BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jerry Bromenshenk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:12:29 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
I talked to Josh at NRDC today.  
 
From my perspective, the press release was unfortunate.  Their push is  to 
get EPA to release chem testing for product label purposes.  I've no  problem 
with that.  I've been very vocal about stating the privatizing  pesticide 
testing, taking it away from universities has left us with the problem  that the 
results for products that eventually come on the market are not longer  available 
to the bee industry.
 
In the past, people like Larry Atkins, Carl Johansen, Dan Meyer - tested  
pesticides, evaluated hazard to bees, and published the results in brochures,  
pamphlets, and the open literature - so everyone had access.

Both assembled tables that compared the various products in terms of  
toxicity to bees and residual times.
 
The private test labs has no requirement nor interest in publishing  results, 
and their clients have no obligation to do so, other than file with  EPA.
 
Now, here's the rub.  Even EPA scientists have difficulties retrieving  the 
results - if you want the test results, you need to know the exact  formulation 
tested.  Freedom of Information doesn't do much good, unless  you can specify 
the exact product that you want to review.
 
Remember also, EPA used to have a test lab that routinely ran bee samples,  
when a beekeeper suspected a pesticide kill.  That was part of the  beekeeper 
indemnity program that the Reagen administration eliminated.   That wasn't 
EPA's decision, it was a political decision.
 
Now, as far as I can determine, Josh did not have any information about CCD  
that we haven't seen on this list.
 
He based his claims about CCD and pesticides on the PSU report (which he  can 
get from them or read in ABJ without going through Freedom of Information or  
EPA).  That report simply says what has been seen in every decade back  
through the 1930's - pesticide residues show up in bees, wax, etc.  Bees  are 
sometimes killed by pesticides.  Nothing has changed, other than some  new 
formulations - and that's what's happened every decade or so as we went from  
inorganic pesticides (Arsenic, lead, copper, sulfur) to synthetic organic  pesticides 
(DDT in the 40s) to the encapsulated chemicals, carbamates, and  
organo-phosphates that followed the chlorinated hydrocarbons, and now the  neonicotinics.
 
Pesticides do kill bees.  Label testing needs revision.   Information needs 
to be made more accessible, and in a timely manner.  But,  the evidence is not 
there to say pesticides cause CCD.
 
And, to the best of my knowledge, EPA hasn't made any significant  investment 
in studying CCD.  You can't hide data that you don't have.
 
Jerry



**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel 
deal here.      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2