing and quelling.They all described the RNAi phenomenon. RNAs (ribonucleic acid) are the direct products of genes, and these small RNAs can bind to other specific messanger RNA (mRNA) molecules and either increase or decrease their activity, for example by preventing an mRNA from producing a protein. RNA interference has an important role in defending cells against parasitic genes - viruses and transposons, but also in directing development as well as gene expression in general.

Monsanto In Route to Control Seeds & Pollination

Monsanto is already on its way to owning most of the seeds on the planet. They are replacing the natural spirit made food with Monsanto made frankenfood. They now also want to own the means of pollinating the food. Their frankenfoods that produce pesticides are believed by beekeepers to be killing the honey bees. Monsanto's solution to the colony collapse disorder is to replace God's honeybees with Monsanto's genetically modified bees that are resistant to all the pesticide producing food they make.

Just as their GM seed has trespassed onto organic/conventional farmers fields by pollinators bringing pollen from one field to another, these frankenbees will also get out into the world and end up contaminating the native bees. When this happens Monsanto will probably sue any bee keeper who has bees that show similar genetics to their patented bees. Beekeepers could be forced to buy Monsanto bees when all bees are contaminated and changed into frankenbees.

===

Pesticide Action Network

By Paul Towers

This week, pesticide makers are showcasing these tactics during National Pollinator Week with offers of free seed packets to people who take their poorly named “pollinator pledge.” The “bee-washing” term has gained traction as scientists and groups like Pesticide Action Network (PAN) continue to cut through the misinformation and point to the emerging body of science that points to pesticides as a critical factor in bee declines.Last week, the term “bee-washing” emerged in public conversation. It doesn’t refer to some new bee cleaning service, but to the insidious efforts ofMonsanto and other pesticide corporations to discredit science about the impacts of pesticides on bees—especially neonicotinoids—by creating public relations tours, new research centers and new marketing strategies.

Monsanto hosted their first so-called Honey Bee Health Summit last week, a gathering at the company’s headquarters in Missouri. Without question, some truly smart, dedicated scientists attended Monsanto’s bee summit and are participating in these efforts.

And a similarly committed group of beekeepers who care about bees, beekeeping and our food system have also participated. What’s increasingly clear, though, is that the credibility of these individuals is being used to shield the agenda of a handful of pesticide corporations and theirbee-harming insecticide products. The corporate public relation gymnastics on display are truly impressive.

Unfortunately, Monsanto is not alone in its efforts. Just this spring, Bayer sponsored a tour of its “specially-wrapped beehicle” and hosted a talk at Ohio State University in March, over loud objections from local beekeepers.

Industry has largely set its sights on one issue to blame for bee declines. While lack of sufficient forage and diseases are a challenge to bee health and beekeeping, challenges exacerbated by the weakening effect of pesticides on bees, the pesticide industry has focused a large proportion of its attention on the varroa mite. And it’s an easy distraction that places the burden of unprecedented bee losses on beekeepers—while subverting any blame for the widespread pesticide products.

:{:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;display:block"):}:

Unfortunately for Monsanto & Co, and as most beekeepers and academics will say, the varroa mite has been around a long time, predating dramatic bee declines in the U.S. that started in 2006. While mites no doubt affect bee colonies, they are unlikely the primary driver of population declines.

There is a correlation, however, between the introduction of neonicotinoid pesticides (or neonics) on the market and bee die-offs. Independent studies show—and beekeepers corroborate from hands-on experience—that these pesticides weaken bees’ immune systems, likely damaging their resistance to common challenges like the varroa mite.

Neonics are one of the largest growth sectors for the pesticide industry. And industry has a vested interest in keeping the neonic market growing. But we know that spin efforts to refocus attention on varroa mites were already attempted in Europe, and the approach has been largely unsuccessful. The European Union just put continent-wide restrictions on the use of neonicsin place.

Pesticide corporations don’t show any sign of letting up. If this spring and summer are any indication, then the “bee-washing” campaign will continue. Beekeepers will remain the victims of this targeted public relations campaign.

And the costs of are very real. Earlier this month, Jim Doan—a third generation commercial beekeeper from upstate New York—literally sold his farm due to bee losses. For years, he produced over half a million pounds of honey annually and eventually grew his business to 5,300 hives. But when neonicotinoid pesticides started being commonly used in the U.S., around 2006, Jim’s bees started dying.

He’s experienced serious losses to bees he brought to citrus groves in Florida and the cornfields of New York. And now, he only has 300 hives left. In an email he circulated last week, he wrote: “I am done. I cannot continue. Sold my farm 2 weeks ago, I am giving up, there is no hope here.”

Bees are continuing to die off at unprecedented rates and beekeepers are going out of business. There is clearly something amiss—and the pesticide industry would have us believe that their products play no part in this alarming trend. PAN, beekeepers and our partners will continue to shine a light on corporate “bee-washing” and spin efforts to subdue or obfuscate the growing body of science pointing to this clear message: Pesticides are playing a key role in bee deaths.

Visit EcoWatch’s BIODIVERSITY page for more related news on this topic.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/28/pr-tricks-pesticide-companies/

On the eve of Bayer’s Annual Stockholders’ Meeting in Germany, author Michele Simon andFriends of the Earth released a new report

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/f0/f/4656/FollowTheHoneyReport.pdf got

documenting the tactics used by Bayer and other pesticide companies to delay regulatory action on neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides—a key contributor to bee declines.

The European Union banned the three most widely used neonicotinoids, based on strong science indicating that neonics can kill bees outright and make them more vulnerable to pests, pathogens and other stressors. However, these pesticides are still widely used in the U.S. despite massive bee losses that threaten vital food crops, from almonds in California to apples in Washington.

The new report, Follow the Honey: 7 Ways Pesticide Companies Are Spinning the Bee Crisis to Protect Profits, uncovers the deceptive public relations tactics used by Bayer, Swiss-based Syngenta and U.S.-based Monsanto, to deflect blame from their products’ contributions to bee declines.

“These pesticide companies use PR tricks straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook to manufacture doubt about science and fool politicians and the public to delay action, while they keep profiting from bee-killing pesticides,” said Michele Simon, report author and public health attorney who tracks corporate tactics.

PR tactics revealed in the report include:

1. Divert Attention from Pesticides: Companies promote a “multiple factors” argument that downplays pesticides’ key role.

2. Spinning the Science and “Manufacturing Doubt”: Aggressive efforts to promote the varroa mite and other factors as the leading causes of bee deaths while downplaying or dismissing the role of pesticides. What they don’t say: neonic pesticides are a key compounding factor that makes bees more vulnerable to the varroa mite and other pests and pathogens.

3. “Bee Care” PR Blitz: PR campaigns to create the appearance of being “out in front” and taking a lead role in “saving bees” by promoting “bee health,” building “Bee Care Centers” and launching a “Bee Care Tour” while downplaying the role of pesticides in bee deaths.

4. Buying Credibility: Funding scientific studies, cultivating alliances and strategic partnerships with farmers, beekeepers and agricultural organizations in order to buy credibility for their “anything but pesticides” talking points and position themselves as “friends of the bees.”

5. Blaming Farmers and Beekeepers: While denying criticism of pesticides, blaming farmers who use pesticides for any “rare” negative effects on bees, and blaming beekeepers for poor bee care.

6. Company Videos Portrayed As News: Syngenta’s attempts at creating distraction also include company-produced “news interviews,” and direct attacks on critics and regulators.

7. Targeting Children: Propaganda to win young hearts and minds, such as Bayer’s children’s book entitled Toby and the Bees in which a friendly beekeeper tells young Toby the bees are getting sick, but “not to worry,” it’s just a problem with mites, and there is special medicine (made by Bayer) to make bees healthy.

:{:(style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;display:block;max-width:360px;max-height:344px"):}:

“It’s important for the media, policy makers and the general public to be alert to these deceptive public relations strategies. Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto make billions from bee-killing pesticide products while masquerading as champions of bee health,” said Lisa Archer, food and technology program director at Friends of the Earth. “Are their profits more important than our food supply? Are they more important than the livelihoods of America’s farmers? Congress must act now to ban neonic pesticides that threaten America’s farmers and our food security.”

In 2013, U.S. Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) and Rep. Conyers (D-MI) introduced the “Saving America’s Pollinators Act,” which seeks to suspend the use of neonics on bee-attractive plants until the Environmental Protection Agency reviews all of the available data, including field studies.

——–

YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE

Study Shows Bee-Killing Neonicatinoid Seed Treatment Offer ‘Little to No Benefit’

Half a Million Americans Urge EPA to Protect Bees

Pesticide Companies Sue EU Commission for Protecting Pollinators

——–

follow the honey:

Company Videos Masquerading

as News

Syngenta’s attempts at creating distraction also

include company-produced “news interviews,”

and direct attacks on critics and regulators.

In one Syngenta-produced video “news

interview” about neonicotinoids, chief operating

officer John Atkins assures a seemingly sincere

actor-journalist, that “we are completely

convinced … that bee declines have nothing to

do with this class of chemistry [neonics]” and

“millions of hectares have been tested to verify

that these products are safe to bee populations

… the combination of their benefits and the lack

of impact on the bee populations is why they

are so important worldwide.”92

Atkins later goes on the offensive: “we are doing

much more, truly, to support the health of bees,

than many people who are attacking us… there

is much more at stake than money, this is about

the principles of scientific evaluation, it’s about

the benefits of this product, it’s about the facts.”

He then criticizes the European Commission

move to restrict neonicotinoids, insisting the

agency “ignored plenty of evidence from the

real world that these pe...

“John Atkin, COO, talks about bee decline

and the role of nenicotinoids in agriculture,”

February 19, 2013, video clip, accessed January

15, 2014, YouTube,. 404 see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHZsqSJku4

Published on Feb 19, 2013

Interview with Syngenta's John Atkin about the multiple causes of decline in honey bee health, and the critical role that neonicotinoids have to play in sustainable intensive agriculture.Visithttp://www.PlightoftheBees.com for more information. blames mites

wiki

Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically similar to nicotine. The development of this class of insecticides began with work in the 1980s by Shell and the 1990s by Bayer.^[1] The neonicotinoids show reduced toxicity compared to previously used organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Most neonicotinoids show much lower toxicity in birds and mammals than insects, but some breakdown products are toxic.^[2] The neonicotinoid imidacloprid is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world.^[3] The neonicotinoid family includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine,thiacloprid and thiamethoxam.

