One cube or two? Jill Richardson made a good catch on the GMO crop front the other day. She dug up an article from a Boulder, CO newspaper that detailed the debate over local sugarbeet farmers’ request to plant GM seeds within the city limits. The farmers claim that without GM sugar beets, they’ll be unable to meet their Western Sugar Cooperative quota. But that’s not the reason I’m telling you all this (nor is it for the useful fact that sugarbeets have been a staple crop in Boulder for a century). I’m telling you all this because the article contained this revelation:
Since it was approved a year ago, more than 90 percent of the nation’s sugarbeet crop has been converted to Roundup Ready, according to a Boulder County staff report.
“Roundup Ready,” of course, refers to Monsanto’s group of genetically engineered corn, soy, canola, cotton and now sugarbeet seeds that can withstand the direct application of the potent pesticide glyphosate (aka Roundup). In the course of a year, Monsanto’s Frankensugar has taken over the national sugarbeet crop. Yeesh.
As Jill observes, something like half of the refined sugar available in the US comes from sugar beets. That, of course, means that no small amount of the sugar that you cook with or put in your coffee is genetically modified—and suggests that pretty much 100% of conventional processed foods now contain GMOs. Whatever our expectation of processed foods, few of us, I think, would have considered plain, old table sugar a potential GMO product. I know I found this unsettling.
This wouldn’t be quite the same problem, of course, in Europe, which has mandatory GMO labeling laws. You wouldn’t need crack bloggers digging around in local Boulder, CO newspapers to learn the truth. It’s enough to make you think that the big food companies just don’t want you to know. Nah. I must just be getting paranoid. Anyway, I think I’ll take up Jill’s suggestion and stick to organic sugar. For better or for worse, the organic label, with its restrictions on the use of GMO ingredients, is the closest we’ve got to GMO-labeling in this country.
UPDATE: Stephanie Ogburn in comments below flagged another sugarbeet battle going on in Oregon. Turns out an organic farmer found viable GMO sugarbeet roots in a commercial soil mix. His fear is that it could contanimate huge swathes of land with Roundup Ready sugarbeets when the roots sprout and then flower. The farmer involved also has a “lawsuit, now before a federal judge in California [that] contends that USDA officials violated federal law
when they deregulated the genetically modified sugarbeets in 2005 and
asks for an injunction to halt their planting, sale or distribution.” I doubt the suit will succeed but one can only hope. This kind of unpredictable cross-contamination does make you feel like Monsanto has no real understanding of exactly what they’ve unleashed on us.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
So long and thanks for all the fish
Comments
View as Flat
solargroupies Posted 5:16 am
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 7:50 am
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 4:21 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Cynthe Posted 1:49 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 9:43 pm
03 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 4:23 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Cynthe Posted 5:18 pm
02 Jun 2009
I'm a supporting member of the excellent organization Organic Consumers Association and buy local & organic from our Farmers Market as much as possible, figuring my dollars are my most important vote and am happy to support those who do so for a living.Being an organic gardener, myself, I know how much goes into growing organically...and see in my own tiny properity what a difference it makes in this teeny part of the eco-system.We each get to choose our priorities and how we want to spend our dollars, where we still have a choice....
Permalink
Yardener Posted 5:38 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Cynthe Posted 6:58 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 7:32 pm
02 Jun 2009
Thanks for both answers: what is the chemical difference and is there GMO coffee.
