The summary by Randy is in.  Now I'll write one too.





First, a comment.  Playing "Devil's Advocate" is a colloquialism normally used when you take a position that you are not necessarily in agreement with.  I assume when Randy said he got hate mail for playing devil's advocate, he really wasn't saying that he supports the ban of neonics, since he has posted many times that he sees no need for a ban and sees little data to support the idea that field-relevant neonic exposure is reducing hive productivity...and the latter is the position he is taking when he says he's playing "devil's advocate".



Randy shared his analysis of the papers I cited in the beginning of the "Return of Dr Lu!" thread that showed, either in primary lit or review, that neurons are damaged at sublethal levels of neonic exposure.  The point to be made here is simply that neonics are not comparable to a "drunk" for the bee...that bee doesn't go back to the way it was when/if it flushes neonics out of its body.   These papers prove that bee neurons die as a result of sublethal and even "field relevant" exposure.  That is the only point.

.....End of my "are neonics at sublethal levels toxic to neurons" summary.



I have written on numerous posts that I am not so much worried about sublethal neonic exposure as a problem in and of itself, but I am rather interested in and concerned with the synergistic interactions we see between chronic low dose neonics and other stressors....for example, Nosema and viruses.



Whether or not this makes a difference to the colony's health, productivity, and survival then becomes a matter of factoring in any losses due to neurally-compromised bees with the other stressors on the hive, be those stressors Nosema, dearth, other chemicals, monoculture, immunosuppression, etc etc.  I think that in addition to stressors there must also be some "bee boosters" out there that help in a positive way to overcome the negative influences.  We see that in the Canadian canola data for neonic treated seeds so often used to conclude by some here that seed treatments are "safe".  This morning I listened to an agricultural lecture where farmland was classified as "Type 1, type 2, type 3" etc based upon its suitability for growing crops.  The expert pointed out that in times of stress, crops do much better on Type 1 land than they do on Type 3, 4, or 5 (for instance).  This holds true for bees and their ability to survive, as well, it seems to me.  Neonic treatments work in some locations because the rest of the "survival equation" is balanced positively.  Where we see problems is where the environment + neonics + "other stressors" = negative impact on bees.  Change the equation and fix the problem.  It might mean removing the neonics, or it might mean removing another stressor (hence the attention to mite control and feeding protein, etc).  When I first posted here, I asked Bee-L list members about whether a model could be derived that could predict the outcome based on all the "inputs".  That inquiry led to a heated discussion claiming that Tennekes is biased and has no data to hang his hat on (?) a thread that really was off-target from my original inquiry, especially as I referenced Haber's Rule merely as a way to start with a simple model equation from which a more useful, specific one could evolve...not as a solution to the problem!



I suspect that if we knew enough, we'd ban neonic use in some areas and allow it in others, based on a better understanding of the effect they have on the local pollinators.



There are many many more studies showing how neonics affect bees in different circumstances.  (See Bee-L posts 092171<http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1311&L=BEE-L&P=R4630&1=BEE-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4>, 092172<http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1311&L=BEE-L&P=R4925&1=BEE-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4>, and 092171<http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1311&L=BEE-L&P=R4630&1=BEE-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4>​, under the topic "Bibliography help please", by me).



I picked a couple more "neurotoxic neonic" papers out for those who are reading, in case you'd like further evidence that neonics kill neurons at sublethal doses:

​

Belzunces, Luc P., Sylvie Tchamitchian, and Jean-Luc Brunet. "Neural effects of insecticides in the honey bee." Apidologie 43.3 (2012): 348-370.



Palmer, Mary J., et al. "Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees." Nature communications 4 (2013): 1634.



Also, I find compelling what Decourtye, et al have to say in Nature (quoted below):



From:  Decourtye, Axel, Mickaël Henry, and Nicolas Desneux. "Environment: Overhaul pesticide testing on bees." Nature 497.7448 (2013): 188-188.



"Current risk assessments evaluate the survival of adult honeybees only after a short exposure to pesticide. However, numerous studies have stressed

the importance of also testing for chronic toxicity, larval toxicity and sublethal effects of pesticides (N. Desneux et al. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52,

81–106; 2007). More rigorous pesticide testing therefore needs to include a broader range of exposure scenarios and to take relevant biological traits

into account. This will stand to improve insect pollination generally, which is currently worth about €153 billion (US$202 billion) annually worldwide (N. Gallai et al. Ecol. Econ. 68, 810–821; 2009).



That's all for now....I'm sure most everyone has heard enough about sublethals for awhile.  Back to the bees!



Christina





             ***********************************************

The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned

LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:

http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html