In the late 2000s some kinds of neonicotinoids began to come under increasing scrutiny over potential environmental impacts. The use of neonicotinoids was linked in a range of studies to a number of adverse ecological effects, including honey-bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) and loss of birds due to reduction in insect populations. Increased scrutiny eventually led to restrictions and bans on the use of different neonicotinoids in several countries.^[4][5][6]

[hide]

6 Environmental impacts
- 6.1 Links to decline in bee population
- 6.2 Other impacts

Market:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Neonicotinoids are registered in more than 120 countries. With a turnover of €1.5 billion, they represented 24% of the global market for insecticides in 2008. Neonicotinoids are even more important in the market for seed treatments. After the introduction of the first neonicotinoids in the 1990s, this market has grown from €155 million in 1990 to €957 million in 2008. Neonicotinoids made up 80% of all seed treatment sales in 2008.^[7]

Seven neonicotinoids from different companies are currently on the market.^[7]

Name	Company	Products	Turnover in million US$ (2009)
Imidacloprid	Bayer CropScience	Confidor, Admire, Gaucho, Advocate	1,091
Thiamethoxam	Syngenta	Actara, Platinum, Cruiser	627
Clothianidin	Sumitomo Chemical/Bayer CropScience	Poncho, Dantosu, Dantop	439
Acetamiprid	Nippon Soda	Mospilan, Assail, ChipcoTristar	276
Thiacloprid	Bayer CropScience	Calypso	112
Dinotefuran	Mitsui Chemicals	Starkle, Safari, Venom	79
Nitenpyram	Sumitomo Chemical	Capstar, Bestguard	8

History:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Nicotine acts as an insecticide. ^[8] It exhibits a lower lethal dose for rats than flies.^[3] This spurred a search for insecticidal compounds that have selectively less effect on mammals. Initial investigation of nicotine-related compounds (nicotinoids) as insecticides was not successful.^[8]

The precursor to nithiazine was first synthesized by a chemist at Purdue University. Shell researchers found in screening that this precursor showed insecticide potential and refined it to develop nithiazine.^[1] Nithiazine was later found to be a postsynaptic acetylcholine receptor agonist,^[9] the same mode of action as nicotine. Nithiazine does not act as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor,^[9] in contrast to the organophosphate andcarbamate insecticides. While nithiazine has the desired specificity (i.e. low mammalian toxicity), it is not photostable (it breaks down in sunlight), so it was not commercially viable.

The first commercial neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was developed by Bayer.^[1]

Most neonicotinoids are water-soluble and break down slowly in the environment, so they can be taken up by the plant and provide protection from insects as the plant grows. During the late 1990s this class of pesticides, primarily imidacloprid, became widely used. Beginning in the early 2000s, two other neonicotinoids, clothianidin and thiamethoxam entered the market. Currently, virtually all corn that is planted in theMidwestern United States is treated with one of these two insecticides (and various fungicides). Most soybean seeds are treated with a neonicotinoid insecticide, usually thiamethoxam.

Regulation:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

United States:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

The US EPA operates a 15-year registration review cycle for all pesticides.^[10] The EPA granted a conditional registration to clothianidin in 2003.^[11] The EPA issues conditional registrations when a pesticide meets the standard for registration, but there are outstanding data requirements.^[12] Thiamethoxam is approved for use as an antimicrobial pesticide wood preservative and as an agricultural pesticide; it was first approved in 1999.^[13]:4 ^&^ ^14 Imidacloprid was registered in 1994.^[14]

As all neonicotinoids were registered after 1984, they were not subject to reregistration, but due to environmental concerns, especially concerning bees, the EPA opened dockets to evaluate them.^[15] The registration review docket for imidacloprid opened in December 2008, and the docket for nithiazine opened in March 2009. To best take advantage of new research as it becomes available, the EPA moved ahead the docket openings for the remaining neonicotinoids on the registration review schedule (acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam) to FY 2012.^[15] The EPA has said that it expects to complete the review for the neonicotinoids in 2018.^[16]

In March 2012, the Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network, Beyond Pesticides and a group of beekeepers filed an Emergency Petition with the EPA asking the agency to suspend the use of clothianidin. The agency denied the petition.^[16] In March 2013, the US EPA was sued by the same group, with the Sierra Club and the Center for Environmental Health joining, which accused the agency of performing inadequate toxicity evaluations and allowing insecticide registration based on inadequate studies.^[16][17] The case, Ellis et al v. Bradbury et al, was stayed as of October 2013.^[18]

On July 12, 2013, Rep. John Conyers, on behalf of himself and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, introduced the "Save American Pollinators Act" in the House of Representatives. The Act called for suspension of the use of four neonicotinoids, including the three recently suspended by the European Union, until their review is complete, and for a joint Interior Department and EPA study of bee populations and the possible reasons for their decline.^[19] The bill was assigned to a congressional committee on July 16, 2013 and did not leave committee.^[20]

Europe:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In 2008, Germany revoked the registration of clothianidin for use on seed corn after an incident that resulted in the death of millions of nearby honey bees.^[21] An investigation revealed that it was caused by a combination of factors:

failure to use a polymer seed coating known as a "sticker";
weather conditions that resulted in late planting when nearby canola crops were in bloom;
a particular type of air-driven equipment used to sow the seeds which apparently blew clothianidin-laden dust off the seeds and into the air as the seeds were ejected from the machine into the ground;
dry and windy conditions at the time of planting that blew the dust into the nearby canola fields where honey bees were foraging;^[22]

In Germany, clothianidin was also restricted for a short period from use on rapeseed; however, after evidence had shown that the problems resulting from maize seed were not transferable to rapeseed, its use was reinstated under the condition that the pesticide be fixed to the rapeseed grains by means of an additional sticker, so that abrasion dusts would not be released into the air.^[23][24]

In 2009, the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety decided to continue to suspend authorization for the use of clothianidin on corn. It had not yet been fully clarified to what extent and in what manner bees come into contact with the active substances in clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid when used on corn. In addition, the question of whether liquid emitted by plants via guttation, which is taken in by bees, pose an additional risk.^[25]

Neonicotinoid seed treatment uses are banned in Italy, but foliar uses are allowed. This action was taken based on preliminary monitoring studies showing that bee losses were correlated with the application of seeds treated with these compounds; Italy based its decision on the known acute toxicity of these compounds to pollinators.^[26][27]

Sunflower and corn seed treatments of the active ingredient imidacloprid are suspended in France; other imidacloprid seed treatments, such as for sugar beets and cereals, are allowed, as are foliar uses.^[26]

In response to growing concerns about the impact of neonicotinoids on honey bees, the European Commission in 2012 asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to study the safety of three neonicotinoids. The study was published in January 2013, which stated in January 2013 that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied may be flawed and contain data gaps not previously considered. Their review concluded, "A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. A high acute risk was also identified from exposure via residues in nectar and/or pollen."^[28][29] EFSA reached the following conclusions:^[30][31]

Exposure from pollen and nectar. Only uses on crops not attractive to honey bees were considered acceptable.
Exposure from dust. A risk to honey bees was indicated or could not be excluded, with some exceptions, such as use on sugar beet and crops planted in glasshouses, and for the use of some granules.
Exposure from guttation. The only completed assessment was for maize treated with thiamethoxam. In this case, field studies showed an acute effect on honey bees exposed to the substance through guttation fluid.

EFSA’s scientists were unable to finalize risk assessments for some uses authorized in the EU, and identified a number of data gaps. EFSA also highlighted that risk to other pollinators should be further considered. The UK Parliament asked manufacturer Bayer Cropscience to explain discrepancies in evidence that they submitted to an investigation.^[32]

In response to the study, the European Commission recommended a restriction of their use across the European Union.^[6]

On 29 April 2013, 15 of the 27 European Union member states voted to restrict the use of three neonicotinoids for two years from 1 December 2013. Eight nations voted against the ban, while four abstained. The law restricts the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam for seed treatment, soil application (granules) and foliar treatment in crops attractive to bees.^[5][6] Temporary suspensions had previously been enacted in France, Germany and Italy.^[33] In Switzerland, where neonicotinoids were never used in alpine areas, neonics were banned due to accidental poisonings of bee populations and the relatively low safety margin for other beneficial insects.^[34]

Environmentalists called the move "a significant victory for common sense and our beleaguered bee populations" and said it is "crystal clear that there is overwhelming scientific, political and public support for a ban."^[6] The United Kingdom, which voted against the bill, disagreed: "Having a healthy bee population is a top priority for us, but we did not support the proposal for a ban because our scientific evidence doesn’t support it."^[6] Bayer Cropscience, which makes two of the three banned products, remarked "Bayer remains convinced neonicotinoids are safe for bees, when used responsibly and properly ... clear scientific evidence has taken a back-seat in the decision-making process."^[33] Reaction in the scientific community was mixed. Biochemist Lin Field said the decision was based on "political lobbying" and could lead to the overlooking of other factors involved in colony collapse disorder. Zoologist Lynn Dicks of Cambridge University disagreed, saying "This is a victory for the precautionary principle, which is supposed to underlie environmental regulation."^[6] A bee expert called the ban "excellent news for pollinators", and said, "The weight of evidence from researchers clearly points to the need to have a phased ban of neonicotinoids."^[33]

Economic impact:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In January 2013, the Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture e. V. (HFFA), a non-profit think tank, published a report on the value of neonicotinoids in the EU. At their website HFFA lists as their partners/supporters:BASE FE, the world's largest chemical company; Bayer CropScience, makers of products for crop protection and nonagricultural pest control; E.ON, an electric utility service provider; KWS Seed, a seed producer; and the food company Nestle. ^[35]

The study was supported by COPA-COGECA, the European Seed Association and the European Crop Protection Association, and financed by neonicotinoid manufacturers Bayer CropScience and Syngenta. The report looked at the short- and medium-term impacts of a complete ban of all neonicotinoids on agricultural and total value added (VA) and employment, global prices, land use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the first year, agricultural and total VA would decline by €2.8 and €3.8 billion, respectively. The greatest losses would be in wheat, maize and rapeseed in the UK, Germany, Romania and France. 22,000 jobs would be lost, primarily in Romania and Poland, and agricultural incomes would go down by 4.7%. In the medium-term (5-year ban), losses would amount to €17 billion in VA, and 27,000 jobs. The greatest income losses would affect the UK, while most jobs losses would occur in Romania. Following a ban, the lowered production would induce more imports of agricultural commodities into the EU. Agricultural production outside the EU would expand by 3.3 million hectares, leading to additional emissions of 600 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.^[36]

When the report was released, a spokesperson for the Soil Association, which has been working to ban neonicotinoids in the UK, commented that since the report was funded by Bayer Crop Sciences and Syngenta, "it was probably unlikely to conclude that neonicotinoids should be banned". The spokesperson further stated: "On the one hand, the chemical companies say we risk the additional costs to farmers amounting to £630 million. On the other, the possible cost of losing pollinating insects is thought to be worth three times as much (£1.8 billion*) to UK farmers."^[37]

Usage:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Imidacloprid is effective against sucking insects, some chewing insects, soil insects and is also used to control fleas on domestic animals.^[38] It is possibly the most widely used insecticide, both within the neonics and in the worldwide market. It is now applied against soil, seed, timber and animal pests as well as foliar treatments for crops including: cereals, cotton, grain, legumes, potatoes,^[39] pome fruits, rice, turf and vegetables. It is systemic with particular efficacy against sucking insects and has a long residual activity. Imidacloprid can be added to the water used to irrigate plants. Controlled release formulations of imidacloprid take 2–10 days to release 50% of imidacloprid in water.^[40]

The application rates for neonicotinoid insecticides are much lower than older, traditionally used insecticides.^[citation ^needed]

Mode of action:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Neonicotinoids, like nicotine, bind to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of a cell and trigger a response by that cell. In mammals, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are located in cells of both the central and peripheral nervous systems. In insects these receptors are limited to the CNS.

