Are GMO's Really Killing the Bees?

A popular theory here on ATS is that GMO crops are killing bees all over the world, whilst there is no firm evidence of this being the case, I do believe that our pesticides are at least to blame, but not because of GMO's.

The following information comes from this paper titled Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae

It can be found here:

www.plosone.org...

I won't go into much detail here on the study, those that are interested can read it at the above link, as well as find the table and graph I'm going to share with you.

The first graph is showing the amount of pesticides found in the returned pollen from the different fields.



We want to look specifically at the pumpkin field, which returned the highest pesticide load in parts per billion.

Next we have a table of what pollen was collected by the bees in the pumpkin field:

The figures on the right is percentage by weight


Straight away you should notice that none of the pollen returned came from the intended crop, pumpkins, but instead from surrounding wildflowers and weeds.

So, we have high pesticide returns in pollen that came only from wildflowers and weeds

Granted this small example proves nothing but it does start to point us in the right direction if you ask me, that over spray from careless farmers, plus perhaps even over use of pesticides is a cause of the bees dying.

Unless of course, there are GMO wildflowers and weeds out there now?

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
A popular theory here on ATS is that GMO crops are killing bees all over the world, whilst there is no firm evidence of this being the case,

I thought "the popular theory" was the round-up's used for GM crops that killed bees? As far as I know bees have not been eating crops. But then again I might be wrong. But gm pollens could also be a factor. It's possible to correlate the date of mass GM crop production time and demise of bees/butterflies.Although that may not be a foolproof answer, there is no way else of telling unless the big firms allow their samples, including their highly-protected seeds to be independently tested. Something they have been reported to refuse.

PESTICIDE: A product to kill pests.
GMO's: Contain high amounts of pesticide and can tolerate high strength products.

Does the Bee know its not a pest?

reply to post by VoidHawk


I think it's probably a major cause. We don't know exactly what the united states of corporations is up to. Weather modification may be playing a key role. Maybe more than GMO's anything the government is doing could be killing all kinds of wild life.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
PESTICIDE: A product to kill pests.
GMO's: Contain high amounts of pesticide and can tolerate high strength products.

Does the Bee know its not a pest?

good point since the pesticides are tailored by monsanto, bayer sciences, syngenta and the like, to be more enduring and acceptable to the GMO host plant, while remaining systemic and bio-accumulative in the plant and environment around the plant. it's too bad they don't really care about anything but their crops isn't it.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Clearly I didn't make the thread simple enough.

The bees didn't go anywhere near the pumpkin, yet still managed to bring back pesticides in the pollen.

From wildflowers and weeds.

The pesticides, and not just herbicides (for the weeds), were on the wildflowers and weeds.

Why would a farmer spray anything but his crops?

reply to post by AlphaHawk

It should also be noted that the study found that agricultural spraying is not only, nor the greatest source of pesticides found in the study.

In our study and those listed above, pesticides applied by beekeepers to control hive pests were present in a large proportion of the samples, often in quantities higher than most of the pesticides that are applied to crops.

www.plosone.org...

This study, and others, show that when exposed to a combination of pesticides, bees become more susceptible to Nosema infestation. If anything, rather than an argument against GMOs, this would be one in favor of insect resistant GMOs since the use of such greatly reduces the amount of insecticide used.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AlphaHawk

 

If anything, rather than an argument against GMOs, this would be one in favor of insect resistant GMOs since the use of such greatly reduces the amount of insecticide used.

edit on 8/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Often, it is not the amount used, but the concentration of the substance. As an illustration, let's say if you reduce the amount by half, but use herbicides that is 10 times more lethal. You would inevitably end up with higher counts of toxins you spread in the environment. Animals and insects that could previously withstand the normal concentration may not be able to survive this. GM crops have been deliberately designed to withstand high concentration of the herbicides which they are now using. The link to bee decline thus cannot be so simply dismissed.

I don't know why you are so much adamant in protecting corporations with shoddy practices, Phage. You are clearly not impartial on the issue of GMO. Do you have something to gain or think that you may have in the future? Please be honest at least with yourself. Do you think you are helping humanity in this existence by spreading/twisting [mis]information and trying to depict them as absolute truth? Can you be absolutely sure you are not harming yourself and everyone else instead? If you can not, try be more impartial and questioning. Remember we are all connected one way or another. What you are doing intentionally or unintentionally will one day return to you or your loved ones.

