So there's this insecticide called clothianidin that seems likely to be implicated in colony collapse disorder. By the EPA's own reckoning [PDF], clothianidin "has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honeybees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen." Over in Germany, the introduction of clothianidin coincided with a sudden bee die-off, so German authorities recently banned it. They reckoned that giving clothianidin a rest would provide researchers time to look deeper into it without further endangering bees. (France did the same thing with a related pesticide.)
Our own EPA must be preparing to do something similar, right? Well, no. That's not how our EPA works. Rather than banning clothianidin, EPA bureaucrats have busied themselves hiding information about clothianidin.
This, even though, according to NRDC, there's a "a growing consensus among bee specialists that pesticides, including clothianidin and its chemical cousins, may contribute" to colony collapse disorder.
Frustrated by this intransigence in light of ongoing colony collapse, the NRDC has resorted to suing the EPA to force the agency to release the info.
According to NRDC, the EPA registered clothianidin for widespread use back in 2003, under the condition that its maker, German agrichemical giant Bayer CropScience, "submit studies about its product's impact on bees."
But the EPA now refuses to say even whether Bayer has submitted such studies -- much less what said studies might indicate. NRDC first tried to pry that info out of the agency using an open-records request. The agency brazenly refused to respond, and now NRDC has filed suit.
Here's my favorite part. A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle called up the EPA to ask about the clothianidin-related documents. Here was the response:
An EPA spokesman, Dale Kemery, said the agency couldn't comment on the documents required under the conditional registration because the matter is the subject of litigation.
Right. But if the EPA had responded to NRDC's original polite requests, the matter wouldn't be "the subject of litigation." What will those wacky kids think of next?
Meanwhile, another one of my favorite agencies, the USDA, hasn't exactly distinguished itself as a defender of the besieged honeybee. Here is NRDC:
In recent Congressional hearings, USDA was unable to account for the $20 million that Congress has allocated to the department for fighting [colony collapse disorder] in the last two years.
EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade
Seventh Generation launches anti-toxics campaign with wee gimmick
Comments
View as Flat
wiscidea Posted 11:49 pm
19 Aug 2008
A very good idea!
And our EPA and USDA should follow their example.
However...
Nicotinoids and neonicotinoids were developed and continue to be developed to replace nicotine, a natural but VERY TOXIC pesticide that kills insects, mammals, and other organisms (http://ecsoc2.hcc.ru/ecsoc-2/dl001/insecticides.html). The nicotinoids and neonicotinoids are supposed to be more specific, preferably targeting just insects.
Unfortunately, the rage against pesticides does not include ALL pesticides. Organic farmers can still use the natural but more toxic chemical, nicotine!
Shouldn't people concerned about our environment call for the elimination of ALL deadly chemicals from agriculture, synthetic and natural?
What are the EPA, USDA, and other organizations doing to ban or discourage the use of nicotine in the United States and other areas? Or HAS nicotine been banned for use in agriculture?
Permalink
sindark Posted 1:40 am
20 Aug 2008
Humanity would be in big trouble if global bee populations nosedived.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:03 am
20 Aug 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:32 am
20 Aug 2008
Not only are populations of other pollinators declining, but pollinators are often adapted to specific plants. The insects are not necessarily interchangeable. As each species declines and disappears, there will definitely be severe consequences.
Given the importance of pollinators for maintaining the world we emerged from and really really need, any chemical, synthetic or natural, that harms pollinators should be globally banned.
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 4:10 am
20 Aug 2008
To wit:
All of the foreign and US peer reviewed papers on the Neonictinoids and their impact on bees show a very very low level of exposure in nectar and pollen.
As usual Tom takes liberties with the facts and this post is no different then others I have read of his.