While low to moderate activation of these receptors causes nervous stimulation, high levels overstimulate and block the receptors,^[3][38] causing paralysis and death. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are activated by the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Acetylcholine is broken down by acetylcholinesterase to terminate signals from these receptors. However, acetylcholinesterase cannot break down neonicotinoids and the binding is irreversible.^[38] Because most neonicotinoids bind much more strongly to insect neuron receptors than to mammal neuron receptors, these insecticides are selectively more toxic to insects than mammals.^[41]

Basis of selectivity:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

R-nicotine (top) and desnitro-imidacloprid are both protonated in the body

Most neonicotinoids, such as imidacloprid, show low affinity for mammalian nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) while exhibiting high affinity for insect nAChRs.^[3][42]Mammals and insects have structural differences in nAChRs that affect how strongly particular molecules bind, both in the composition of the receptor subunits and the structuresof the receptors themselves.^[41][42] The low mammalian toxicity of imidacloprid can be explained in large part by its lack of a charged nitrogen atom at physiological pH. The uncharged molecule can penetrate the insect blood–brain barrier, while the human blood–brain barrier filters it.^[3]

Nicotine, like the natural ligand acetylcholine, has a positively charged nitrogen (N) atom at physiological pH.^[3][41] This positive charge gives nicotine a strong affinity to mammalian nAChRs as it binds to the same negatively charged site as acetylcholine (which is positively charged like nicotine. Although the blood–brain barrier reduces access of ions to thecentral nervous system, nicotine is highly lipophilic and at physiological pH is quickly and widely distributed. This can be demonstrated by the fact that nicotine is well absorbedtransdermally, one of the most difficult tissues to penetrate. Neonicotinoids, on the other hand, have a negatively charged nitro or cyano group, which interacts with a unique, positively charged amino acid residue present on insect, but not mammalian nAChRs.^[43]

However, desnitro-imidacloprid, which is formed in a mammal's body during metabolism^[41] as well as in environmental breakdown,^[44] has a charged nitrogen and shows high affinity to mammalian nAChRs.^[41] Desnitro-imidacloprid is quite toxic to mice.^[2]

Independent studies show that the photodegradation half-life time of most neonicotinoids is around 34 days when exposed to sunlight. However, it might take up to 1,386 days (3.8 years) for these compounds to degrade in the absence of sunlight and micro-organism activity. Some researchers are concerned that neonicotinoids applied agriculturally might accumulate in aquifers.^[45]

Environmental impacts:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Links to decline in bee population:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

A reduction of wild bee populations in addition to a dramatic rise in the number of annual beehive losses noticed around 2006 spurred interest in factors potentially affecting bee health.^{[46][47][citation} ^needed] When first introduced, neonicotinoids were thought to have low-toxicity to many insects, but recent research has suggested a potential toxicity to honey bees and other beneficial insects even with low levels of contact. Neonicotinoids may impact bees’ ability to forage, learn and remember navigation routes to and from food sources.^[48] Separate from lethal and sublethal effects solely due to neonicotinoid exposure, neonicotinoids are also being explored with a combination with other factors, such as mites and pathogens, as potential causes of colony collapse disorder.^[49] Neonicotinoids may be responsible for detrimental effects on bumble bee colony growth and queen production.^[50]

Neonicotinoids also have previously undetected routes of exposure affecting bees including through dust, pollen and nectar^[51] and that sub-nanogram toxicity can result in failure to return to the hive without immediate lethality,^[52] one primary symptom of colony collapse disorder.^[53] Separate research showed environmental persistence in agricultural irrigation channels and soil.^[54]

A 2012 study showed the presence of two neonicotinoid insecticides, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, in bees found dead in and around hives situated near agricultural fields. Other bees at the hives exhibited tremors, uncoordinated movement and convulsions, all signs of insecticide poisoning. The insecticides were also consistently found at low levels in soil up to two years after treated seed was planted and on nearby dandelion flowers and in corn pollen gathered by the bees. Insecticide-treated seeds are covered with a sticky substance to control its release into the environment, however they are then coated with talc to facilitate machine planting. This talc may be released into the environment in large amounts. The study found that the exhausted talc showed up to about 700,000 times the lethal insecticide dose for a bee. Exhausted talc containing the insecticides is concentrated enough that even small amounts on flowering plants can kill foragers or be transported to the hive in contaminated pollen. Tests also showed that the corn pollen that bees were bringing back to hives tested positive for neonicotinoids at levels roughly below 100 parts per billion, an amount not acutely toxic, but enough to kill bees if sufficient amounts are consumed.^[55]

A 2013 peer reviewed literature review concluded that neonicotinoids in the amounts that they are typically used harm bees and that safer alternatives are urgently needed.^[56] An October 2013 study by Italian researchers demonstrated that neonicotinoids disrupt the innate immune systems of bees, making them susceptible to viral infections to which the bees are normally resistant.^[57][58]

Other impacts:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.^[59]

A 2013 Dutch study determined that water containing allowable concentrations of neonicotinoids had 50% fewer invertebrate species compared with uncontaminated water.^[60]

In the July 2014 issue of the journal *Nature*, a study based on an observed correlation between declines in some bird populations and the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the Netherlands demonstrated that the level of neonicotinoids detected in environmental samples correlated strongly with the decline in populations of insect-eating birds.^[61] An editorial published in the same edition^[62] found the possible link between neonicotinoid pesticide use and a decline in bird numbers "worrying," pointing out that the persistence of the compounds (half-life of 1000 days) and the low direct toxicity to birds themselves implies that the depletion of the birds' food source (insects) is likely responsible for the decline and that the compounds are distributed widely in the environment. The editors write that while correlation is not the same as causation, "the authors of the study also rule out confounding effects from other land-use changes or pre-existing trends in bird declines".

References:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Kollmeyer1999_1-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Kollmeyer1999_1-2) Kollmeyer, Willy D.; Flattum, Roger F.; Foster, James P.; Powell, James E.; Schroeder, Mark E.; Soloway, S. Barney (1999). "Discovery of the Nitromethylene Heterocycle Insecticides". In Yamamoto, Izuru; Casida, John. Nicotinoid Insecticides and the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. pp. 71–89.ISBN 443170213X.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Chao1997_2-1) Lee Chao, S.; Casida, J. E. (1997). "Interaction of Imidacloprid Metabolites and Analogs with the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor of Mouse Brain in Relation to Toxicity". Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 58: 77. doi:10.1006/pest.1997.2284. edit
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Yamamoto1999_3-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Yamamoto1999_3-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Yamamoto1999_3-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Yamamoto1999_3-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Yamamoto1999_3-5) Yamamoto, Izuru (1999). "Nicotine to Nicotinoids: 1962 to 1997". In Yamamoto, Izuru; Casida, John. Nicotinoid Insecticides and the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. pp. 3–27. ISBN 443170213X.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Cressey, D. (2013). "Europe debates risk to bees". Nature 496(7446): 408. doi:10.1038/496408a. PMID 23619669. edit

Gill, R. J.; Ramos-Rodriguez, O.; Raine, N. E. (2012). "Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees". Nature 491 (7422): 105–108. doi:10.1038/nature11585.PMC 3495159. PMID 23086150. edit

Dicks, L. (2013). "Bees, lies and evidence-based policy". Nature 494(7437): 283. doi:10.1038/494283a. PMID 23426287. edit

Stoddart, C. (2012). "The buzz about pesticides". Nature.doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11626. edit

Osborne, J. L. (2012). "Ecology: Bumblebees and pesticides". Nature491 (7422): 43–45. doi:10.1038/nature11637. PMID 23086148.edit

Cressey, D. (2013). "Reports spark row over bee-bothering insecticides". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12234. edit

"Nature Studies by Michael McCarthy: Have we learned nothing since 'Silent Spring'?" The Independent 7 January 2011