For now, don't you ever wonder why lawmakers don't appear to give similar protection to small organic farmers as they have with Monsanto and the gang? Why won't they promote or provide assistance to better [traditional or organic] farming practices instead without the involvement of GM crops? There is no seed patent involved to begin with in traditional/organic crops. No one single entity will monopolize our food production.

Biotech giant Monsanto has been awarded yet another victory by the federal government thanks to a recent Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow larger traces of the herbicide glyphosate in farm-grown foods.

Link

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AlphaHawk

 

It should also be noted that the study found that agricultural spraying is not only, nor the greatest source of pesticides found in the study.

In our study and those listed above, pesticides applied by beekeepers to control hive pests were present in a large proportion of the samples, often in quantities higher than most of the pesticides that are applied to crops.

www.plosone.org...

This study, and others, show that when exposed to a combination of pesticides, bees become more susceptible to Nosema infestation. If anything, rather than an argument against GMOs, this would be one in favor of insect resistant GMOs since the use of such greatly reduces the amount of insecticide used.

edit on 8/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Perhaps the root of the current problem(s) are not really the methods used, but the systemic methodological approach to farming engineered by the Green Revolution, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Green Revolution refers to a series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s, that increased agriculture production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.[1] The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.

To truly make any form of change would mean to really rock the boat and learn new ways of sustainable agriculture, which of course means loss of money for many money-interested parties. This would also mean a lot of consequences on the rest of the food chain dependent on being fed processed produce like corn and other mass produced grains.

In my opinion of course.. I just don't see any change happening. I think food labeling is a good first step to actually see how much a label would change ones diet. Call me pessimistic

reply to post by Kurius

Often, it is not the amount used, but the concentration of the substance. As an illustration, let's say if you reduce the amount by half, but use herbicides that is 10 times more lethal. You would inevitably end up with higher counts of toxins you spread in the environment.

Nice number. The trouble that number is not supported by the facts. The fact is, with insecticides, less is applied when insect resistant crops are planted.

The link to bee decline thus cannot be so simply dismissed.

Nor can it be assumed to exist. For example, in this study (in the OP) two herbicides were detected in pollen. Neither one was glyphosate.

I don't know why you are so much adamant in protecting corporations with shoddy practices, Phage.

I'm not "protecting" anyone. Don't you think that farmers (including beekeepers) should be more responsible about how they apply pesticides? Are you protecting them?

Do you think you are helping humanity in this existence by spreading/twisting [mis]information and trying to depict them as absolute truth?

No. I have never tried to "depict them as absolute truth". But what I have tried to do is get people to not just take everything that the anti-GMO crowd says as being truthful. Because it often isn't.

If you can not, try be more impartial and questioning.

An ironic statement. Very few here seem to make any attempt and being "impartial and questioning". The mantra seems to be "Monsanto is evil and I don't care what anyone says."

Why won't they promote or provide assistance to better [traditional or organic] farming practices instead without the involvement of GM crops? There is no seed patent involved to begin with in traditional/organic crops.

False. Plants were patented long before there were GMOs. Including those used in organic farming.

No one single entity will monopolize our food production.

Correct. Nor can one single entity be given the blame for the ills of a system of agriculture which has evolved over more than a century.

reply to post by Phage

Nice number. The trouble that number is not supported by the facts. The fact is, with insecticides, less is applied when insect resistant crops are planted.

Phage, could you provide up-to-date statistics to back up that statement. Because otherwise ...

The trouble is that number is not supported by the facts.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

Often, it is not the amount used, but the concentration of the substance. As an illustration, let's say if you reduce the amount by half, but use herbicides that is 10 times more lethal. You would inevitably end up with higher counts of toxins you spread in the environment.

Nice number. The trouble that number is not supported by the facts. The fact is, with insecticides, less is applied when insect resistant crops are planted.

Nice description. "Less" doesn't mean anything. Try finding out the ingredients and the concentration in each.herbicide and pesticide. Make comparison that way.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

The link to bee decline thus cannot be so simply dismissed.

Nor can it be assumed to exist. For example, in this study (in the OP) two herbicides were detected in pollen. Neither one was glyphosate.

