At ABF, I was asked to talk about pesticides.

I decided to try to be thought provoking, point out some of the history of?pesticides and?lessons learned, and provide some cautionary guidance, especially to young researchers.? I also tried to make it humorous, blending the Top Ten List and the You Might be A Redneck format.

Part of the audience enjoyed this, told me do; some thought I had points that needed to be said, and also told me so;?but some took it very wrong.? Fortunately, some were good enough friends that they told me that the talk had gone wrong.

This response seemed to be mainly directed at two issues:

1) My statements and Top Ten Reasons that Your Pesticide Study Might Have a Problem, and 2) My conclusion and use of the Pogo cartoon that says, "We have met the enemy and he is us" - with reference to the miticides found in comb.

So please let me try to explain my?intent for?both:

I am most concerned?that any young researcher may have?thought that I was singly them out, criticizing their work OR that any beekeeper or beekeeping association thought that I was talking about specific students or them.

My concern, and I did say this to the audience, is that I worry about a lack of professional guidance in terms of how to conduct research on sensitive topics such as?pesticides.? That's not a fault of the student or young researcher, this is?a failure of their thesis committee and advisors.? But that oversight can have far reaching implications to their professional success.

I have spent 35 years on EPA Superfund, DoD (military), and DoD (energy dept)?sites, looking at industrial and military emissions (many of which may threaten human health).? I also for the past 17 years have?coordinated Montana's state wide research for the Dept of Energy - usually interacting with as many as 20-30 UG students and 30-35 graduate students, as well as many young faculty.

Overall,?I have concluded that our?Universities fail at providing proper guidance in terms of conducting research, especially?where the outcomes may have decided impacts on health, ecosystems,?and economics.? We fall short in terms of training our students in things such as Good Laboratory Practices, establishing Quality Assurance Project Plans, obtaining data that is truly representative of the situation (not just a cursory look), and remembering that the results may have far reaching implications, and that one just might find oneself dragged into litigation.

My comments about students were a composite, drawing not only on current students of bee research in the U.S., but others that I have seen in my travels over the past few years in other countries, and on three decades of environmental studies students who have conducted studies of industrial companies, emitting chemicals that at times threaten human health, animals (including bees), and even plants.??Some of these studies?have ended up in court; many have been entered into decision making processes such as environmental impact assessments, siting permits, etc.

Please keep in mind, thesis research is expected to meet established standards for conducting experiments, reporting, etc.? We also stress that a scientist should not pick a conclusion, then go shopping for facts to support the conclusion.

However, there is a vast difference in terms of the degree of rigor expected and the consequences?of data use, for?different types of research.? Finding a promising new diet supplement, conducting a simple survey, or completing a graduate program that allows one to take courses and conduct a literature survey -- all of these are likely to be a fairly straight forward exercise - be diligent, pass your coursework and thesis defense, get a diploma.? If you are lucky, publish the results; and specialists in your field may actually read the article.

Take on an industrial pollutant that may affect human health (e.g., fluoride and fluorosis; arsenic, lead, and cadmium for smelters; radioactive fallout from nuclear reactors or plutonium recovery facilities, arsenic in a community's water supply from past mining and smelting) and the bar is immediately raised; as is also true for human health studies.

Similarly, the results of any pesticide study are likely to get more?intensive scrutiny, whether the concern is about environmental risks to humans or risks to non-target organisms such as bees.? 

Beekeepers and growers?will want?to use the results to make management decisions relevant to the health of their bees and other issues that can have large economic benefits or costs.? The costs of making a wrong decision can be high, especially for large?bee operations, pollinators, and growers.? Similarly, a good decision may save bees, improve crop pollination, reduce risks to native pollinators, all of which have economic and ecological benefits.

The bee?industry will?immediately and often eagerly?pay attention to new investigators and their studies, looking for help that will reduce risks to bees, improve their operations, make a profit.??Their expectations are likely to be high.? And, if the study comes up with a finding that runs counter to other data or that could impact sales of a specific pesticide, the chemical companies will immediately take notice.? Although one would hope that all of this will?play out in terms of the?science and through civil discourse, the fact is that nothing is that simple.

So, young researchers should be made aware that their?pesticide?data may be called into question.? In the best case, a bit more work, and the problem can be addressed.? Sometimes though, a student is told to go back and re-do everything.? And, I've seen students so demoralized that they pack up and leave, and young faculty who fail to obtain tenure - all because of shortcomings in how they conducted their research.? And never think that outside comments don't enter into decisions such as tenure.

My first exposure to all of this was when one of my early faculty?mentors was involved in litigation regarding acid rain, power plants and other industrial companies,?in the context of acid rain?damages to Christmas Trees and subsequent loss of revenue by Xmas Tree?Growers - no one wants trees with brown needles.??He was a?well known and outspoken senior?Environmental Scientist?made statements that he was able to back up with his data.? But the companies did NOT like his findings and his willingness to speak out, and some well-established?researchers felt that he was attacking them.? 