"Do people know perfectly well what’s killing bees?" IO9.com 6 January 2011

^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-ECbees_5-1) Bees & Pesticides: Commission goes ahead with plan to better protect bees. 30 May 2013.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-victory_6-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-victory_6-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-victory_6-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-victory_6-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-victory_6-5) Charlotte McDonald-Gibson (29 April 2013). ":{'}:Victory for bees' as European Union bans neonicotinoid pesticides blamed for destroying bee population". The Independent. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Jeschke_JAFC_7-1) Peter Jeschke, Ralf Nauen, Michael Schindler, Alfred Elbert, 2011. Overview of the Status and Global Strategy for Neonicotinoids. Journals of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 59: 2897-2908.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Ujvary_8-1) Ujváry, István (1999). "Nicotine and Other Insecticidal Alkaloids". In Yamamoto, Izuru; Casida, John. Nicotinoid Insecticides and the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. pp. 29–69.ISBN 443170213X.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Schroeder1984_9-1) Schroeder, M. E.; Flattum, R. F. (1984). "The mode of action and neurotoxic properties of the nitromethylene heterocycle insecticides". Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 22 (2): 148.doi:10.1016/0048-3575(84)90084-1. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ EPA Registration Review Process Last updated on April 17, 2014. Page accessed June 7, 2014
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ EPAhttp://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-044309_30-May-03.pdf Pesticide Fact Sheet: Clothianidin] Conditional Registration, Issued May 30, 2003
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ EPA Conditional Pesticide Registration Last updated on April 17, 2014. Page accessed June 7, 2014
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ EPA Dec 21, 2011 Thiamethoxam Summary Document Registration Review Initial Docket Entire docket is available here
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ EPA Dec 17, 2008 Imidacloprid Summary Document. Entire docket is available here
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-EPAgroupNic_15-1) EPA Groups of Pesticides in Registration Review: Neonicotinoids Last updated on April 17, 2014. Page accessed June 7, 2014
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-LitigPressRel_16-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-LitigPressRel_16-2) Press release: Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides. March 21, 2013 Beekeepers and Public Interest Groups Sue EPA Over Bee-Toxic Pesticides
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Carrington, Damian (22 March 2013). "US government sued over use of pesticides linked to bee harm". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Justia Dockets & Filings. Ellis et al v. Bradbury et al Page accessed June 7, 2014
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Legislation to restrict pesticide use proposed by Rep. Blumenauer". The Oregonian at 'OregonLive'. July 12, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Govtrack.us H.R. 2692: Saving America’s Pollinators Act of 2013Accessed June 7, 2014
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Benjamin, Alison (23 May 2008). "Pesticides: Germany bans chemicals linked to honeybee devastation". The Guardian.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "EPA Acts to Protect Bees | Pesticides | US EPA". Epa.gov. Retrieved 2011-10-11.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Press releases and background information – Background information: Bee losses caused by insecticidal seed treatment in Germany in 2008". BVL. Retrieved 2011-10-11.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Background information: Bee losses caused by insecticidal seed treatment in Germany in 2008". German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). 2008-07-15.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Maize seed may now be treated with "Mesurol flüssig" again". German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). 2002-02-09.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-epa_a_26-1) "Colony Collapse Disorder: European Bans on Neonicotinoid Pesticides | Pesticides | US EPA". Epa.gov. Retrieved 2011-10-11.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Brandon Keim (Dec 13, 2010). "Leaked Memo Shows EPA Doubts About Bee-Killing Pesticide". Wired.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ European Food Safety Authority (16 January 2013) "Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance clothianidin" EFSA Journal 11(1):3066.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ European Food Safety Authority (2012) "Assessment of the scientific information from the Italian project 'APENET' investigating effects on honeybees of coated maize seeds with some neonicotinoids and fipronil" EFSA Journal 10(6):2792
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ EFSA: EFSA identifies risks to bees from neonicotinoids. 16 January 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ European Food Safety Authority (16 January 2013) "Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance clothianidin" EFSA Journal 11(1):3066.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Damian Carrington (16 January 2013) "Insecticide 'unacceptable' danger to bees, report finds" The Guardian
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-harming_33-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-harming_33-2) Damian Carrington (29 April 2013). "Bee-harming pesticides banned in Europe". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ S. Kusma (May 2013). "Was soll die Einschränkung der Neonicotinoide bringen?" (in German). Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.hffa.info/index.php/about-us/supporterspartners.html
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Steffen Noleppa, Thomas Hahn: The value of Neonicotinoid seed treatment in the European Union: A socio-economic, technological and environmental review. Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture (HFFA), 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.sacert.org/news/newsandfeatures/articleid/4826/soil-association-comment-the-humboldt-forum-for-food-and-agriculture-report
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-NPIC-imi_38-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-NPIC-imi_38-2) Gervais, J.A.; Luukinen, B.; Buhl, K.; Stone, D. (April 2010)."Imidacloprid Technical Fact Sheet". National Pesticide Information Center. Retrieved 12 April 2012.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Potato insecticides by group and mode of action (PDF)
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Adak, T.; Kumar, J.; Shakil, N. A.; Walia, S. (2012). "Development of controlled release formulations of imidacloprid employing novel nano-ranged amphiphilic polymers". Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B 47 (3): 217.doi:10.1080/03601234.2012.634365. edit
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Tomizawa2004_41-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Tomizawa2004_41-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Tomizawa2004_41-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Tomizawa2004_41-4) Tomizawa, M. (2004). "Neonicotinoids and Derivatives: Effects in Mammalian Cells and Mice". Journal of Pesticide Science29 (3): 177–172. doi:10.1584/jpestics.29.177. edit
^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#cite_ref-Tomizawa1999_42-1) Tomizawa, Motohiro; Latli, Bachir; Casida, John E. (1999). "Structure and Function of Insect Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Studied with Nicotinic Insecticide Affinity Probes". In Yamamoto, Izuru; Casida, John. Nicotinoid Insecticides and the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. pp. 271–292.ISBN 443170213X.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Tomizawa, M.; Casida, J. E. (2003). "Selectivetoxicity Ofneonicotinoidsattributable Tospecificity Ofinsect Andmammaliannicotinicreceptors". Annual Review of Entomology 48: 339. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.48.091801.112731. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Koshlukova, Svetlana (9 February 2006). "Imidacloprid: Risk Characterization Document: Dietary and Drinking Water Exposure". California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Interview with microbiologist: "This place is filled with multinational lobbyists:{"}:". Delo.si. 2011-05-14. Retrieved 2011-10-11.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Copping, Jasper (April 1, 2007). "Flowers and fruit crops facing disaster as disease kills off bees". The Telegraph.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Vanengelsdorp, D.; Evans, J.; Saegerman, C.; Mullin, C.; Haubruge, E.; Nguyen, B.; Frazier, M.; Frazier, J.; Cox-Foster, D.; Chen, Y.; Underwood, R.; Tarpy, D. R.; Pettis, J. S. (2009). "Colony collapse disorder: a descriptive study". In Brown, Justin. PLoS ONE 4 (8): e6481. Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.6481V.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006481. PMC 2715894.PMID 19649264. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ What is a neonicotinoid? | Insects in the City. Citybugs.tamu.edu. Retrieved on 2013-05-02.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ USDA (October 17, 2012). Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee (Report). Retrieved June 4, 2014.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Whitehorn, P. R.; O'Connor, S.; Wackers, F. L.; Goulson, D. (2012). "Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production". Science 336 (6079): 351–352.doi:10.1126/science.1215025. PMID 22461500. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Tapparo, A.; Marton, D.; Giorio, C.; Zanella, A.; Soldà, L.; Marzaro, M.; Vivan, L.; Girolami, V. (2012). "Assessment of the Environmental Exposure of Honeybees to Particulate Matter Containing Neonicotinoid Insecticides Coming from Corn Coated Seeds".Environmental Science & Technology 46 (5): 2592–9.doi:10.1021/es2035152. PMID 22292570. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Schneider, C. W.; Tautz, J. R.; Grünewald, B.; Fuchs, S. (2012)."RFID Tracking of Sublethal Effects of Two Neonicotinoid Insecticides on the Foraging Behavior of Apis mellifera". In Chaline, Nicolas.PLoS ONE 7 (1): e30023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030023.PMC 3256199. PMID 22253863. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Pettis, J. S.; Vanengelsdorp, D.; Johnson, J.; Dively, G. (2012)."Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema". Naturwissenschaften 99 (2): 153–158.Bibcode:2012NW.....99..153P. doi:10.1007/s00114-011-0881-1.PMC 3264871. PMID 22246149. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Krupke, C. H.; Hunt, G. J.; Eitzer, B. D.; Andino, G.; Given, K. (2012). "Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields". In Smagghe, Guy. PLoS ONE 7 (1): e29268. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029268. PMC 3250423.PMID 22235278. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Purdue Newsroom – Researchers: Honeybee deaths linked to seed insecticide exposure. Purdue.edu (2012-01-11). Retrieved on 2013-05-02.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ van der Sluijs, Jeroen P; et al. (September 2013). "Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services". Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5 (3–4).doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.007. Retrieved 6 July 2014.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Di Prisco, G.; Cavaliere, V.; Annoscia, D.; Varricchio, P.; Caprio, E.; Nazzi, F.; Gargiulo, G.; Pennacchio, F. (2013). "Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1314923110. edit
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Timmer, John (21 October 2013). "An insecticide-infection connection in bee colony collapses". Ars Technica. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Pierre Mineau; Cynthia Palmer (March 2013). "The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds". Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds. American Bird Conservancy. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Study links insecticide use to invertebrate die-offs". www.guardian.com. 2013-05-01. Retrieved 2013-09-03.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Caspar A. Hallmann; Ruud P. B. Foppen, Chris A. M. van Turnhout, Hans de Kroon, Eelke Jongejans (9 July 2014). "Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations". Nature. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ editorial (July 2014). "Be concerned". Nature 511 (7508).

talk:

Further discussion regarding Bayer corporate behavior:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Was: How should Bayer's efforts to pay for silence be characterized?

Bayer has a long and well-documented history of unrepentant, blatant, and persistent attempts at graft by subversion of the scientific publishing process in order to defend their product marketing mythologies. Is this because the lawyers at Bayer started to outnumber the engineers? Which sources best document the pertinent events, and where are they best summarized? Has any study of Bayer's corporate behavior been undertaken? EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The companies appear to be pushing WP:FRINGE theories. Ironically, the fake skeptics here are telling us that we should get on board with their FRINGE theories because a paper from 1990 implicates Varroa destructor not neonicotinoids, or that "pesticides play a negligible role in the decline in bee health". Let's all get on board the FRINGE train that we're told we must ride, or else. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)umm as per our discussion above about commenting on content not contributors... "fake skeptics". You can be a valuable contributor but you let your emotions get the best of you. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Umm right back at you. I've used the term "fake skepticism" and "fake skeptics" to refer to denialism and denialist arguments specifically, not any particular contributor. Please stop making distracting accusations and stick to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)"fake skeptics here" is quite clearly commenting on contributors. But as you will. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see http://britishbeekeeping.com/ for the most recent details and some background information. EllenCT (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, any company that destroys the planet, breaks laws and puts money first is going to have a damage control team. If they didn't they'd have no money. Consumers actually do value the security of a stable ecosystem and government. It's up to these teams to convince them otherwise (or at least deny the company is part of the problem, or that the problem exists). They play a vital role in maintaining a lush and resourceful financial umbrella, but their deeds naturally go unthanked when they're doing their job properly. Suppresion of information is inherently a hard thing to source.If and when you do find stuff, try to keep the ubiquity of this shit (and WP:NPOV) in mind, and not unduly frame Bayer as exceptionally disreputable/evil/whatever by it. I'm going to miss bees as much as the next guy, but there are many factors (and factories) in play on that field. Not trying to be apologetic, just hoping everyone keeps a level head. There is no good and evil on Wikipedia. Except there. InedibleHulk (talk)04:45, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘- Sorry to interrupt here, but could someone fill me in on what the controversy is here? Is there reliable source I could turn to for some background? NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Away up above, an editor mentioned a source as an example of a recent review. EllenCT noted that said source was funded by Bayer and ever since has been talking about how the source runs afoul of WP:COIand WP:ADVOCACY; and she has continued stating throughout this Talk page and elsewhere, things about Bayer and the source along the lines of her statement that opens this section. None of it makes much sense to me (I have told her several times that editors can have a COI and an editor's behavior can demonstrate Advocacy, and that sources can run afoul of WP:INDY or not, but COI/Advocacy have nothing to say with whether sources or reliable/usable or not) but she keeps right on. Also she hasn't brought any sources for the claims about Bayer... and indeed this section seems to be a request for other people to bring sources about Bayer. The sideline thing between Viriditas and me is separate from EllenCT's issues. Confusing, I know. Hope that is helpful to explain the above,at least from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)I haven't "brought" any sources? Do you consider [37], [38], and [39] reliable? You have yet to answer yes or no as to whether you agree with my proposed summary of the MEDRS-grade source.EllenCT (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)I don't believe the open letter is a reliable source. The Independent is reliable, and also says that the Executive Committee didn't concur with the accusations of the open letter, and doesn't go anywhere near scientific publishing, nor is it a study of "Bayer's corporate behavior". I replied to your proposal. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)And the other two? EllenCT (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)In my view they are both WP:SPS so not reliable. Addtionally, your #38 doesn't criticize Bayer or discuss "astroturfing" or the like; it describes where the endorsements are found, what instructions were given, whether those are good instructions, and whether those instructions are followed and whether following of them is audited. (as an aside, with respect to your larger point about the relationship of neonics to CCD, it says "This report should not be taken as evidence that insecticide poisoning of bees is a major cause of colony loss.") Your #39 is focused on internal governance matters of BBKA and is not about Bayer's activities. So I don't see what either of them has to do with the subject of this section. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)And further, I don't see how this has anything to do with the content of this article, so I don't plan to discuss further as per WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘neglected to mention that the bayer pesticide that is mentioned in the Independent article is Decis, aka deltamethrin. not a neonic. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the title, again, per WP:NPOVN. Although I'm involved with the person who created it, in that she has added clearly irrelevant material to a number of economics articles, it would be inappropriate for me to issue an official warning. Still, there is no doubt that the title could be considered libelous, and little doubt it has nothing to do with potential content of this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