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 7:40 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 7:44 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Coolfusion Posted 11:48 am
06 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 7:41 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 8:10 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 7:15 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 8:19 pm
02 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 4:54 am
03 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 5:43 am
03 Jun 2009
Permalink
splashy Posted 1:34 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 2:38 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 6:12 am
03 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 6:55 am
03 Jun 2009
Permalink
peaceiscomingforyou Posted 1:13 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 2:30 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
splashy Posted 1:41 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 2:37 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
peaceiscomingforyou Posted 4:54 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
AnpoWi Posted 7:57 pm
03 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 8:19 pm
03 Jun 2009
Same with HFCS: they've manipulated it enough so that nutritionally speaking it's the same as sugar. Of course it's not.Thanks for your post. My sentiments exactly. I just have to go on a wild goose chase with a certain someone until that person gets tired.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 5:54 am
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 12:34 pm
05 Jun 2009
are faulty. CCD has been found on organic and Amish farms, which led
researchers to rule out genetically engineered crops, pesticides, and
cell phones as a cause. Most likely, the cause of CCD is a combination
of inbreeding and stress (from a number of sources including
pesticides, movement of
colonies in trucks, and variable food sources) which both make the bees
more susceptible to mites and the diseases the mites carry, including
parasites. A friend of mine wrote a paper about it: Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: A Literature Review which sums up the CCD situation. He writes about some potential solutions
that have been suggested by bee researchers, such as planting flowers
among crops to give bees additional food sources for when the crops
aren't flowering. As for the GMOs, Roundup Ready and Bt are very different traits. The chemical
glyphosate in Roundup blocks an important metabolic pathway in plants
by binding to an enzyme. RR crops have a version of the enzyme that is
not affected by glyphosate (How Roundup Works and Roundup Ready Transgenic Plants). Animals,
including bees, do not have this pathway, so are not affected. RR crops
have allowed farmers to replace the highly toxic atrazine with the
relatively benign glyphosate, which overall has a positive affect on
bees and everything else (unfortunately, Roundup has been overused
which has led to the evolution of resistance in some weeds, but that's
another subject). The only difference between RR sugar beet and
conventional non-RR sugar beet is a little snippet of DNA, this one
enzyme, and the fact that non-RR beets get more toxic herbicide sprays.
The sugar extracted from them is indistinguishable since sugar does not contain protein or DNA. Bt crops produce a protein that is toxic to a narrow range of insects, including the larvae of certain moths and beetles. There
have been quite a few studies showing that Bt fields have more insect
biodiversity than conventional BT fields that have been sprayed with
insecticide, such as this study conducted by USDA-ARS and EPA researchers.
The researchers say that no treatment is best, but that Bt is
significantly less harmful to insect biodiversity than any of the
pesticides they tested.When it comes to bees specifically, many studies have shown that Bt has no effect on bees young and old, even in concentrations much higher than they would encounter in the field, as described in this article by a University of Maryland pest management extension agent. I hope that helps to clear things up :) Feel free to visit my blog, Genetic Maize, if you have any questions.
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 12:53 pm
05 Jun 2009
cell phones as a cause." It's true that industry researchers deny up and down their involvement in CCD, but that's not exactly the scientific mainstream. In fact, Europe has already banned certain pesticides implicated in bee deaths.A recent Salon piece went over the lastest news. It looks like the pesticide imidacloprid is likely involved so you might want to update your lit review. Also, as I understand it, Monsanto never tested RR crops on bees and to suggest that a lack of testing proves anything is somewhat disingenuous. We simply don't know the facts yet.I should also point out that a "little snippet of DNA" can be all that distinguishes a healthy individual's DNA from that of a severely disabled one. Your observation is entirely beside the point and doesn't suggest a strong grasp of the science of genetics.
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 6:57 pm
05 Jun 2009
into more detail, which I do frequently on my blog, but infrequently in
a comment.I
hadn't yet seen an article about the effects of chloronicotinoids on
bees (I study crop genetics, not pest control, and can only handle so
many RSS feeds) so thank you for directing my attention to it. It's
just one more reason why we should be investigating methods of crop
insect control other than broadcast sprays, including genetically
engineered crops like Bt. I did note in my comment that pesticides can
negatively affect overall health, making bees more susceptible to
disease. So, let me restate - researchers have ruled out existing
genetically engineered crops and cell phones as a cause of CCD. Monsanto has tested glyphosate on bees, as can be found in this extensive report (I didn't look for tests on the surfactants, which have come up as an
issue before). There is no reason to hypothesize that bees would be
adversely affected by glyphosate, the enzyme produced by the RR gene
(one amino acid different from the native plant enzyme), or the RR gene
itself (one nucleotide different from the native plant gene). Neither
the substrate (shikimate-3-phosphate) nor the enzyme itself (EPSP synthase)
exists in bees. The presence of the RR gene in pollen wouldn't have any
adverse effect either. All of this doesn't even need to be tested
because pollen already naturally contains all of these things and the
bees do just fine. Regardless, CCD is happening in places where RR
crops are a very small percentage of farmland, i.e. Europe. Occam's
razor.I understand basic biology just fine, thanks. I didn't feel it
necessary to go into great detail on this, because it really doesn't
matter, but no problem, here we go into the world of maybes and could
bes. Refined sugar doesn't contain DNA. Even if you took a big bite out
of a GM sugar beet, the added gene would be digested with the rest of
the DNA you eat (about 6 miles of DNA a day, or so I've heard). It is
rare but possible that small snippets of DNA can survive in the stomach
and even travel into the blood, where it is degraded. Loose DNA doesn't
last very long when exposed to stomach acid or to nucleases which are
present in blood. Even if the incredibly unlikely scenario of a human
cell integrating the RR gene into its gnome occurred, it would most
likely never be transcribed into mRNA because the gene uses a promoter
which isn't recognized by our RNA polymerase. Even if the gene was
incorporated into the human genome right after a promoter and t was
transcribed and was translated into functional EPSP synthase, it would have no health implications because we don't have any substrates for it to bind to. There
is some potential for bacteria to pick up pieces of DNA and incorporate
them into their genomes, but the RR gene is actually from a soil
bacterium, so multiple genes for glyphosate resistance are already out
there in the wild naturally. There are tons of ways that gene transfer
happens in nature (check out these posts about Natural GMOs)
but they are all relatively isolated situations and statistically
unlikely. Sorry to break it to you, but there is no danger associated
with RR crops that aren't associated with their non-GM counterparts due
to the snippet of DNA.
