>but read it for yourself and find out.
Thanks, Gavin. Long, formal, but excellent and thorough report.
For the benefit of those not willing to slog through, I have excerpted
appropriate sections.
Randy Oliver
The studies conducted by Afssa’s Sophia-Antipolis
laboratory (see Table 10) have revealed the
presence of a variety of contaminating chemical
agents (see Table 13), of both exogenous
(from the apiary environment) and endogenous
origin (apiary treatments against bee diseases,
particularly varroasis) in all of the bee matrices
analyses (living and dead bees, pollen, honey
and wax). It is important to note that, during
these “prospective” follow-up studies,
bee mortality was negligible while bee colony
mortality correlated with the presence of
biological pathogens. The apiaries followed up
in this type of study were chosen at random
and not following a declared incident.
■ Although Coumaphos is less toxic than imidacloprid
and fipronil (see Table 14, comparison of LD50s (25)),
the average amount of Coumaphos found per
living bee (5% of oral LD50) is closer to a toxic
dose than the average amount of the other two
insecticides (3.24% and 1.125% of oral LD50
respectively) (see last column in table).
• the traces of these chemical residues found
in the bee matrices, revealing the chronic
exposure of bees to these molecules, does
not correlate with the abnormal mortality rates
of bee colonies in the apiaries studied.
■ the effects of a potential synergy between
the chronic paralysis virus and the presence
of active molecules such as imidacloprid, fipronil
and coumaphos in the feed of adult bees under
test conditions (Ribière, 2002; Ribière, 2004).
The results of this study have not been published
due to a lack of reproducibility, and did
not confirm the hypothesis of there being
a potential synergy between the sub-chronic
intake of these active molecules in adult bee
food and the chronic paralysis virus;
Several studies have proved the harmful effect
of low doses of pesticides on proboscis extension,
for example (Devillers et al., 2003; Decourtye et al.,
2004; Decourtye et al., 2005), or on the return flight
to the hive (Colin et al., 2004). However, these
studies are still sporadic and it is still not possible
as yet to extrapolate these effects, revealed
at the individual level under test conditions,
to the whole colony under natural conditions.
The only environmental findings available
are on farming areas. These findings highlight
an increase in single crop farming (maize,
sunflower, cereals, rape) to the detriment
of grassland. The disappearance of mixed farms lies
at the heart of the transformation of the French
farming countryside.
The investigations and field work conducted to date do not lead to any
conclusion that pesticides are a major
cause of die-off of bee colonies in France.
***********************************************
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
|