bs driessen (various places pub eg cfact:

April 6, 2014 by Paul Driessen, Comments are off

:{:{

244

}:}:EmailShare

One of America’s earliest food crops –almonds– is also one of the most important for commercial beekeepers. Almonds depend on bees for pollination, but the explosive growth of this bumper crop taxes the very honeybees the industry needs to thrive.

California’s Central Valley produces over 80% of the world’s almonds, valued at over $4 billion in 2012. The boom is poised to continue, with new food products and expanding overseas markets increasing demand to the point that no young almond trees are available for purchase until 2016.

Demand for almonds translates into demand for pollination. So every year commercial beekeepers transport some 60% of all U.S. honeybees to California’s almond groves in February and March, when it’s still winter in most other states. It’s one of their biggest challenges.

For one thing, bee colonies, especially those from northern states, lack sufficient time to emerge from their heat-conserving winter clusters. Some beekeepers thus maintain 20,000 to 30,000 hives. Each one requires careful inspection for diseases and parasites – a meticulous, Herculean task on such a scale.

Complicating the situation, beekeepers are trying to work within a large-scale agricultural system, using an insect whose husbandry practices have changed little since the nineteenth century. The larger the commercial beekeeper’s stock, the harder it can be to tend them and recover from financial setbacks in the form of lost bees.

Almond growers will need 1.5 million hives this year, estimates Colorado beekeeper Lyle Johnston. “It takes almost all the commercial bees in the United States,” to pollinate the almond crop, he says. The payoff can amount to half an individual keeper’s yearly profit.

However, bees can come back from California “loaded with mites and every other disease you can think of,” beekeeper Ed Colby explains. That can often mean bee colony deaths. Last year, U.S. beekeepers experienced an average 30% overwinter bee loss; some lost 10% to 15% of their hives, while others lost much more. It’s a normal cost of doing business, but it can be painful.

Last year’s rate was higher than normal, and higher than any keeper would want. But it was not the “bee-pocalypse” that some news stories claimed. The real story is that efforts to identify a single unifying cause for higher-than-usual losses have failed. Scientists are discovering that multiple issues affect bee health.

Urban, suburban, and agricultural “development has reduced natural habitats, clearing out thousands of acres of clover and natural flowers,” a 60 Minutes investigative report observed. “Instead, bees are spending week after week on the road, feeding on a single crop, undernourished and overworked.”

The migration itself is stressful, notes Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Post-Independent reporter Marilyn Gleason. “First, there’s the road trip, which isn’t exactly natural for bees, and may include freezing cold or scorching heat. Bees ship out of Colorado before the coldest weather, and drivers may drench hot, thirsty bees with water at the truck wash.”

The convergence in almond groves of so many commercial bees from all over the country creates a hotbed of viruses and pathogens that can spread to many hives. The varroa destructor mite carries at least 19 different bee viruses and diseases, causing major impacts on bee colonies. Parasitic phorid flies are another problem, and highly contagious infections also pose significant threats. The intestinal fungus nosema ceranae, for example, prevents bees from absorbing nutrition, resulting in starvation.

The tobacco ringspot virus was likewise linked recently to the highly publicized problem known as “colony collapse disorder.” CCD occurs when bees in a colony disappear, leaving behind only a queen and a few workers. The term originally lumped together a variety of such “disappearing” disorders recorded in different locales across hundreds of years, as far back as 950 AD in Ireland. Thankfully, as during past episodes, these unexplained incidents have declined in recent years and, despite all these challenges, overall U.S. honeybee populations and the number of managed colonies have held steady for nearly 20 years.

These days, perhaps the biggest existential threat to bees is campaigns purporting to save them. Extreme-green groups like the Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action Network of North America are blaming an innovative new class of pesticides called neonicotinoids for both over-winter bee losses and CCD.

Allied with several outspoken beekeepers, the activists are pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and government regulatory agencies to follow Europe’s lead – and ban neonics. Instead of protecting bees and beekeepers, however, their campaigns will likely cause greater harm – because they ignore the multiple threats that scientists have identified, and because a neonic ban will result in farmers using pesticides that are more toxic to bees.

The European Union’s political decision to suspend neonic use came because France’s new agriculture minister banned their use. That meant French farmers would be at a distinct disadvantage against those of the rest of Europe, if they were the only ones unable to use the pesticide, noted British environmental commentator Richard North. They could lose $278 million per season in lost yields and extra pesticide spraying.

So the French agricultural ministry sought an EU-wide ban on all neonicotinoids. After several votes and a misleading report on the science, the European Commission imposed a ban, over the objections of many other EU members, who note that the evidence clearly demonstrates the new pesticides are safe for bees.

Years-long field tests have found that real-world exposures have no observable effects on bee colonies. Other studies have highlighted other significant insect, fungal, human, and other issues that, singly or collectively, could explain CCD. Having analyzed scores of 2007-2012 bee death incidents, Canadian bee experts concluded that “…very few of the serious bee kills involve neonicotinoid pesticides. Five times as many ‘major’ or ‘moderate’ pesticide-related bee kills were sourced to non-neonic chemicals.”

In Canada’s western provinces, almost 20 million acres of 100% neonic-treated canola is pollinated annually by honeybees and tiny alfalfa leaf-cutter bees. Both species thrive on the crop, demonstrating that neonics are not a problem. Large-scale field studies of honeybees at Canadian universities and a bumblebee field study by a U.K. government agency found no adverse effects on bees.

Last October, a team of industry scientists published a 4-year study of the effects of repeated honeybee exposure to neonic-treated corn and rapeseed (canola, see photo) pollen and nectar under field conditions in several French provinces. The study found similar mortality, foraging behavior, colony strength and weight, brood development, and food storage in colonies exposed to seed-treated crops and in unexposed control colonies. This also indicates low risk to bees.

At least two more major, recently completed university-run field research projects conducted under complex, costly scientific laboratory guidelines (“good lab practices”) are awaiting publication. All indications to date suggest that they too will find no observable adverse effects on bees at field-realistic exposures to neonicotinoids.

Meanwhile Project ApisM., a partnership of agro-businesses and beekeepers, has invested $2.5 million in research to enhance the health of honeybee colonies. Switzerland-based Syngenta has spent millions expanding bee habitats in Europe and North America, through Project Pollinator. Bayerhas built bee health centers in Europe and the United States, and Monsanto’s Beeologics subsidiary is developing technology to fight varroa mites.

None of that matters to the anti-pesticide activists. They are using pressure tactics to make Canada and the United States copy the EU. That would be a huge mistake. Science, not politics, should prevail.

See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/04/06/perils-of-commercial-beekeeping/#sthash.QXmcfiwi.dpuf

bs forbes "The Contrarian"

I cover science and public policy, environmental sustainability, media ideology, NGO advocacy and corporate responsibility. I'm a senior fellow at the Center for Risk & Health Communication and STATS (Statistical Assessment Service) at George Mason University, where I run the Genetic Literacy Project. I've edited/authored seven books on genetics, chemicals and risk assessment and my favorite, on why I never graduated from college football player to pro athlete: "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It". I'm also a public policy fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a long time columnist with British-based Ethical Corporation magazine. Previously, I was a producer and executive at ABC News and NBC News. Motto: Follow the facts, not the ideology. Play hard. Love dogs.

OPINION 2/05/2014 @ 1:30PM 132,363 views

Bee Deaths Reversal: As Evidence Points Away From Neonics As Driver, Pressure Builds To Rethink Ban

Comment Now

If the Environmental Protection Agency moves to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides because of fears that they are causing bee deaths, it will happen in spite of the mounting evidence rather than because of it.

[UPDATE NOTE: This story was revised on 8 February to reflect release of new data on neonics and bee health presented at a New Orleans entomology conference.]

Last December, the European Commission banned the use of neonicotinoids, often called neonics**,** for two years. The moratorium, support for which was channeledby the precautionary politics that now dominate science-based regulation in Europe, took effect just as numerous new studies–including one released this past week–shed increasing doubt on the belief that neonics play a central role in bee health.

Now the focus is on Canada. Farmers in the United States are worried about a domino effect if regulatory officials there buckle under pressure from anti-pesticide campaigners to ‘do something,’ which could result in copycat moratoriums.

The “crisis” prompting this hand-wringing is an age-old problem in the bee world: unpredictable bee deaths. They’ve occurred periodically for more than a century, but reemerged with a vengeance in 2004 in the California almond fields, where casualty rates briefly approached 60 percent. Beekeepers called it the ‘vampire mite scare’ because of its likely :{link to }::{varroa mites}:—parasites that feed on the bodily fluid of bees—and on miticides used to combat them.