Tom said
"Over in Germany, the introduction of clothianidin coincided with a sudden bee die-off, so German authorities recently banned it. They reckoned that giving clothianidin a rest would provide researchers time to look deeper into it without further endangering bees"
Sorry but this chem has been used in Germany for a long time. This spring the Ag Ministry allowed a heavier seed coating then normal of this chem on corn seeds due to some increase of a corn pest. The manufacturer did not use a "sticker" when applying the coating and the chem came off during seeding with pneumatic seeders. The loose chem dust drifted to nearby plants bees were foraging on and resulted in a massive kill. No big mystery here folks!
The chemical was temporarily pulled off the market but my last word from over there it sounds like it is back on the market.
Anyhow the neonictinoid issue is very complex. While EPA and industry literature says the raw material us lethal to bees the bees rarely see the raw chem. This new class of chems are systemic meaning they are absorbed into the plant and expressed in the leaves, nectar and pollen. But its not the raw chem that shows up in the plant but a metabolite. Put that chem on another plant and you have different metabolites.
Bayer has given the metabolites to the CCD research team to assist them in their research. Regardless of what Tom or the NRDC press release says a recent long term study of pesticides found in CCD honey combs found ZERO residues from the raw chem or the metabolites. ZERO!.
From the NRDC press release:
" This, even though, according to NRDC, there's a "a growing consensus among bee specialists that pesticides, including clothianidin and its chemical cousins, may contribute" to colony collapse disorder"
Completely false statement. There are no bee researchers who have made any consensus statement(s) about a correlation between CCD and Bayer products. The scientist on staff at NRDC who is quoted in their full news release has no history in bee research and no published papers either. But here is some real science on CCD and pesticides.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1524991/
look up these two commonly used chems by beekeepers
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor- ...
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coumapho.htm
We do HAVE data on this concern unlike the trumped up unsupported by science claims by Tom and NRDC about the Bayer.
Anyhow back to the NRDC lawsuit. They have a valid point about getting at the data produced by Bayer. In fact the current registration process at EPA relying on the mfgr to provide the date is VERY VERY concerning.
In short should we bee concerned about the Bayer chems...YES .....but the data needs to be collected before we can attritubute any bee losses and so far after almost a decade there is nothing really to prove any claims that bees are being lost over the systemics.
What is more troublesome is the rampant and frequent use of chemicals by the beekeepers themselves!!!!!!
I don;t know why I even read any thing on this site as much of it is not very well researched and like this post is shot from the hip by a person who really has no expertise in the matter and should not even be airing his views.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:31 am
20 Aug 2008
"I don't know why I even read any thing on this site as much of it is not very well researched and like this post is shot from the hip by a person who really has no expertise in the matter and should not even be airing his views."
You probably read views posted here so you can contribute to the discussion and present a different perspective when the situation demands it.
Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge regarding this matter. We all have to try harder to separate fact from fiction and make sure our decisions are rational and not simply knee-jerk feel-good measures.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 4:47 am
20 Aug 2008
I'm glad we agree on the substance of the post: that the EPA's refusal to release info on clothianidin is inexcusable. And thanks for taking the critique one step further: yes, it's scandalous that the EPA is relying on Bayer to test its own product.
So why the bee in your bonnet?
You suggest that clothianidin is back on the market in Germany. Really? Here's the last word I can find on it, from Germany's Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, release dated July 15, 2008 (go here: http://www.bvl.bund.de/cln_027/nn_496790/EN/08__PresseInf ...)
In late April and early May 2008 a bee mortality occurred in parts of South-West Germany, which, according to the latest data, affected approximately 11,000 colonies of bees, some of them substantially. Immediately after this became known, an intensive search for the causes of these incidences was started. For this purpose the Ministerium für Ernährung und Ländlichen Raum (Ministry for Food and Rural Areas) of the federal state of Baden-Württemberg and the local authorities collaborated with the bee-keepers, the laboratory for the investigation of bee incidents at the Julius Kühn Institute, the BVL and the plant protection products industry. Soon, maize seeds which had been treated with the insecticidal substance clothianidin were suspected as a possible cause. In the meantime, a clothianidin poisoning has been confirmed by the Julius Kühn Institute. ....Presumably in autumn 2008, the BVL will decide whether the authorisations for the maize treatment products will re-enter into force under certain conditions and with certain restrictions, e. g. a limitation of the application rate, or if they will have to be revoked altogether.