Permalink
Yardener Posted 7:18 pm
05 Jun 2009
with RR crops that aren't associated with their non-GM counterparts due
to the snippet of DNA." is the same as saying "there is danger associated with RR crops that are associated with their non-GM counterparts due to the snippet of DNA."You're simply admitting through hairsplitting denials that RR crops are a danger but not in the way we think they are, and yet not telling us (denial) what the danger is.Pure scientific heap of polymorphous nonsense. You can split hairs all day but until you can put it into plain language that non-GMO crops are not a danger... well, what's the point of trying to prove a negative, save to couch one's terms and arguments in such a way to stand firm on the bald patch of skin with one hair and proclaim "See, it's not bald at all!"
Permalink
peaceiscomingforyou Posted 8:38 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:43 pm
05 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 9:41 am
08 Jun 2009
genetically engineered plants that are on the market, including many
that had no connections to any corporation. A list of such papers has
been collected here. If you are going to challenge the science, please at least attempt to do so with more than rumors and insults.
Yardener, this language isn't splitting hairs, it's the language of
science. We never know anything 100%. Even "facts" that are very well
understood and completely researched can be changed with more
experiments or observation. There is a reason we still have "germ
theory", "the theory of gravtivity" and "the theory of evolution". We
are really really sure that pathogenic bacteria, fungi, and viruses
cause disease, but there could be something else that we haven't
learned about yet. I will not ever say "x is safe" because we may
eventually learn that statement is false in some situations. For
example, DDT is a very useful and yes, even safe chemical if used in
certain situations, but we know all of the
negative effects of overuse as was done in the 1950s.
"Peaceiscomingforyou", please pay attention. I didn't "cite Monsanto", I
provided to Tom an example of what testing Monsanto had done in direct
response to his comment.
Tom: as I understand it, Monsanto
never tested RR crops on bees and to suggest that a lack of testing
proves anything is somewhat disingenuous.
Anastasia: Monsanto has tested glyphosate on bees, as can be found
in this extensive report [followed by reasons why they didn't need to
test the RR pollen].
All of the sites you posted are junk. I have watched WAM and
FoF, I have read Jeffery Smith's ramblings along with all of
the books you've listed, I am familiar with the Vandana Shiva's
claims about farmer suicides... and I've found them all to be hollow.
They
include outright falsehoods that go against all known science and
faulty logic connecting unrelated things. Anti-GM spokespersons often
resort
to lies to get their claims across, and that should set off
warning signals for any rational person. There are legitimate concerns
about some farming methods, including genetic engineering, which I
discuss frequently on my blog, but strangely, they are rarely brought
up by people that say they are concerned about GM. I
suppose fearmongering is preferred - it certainly seems to have worked on you!
Alida, from your comments,
I still don't think you understand the difference between RR and Bt.
These two traits are not the same at all. As for the
bees, my friend's paper is an up to date review of the literature as of
November 2008, which does include work from industry. If you have
evidence that disproves anything I've said or that is in his paper,
please, let's see it. I fully admit that I have not read everything
ever written on the subject and would love to learn about anything I've
missed.
The 2007 caddisfly-Bt study by Rosi-Marshall that you mentioned has
been debunked by several experts in the field. The researchers
unfortunately made inappropriate conclusions from their work, and other
scientists have called them on it. I wrote about it in Even scientists
make mistakes or
you can view the challenges to the paper directly at PNAS: Beachy and Parrott. One paper is never enough
to make a definitive statement. It is only with an accumulation of
papers that the reality of a situation shows through.