Just because it was not in the report, it does not mean that can be dismissed. Can you be absolutely certain that there is no correlation to bee declining? Can you rely only on this one report to make your conclusions? THat's too narrow, don't you think?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

I don't know why you are so much adamant in protecting corporations with shoddy practices, Phage.

I'm not "protecting" anyone. Don't you think that farmers (including beekeepers) should be more responsible about how they apply pesticides? Are you protecting them?

Traditional farmers and beekepers have been around longer than Monsanto and GMO farmers. Though I can't be certain if the traditional farmers and beekeepers are to blame, such an argument just doesn't add up, Personally, I can't help thinking why on earth they would suddenly wake up one day, change their running, proven practices and overdose their farms on pesticides/fungicides? But you seems so certain that they do just that and GMO isn't to blame?? That is mind-boggling. Are you or or loved ones working for any of the big companies? If so, you are in no position to be impartial.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

Do you think you are helping humanity in this existence by spreading/twisting [mis]information and trying to depict them as absolute truth?

No. I have never tried to "depict them as absolute truth". But what I have tried to do is get people to not just take everything that the anti-GMO crowd says as being truthful. Because it often isn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some dis-information on both sides, some could be 'planted', others may be just honest mistakes. However, you have only shown one sided attacks. Perhaps you can't see, but most have been without sound logic and in-depth analytic thoughts, sorry to say. I believe emotion has got the better of you. Again, try to be honest with yourself ...what exactly do you personally gain out of this "save Monsanto" effort?
Do I believe the anti-GMO group more than Monsanto? Well, Monsanto has been doing a pretty good job of making people not trusting them. They really don't need anti-GMO group to ruin their image. I for one, would have supported them if they had allowed anyone and everyone access to their seeds for real publicly-funded, longer independent testings and have fair practices dealings with traditional farmers/farming. How much money is enough for them anyhow? We are talking about the sustenance of life here. Should corporate control and profit supersede the rights to seeds...sources of food? If you think they do, do you think they should be allowed to grow to monopolize the food industry as they apparently have in some aspects? Why are they protected and promoted by some powerful (sometimes anonymous) politicians? I don't hear politicians "selling" organic crops, for example, except maybe Michelle Obama with her backyard plantings. :lol;

Originally posted by Phage

Why won't they promote or provide assistance to better [traditional or organic] farming practices instead without the involvement of GM crops? There is no seed patent involved to begin with in traditional/organic crops.

False. Plants were patented long before there were GMOs. Including those used in organic farming.

Most do not require you to buy seeds from a designated supplier, and I don't know of any that would force you not to keep seeds for your next replanting, as Monsanto does.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

No one single entity will monopolize our food production.

Correct. Nor can one single entity be given the blame for the ills of a system of agriculture which has evolved over more than a century.

edit on 8/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Two ills do not make a good recovery. If you notice any ill in the present traditional agricultural system, why not suggest improvements instead without introducing a new problem into the equation?

reply to post by talklikeapirat

You're right. Sorry about that. I've posted them before but of course, not everyone looks at every thing.
There are a few different factors to be considered by just for the heck of it, let's look at some raw statistics.

In 1999 the USDA survey showed the application of 10,115,000 pounds of insecticides on corn.
In 2005 the survey showed the application of 4,849,000 pounds
In 2010 the survey showed the application of 1,631,000 pounds.
In that period of time the acerage increased from 77,386,000 to 88,192,000 while the application of insecticides dropped by 8.48 million pounds.

Cotton:
1999: 39,331,000 pounds
2005: 14,651,000 pounds
2010: 6,041,000 pounds.
A decrease of 33.29 million pounds of insecticides
That translates to a decrease of 81% in pounds applied per acre.


Soybeans:
1999: 400,000 pounds
2012: 4,060,000 pounds
An increase of 3.6 million pounds of insecticides.
That translates to an increase of 9% in pounds applied per acre.


www.nass.usda.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by talklikeapirat

 

You're right. Sorry about that. I've posted them before but of course, not everyone looks at every thing.
There are a few different factors to be considered by just for the heck of it, let's look at some raw statistics.

In 1999 the USDA survey showed the application of 10,115,000 pounds of insecticides on corn.
In 2005 the survey showed the application of 4,849,000 pounds
In 2010 the survey showed the application of 1,631,000 pounds.
In that period of time the acerage increased from 77,386,000 to 88,192,000 while the application of insecticides dropped by 8.48 million pounds.