In other words, clothianidin is still banned in Germany -- and its license remains under threat of being "revoked altogether." As I write above, German authorities evidently "reckon that giving clothianidin a rest would provide researchers time to look deeper into it without further endangering bees."
Unlike the EPA or FDA, Germany's Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety seems to have heard of the precautionary principle.
You do make one substantial claim:
Bayer has given the metabolites to the CCD research team to assist them in their research. Regardless of what Tom or the NRDC press release says a recent long term study of pesticides found in CCD honey combs found ZERO residues from the raw chem or the metabolites. ZERO!
OKAY!!!!!! But if you want to be taken seriously, you might consider revealing sources. Which "CCD research team"? Which "recent long term study"?
Rather than spiking your comments with personal invective -- which taxes your own credibility more than mine -- I suggest you spend a bit more energy backing up your arguments.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 6:12 am
20 Aug 2008
People Like Joe Cummins so called Bayer expert
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/requiemForTheHoneybee.php
phony as a $3 bill
and Dr. Gabriela Chavarria, director of NRDC's Science Center have no history or credentials in honeybee or pollinator research nor have they ever published any peer reviewed articles on honeybees. But various organizations and political groups and blogs like Gristmill attempt to give them some credibility on honeybee issues when they have a message that resonates with their agendas.
The real members of the CCD Working Group formed in early 2007 are:
Bee Alert, Inc
Jerry Bromenshenk,
Colin Henderson
Robert Seccomb,
Larry Tarver
Scott Debnam
Florida Dept of Ag
Jerry Hayes
Penn State University
Diana Cox-Foster,
Maryann Frazier,
David Geiser,
Nancy Ostiguy
Penn Dept of Ag
Dennis vanEngelsdorp
USDA/ARS
Jeff Pettis
contact any or all and you will find out quickly that Bayer products are of concern but not in the top 3 issues being pursued as there is no chemical evidence that the materials are in hives. Sorry NONE! I wish there was as a beekeeper but it just ain't so.
Oh and I would not expect a non-bee expert to have the sources for the real deal on Bayer in Germany but here we go:
There was only a temporary suspension of the use of certain pesticides on treated seeds inspecific types of pneumatic seed drills in Germany.
We have all been misled by a press that should fact-check more, and use more precise language. We have been further misled by people with agendas that don't really have any interest
in the facts when the facts don't match their agenda.
Here's one reporter who got his facts straight:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25367916
"Germany..... lifted a temporary ban on some of Bayer AG.'s insecticides for the treatment of canola seeds...
Bayer's corn seed treatment Poncho, together with three other corn treatments, remain suspended until better seed treatment and sowing methods have been developed..."
More than just neonicotinoids were subjected to the
temporary suspension.
What was the common factor between all these different pesticides? The "seed treatment and sowing methods" mentioned in the article.
Why were some of the pesticides taken off the suspension list?
The article explains clearly:
"...on the canola products was now lifted because the ventilation used in corn sowing machines, which aggravated the spread of the insecticide, is not used in canola sowing."
Further, we have the original suspension order from Germany's BVL, which when combined with the MSNBC report, gives a much more clear impression of the intent of the temporary
suspensions:
"The enquiry showed that the use of pneumatic sowing machines of a particular construction type for the sowing of seeds treated with insecticides led to a higher degree of bee exposure than was hitherto assumed in the registration process."
So, Germany suspended only the planting of these seed treatments with specific pneumatic drills. The pesticides were still "approved for use" by farmers who use non-pneumatic
planting equipment.
But don't expect anyone to pay any attention to the facts, as facts are rarely provided in blogs like gristmill its mostly preordained ideas that one crams the so called evidence into.