You say "Monsanto only tested the GMO corn seeds on an insect similar
to the corn borer, not on bees" (which doesn't really make sense, because the seeds are inert on their own...) but you wouldn't believe any research
coming from Monsanto anyway. Many researchers from a variety of institutions across the planet have
studied the effects of Bt pollen, Bt crop residues, the crystalline
protein itself, etc on a variety of insects and have concluded that the
pollen and crop residues are safe for non-target insects. Just one
example: a meta-analysis (a study of studies) showed that non-target insects were higher in
Bt fields than in non-Bt fields that have been sprayed with
insecticide: Bt Crop Effects.
The same study and others did find that there are fewer of some types
of insects in Bt fields when compared to non-Bt fields that were
treated with insecticide. The reasons for this still need to be
studied in more depth, but likely have to do with trophic relationships of the
insects, such as a reduction in insects that prey on the target insects.
Finally, dear Yardener, Peaceiscomingforyou, and Alida, are you being
paid by the organic lobby? You are all shills! See how silly that
sounds? Seriously, the last way to have a constructive debate is to
make claims about someone you don't even know - especially when the
person has clearly listed any potential conflicts of interest very
clearly on his/her website. When you start calling people names, you show that your points are so weak that you have to resort to mud slinging. In short, you lose all credibility.
Permalink
Yardener Posted 10:05 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 10:41 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
peaceiscomingforyou Posted 11:49 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 12:17 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
yellow1 Posted 11:14 am
06 Jun 2009
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 5:32 am
07 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 9:44 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 6:57 pm
06 Jun 2009
Permalink
Coolfusion Posted 7:50 pm
06 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 6:35 am
07 Jun 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 8:02 pm
07 Jun 2009
Extension Pest Management Specialist
University of Maryland
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has caused much concern among beekeepers nationwide and it is not clear to date what is causing the die-off.
Genetically modified crops, specifically Bt corn, have been suggested as a potential cause of CCD. While this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence based on a multitude of studies argues strongly that the current use of Bt corn is not associated with CCD.
The hazard to bees due to any potential toxicant depends on toxicity and exposure. The endotoxins currently expressed in Bt corn (Cry1 types against caterpillars; Cry3 types against beetles) are not biologically active against hymenopteran insects such as the honey bee, nor do the CCD symptoms resemble those expected in Bt intoxicated organisms. Exposure is also very low because the expression of endotoxins in pollen is barely detectable in most Bt corn hybrids and corn does not produce nectar.
For these reasons, bees are not commonly found foraging in corn fields. Some argue that the increase in bee loss has paralleled the increase in Bt corn in the United States; however, severe bee losses have occurred in Europe and in areas of Canada where Bt crops are not grown.
What do the scientific studies say about the issue? Numerous laboratory studies have examined the potential non-target effects of Bt corn on honey bees by feeding high doses of the pollen or purified endotoxin mixed with honey or sugar syrup directly to larvae in brood cells. This approach is a standard protocol for Tier I testing of non-target effects on bees and required by EPA before insect-resistant transgenic crops are approved for registration.
Published studies and other technical reports submitted to EPA have all shown no adverse acute effects. In particular, recent laboratory studies in New Zealand and Switzerland exposed bees by feeding on pollen treated with purified Cry1 endotoxins at doses considered well above the maximum environmental exposure levels encountered in the field. Results showed no negative effects on bee survival.
Laboratory feeding studies at the University of Maryland also showed no effects on the weight and survival of honey bees feeding on Cry1Ab-expressing sweet corn pollen for 35 days.
Potential sublethal effects of Bt corn on honey bees have also been addressed, but not as extensively as the acute effects.
For newly-emerged bees, the presence of Bt proteins in ingested pollen may affect hypopharyngeal gland development and thus the ability of nurse bees to make brood food.
However, the same studies in New Zealand and Switzerland reported no effects of Bt pollen or endotoxin on hypopharyngeal gland development of newly-emerged bees.
Results of another recent study conducted in indoor flight cages showed no effects of Cry1Ab protein exposure on mortality, syrup consumption, or learning capacities of free-flying honey bees, but foraging activity was slightly reduced.
A two-year field study (soon to be published in the European bee journal Apidologie) conducted by this author and his graduate student represents the first attempt to expose functional colonies of honey bees to Bt corn pollen under open field conditions. In this Maryland study, colonies placed in Bt sweet corn plots were allowed to forage on corn pollen and also fed Bt pollen cakes for 28 days. The pollen cake consumption alone represented approximately 44 percent of the expected daily pollen requirements of each exposed hive.