In 2006, there were fresh reports of unexplained bee deaths in what was known as Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, in which all the worker bees from a colony abruptly disappeared without a trace—no dead bodies to be found. The cause of the mysterious surge is still unclear. But as the crisis receded, attention turned to a less dramatic but more long-term challenge to bee health—sometimes also referred to as CCD, although experts believe it is a different phenomenon with different causes: the increasing number of bees that fail to survive through the winter.

On average, about 10 to 15 percent of bees die each winter. In recent years, that percentage has spiked to as high as 35 percent. Highly charged words like “beepocalypse” or “beemageddon” began turning up everywhere on the Internet. As measured a reporter as Dan Charles at NPR characterized the bee deaths as “a crisis point for crops.” But what was causing the die-offs?

Like the fictional parents in the edgy comedy show South Park who blame Canada for all of their woes, activists often coalesce around an issue and then come up with a simple but sometimes simplistic narrative to frame it. Strident opponents of modern agricultural technology initially blamed GMOs for bee deaths, and some still make that claim, although there is zero evidence to back it up. When that didn’t get traction, the focus switched to neonics.

Even their sharpest critics acknowledge that the class of pesticides is extremely effective. Often applied only to the soil or used as a seed treatment, they were introduced in the late 1990s without incident as a less toxic replacement for the mass spraying of organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides, which are both known to kill bees and wildlife. Organophosphates in particular have been linked to health problems in workers. Despite their comparatively benign toxicological profile, however, neonics have emerged as Public Enemy Number 1 in the eyes of anti-pesticide campaigners.

“It’s time to ban dangerous neonicotinoid pesticides,” headlined Mother Earth News, after Europe imposed its two year moratorium.

“[A] growing body of evidence has pointed to a group of insecticides called neonicotinoids, widely used on corn, soy, and other US crops, as a possible cause [of bee deaths],” wrote Tom Philpott in Mother Jones.

“EPA should cancel all uses of neonics where they can lead to harm for bees and other beneficial insects,” wrote Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Are we facing a global bee crisis?

The intense rhetoric obscures two separate but intertwined questions. Are we facing a bee pollination crisis? And, what’s the cause of the recent spate of bee deaths? The answers should drive appropriate regulatory and scientific responses.

Close to one third of our food supply—blueberries and papaya, almonds and apples, and other fruits, vegetables, grains and nuts—is linked to pollination, and the honeybee is nature’s most celebrated pollinator. Though not all these foods are 100 percent dependent on honeybees and would not by any means disappear without them, without the bee our diet would be less nutritious and less tasty.

However, while bees face challenges, the numbers simply don’t support the “beepocalypse” narrative nor identify neonics as the driver of die-offs. AsScientific American’sFrancie Diep [ok] noted in a recent article sub-headlined “why colony collapse disorder is not that big a deal anymore,” North American honeybee colony numbers have been stable for years at about 2.5 million even as neonics usage became more widespread.

The US picture echoes global trends. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the number of beehives worldwide, after a plunge in the early 1990s, well before the introduction of neonics, has been rising steadily.

[chart LOMBORG] While honeybee-keepers have been able to replace most lost hives, there are concerns that future bees may not be able to sustain a high replacement rate. But this is a complicated issue. Bees, whose normal life span is measured in weeks, generally regenerate quickly; a whole hive can come up to full strength again in six weeks. Some beekeepers with no colony problems have been known to replace 100 percent of their bees in early spring.

However, if beehives are not given proper time to rejuvenate, major problems can occur. Every February, two out of every three hives in the US are shipped to California for the almond bloom, which puts enormous unnatural stress on colonies. There is often no time for hives to emerge from normal winter declines and rebuild to full strength.

What’s the role of neonics in bee health?

A split has developed in the research community as to the potential link of neonics to bee deaths. Just this past week, entomologists at a New Orleans conference released details from a soon-to-be published field study that concluded that neonics may not be as harmful to bees as portrayed in the media because they are not being expressed in plant pollen or the plant’s reproductive parts at levels that are high enough to hurt the bees.

“When we look at the literature and the Internet, what it says is that neonicotinoids applied as seed treatments are then taken up into the plant and expressed in the pollen and in the nectar,” said primary researcher Gus Lorenz, an extension entomologist with the University of Arkansas. “Well, that’s not so much what we found.”

The researchers evaluated treated corn, soybeans and cotton. When they tested soybean flowers and cotton nectar, they found no traces of neonics at all. They did find microscopic traces of neonics in corn at what the EPA and toxicologists say are insignificant impact levels, with the highest having a mean of 2.3 parts per billion. To put that into perspective, one part per billion equals one second in 32 years. “It’s not being expressed in the reproductive parts of the plants,” concluded Dr. Lorenz.

Yet those direct field observations conflict with some laboratory-based studies in leading journals and others in pay-to-play type publications in which bees treated in the lab with neonics are then released into the environment. In a French based study published in Science, a small percentage of free-ranging honeybees whose brains were doused with the neonic thiamethoxam got confused, failing to return to the hive. Another Science study, focusing on bumblebees, found those exposed to high doses of the neonic imidacloprid had reduced colony growth rates and produced significantly fewer queens to found new colonies. Just last month, research in the low-impact journal Excotoxicology concluded that bumblebees exposed to imidacloprid were somewhat worse at gathering pollen than untreated bees although the nectar foraging efficiency of treated bees was not significantly different than the controls. Last year, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released three studies, none conclusive, raising questions about the potential role of neonics in bee health.

While concerning, the way some of the research was conducted raises caution about how much weight to place on their findings independent of real world confirmation. For example, the French thiamethoxam study came under sharp criticism because bees do not encounter the chemical by having their brains directly exposed. Any pesticide, if misapplied to crops, could collaterally impact bee function; that’s one key reason why farmers, at the urging of scientists, phased out organophosphates. But that doesn’t answer the question driving the current regulation frenzy: Are neonicotinoids as they are used in the real world the driving force behind bee deaths?

The US Agriculture Department and the EPA convened a working group two years ago to address that very question. Theirreport, issued last May, put activists back on their heels. It concluded that neonics, while a contributor, were way down the list of possible causes. They cited as the primary drivers colony management, viruses, bacteria, poor nutrition, genetics and habitat loss. By far the biggest culprit—the report called it “the single most detrimental pest of honeybees”—was identified as the parasitic mite varroa destructor—the likely cause of the 2004 die-off.

The federal report echoed findings published last year by the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which evaluated the cause of bee deaths as the European Union was debating whether to institute a ban. DEFRA noted that the bees used in many of these lab experiments were exposed to doses hundreds of times higher than what they encounter in the wild, and they were often administered by injections.

“Laboratory-based studies demonstrating sub-lethal effects on bees from neonics did not replicate realistic conditions, but extreme scenarios,” the study concluded. “[E]ffects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances. Consequently… the risk to bee populations from neonicotinoids, as they are currently used, is low.”

DEFRA’s caution about basing regulations on preliminary data was underscored last fall with the release of the most comprehensive peer reviewed field study on thiamethoxam, published in Apidologie. It concluded: “[A]t realistic (mean) exposure rates…no adverse impacts on brood production [of bumblebees] were found.”

The conflicting data were not enough to slow the regulatory express in Europe. In voting for a moratorium, European Commission politicians ignored DEFRA’s analysis. It later emerged that EFSA appeared to have deliberately suppressed evidence of the relative safety of neonics after insider political lobbying by French officials. After the vote, Director-General of EFSA, Catherine Geslain-Lanéele resigned to take up a job at the French Ministry of Agriculture, which had lobbied for a ban over the objections of Britain, Germany and other countries.

Yet another study released just last month raises further doubts about the neonic-bee death connection. A joint report issued by scientists affiliated with USDA and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences concluded that honeybee deaths (and likely bumblebee deaths as well) stem from the tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), not from pesticides. It’s long been known that foraging bees pick up the virus; what’s new is that researchers discovered that the virus has evolved the ability to infect bees, and it now attacks their nervous systems. TRSV then spreads to other bees—a process known as “host shifting”—by the mites that feed on them.

In an unlikely embrace of nuance, Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott now grudgingly acknowledges that varroa mites could be the driver of bee deaths. “Disturbingly,” writes Philpott “in his review of the study, [the scientists] found that the virus also replicates in varroa mites, an established bee pest, and that the infected mites could help spread the virus.” This adds a new layer to the emerging consensus in the scientific community that the mites, in combination with other factors, are the central threat to bee health.

Canadian wild card?

But Canadian officials seem resistant to the emerging research trends. After the European Commission voted to ban neonics, anti-GMO, green and farm groups turned their focus on Canada, pressuring Ottawa to follow suit. The responsible agency, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), aware that the evidence fingering neonics was spotty, vacillated, issuing an ambiguous assessmentof reported bee deaths in Ontario and Quebec and a vague “notice of intent” order to regulate neonics, without providing details.

It’s not as if PMRA does not have comprehensive research on neonics to rely upon. If bee health problems were critical in Canada, they would certainly have surfaced in the country’s 19 million acres of canola farms, which are mostly in the west. Beekeepers who forage their bees in the canola fields, where neonics are used far more heavily than on Ontario and Quebec farms, say their hives are generally thriving. Apart from a single, ambiguous case, there have been no reports of bee kills attributable to neonics in all of western Canada in recent years.

PMRA could also have drawn upon previous studies, including three major field investigations on neonicotinoid pesticides in 2002, 2005 and 2012 by environmental biologist Cynthia Scott-Dupree of the University of Guelph and entomologist Chris Cutler of Dalhousie University. The researchers noted residues of neonics in ailing bee hives, but at levels hundreds of times lower than scientists believe would have any impact on bees. Their conclusion echoed recent findings by DEFRA, USDA and EPA: many factors contribute to bee deaths, but neonics in particular had “no effects” on their poor performance.

Scott-Dupree and Cutler’s field research is widely recognized as among the most robust in the world in evaluating real world impacts of these pesticides. But under pressure from the Sierra Club allied with organic-focused beekeepers, the Ontario provincial government ensured that the two experts with the most detailed research on the issue would not be invited to participate. Although excluded from the Ontario study group, Cutler, Scott-Dupree, and David Drexler, an agrology consultant, published an analysisof all bee-kill incidents reported in Canada from 2007-2012. Their key finding: “[V]ery few of the serious bee kills involve neonicotinoid pesticides. Five times as many ‘major’ and ‘moderate’ pesticide-related bee kills were sourced to other non-neonic chemicals.“

Let’s be clear: the Ontario group was mostly for show. The main ‘output’ for this initiative—apart from the politicians’ imperative of appearing to ‘do something’—has always been to ‘light a fire’ under PMRA to capitulate to the complaints of the Sierra Club and Ontario beekeepers.