The simple fact is that we have two issues. In Germany a misapplication occured and caused a loss. This is really of no interest to the CCD question. It was a mistake! Kinda like who cares..... a seemingly one time affair that will be rectified, not the source of a lawsuit by NRDC. Its hardly even a relevant point!
The real story of interest relative to the NRDC claims is the sublethal and long term effects of systemic insecticides in the environment. Systemic means using the plant as a delivery mechanism for this new class of chems.
Really I don't know why a blogger with no science or bee experience wades into this arena its quite complex.
Most of the bee loss information online is WRONG! or incomplete or BOTH!!!!
the really big issue is the documented contamination of bee hives by beekeepers themselves!!!!!!!!!! But that just does not fit the agenda of many people, blogs or organizations so it gets no air time.
Again here is a real issue
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1524991/honey_bees_s ...
These legal chems were registered as a Section 18 emergency 20 years ago! The emergency now is the massive and widespread contamination. Some estimates suggest that 80-90% of the honeycomb where the bees live in the USA is contaminated!
Lets get these materials delisted!!!!!!
The Bayer "noise" and related NRDC release is really a smoke screen for the Industrial beekeepers who contaminate the combs and then try and blame Bayer and agriculture for their dead bees. I'm serious.....We have DATA on this unlike the Bayer accusations!!!!!.
What's really ironic is that coumaphos the registered EPA chem for bees (trade name Checkmite) is a BAYER product!!!!!! how odd is that?
http://pr-rp.pmra-arla.gc.ca/PR_SOL/pr_web.ve1?p_ukid=387 ...
I could go on but I have my bees to tend to........
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:14 am
20 Aug 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:21 am
20 Aug 2008
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 12:09 pm
20 Aug 2008
organic doesn't mean shit. you can have someone living pretty light on the land leave less of a foot print then a certified operation of industrial size.
btw there is no USDA organic standard for honeybees or bee related products. this leave the door open for each certification house to devise their own rules as long as the fit into the "general" organic requirements. some of the less ethical houses have been pointed out recently as not living up to the spirit of the regulations.
look at QAI and there is only 1 or 2 organic certified beekeepers in the USA - the rest are OUS.
Its just not a meaningful label in the market place right now when the market is flooded with crappy foreign cooked product. anybody with a local raw honey product can do well these days without playing games claiming they are some organic with that label on their jar..
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 10:16 pm
20 Aug 2008
The Journal of Economic Entomology, June 2007 pages 765-772, "Exposure to Clothianidin Seed-Treated Canola Has No Long-Term Impact on Honey Bees" by G. Christopher Cutler and Cynthia Scott-Dupree of the University of Guelph, in Canada.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:41 pm
20 Aug 2008
Actually it does. It means recycling it into fertilizer instead of using ammonia imported from Russia? Are you a friend of Russia now? hehey.
Anyway, if you could slow the dimbulb limboob tirade mental process for a moment or two?
I read the article on pesticides and fungus in the wax that the foundation is made from.
Is there anyway to remove the contaminants from the wax by refining it? maybe with actual vaporization and condensation? The volatile pesticides should be lighter and easy to separate in the distillation process, as with refining oil.
The fungus would all be eliminated. Then if one had bees in a wilderness surrounding devoid of chemical farming areas. One could thrive with organic hives, healthy and chem free. Maybe even selling healthy bees to replace the ones dying now.
Might be a good bee business model, only for the non-limboobed of course. But that's understandable.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 5:51 am
22 Aug 2008
irradiation will work to remove the chemicals, - but the real solution is to not use chemicals in bee hives. try telling that to 85% of the beekeepers in the USA.
there is no fungus. the article referred to agricultural fungicides meaning chemicals.
its a real problem on this blog that the posters and readers have little knowledge or appreciation for science.
so call me organic or what ever. I just am tired of the organic label and the politics that go with it.
i have kept bees for 40 years and grow berries also. I have never used chemicals ....ever......and I dont care for the organic label.
Permalink