Cotton:
1999: 39,331,000 pounds
2005: 14,651,000 pounds
2010: 6,041,000 pounds.
A decrease of 33.29 million pounds of insecticides
That translates to a decrease of 81% in pounds applied per acre.


Soybeans:
1999: 400,000 pounds
2012: 4,060,000 pounds
An increase of 3.6 million pounds of insecticides.
That translates to an increase of 9% in pounds applied per acre.


www.nass.usda.gov...

As I said and everybody is well-aware, amount means nothing unless you study the components/ingredients in each. Compare those data instead.

reply to post by Kurius

Nice description. "Less" doesn't mean anything. Try finding out the ingredients and the concentration of each. Make comparison that way.

See the statistics above. They are based on the amount of active ingredient applied.
www.ers.usda.gov...

Just because it was not in the report, it does not mean that can be dismissed. Can you be absolutely certain that there is no correlation to bee declining? Can you rely only on this one report to make your conclusions? THat's too narrow, don't you think?

Did I say that?

Traditional farmers and beekepers have been around longer than Monsanto and GMO farmers. Though I can't be certain if the traditional farmers and beekeepers are to blame, such an argument just doesn't add up, Personally, I can't help thinking why on earth they would suddenly wake up one day, change their running, proven practices and overdose their farms on pesticides/fungicides?

Who do you think is applying the insecticides and fungicides found in the study?

But you seems so certain that they do just that and GMO isn't to blame??

Did I say that?

Most do not require you to buy seeds from a designated supplier, and I don't know of any that would force you not to keep seeds for your next replanting, as Monsanto does.

Have you actually looked? How much do you actually know about seed sales? If you looked you might find that every patented plant prohibits replanting for sale. What would be the point of the patent otherwise? Here is a case. Non-GMO lawsuits

WHEREAS, Pioneer filed the instant lawsuit asserting that CPSC has violated Pioneer’s rights under the 93B82 PVP Certificate, in violation of the Plant Variety Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2321 et seq ., by conditioning, stocking, offering for sale, exposing fo r sale, marketing, selling, dispensing, delivering, and transferring Soybean Variety 93B82 as described herein, and/or by instigating or actively inducing such conduct.

ia600504.us.archive.org...

15.
Ivan L. Nelson and Thomas M. Nelson have infringed the 93M61 Patent, the
93M42 Patent, and possibly other Pioneer patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making,
using, selling and/or offering for sale in the United States, without authority, seed that falls
within the scope of the claims of the 93M61 Patent, the 93M42 Patent, and possibly other
Pioneer patents. Ivan L. Nelson and Thomas M. Nelson were not authorized to and did not have
a license allowing them to engage in the infringing conduct.

patentdocs.typepad.com...

reply to post by Phage


Good point about insect resistant GMOs but I don't think many are ready to go that far yet.

It seems many still can't accept that GMOs may not be the blame after all, let alone help.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

Nice description. "Less" doesn't mean anything. Try finding out the ingredients and the concentration of each. Make comparison that way.

See the statistics above. They are based on the amount of active ingredient applied.
www.ers.usda.gov...

Sorry....That's not a comparative study.

Just because it was not in the report, it does not mean that can be dismissed. Can you be absolutely certain that there is no correlation to bee declining? Can you rely only on this one report to make your conclusions? THat's too narrow, don't you think?

"Did I say that?"

You did falsely imply. Read your text again, dear.

Traditional farmers and beekepers have been around longer than Monsanto and GMO farmers. Though I can't be certain if the traditional farmers and beekeepers are to blame, such an argument just doesn't add up, Personally, I can't help thinking why on earth they would suddenly wake up one day, change their running, proven practices and overdose their farms on pesticides/fungicides?

" Who do you think is applying the insecticides and fungicides found in the study?"

That's where your argument falters. So farmers may have been applying the same amount of insectisides and fungisides all the time. Although you can find traces of the chemicals on dead bees doesn't mean they are killed by those. Let's say you are found dead. The coroner has found some traces of alcohol in your blood. Can he conclude that you died because of alcohol consumption? No! That's what I am talking about...you lack analytic judgement!

But you seems so certain that they do just that and GMO isn't to blame??

"Did I say that?"

It seems clear, dear.