What would happen if PMRA moved to heavily restrict neonics? The failure of the federal agency to do elementary cost-benefit analysis and its apparent inclination to downplay field evidence could set the wheels of unintended consequences spinning into motion.

In Europe, where the neonics moratorium just took effect, farmers have had no choice but to return to older and less effective pesticides: organophosphates and pyrethroids. The dangers of organophosphates, which are highly toxic to bees, are widely known. Now, just last month, a study of pyrethroids by the Royal Holloway University of London published in the Journal of Applied Ecology—the first to examine the impact of the pesticide across the entire lifecycle of bumblebees—found that its use impairs brood reproduction and stunts growth, which is disastrous for bee health.

“Our work provides a significant step forward in understanding the detrimental impact of pesticides other than neonicotinoids on wild bees,” said co-author Nigel Raine. The scientists expressed particular concern that patchwork bans and moratoriums could result in stressing bee colonies even more.

In reviewing the emerging evidence on challenges to bee health, University of Illinois entomologist May Berenbaum, chairwoman of a major National Academy of Sciences study on the loss of pollinators, said recently that she was “extremely dubious” that banning neonics would have any positive effect. The key challenges to bee health going forward, entomologists say, are colony management issues, the blood-sucking varroa mite, the miticides beekeepers themselves use to control varroa infestations and various viruses, like TRSV.

Viewed from afar, it appears PMRA is tottering on a dangerous political and scientific tightrope. In panic mode, the default of agencies under the microscope is often, “When in doubt, regulate.” If Canadian officials should capitulate to the ban pressure, the decision would not be based on science—the evidence is moving gradually but decisively away from neonics as a culprit for bee deaths. The question for Canada and ultimately for US regulators: Will they examine the evidence? Or will politics drive the science?

More on science literacy**at the Genetic Literacy Project**

Follow**@JonEntine**on Twitter

***Jon Entine***, executive director of the***Genetic Literacy Project***, is a senior fellow at the***Center for Health & Risk Communication***and***STATS***(Statistical Assessment Service) at George Mason University.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/11/science-collapse-disorder-the-real-story-behind-neonics-and-mass-bee-deaths/

OPINION 4/11/2013 @ 8:52PM 102,196 views

Science Collapse Disorder -- The Real Story Behind Neonics And Mass Bee Deaths

Colony Collapse Disorder—it sounds catastrophic and frightening. The Genetic Literacy Project’s Jon Entineseparates fact from fiction.

It’s estimated that over the past five years, some 30 percent of bees in the United States have either disappeared or failed to survive to pollinate blossoms in the spring. That’s about 50% more than the rate expected. The problem is direr in some other countries. InSpain, recent data indicate a loss close to 80% of beehives. On the other hand, in Canada and Australia, there is no sign of Colony Collapse Disorder.

What may be causing the die-offs and why the dramatic disparities from one region to another? Scientists have a number of hypotheses but the activist community has coalesced around one explanation: They blame it on neonicotinoids, also known as neonics, which are the widest used class of insecticide ever.

“It’s time to ban dangerous neonicotinoid pesticides,” declares Mother Earth News. “Bees need help now! Time to up the ante,” declares the Pesticide Action Network announcing its suit against the Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA should cancel all uses of neonics where they can lead to harm for bees and other beneficial insects, and chemical manufacturers like Bayer and Syngenta that make neonics should use their resources to develop less harmful alternatives instead of defending the neonics,”writes Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Birds, bats and insects all pollinate flowering plants, but the most celebrated pollinator is the honeybee, and for good reason. United States commercial beekeepers take millions of bee hives on the road each year to pollinate blueberries and papaya, almonds and apples, and a cornucopia of other fruits, vegetables and nuts. Close to one third of our food supply is linked to pollination. Without the bee our diet would be less nutritious and less tasty. Bee die offs are a serious issue and need to be evaluated. But the question remains: are neonicotinoids the culprit?

Fingering neonics

Neonics are a new class of systemic pesticide popular in the US, Australia, Europe and elsewhere to help corn, soy, cotton and canola farmers. They were adopted over the past 20 years as a less toxic replacement of organophosphate pesticides, which are known to kill bees and wildlife, and have been linked to health problems in workers. By universal agreement, neonicotinoids are extremely effective. Applied to the soil, sprayed on the crop or used as a seed treatment, they eventually reach the pollen and nectar, which is ingested by insects, discouraging pests from wrecking havoc on crops. The seed treatment lowers the amount used 10 to 20 fold, decreasing the need for open spraying of the plant, a genuine sustainability benefit.

Neonics were phased in without incident in the 1990s. But an age-old problem in the bee world—a periodic and unpredictable dramatic rise in bee deaths in one region or another—reemerged in 2004. Bee death rates approached 60% in California Beekeepers called it the vampire mite scare because of its likely link to varroa mites—parasites that feed on the bodily fluids of bees.

The explanatory narrative began to change in 2006, when new waves of bee deaths were reported around the world. Anti-biotechnology activists blamed GMOs. “There are many reasons given to the decline in Bees, but one argument that matters most is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and “Terminator Seeds” that are presently being endorsed by governments and forcefully utilized as our primary agricultural needs of survival,” argued the anti-globalization group Global Research, in what amounted to a rhetorical and circumstantial argument. But as GMOs have gained favor with the science community, the focus of activist groups shifted and a new culprit was identified: neonicotinoids.

Over the past few months, CBS News, NPR and Dan Rather have run powerful segments and the popular media in general has cheerleaded a recent lawsuit spearheaded by the Center for Food Safety and other anti-chemical groups demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency ban the insecticide. In less than a month, theNew York Timesran a front-page article and editorialized twice on the subject, dismissing what it called “manufacturers’ bland assurances” about its safety and all but calling for a ban.

History raises questions about the almost exclusive focus on neonics to explain the regional bee crisis. Periodic occurrences resembling what has come to be known as bee Colony Collapse Disorder have been documented as far back as 1869. In the last half century, the domesticated honeybee population has declined by about 50 percent, with incidents common well before the introduction of neonics, which was hailed by environmentalists because of their comparatively modest environmental footprint. The term CCD was originally used to describe the phenomenon when worker bees suddenly and mysteriously disappeared. The term, with its alarmist ring, was co-opted by activists in the mid 2000s to describe a new development—mass bee deaths.

The research on bee colony deaths is dicey—and often political. The science based view of this issue took a sharp turn in January when the European Food Safety Authority issued three studies raising questions about the potential role of neonics in this latest wave of bee deaths. The studies did not link the pesticides to the collapse of whole bee colonies, but did raise enough issues to lead to a vote last month for a 2-year precautionary ban by the European Commission. The ban was blocked, temporarily, by Germany, Britain and seven other countries, citing evidence that neonics were not the sole or likely the primary culprit, their impact still unclear. The EC plans an appeal.

Last year, one study showed that bumblebees exposed to high doses of the neonic imidacloprid in the lab, then released to forage in the field, had sharply reduced colony growth rates and produced 85 percent fewer queens to found new colonies. In another study, more than 30 percent of free-ranging honeybees whose brains were doused with the neonic thiamethoxam—which is not the way bees encounter the chemical in the real world— got confused, failing to return to the hive.

Real world contradictions

The results were so dramatic—and so contradictory of real life experience of some beekeepers in Canada, Europe and Australia who use neonics and where many bee colonies are thriving—that the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) decided to reevaluateexisting research. The agency pointed to the problem with much of the lab based data—it measures doses and application methods that farmers don’t use. “The risk to bee populations from neonics, as they are currently used, is low.” DEFRA concluded in March. “Laboratory-based studies demonstrating sub-lethal effects on bees from neonics did not replicate realistic conditions, but extreme scenarios.. … While this assessment cannot exclude rare effects of neonicotinoids on bees in the field, it suggests that effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances. Consequently, it supports the view that the risk to bee populations from neonicotinoids, as they are currently used, is low,” the study concluded.

Farmers are almost universally opposed to even a temporary ban absent definitive real world research, calling it reckless. As they note, because of the ban on organophosphates, there are no real alternatives to neonics, which everyone agrees have been extremely effective. Insecticides are used for a reason: to kill pests and make our food safer to eat. Without neonics or a suitable replacement, farmers could face losses estimated by one industry study as $5.78 billion per year in Europe alone—and many multiples of that if a ban is instituted in the United States and other major agricultural economies, with the costs passed on to consumers.

Understandably alarmed at the economic implications to consumers and to their bottom lines, Syngenta and Bayer, the two primary manufacturers of the chemicals, have proposed a plan to accelerate bee health research. They’ve also proposed adding new flowering margins around fields to provide pesticide-free bee habitats and monitoring for the presence of neonics in crops.

Industry is concerned as to what they see as a ‘rush to judgment’—and should a “temporary” ban is instituted it will be difficult to unring the precautionary bell regardless of what new evidence might show. They point to real world contradictions that suggest that pathogens, parasites and habitat loss, which has been the driver of CCD for more than a century before the introduction of insecticides, are the likely prime cause this time as well.

Canada, the UK and Australia all provide provocative real world case studies. Canola is grown commercially mostly on the prairies in Canada, the largest single producer of canola in the world with more than 50,000 canola producers and 16 million acres. It’s a nutritionally rich crop for bees. Some 80% of Canada’s honey crop is from canola, amounting to 50 million pounds per year of Grade No 1 white honey. Approximately 300,000 colonies harvest open pollinated canola.

Despite the fact that neonicotinoids are widely used in Canada to protect canola from pests, Canadian bee populations have been largely unaffected and produce around 50 million pounds of canola honey. A large-scale Ontario field study funded by Bayer appears to back up the real life evidence challenging the activist doomsday scenario. Itfound no difference in colony health between hives exposed to neonics and those that weren’t, in real life conditions. “The doses the bees are exposed to [in lab studies] are far above what a realistic field dose exposure would be,” says Dr. Cynthia Scott-Dupree, head of the Ontario study. Canadian canola farmers say they have had 10 years of large scale use of neonics on canola with no observed ill effect.

Britain’s rapeseed crop, which is similar to canola but has a high acid content and is generally produced for animal feed, has not experienced serious bee losses either. TheDEFRA study noted that oilseed rape (OSR) “requires insect pollinators to support its productivity. The fact that OSR treated with neonicotinoids has been a productive crop for over a decade in the UK is itself evidence that pollinator populations, including bees, are not being reduced by the presence of neonicotinoids.”

Varroa mites: The real culprit?

Australia presents the most striking dilemma for those isolating their attacks on neonics. On a per crop basis, it is one of the world’s heaviest users of the pesticide—and has among the healthiest bee colonies in the world. Government records indicate there has not been even one adverse experience report from either the public or beekeepers concerning the use of neonics. The other thing they don’t see in Australia—but we do see everywhere else in the world where CCD is claimed—is the Varroa mite, the culprit in the 2005/06 bee death march.