Results showed no adverse effects on bee weight, foraging activity, colony bee strength and brood development.
Although there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt endotoxins on honey bees, insecticidal products expressed by other transgenes in crops may need extended field testing on a case-by-case basis to assess the longer term consequences of sub-lethal changes in colonies and subtle modifications in bee behavior.
Permalink
Coolfusion Posted 8:23 pm
07 Jun 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 8:34 pm
07 Jun 2009
what I'm about to tell you is not what the beekeeping industry wants you to hear. maryann frazier of Penn State and also from the CCD working group did a detailed study of beeswax brood comb from the beekeepers who claimed the losses from CCD.
a long story short the top 3 chems in the comb were miticide (active chems fluvalinate and comaphous) put into the hives by the beekeepers themselves to kill varroa mites.
the levels of some of these chemicals and their metabolites was near LD50 levels.
theres a lot of fact out there hidden from view by people who are too blinded by their own beleif system and political affiliations and socials status to stand up and make up their own minds. people are like sheep and have opinions that are like their buddies. i'm a big fan of living green - that just does not mean I automatically believe all the talking points of that political affiliation.
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 9:33 pm
07 Jun 2009
nutritionally adequate and will support typical growth and well-being. In most cases, this
can be achieved through an understanding of the genetic modification and its
consequences together with an extensive compositional analysis of the food. Where, on
the basis of available data, there is still concern or doubt in this regard, carefully
designed feeding studies in animals may provide further reassurance that the food is
nutritionally adequate. Such studies may be considered necessary where the
compositional analysis indicates significant differences in a number of important
components or nutrients, or where there is concern that the bioavailability of key nutrients
may be compromised by the nature of the genetic changes to the food.
In the case of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet line H7-1, no significant compositional
differences were evident. On the basis of these findings, feeding studies were not
considered warranted in this case.
Furthermore, the principal human food derivative from sugar beet line H7-1 is highly
refined sugar which is composed of 96–99% sucrose and 0.6–1.2% other sugars
such as glucose and fructose. The extensive processing involved in the production of
sugar effectively eliminates all plant proteins, including the novel protein, from the
final food product. Refined sugar from any source has a long history of safe use as a
human food. Or you could take a look at how the Japanese can't find any DNA to distinguish them:Investigation of residual DNAs in sugar from sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.).Oguchi T, Onishi M, Chikagawa Y, Kodama T, Suzuki E, Kasahara M, Akiyama H, Teshima R, Futo S, Hino A, Furui S, Kitta K.Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2009 Feb;50(1):41-6. Genetically modified (GM) sugar beets have been bred for use as food
and animal feed. To evaluate the applicability of GMO analyses to beet
sugar products, we investigated residual DNA in eight sorts of
in-process beet sugar samples and commercial beet sugar products.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses with taxon-specific primers
indicated that sugar beet DNA was degraded at an early stage of sugar
processing, and no PCR amplification was detected from the investigated
sugar products because of low DNA recovery and/or PCR inhibition.