He ended up signing over his house and possessions to his wife to try to shield himself from threats of lawsuits being filed?against him for his statements.? The companies and researchers sent letters to the Commissioner of Higher Education, to the President of our University, and their lawyers kept his and the University lawyers?busy for a long time.? The University did NOT like the negative press, and I doubt that he would have been able to weather the storm is he hadn't been a full professor with tenure.

So, my concern is for the welfare of the young investigator.? One can and should?work on issues that tend to be hot button topics, and if you follow some basic precepts,?the data should be fine.? 

But, over the years, I continually find enthusiastic students who don't even know what terms such as GLP (Good Laboratory Practices), QAPP (Quality Assurrance Project Plan), representative sampling and others mean, much less follow them.? Twenty plus years of doing EPA Superfund work - and I?know that this can be done.? But it takes time and costs more.??In return?you can sleep better, knowing that you've done everything possible to obtain quality data - and you will have the documentation that shows that it is accurate, precise, well done.? 

But, all of this costs time, effort, and money.? For example,?EPA expects things like repeating every tenth analysis, using field blanks, blind samples, bound notebooks, internal and external instrumentationand data audits, and other quality control and assurance steps.?? Over the years, I've learned that this level of data quality assurance adds at least 30% to a project's costs.? So, I put at the top of?my Top Ten?list, asking a funding agency?for adequate amounts of money to cover the costs of these.??From my perspective, you can't do this on a shoe string budget.? If you don't have proper funding, take on a different thesis project.

As a joke,?and here's where?I?made a big mistake - I thought everyone knew that young students often under-estimate the actual costs of doing a study.? I also thought everyone knew that?most?bee associations tend to have only small amounts to offer students.? And, I've seen more than one instance where a bee association found some more money for a student, knowing that they really needed more.? So, I made a joke?that You Might Have a Problem if a bee association says you should hav asked for more money.?No one laughed, and I should have stopped right there, tried to explain.? 

Again, I emphasize that my comments were not directed at any individual student or bee association nor do they reflect any specific person, group, or action.? Each item of the Top Ten list had a basis of truth based on many years of being involved with young researchers, bee, and environmental (conservation)?organizations.? All were exaggerated to some extent in my attempt at introducing some comedy into the lessons that I was trying to illustrate.? Some in the audience?understood what I was doing, others interpreted my comments as an attack on students and/or bee associations, for that I apologize.

However, if any young researcher did not understand any of the terms or concept covered by this list - then its time to go back to the committee and be sure that there's a committee member who has the expertise to address these issues, provide proper guidance.? Better to address and fix any research shortcoming in the early stages of the research than have it come up after the fact.? If I save even one young researcher from the need to go back and re-do, avoid the embarrassment of making statements that later can't be backed up with rigorous data, or avoid terminating a thesis or a job, then I will have accomplished what I intended.

Now, as per the 2) Pogo cartoon.? Unfortunately, the one thing that seems to be coming out of all of the current pesticide studies is how often wax is found to be contaminated by miticides.? You've heard about fluvalinate and cuomaphos, we've added paradichlorobenze, and, the most recent data is about two breakdown products of Amitraz - although I don't think we know what this means.? However we?now know that using Amitraz adds yet another category of miticide contaminates in wax?to the list.? 

One chemist found that his 'new' foundation had levels that caused him to throw it away, start a search for a supplier of wax free of miticides.? So, the harsh truth is - these products are showing up more frequently and at higher levels than anyone would like to see.? From my perspective, that's a major problem we need to address.? Hopefully, we don't have to go to Turkey to buy wax that is certified by European labs as being free of miticides.

When I used the Pogo - the Enemy is Us, I did not mean to point the finger of blame at beekeepers.? I meant?US in the sense that WE all have a share in this problem - and I hold researchers, including myself, to blame as much as anyone.? After all?these decades, we have not found viable alternatives to harsh and potentially bee damaging?chemicals for mite and wax moth control - and we are seeing the consequences of this.? 

Finally, those of you who are old enough to remember will understand that I started my career looking at pollutants in bees, wax, nectar, pollen, honey, and the air inside beehives.? I've repeatedly warned the beekeeping industry?about potential build ups in wax and honey -?although honey seems to remain relatively clean compared to wax and pollen from most harmful chemicals.

I've also frequently?warned that in addition to pesticides,?industrial chemicals?like benzene?in beehives in?urban areas sometimes exceed OSHA safety levels for indoor air in chemical and industrial laboratories.? Breakdown products of gasoline, diesel, dry cleaning solvents, all end up in the hive, many at high levels - and many of these may present hazards to bees equal to those of many pesticides - ranging for acute toxicity to sublethal effects.? How bees stay alive and reasonably well in many of these settings is surprising.? Sometimes they don't, and in some cases, we were able to help a beekeeper collect damages.? But those are hard cases to prove and win.

Sorry about the long message, but it was clear that my attempt at providing some lessons learned and guidance didn't go as I intended at ABF.

Jerry





J.J. Bromenshenk
Bee Alert
Missoula, Mt

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************