While not deadly in themselves, these parasites act as a vector, attaching to honeybees and appearing to be “both a disseminator and activator of a number of bee viruses,” according to a report on honeybee disease in Europe by the Food and Environment Research Agency. In countries experiencing bee decline, varroa is a feared and growing presence among beekeepers—even or especially if neonicotinoids are absent. For example, in upland areas of Switzerland where the pesticide is not used, bee colony populations are under significant pressure from the mites; and in France, declines in the bee population in mountainous areas (where neonics are uncommon) are similar to those in agricultural areas (where neonics are widely used).

At one point in Dan Rather’s report, the President of the California Beekeepers Association, John Miller, opens a hive and picks out a bee with a red dot on its back. “That’s a varroa mite,” he explains. “That is Satan incarnate. That is the central challenge of beekeeping globally.” The spreading problem of disease itself is compounded by the desperate efforts of beekeepers to extinguish the mites and other pests by dousing their hives with miticides and antibiotics, which would increase if there were no approved and effective pesticides. As Miller says, “You can imagine how hard it is to kill a bug on a bug. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do.”

Bee deaths are not to be taken lightly. But the technology-intensive agricultural industry certainly provides an easy target for those who want to “do something yesterday,” without any regard to balancing costs and benefits and regardless of the long-term consequences. As the British Bee Keeper Association recently warned, rushing to ban neonics, when the evidence remains contradictory, could well do more damage than good, as other pesticides, some known to be more harmful to bees, would of necessity be reintroduced. The EPA is now addressing the issue, sending a research team to California where more than 1.6 million hives are needed every spring. Let science—and scientists—do their work.

More on genetics and science literacy**at the Genetic Literacy Project**

**Follow Jon on Twitter**

vanilla neo-nics

http://online.wsj.com/articles/neonicotinoids-and-honeybees-1405537270

RICHARD TREN

July 16, 2014 3:01 p.m. ET

Is a relatively new class of insecticides, known as neonicotinoids or "neonics," harming bees and other wildlife? That's what the International Union for the Conservation of Nature claimed in a recent press release announcing the results of a meta-study the organization conducted earlier this year. One might have expected the press release to be accompanied by the underlying scientific studies. But that wasn't the case.

The proper way to engage in scientific debate is to publish studies so peers can confirm or refute the findings. Frustratingly, IUCN has only released one of its seven studies, preferring to conduct science by press release. This lack of transparency—together with the well-known anti-pesticide position of many of the scientists involved—raises suspicions as environmental groups lobby regulators to ban neonics in Canada and the U.S. The pesticides are already banned for two years in the European Union, and IUCN is calling for even-tighter restrictions and a global phaseout.

IUCN's claims rest on the idea that neonics can be harmful to bees, worms, and other fauna, and that long-term exposure can cause "impaired sense of smell or memory; reduced fecundity; altered feeding behaviour; and reduced food intake" in species that feed on plants.

First introduced in the 1990s as a replacement for older, more toxic organophosphates and pyrethroids, neonics are often used to coat seeds to obviate the need for widespread spraying, thus reducing exposure to farm workers. Although we can't know exactly how IUCN arrived at its conclusions, we can examine the existing science and published data, particularly on bees. These data don't support the anti-neonics case.

A paper published in March in the Proceedings of the Royal Society notes a long history of bee declines predating the introduction of neonics in the mid-1990s. Furthermore, the study finds that "there is poor geographical correlation between neonicotinoid use and honeybee decline." These are crucially important points: If neonics were harming bees, we would expect to see bee declines begin, or worsen, with their introduction. We would also expect to see fewer bees where more neonics are used. The available evidence doesn't support either hypothesis.

And just how imperiled are bees anyway? Readily available data suggest that while bee health has been problematic for some time, warnings of a "bee-pocalypse" are wrong. Bee populations in Europe, North America and elsewhere in the world are stable and even rising. There are now approximately the same number of bee hives in the U.S. and slightly more in Europe than in 1995, about the time neonics were introduced. Canada's bee population is the highest it has been since the late 1980s. Global bee populations are up dramatically since the 1960s.Many factors affect the health of honeybee colonies, including deadly parasites, such as the varroa mite, as well as fungi and viruses. Habitat alteration and the availability of diverse food sources also affect bees, yet IUCN apparently ignores these factors and focuses solely on neonics.

Bee populations can rise despite sometimes large overwinter losses. This is because bee hives regenerate quickly in the spring. But now even overwinter losses appear to be abating. An April 2014 European Commission study found that 75% of the EU bee population experienced losses of 15% or less over the 2012-13 winter—a rate considered acceptable by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A small fraction had losses exceeding 20%, mostly caused by harsh winter conditions.

In other words, European regulators know that honeybees aren't disappearing. Yet they refuse to lift the neonics ban they imposed last winter. The regulators have decided instead to shift their rationale, claiming that wild bumblebees may be harmed, even though the evidence for this claim is thin.

Meanwhile, the good news on bees keeps coming in. The British Beekeepers Association, which monitors overwinter honeybee-colony survival rates, found that losses were below 10% last winter, continuing a six-year downward trend of overwinter losses. Green groups understand all too well that if the facts and the science aren't on their side, a great deal can be achieved by spreading fear. And insecticides always pay dividends for any fearmonger.

But great harm will arise if fear trumps science when it comes to insecticide regulation. It takes many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new insecticide to market, and there is no new, safe and effective replacement for neonics around the corner. Banning neonics simply means that farmers are forced to use older insecticides, such as pyrethroids, which are less specific and more harmful to bees and the wider environment.

And people are important, too. Thanks to modern agriculture and chemicals like neonics, food production rates have outstripped population growth. We now have more food at lower prices than at any time in human history. The relatively wealthy environmentalists in Europe and the U.S. who buy overpriced organic produce aren't going to feel the pinch soon. But for millions of people in the developing world and poorer consumers in industrialized states, no neonics may mean less food at higher prices.

Mr. Tren is a director of Africa Fighting Malaria.

===

entine neonics google: note network:

### Bee Deaths Reversal: As Evidence Points Away From :{Neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:

www.forbes.com/.../jonentine/.../bee-deaths-reversal-as-evidence-...

Forbes

:{Feb 5, 2014 - Jon :{Entine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, Contributor ... When that didn't get traction, the focus switched to :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. Even their ... What's the role of :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: in bee health?:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### Science Collapse Disorder -- The Real Story Behind :{Neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:

www.forbes.com/.../jonentine/.../science-collapse-disorder-the-real...

Forbes

:{Apr 11, 2013 - The Genetic Literacy Project's Jon :{Entine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: separates fact from fiction. ... “EPA should cancel all uses of :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: where they can lead to harm for ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### From GMOs to :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, what's causing bee deaths **...**

www.geneticliteracyproject.org/.../from-gmos-to-neonics-whats-causing-...

:{Feb 9, 2014 - From GMOs to :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, what's causing bee deaths? | Jon :{Entine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: | February 9, 2014 | Genetic Literacy Project.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### There is no 'bee armageddon': Misguided :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ban **...**

www.geneticliteracyproject.org/.../there-is-no-bee-armageddon-misguide...

:{Jun 6, 2014 - There is no 'bee armageddon': Misguided :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ban threatens honeybees and farming | Jon :{Entine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: | June 6, 2014 | Wall Street Journal.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### Bee deaths reversal: As evidence points away from :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: **...**

www.aei.org/.../bee-deaths-reversal-as-evid...

American Enterprise Institute

:{Feb 5, 2014 - When that didn't get traction, the focus switched to :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. .... Jon:{Entine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a senior fellow at ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### Science collapse disorder -- the real story behind :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: **...**

www.aei.org/.../science-collapse-disorder-th...

American Enterprise Institute

:{Apr 11, 2013 - “EPA should cancel all uses of :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: where they can lead to harm for .... Jon :{Entine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### Killer Regulators Are More Dangerous To Bees Than **...**

www.science20.com › Earth Sciences › Environment › Science 2.0

by Hank Campbell - Jun 6, 2014 - Jon Entine, writing in Wall Street Journal Europe, dissects how that was not ... The data show neonics are not the problem - the only countries in ...

### Bee Deaths Reversal: As Evidence Points Away From :{Neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3120568/posts

Free Republic

:{Forbes ^ | 2-5-2014 | Jon :{Entine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ... The researchers noted residues of :{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: in ailing bee hives, but at levels hundreds of times lower than scientists believe ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### Forbes Magazine Article on "Science collapse disorder" [Archive **...**

www.beesource.com › ... › CCD - Colony Collapse Disorder

Apr 12, 2013 - 12 posts - ‎8 authors

:{http://www.forbes.com/sites/:{jonentine:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:/2013/04/11/science-collapse-disorder-the-real-story-behind-:{neonics:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:-and-mass-bee-deaths/ Australia ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### Science Collapse Disorder -- The Real Story Behind **...**

www.linkedin.com/.../Science-Collapse-Disorder-Real-Story-2221...

Science Collapse Disorder -- The Real Story Behind Neonics And Mass Bee Deaths ...The Genetic Literacy Project's Jon Entine separates fact from fiction.

taking lead on neo-nics? "eur practice "precautionary politics" note evil shift

blames lack of miticides: " Beekeepers called it the ‘vampire mite scare’ because of its likely link to varroa mites—parasites that feed on the bodily fluid of bees—and on miticides used to combat them. " ... " Highly charged words like “beepocalypse” or “beemageddon” began turning up everywhere on the Internet. "

Like the fictional parents in the edgy comedy show South Park who blame Canada for all of their woes, activists often coalesce around an issue and then come up with a simple but sometimes simplistic narrative to frame it. Strident opponents of modern agricultural technology initially blamed GMOs for bee deaths, and some still make that claim, although there is zero evidence to back it up. When that didn’t get traction, the focus switched to neonics.

...

"The conflicting data were not enough to slow the regulatory express in Europe. In voting for a moratorium, European Commission politicians ignored DEFRA’s analysis. It later emerged that EFSA appeared to have deliberately suppressed evidence of the relative safety of neonics after insider political lobbying by French officials. After the vote, Director-General of EFSA, Catherine Geslain-Lanéele resigned to take up a job at the French Ministry of Agriculture, which had lobbied for a ban over the objections of Britain, Germany and other countries." note suggestion that it's some type of bribe/quid pro quo: gov't like regs for its own sake and rewards ppl who cave, then the reality is the opposite; EcoRisK; these assumption could not work w/o decades of BS: ag21, corrupt scientists