Sugar from these beets are not going to affect you any differently from before, or any differently from cane sugar, for that matter.I think a good dose of factual information in these discussions is always warranted, I find it troubling that when presented with an opposing viewpoint, certain people above see fit to personally attack others, while simultaneously demonstrating their total lack of familiarity with the science. I find it ironic that someone with no background in genetics accused a genetics graduate student of being unfamiliar with the subject! My irony meter bent a rod on that one.I think it would be of great interest to everyone to keep in mind what we are talking about here. Plant-based foods were bred from wild, small, often toxic plants into exaggerated genetically modified crops that we can eat and enjoy. There's a lot of discussion above about running for pure cane sugar to keep from eating sugar derived from beets that had one gene added to them from another species. But Sugar Cane is itself a prime example of pre-modern genetic modification. During the course of its domestication, it had its entire genome (all of its chromosomes) duplicated, and the entire genome of another species added to it. The result is an enormous, fast growing grass that accumulates a lot of excess sugar in its stalks, which we find suitable for drinking, refining, and even fermenting into rum. Sugar Cane is a combination of all of the thousdands of genes of two separate species - something called an "allopolyploid." Truth is, if you put 'sugar in the raw' into your coffee, you are eating a GMO.You don't have to have a Ph.D. to understand these issues. I can safely say that scientists have not done enough to help people understand and become familiar with the science of this technology, something that many of us hope to change. I started a group blog to discuss it at Biofortified - and you might notice a familiar face or two writing there. I hope you'll join us.Also, count me in as another beekeeper who agrees that the evidence is against CCD being caused by GE crops. I would like to add that the cries for extensive research into dead ends in order to satisfy the desire to find something wrong with GE crops somewhere risks pulling money away from the real causes of our world's problems, including CCD.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:10 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:13 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 9:27 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 9:41 am
08 Jun 2009
effects of Bt176 and Mon810 Bt maize varieties on healthy honeybee
colonies. And here's a study in an open-access journal that you can read in its entirety: Meta-Analysis We conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies that independently assessed
potential effects of Bt Cry proteins on honey bee survival (or
mortality). Our results show that Bt Cry proteins used in genetically
modified crops commercialized for control of lepidopteran and
coleopteran pests do not negatively affect the survival of either honey
bee larvae or adults in laboratory settings. You said "I don't believe enough research has been done regarding bees and BT GMO products." What you are saying is that you have not bothered to research the subject before making blanket statements about it.Yes it is true that there is research suggesting that caddisflies are negatively affected by Bt crop residues that can fall in waterways. But the pesticides that Bt crops eliminate do a lot more damage to more than just caddisflies - and one of the things that anti-GE advocates don't realize is that if you were to remove Bt crops from the list of options that farmers have, you will see a resurgence in those pesticides. In effect, it is indirectly pro-pesticide, and the caddisflies will be worse for it.I am very concerned about the bees, including my own (who happen to be quite healthy), and I do not share Bud's perspective on the realities of CCD. Although some farmers may have poisoned their bees and claimed it was CCD, this problem has hit organic beekeepers and amish beekeepers, and even beekeepers that have their bees in the middle of nowhere without any agriculture around them. It is a real problem and the prudent thing is to focus research on what we know about this problem, and we know that genetically engineered crops are not to blame. Diverting resources from studying the real causes will only delay the research and it will never find the GMO boogeyman that the anti-GE people want to find.The last I heard, the working hypothesis is that a combination of two viruses may be the main cause of CCD.
Permalink
Yardener Posted 10:10 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yardener Posted 10:11 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
peaceiscomingforyou Posted 12:16 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Coolfusion Posted 9:51 pm
07 Jun 2009
Permalink
Coolfusion Posted 9:51 pm
07 Jun 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 7:41 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 8:05 am
08 Jun 2009
According to entomologist Dr. Paul De Bach, a proponent of less insecticide use, “The average farmer has been thoroughly ’sold’ by insecticide salesmen, extension literature and so-called economic entomologists. He has adopted the oft-repeated T-V brain-washing slogan ‘The only good bug is a dead bug.’ Now, obviously, this has to change, not because biological control workers think it is bad, but because it doesn’t work.”(1)
http://www.beesource.com/resources/point-of-view/joe-traynor/the-insecticide-problem/
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 8:05 am
08 Jun 2009
Why wouldn't it starve bees?
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 9:21 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:36 am
08 Jun 2009
In May 2009, NATURE Online asked Dennis van Engelsdorp, Pennsylvania’s acting state beekeeper, to comment on recent developments in the investigation into Colony Collapse Disorder. Here’s what he had to say. Check back later in May for a new report detailing colony losses in the U.S. for this past winter.
Are there any other recent developments regarding CCD in North America since we last spoke in June 2008?
We have discovered a condition we’re calling entombed pollen, where there are high levels of fungicide in some pollen that might be associated with mortality. Certainly most of the colonies that are dying are not dying from CCD. Most of them are dying from poor queen quality, which is something that’s surprising.
Now, if BT pollen affects caddisflies, why wouldn't BT pollen also make the queen's health diminish since they have found evidence of "entombed pollen" affecting the queen's???
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/silence-of-the-bees/ccd-update-from-dennis-van-engelsdorp-may-2009/4991/ ENTOMBED POLLEN?
Any experts want to comment on that?
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:42 am
08 Jun 2009
BT is genetically engineered and also there is BT which is NOT genetically engineered.
Organic farmers ONLY use the type which is NOT genetically engineered.
