Charles said:
 
"Not sure I would call it surprising.   (I do need to read the paper yet)"

Yes, you do need to read the paper as I taught you to do!  As you said, others have done the same work and done it better, yet this one shows up in Nature. and gets reported by Newsweek and ask yourself, is this a study deserving of publication in Nature?  You need to read it.  
 
But, in case you are too busy with your bees - some of us have been discussing this paper.  My summary of these discussions follow; and I realize that authors will probably vigorously dispute my opinion.  
 
First and foremost, it's a small study, and I don't see anything, except for one finding, that is new.  I'd expect to see this study presented at meetings, published as a note, or in a trade journal, but it's not what I expect of a Nature article.
 
 
As you mentioned, Amy Toth and others, including ourselves, have found fungicides like Azoxystrobin to be the most common pesticides associated with corn.  So, pesticides, especially fungicides in pollen, that's not new. 
 
Similarly, the Crop Dust Research Consortium investigators (looking at the planter dust issue), such as Reed Johnson, have extensively studied pollen samples collected at planting time and found that bees collect a diversity of pollen.  In addition, we examined 53 corn fields during the period of pollen shed in IL, IN, and NE and at 30 Canadian Canola sites and have widely reported the results - bees don't much like field corn pollen. Bees like canola pollen, yet still collect other pollens near canola.  And we know that bees collect pollen from soybeans, yet are attracted to some varieties of soybeans and not to others.. 
 
So we've known and there are several studies showing that bees will diversify pollen collection, even if placed near crops that they actively forage.  So bees collecting a diversity of pollen, that's not new. 
 
Returning to the  Nature paper, others noticed that every sample contained DEET.  I haven't seen DEET (mosquito repellant) in the samples of other investigators. I'd suspect that the Nature paper field crew wasn't wearing disposable gloves when handling pollen samples, and that they contaminated every sample.  If they got DEET in every sample, then it's probable that they cross contaminated samples with other pesticides.  
 
As a matter of protocol,  we insist that our crews use a new set of gloves for each sample to avoid contamination.  This is very important since labs can detect pesticides at ppb levels.   Handle one contaminated sample with used gloves or unwashed hands and any pesticides in that sample are likely to show up in any or all downstream samples. 
 
Mosquito repellant in every sample, possible carry-over contamination in every sample.  That's new!  Thanks to those who first pointed this out.
 
But the biggest issue we all should have with the Nature paper is that this paper, which appears in a prestigious journal, is based on the results from 2 colonies at 3 small 3.7 acre field sites, in one county in Indiana.   This this study is apparently considered adequate for characterizing bee exposure to corn-soybean agro-ecosystems.  That is news!        

Doesn't say much for the state of science reporting when pesticides are involved:  One county in Indiana is considered to be representative of the corn and soybean croplands of the US and Canada!   And, the results from this country are considered adequate for conducting a risk assessment, which in itself is flawed.
 
Their risk assessment overestimates daily doses which are tiny, adds them up for a seasonal dose, and compares the cumulative result to LD50.  As a colleague commented, given that approach, I should be dead from lethal caffeine poisoning within a few weeks from my daily coffee fix.  I haven't died yet, and I drink one or more cups per day, and I've done so for over 50 years.
 
I have got to give the authors credit for convincing Nature that this was a significant, innovative study containing new and newsworthy results that deserved to be published in Nature.  They rival the Flow Hive group in terms of marketing acumen.
 
Is this the Lu paper of the decade?  No,  it's a small study, has some useful data.  But the authors don't know how to conduct a risk assessment, and the Nature reviewers should have caught both the small size,  contamination issue, and flaws in the risk assessment.
 
I'm disappointed in Nature.  They've fallen into the media trap; crossed the line. 
 
I saw Science do this when Mt St Helen's erupted.  A special issue was rushed to Press with papers devoted to volcanic ash, the eruption, anything remotely related to the eruption.  Some of the articles were good, others down-right poor.  At the time, by the time that I finished reading the Special Issue, I was surprised that Science hadn't published a paper by a school janitor reporting how  much dust had been swept up from the floor.  Quality of publication went out the window - getting the scoop, attracting public attention, trumped good science.
 
 
 
 
 
 








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