15.
Ivan L. Nelson and Thomas M. Nelson have infringed the 93M61 Patent, the
93M42 Patent, and possibly other Pioneer patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making,
using, selling and/or offering for sale in the United States, without authority, seed that falls
within the scope of the claims of the 93M61 Patent, the 93M42 Patent, and possibly other
Pioneer patents. Ivan L. Nelson and Thomas M. Nelson were not authorized to and did not have
a license allowing them to engage in the infringing conduct.

patentdocs.typepad.com...




Good that you found these cases. Now, do you condone these? What if one day there is no longer a choice of traditional seeds due to contamination? Would you like to be at the mercy of a single or minority of corporations for your livelihood???

Please answer me this, Phage (don't try to avoid it as you had with my other questions): if there was a five-year GMO-only-diet study, would you enroll your family in it? Free GMO-food for five years to test its safety. If you would, please form a group. I am sure someone out there would be pleased to contact you.
Again, perhaps you and your loved ones are now depending on these companies survival for your immediate gratifications? You can't argue the anti-GMO groups are much more far-sighted. Please remember...whatever you are trying to do/protect will one way or another definitely come to haunt you one day. I hope you will not have to live/die with that regret.

reply to post by Kurius

Sorry....That's not a comparative study.

Right. It's not a study at all. It is actual statistics on pesticide usage. What sort of "comparison" are you looking for?

You did falsely imply. Read your text again, dear.

Ok, honey. Let's see what I said:
Here is what you said:

The link to bee decline thus cannot be so simply dismissed.

Here is my response

Nor can it be assumed to exist. For example, in this study (in the OP) two herbicides were detected in pollen. Neither one was glyphosate.

I was coming to no conclusion about what the study says about bee deaths.
What the study shows is that certain pesticides found in pollen can be linked to a parasitic infestation found in some bee hives. But you didn't read the study. Did you?

" Who do you think is applying the insecticides and fungicides found in the study?"

That's where your argument falters. So farmers may have been applying the same amount of insectisides and fungisides all the time.

Yes, they could have. Except that statistics don't indicate that.

Although you can find traces of the chemicals on dead bees doesn't mean they are killed by those. Let's say you are found dead. The coroner have found some traces alcohol in your blood. Can he conclude that you died because of alcohol consumption? No!

I didn't say that insecticides and fungicides are the cause of bee deaths. And the study doesn't say that either. It has nothing to do with anything found on dead bees.

"Did I say that?"

It seems clear, dear.

Perhaps in you mind. Honey.

Good that you found these cases. Now, do you condone these? What if one day there is no longer a choice of traditional seeds due to contamination?

Do I condone a business suing those who violate their intellectual property rights? Yes, I do.

What if my uncle was a woman? Then he'd be my aunt. In other words, your speculation is pointless given the lack of any evidence that "contamination" would have such a result. Hybrids have been around for a very long time and they have not contaminated "traditional" plants out of existence.

Don't blame hybrids for the loss of "traditional seeds". Don't blame GMOs. Blame farmers. Farmers don't buy them because they have no choice, they buy them because they like them.

“Very simply, I choose my seed based upon the best variety for my conditions that we farm. I choose to use GM seed because it works for me, not because I don’t have other choices”

jldphotographblog.com...

Please answer me this, Phage (don't try to avoid it as you had with my other questions): if there was a five-year GMO-only-diet study, would you enroll your family in it?

What would my incentive be?

Again, perhaps you and your loved ones are now depending on these companies survival for your immediate gratifications?

Ah, there it is. The shill accusation. Never fails.

You can't argue the anti-GMO groups are much more far-sighted.

Which means they can't see what's in front of their face? Why do they have to lie so much?

Originally posted by Kurius
Please answer me this, Phage (don't try to avoid it as you had with my other questions): if there was a five-year GMO-only-diet study, would you enroll your family in it? Free GMO-food for five years to test its safety. If you would, please form a group. I am sure someone out there would be pleased to contact you.

Again, perhaps you and your loved ones are now depending on these companies survival for your immediate gratifications? You can't argue the anti-GMO groups are much more far-sighted. Please remember...whatever you are trying to do/protect will one way or another definitely come to haunt you one day. I hope you will not have to live/die with that regret.

edit on 10-8-2013 by Kurius because: (no reason given)

So would you enroll your family in a five year GMO-only diet, Phage? I think Monsanto would support this program, don't you? It is not an evil corporation and I am sure your family will be fine.