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 10:02 am
08 Jun 2009
http://books.google.com/books?id=_u2i5A-tZdAC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=rodale+gardening+BT&source=bl&ots=G7wDTxGf9W&sig=88xT0V7wExbpNVU8NEYD8M8gZek&hl=en&ei=YkItSuXYNIWEtwepsoSwCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA339,M1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 10:20 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 9:48 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:54 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 10:12 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 10:20 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 10:22 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 10:36 am
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 10:49 am
08 Jun 2009
Read the whole article here...and anyone who says the bee industry isn't in turmoil, should not be listened to whatsoever in anything they say here...the GOVERNMENT knows they are in peril. It's odd a person who claims to be a bee keeper disagrees...http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:I8yvzFMfLFMJ:agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h80626/Frazier.doc+entombed+pollen&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 11:58 am
08 Jun 2009
been debunked by several experts in the field. The researchers
unfortunately made inappropriate conclusions from their work, and other
scientists have called them on it. I wrote about it in Even scientists
make mistakes or
you can view the challenges to the paper directly at PNAS: Beachy and Parrott. One paper is never enough
to make a definitive statement. It is only with an accumulation of
papers that the reality of a situation shows through.Pesticides sprays on crops and within the hives themselves are contributing to stress which makes the bees susceptible to diseases and parasites. This has nothing to do with Bt crops.
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 12:10 pm
08 Jun 2009
laymen's terms does not always work. I have repeatedly emphasized and
demonstrated to you that we KNOW that Bt in GE crops does not kill
honeybees. I have shown you several references, including an
OPEN-ACCESS publication in PLoS One which you can read in full. Yet, after all of this, you repeatedly indicate the contrary:"All I know is that pollen from nearby BT corn fields is negatively affecting the caddisfly larve when they consume it."Which
shows that you haven't bothered to read and comprehend this
information. Let me state it clearly for you - the research you are
bringing up about pesticide residues in pollen are finding pesticides
(that have been sprayed) in pollen, suggesting that it is adverse
affecting bees. They have not found any hint that Bt in GE crops has
affected bees. We know from many published studies that Bt in pollen
does not kill the bees. This is an established fact. When you put two
and two together, the logical result is four.Something in pollen
killing bees + Bt pollen not killing bees = something other than Bt in
pollen is killing bees. Why are you willfully avoiding this conclusion? I know you are smart enough to get it."Peaceiscomoingforyou" beat you to the punch: And no info you could bring from Monsanto, or anywhere else is going to sway me.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 1:17 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 12:54 pm
08 Jun 2009
most beekeepers have the best looking bees in years. problems in our industry are cyclical and that can be found in the historical accounts dating back to the 1800's where massive die offs occurred and were unexplained.
if GMO's and chemicals were the ROOT and SOLE cause of bee mortaility would we not have continual losses? Whats really funny to most of us beekeepers is the continual insistence that there is a ongoing bee crisis.
Btw who realizes that honeybees are non native to North America?
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 1:20 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 1:28 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 1:13 pm
08 Jun 2009
closing thoughts addressing core problems that seem to be the basis for
most people's mistrust of GMOs. If anyone would like to discuss any
aspects of biotechnology in greater detail, feel free to visit Genetic Maize or Biofortified, neither of which have any connections with agribusiness (I specify this since it seems to be of such great concern). Corporations can be really really horrible global citizens,
especially when government regulation is lax. There are hundreds if not
thousands of examples of problems, from chemicals and medicines claimed
to be safe to cigarettes. Maybe capitalism isn't a good system at all. I don't know. I do know that capitalism with all of its baggage
has nothing to do with the science behind genetic engineering. With
all of the problems with capitalism, one might say we need far more
public agricultural research, but that costs a lot of money. One way to
raise money for development is with patents. Of course, the patenting
of genes for any purpose is undoubtedly a major ethical and practical
problem. If
individuals and companies weren't able to protect their work, there
would be little impetus to develop anything new - but we know there are
a lot of problems with patenting life. One solution is to go totally
open source like CAMBIA.
