> the issues related to Imidacloprid though continue to be of concern.
How so? A key point to recall is that identical symptoms and
identical "widespread losses" have shown up before, long before
the introduction of GMO crops, Imidacloprid, or even the varroa
infestation of North America (the best known way to spread
viruses to the bulk of the bees in a colony). The last such
event was in 1976 or so, and prior to that, in the 1960s.
> http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2007-03-21.asp
> some very interesting links in this article on the Sierra Club, GMO's
> and an attempt to relate to CCD losses.
Not surprising in the least. A number of groups with agendas having
nothing to do with beekeeping or pollination have attempted to hitch
their fund raising and PR wagons to CCD, pointing to CCD as "proof"
of their favorite preconceived notions.
"Look, the bees are dying, see, we were right all along!" has been
the recent cry of everyone except the gun-control advocates, as they
have been forced to admit that it is extremely difficult to take down
a flying bee with a bullet.
> http://reason.com/news/show/119622.html
>
> the links appears to make a solid argument that GMO crops are not
> a risk to bees.
Also not surprising. The magazine "Reason" has an agenda that
also has nothing to do with beekeeping, but has everything to
do with opposing the work of groups like the Sierra Club, as
"Reason" presents an interesting mix of "Libertarian",
"Conservative", and "Anarchist" views to a very confused
readership who apparently re-read Ayn Rand's books endlessly,
but have also resigned from the John Birch Society after
finding them to be "too liberal".
While I agree that GMO crops are not a good "suspect" to blame
for even contributing to CCD, the "Reason" article is not at all
convincing as a basis for any such conclusion.
The argument presented is much less than "solid", as it simply
illustrates (yet again) that a wide range of studies can be
critiqued as "silly" by someone willing to be very selective about
how they summarize results. For example, lets take just one line
from the "Reason" piece:
"I looked at the 2006 review cited in the Sierra
Club letter. In that review I discovered that all
of the data cited find no observational differences
between bees that fed from biotech crops and those
that didn't."
The paper cited by this line with a link imbedded in the text
"no observational differences":
http://www.gmo-guidelines.info/public/publications/download/HilbeckSchmidt06
.pdf
contains fairly compelling statements like:
"Discussing our findings in the context of current
molecular studies, we argue firstly that the evidence
for adverse effects in non-target organisms is
compelling enough that it would merit more research."
Further, the paper cited (a review of prior studies) listed a number
of "observational differences" in Table 1, showing increased mortality
for bees fed sugar solutions containing BT spores. What this means
is that the SUB-LETHAL EFFECTS of BT are still unknown, but one can
get lethal effects without too much trouble.
The "Reason" piece was thereby misrepresenting the cited paper,
and likely misrepresented other research trotted out as
"evidence" of thing or another. (I could not check out every
citation versus the [mis]representations made in the "Reason"
article, as my intestines kept leaping out of my throat in
a desperate last-ditch instinctive attempt to cover my eyes,
and thereby protect my brain.)
Regardless, studies done on caged bees fed specific toxins are
not going to find any sublethal effect like a "CCD" problem,
as the bees have no brood to raise, no combs to fill, and no
opportunity to fly around and return to the hive (or not return
to the hive). They are bees in a small box, so they either
survive or they don't. Many bees likely die from boredom in
such tests.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
