Dear Fellow Bee-Listers

Joe Rowland's comments on GM crops and beekeeping were given space here
recently, with encouragement to editors of bee journals to take them up.  So
much heat and so little light on this topic!  I wouldn't wish to argue with
all of the points he raised …. but …. two of the main points, that
Terramycin resistance in AFB could be due to GM crops and that a French
study indicated problems for bees using GM pollen, need some comments.

There are public sources of rather technical information on the Internet for
those who wish to see it.  In the States, the comprehensive APHIS database
holds information on all experimental field releases (1) and all
unrestricted commercial releases (2).  Similar sites exist in several other
countries, including here in the UK.  It would seem that resistance to
tetracyclines (therefore Terramycin) has not been used in crops for
small-scale or commercial release.  Resistance genes for neomycin-type
antibiotics have been widely used in the past but are unlikely to appear in
many new GM varieties.  Different classes of antibiotics have different
modes of action.  The widely-used gene neomycin phosphotransferase II
(nptII) will not give resistance to tetracyclines as far as I am aware.  So,
AFB is very unlikely to have picked up its resistance in the US or elsewhere
from GM crops; it will either have picked it up from pre-existing
tetracyline-resistant bugs (bacteria being naturally promiscuous when it
comes to gene-swapping), or have created new resistance all on its own as a
result of long-term use of the antibiotic in beehives.

The second point was that referring to disorientation or a reduction in
longevity of bees fed on GM pollen.  No so.  This refers to work conducted
in France where they were attempting to transfer natural anti-insect genes
from one plant to another.  Worried that this could damage bees, they very
wisely decided to test them against bees.  The proteins made by the genes
were undetectable in pollen from the GM plants, so they added pure protein
to the diets of bee colonies - just in case future types of GM plant did
produce significant quantities in pollen.  Yes, when they artificially added
the anti-insect proteins to bee diets they did find reduced longevity and
behavioural changes - no big surprise there!  Their conclusion was that such
GMOs should not be used unless, as with their plants, it had been shown that
the proteins were absent from pollen.  Ever since, in beekeeping circles,
this story has been presented as evidence that GM pollen is harmful to
bees - it is not, and to me it shows that the right people were asking the
right questions at the right time!  You can read all of this (in French
unfortunately) at their Web site (3).

I don't suppose that helped much with the heat question (my flame shield is
going up now!) but I hope it spread a little light.

Gavin - hobby beekeeper and professional plant geneticist, eastern Scotland.

1) http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm (for experimental
releases)
2) http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/biopetitions1.cfm (for unrestricted
commercial release)
3)
http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/DIC/ACTUALITES/DOSSIERS/OGM/jouanin.h
tm (anti-insect genes and pollen)