Another solution is to have a conditional
patent that protects the intellectual property but allows people below
a certain financial threshold to use the plants without penalty. I
don't think any solution is going to be perfect, but this is all a legal problem,
which has nothing to do with the science of genetic engineering. If you want to consider the science of genetic engineering -
there has been a wealth of independent research - but it sounds like
most people can't be bothered to read it. Instead, most want to continue claiming that there isn't any independent research and
focusing on a few long debunked or misunderstood studies. However, if
you decide you have a moment, check out this list of independent safety assessments (and feel free to ask questions at GMO pundit too, since he compiled the list). Of course it isn't an exhaustive list, but you will get the idea. As
for what Bt and RR have done for you - think about what they were
designed to do. Bt replaces an insecticide. This has allowed yields to
go up (because less of the crop is eaten by insects) while taking toxic
insecticides out of the environment (including all the insecticides
that we KNOW kill bees). RR allows the farmer to replace
toxic herbicides like atrazine with the relatively benign herbicide
glyphosate. This isn't perfect! It would certainly be better if farmers
used methods that
didn't require any herbicides or insecticides, but that's not going to
happen. If it did, food prices would skyrocket due to yield loss with
weed competition and insect damage.Think about how expensive organic is compared to conventional. The price difference is partially due to marketing, but a good portion is because growing food organically is expensive.There might be ways to make it less expensive though, by combining sustainable methods with science to develop a new type of farming. I challenge you to read Tomorrow's Table, a book by a genetic
engineer and an organic farmer who show ways that organic farming
methods might be complemented with crops containing certain genetic
improvements. They make a strong argument for organic as well as for
genetic engineering, explaining everything in laymans terms while
providing peer-reviewed references for anyone who wants to read the
research for themselves. There is a Google Book preview here. It
is a shame that Bt and RR are the only GM crops that we've seen, but
the blame for that can be placed on activists that prevent research
into much else. Luckily some researchers are pushing on and have
created some incredibly helpful GM crops. The first that comes to mind
is virus resistant papaya, which is discussed in Tomorrow's Table. I won't provide any links because you'd
probably think they were tainted just from me providing them. I
challenge you to look it up (preferably from a variety of sources) and think about it for yourself. Finally, I just wanted to reiterate what has been said before. If you have to resort to insults, then you might want to do a bit more research on your own claims. Also, before you make any claims, it helps to be able to back it up with more than gut feelings and rumors. These issues are complicated (ethical, social, environmental, legal, and on and on) and require a lot of untangling even before getting down to the "fucking molecule talk". Agriculture is complex. If we're going to bother talking about it, let's do it justice by doing our homework.
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 1:25 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Eileen2 Posted 2:41 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 5:51 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 4:25 pm
08 Jun 2009
Even after the damming evidence from the Maryann Frazier report implicating the beekeepers who contaminated their own bee hives with sublethal and near lethal levels of fluvalinate and comaphous (organophosphate) had more then likely been the source of the dead bees, the Feedlot Beekeepers struck back against Bayer company and created a smokescreen with the ongoing debate about Imidacloprid the systemic chemical that is now the most heavily used in the USA.
Just like this GMO war there is no body of evidence suggesting the Bayer chems are to blame for any widespread bee losses but the Feedlot beekeepers persist via their American Feederation of Beekeepers organization (ABF).
Here's the kicker - what company do you think makes compaphous trade name Checkmite that the beekeepers willingly purchased for over a decade and poisoned their own hives with?BAYER!!!!!!!!!!To me this is one of the most interesting less understood stories within the story of the so called missing bees. To this day comaphous is still being used under a section 18 so called emergency label while the evidence keeps mounting of synergistic effects between compaphous and fluvalinate and also that just compaphous reduces sperm count in drones and causes most queen bees to not be fertile. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493(2002)095[0028:EOFACO]2.0.CO;2
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 7:45 pm
08 Jun 2009
And then Dingler tries to say he's a bee keeper and there is no bee problem, when there is a KNOWN global bee demise problem, LOL, LOL!
And Dingler, you are speaking for Anastasia telling me she isn't blogging for any company related to any AG people????
What a hoot.
What always makes me laugh is when anti-environmental people try to argue their side, they always resort to, "You didn't read it right" or "You don't know what you are talking about" or "You just don't understand".
I gave my research and comments from government and environmental and educational research here.
My point is this.
There is NOT ENOUGH RESEARCH to make a positive scientific claim that BT and genetically engineered products, including Round Up Ready products are NOT partially, if not completely responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder, or Bee Colony Collapse as it was previously called.
I guess the name was changed so the average person wouldn't know that bees were involved, lol...
You people are a hoot.
Thank you, Grist....keep up the good work.
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 10:45 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
peaceiscomingforyou Posted 11:37 pm
08 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 4:37 am
09 Jun 2009
There are companies which are giving free samples to moms who blog about their products.
What's your reward?
Cheers!
Permalink
Inoculated Mind Posted 8:34 am
09 Jun 2009
Permalink
Alida Antonia Cornelius Posted 9:31 am
09 Jun 2009
Permalink