http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/exclusive-bees-facing-a-poisoned-spring-2189267.html

<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/exclusive-bees-facing-a-poisoned-spring-2189267.html>Richard,
there is a quote at the end of the story that sums up the reality:
"I'm sure there are some very interesting effects Dr Pettis has seen in a
laboratory, but in reality, when you get to what's important to everybody,
which is what happens in the field, you don't see these things happening."

I was at the California Queen Breeders meeting yesterday, and was told
nearly the exact same thing by a major U.S. bee researcher who is involved
with field tests of neonics--that what happens in the lab to stressed bees
in cages is generally not what is observed in the field.  I also asked that
researcher about the populations of other pollinating insects around
seed-treated crops.  The answer was that their populations also appear to be
largely unaffected.

At the same meeting I spoke with some large commercial beekeepers who had
 thosands of hives on treated canola in North Dakota this summer, and whose
bees look just fine.  Those reports are the same as what I hear from dozens
of other beekeepers that I have interviewed.

I'm following up on every study and anecdotal report on the neonics that I
can find in preparation for an extensive investigatory article.

So far, what I've seen is that there are still issues with toxic dust during
seeding operations in some countries, especially under dry and windy
conditions.  This issue needs to be resolved by revising the application
label, as it affects not only bees, but other beneficial insects.

There are occasional issues when neonics are sprayed on plants, especially
if there is drift onto flowering weeds.  However, colonies generally recover
well from such events.

There is virtually no evidence that more than a handful of foragers ever die
from drinking guttation fluid.

As far as I can tell, properly applied seed treatment is likely an
environmental improvement over wholesale spraying of alternative pesticides.
 Questions remain as to the buildup of the neonics in some soils.

One large problem is that it is often hard for farmers to obtain untreated
seed, and treatment is likely unnecessary every year.  The problem is that
large growers now often unnecessarily apply pesticides as "risk management,"
rather than "pest management."  This leads to the overuse of insecticides
and fungicides.

It appears that the fungicides are generally more of a problem than the
neonics, and that they are actually to blame for many of the problems that
beekeepers are having.

One must keep in mind that far and away the largest exposure of bees to
pesticides is to the miticides that beekeepers themselves apply to colonies.
 The residues of such miticides appear to act in synergy with fungicides and
other ag pesticides, thus causing serious issues with brood viability,
 colony immunocompetence, and bee behavior.

This is a very complicated set of issues, but there is very little evidence
that the neonicotinoids are the major issue, and their residues are
generally of minor occurrence compared to the residues of other pesticides
in the combs.

Of far greater impact on bee health is the varroa mite, and the indirect
effects of mite infestation on colony immunocompetence, virus dynamics, and
miticide use

Every pesticide regulatory agency is well aware of the questions about the
neonicotinoids, and is looking closely at actual data.  There are currently
many improved studies going on, which should give us more detailed answers.


Large scale agriculture of a number of major crops will always use
pesticides of some sort.  The goal of the regulatory agencies is to move
toward "reduced risk" pesticides, of which seed treatment with systemic
insecticides is an example.

In general, studies show that the application of neonics by seed treatment,
properly applied, does indeed reduce the risk to nontarget organisms.  The
situation is far from perfect, and never will be.  But I can assure all that
all regulatory agencies are already fully aware of the issues, and are
working toward resolving the issues.

In the Big Picture, I feel that the petitions are largely counterproductive
at this time, as most of those that I've seen simply pick and choose a few
studies, and extrapolate alarmist predictions that are not generally
supported by the extensive scientific research seen by the agencies.  So to
sign such a petition risks being discounted by the agencies, and gives the
impression of environmentalists being uniformed and crying wolf.

I am a dyed in the wool environmentalist, and am afraid that petitions such
as these give fully informed environmentalists a black eye.

Randy Oliver

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm