LISTSERV - IOWA-TOPICS Archives - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:45:33 -0800
From: "GMWatch" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: GMW: Bt corn, insecticide use and honey bees
To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-To: "GMWatch" <[log in to unmask]>
Precedence: list
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1dc1494f0ecb187a7c
X-AOL-IP: 66.33.216.128
X-AOL-SPF: domain : dreamhost.com SPF : pass


1.Genetically Engineered Crops in the Real World =E2=80=93 Bt Corn, Insec=
ticide Use, and Honey Bees=20
2.Are Pesticides Behind Massive Bee Die-Offs?
---
---
1.Genetically Engineered Crops in the Real World =E2=80=93 Bt Corn, Insec=
ticide Use, and Honey Bees=20
Doug Gurian-Sherman
Union of Concerned Scientists, January 10 2012
http://blog.ucsusa.org/genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-real-world-%E2=
%80%93-bt-corn-insecticide-use-and-honeybees-2

One of the most frequently mentioned benefits of genetically engineered c=
rops is a reduction in chemical pesticide use on corn and cotton. These c=
hemicals typically kill not only pest insects but also beneficial insects=
 that help control pests or pollinate crops. They may also harm other fri=
endly organisms like birds.

But in reality, corn engineered to kill certain insect pests=E2=80=94AKA =
Bt corn=E2=80=94has mainly resulted in the replacement of one group of ch=
emical insecticides with another. Previously, corn may have been sprayed,=
 or soil treated with chemical insecticides to control several insect pes=
ts, especially corn rootworm. Bt has largely eliminated (at least for the=
 time being) the demand for insecticides to control rootworm or European =
corn borer.

But those who tout the benefits of GE fail to mention that today virtuall=
y all corn seed is treated instead with chemical insecticides called neon=
icotinoids to ward off several corn insects not well controlled by Bt tox=
ins. And while almost all corn is now treated with insecticide via the se=
ed, substantial amounts of corn went untreated by insecticides prior to B=
t. For example, corn alternated (rotated) with soybeans from year to year=
 usually needed little or no insecticide treatment, and only five to 10 p=
ercent of corn was sprayed for corn borers.

Dead bees

A new publication by several academic entomologists on the impact of neon=
icotinoid insecticides on honey bees shows that such seed treatment may b=
e having serious repercussions. Previous research has linked neonicotinoi=
ds to bee deaths as a possible contributor to colony collapse disorder, w=
hich is wreaking havoc on bees across the United States.

The new research is important in showing that when neonicotinoid insectic=
ides are used as seed treatments, they can migrate through the soil or th=
rough the air in dust to other plants near (or in) corn fields, like dand=
elions, which honey bees prefer as a pollen source. It was already known =
that this type of insecticide can travel through the plant as it grows, a=
nd this study also shows corn pollen contaminated with this insecticide a=
nd substantial corn pollen use by honey bees.

Importantly, the amount of the insecticide found in and around corn field=
s is near the range known to kill honey bees, and dead bees collected nea=
r treated fields contained insecticide residues. It is also known that su=
b-lethal doses of these insecticides can disorient bees, and may make the=
m more susceptible to pathogens and parasites.

There are a few pieces of the puzzle that still remain to be put into pla=
ce, but it is looking likely that neonicotinoid seed treatments are harmi=
ng U.S. honey bees.

Let's get real

Other research indicates that corn seed treatment is harming other types =
of beneficial insects. An extensive study in the U.S. Northeast on many t=
ypes of beneficial beetles that are found in corn fields showed that neon=
icotinoid seed treatments likely harmed several of these species, althoug=
h other species may fill in. This study was limited to beetles, did not i=
nclude other beneficial insects, spiders and mites, and did not examine t=
he implications for crop damage. Other research has shown that reductions=
 in beneficial organisms can result in decreased crop yields.

In general, current data suggests that the new, ubiquitous seed treatment=
s that have accompanied Bt corn are just as harmful as the insecticides t=
hey are replacing.

And it illustrates that the impacts of GE technology must be considered m=
ore broadly than just direct harm from an engineered gene or protein. As =
the authors of one of the studies wrote: "Field experimentation must cons=
ider the effects of these broader systems for realistic evaluation of cur=
rently deployed transgenic crops."

University of Illinois entomologist Mike Gray, an expert on corn rootworm=
, summarized the state of U.S. corn production in a recent research artic=
le: "The current lack of integration of management tactics for insect pes=
ts of maize in the U.S. Corn Belt, due primarily to the escalating use of=
 transgenic Bt hybrids, may eventually result in resistance evolution and=
/or other unforeseen consequences."

It is not incidental or coincidental that corn seed=E2=80=94and seed from=
 more and more other crops like soybeans=E2=80=94is being treated with in=
secticides. It is a consequence of the susceptibility of our overly-simpl=
ified, biologically-pauperized agricultural system, which relies on piece=
meal pest control approaches like Bt and chemical insecticides rather tha=
n ecologically based systems that greatly reduce the opportunities for pe=
sts to get a foothold.

So, why not GE AND agroecology ?

Some vocal advocates of GE have acknowledged that we need to use better, =
ecologically based agriculture practices, but maintain that we should int=
egrate GE into those systems. Such an approach would likely improve the s=
ustainability of GE pest control. But how would it advance truly sustaina=
ble agriculture?

In healthy agro-ecosystems, there is usually limited need for these types=
 of pest control, and in most cases, that need can be met through breedin=
g at much less expense than GE. The fact is that GE seed is expensive (be=
cause GE research and development is very expensive). And the large seed =
companies have a near monopoly on this technology, so they can jack up se=
ed prices even further. Why should farmers be saddled with these unnecess=
ary costs when cheaper technologies will work in the large majority of ca=
ses?

As I have written before, GE may occasionally have a useful role, and may=
 sometimes provide real benefits. But in a sensible agriculture system it=
 is not clear that it is really needed, or worth the cost.

(Thanks to Chuck Benbrook at the Organic Center for alerting me to the ne=
w article on bees and neonicotinoid insecticides)

About the author: Doug Gurian-Sherman is a widely-cited expert on biotech=
nology and sustainable agriculture. He holds a Ph.D. in plant pathology.
---
---
2.Are Pesticides Behind Massive Bee Die-Offs?
Tom Philpott
Mother Jones, Jan 10 2012
http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/01/purdue-study-implicates-bayer=
-pesticide-bee-die-offs?

For the German chemical giant Bayer, neonicotinoid pesticides=E2=80=94syn=
thetic derivatives of nicotine that attack insects' nervous systems=E2=80=
=94are big business. In 2010, the company reeled in 789 million euros (mo=
re than $1 billion) in revenue from its flagship neonic products imidaclo=
prid and clothianidin. The company's latest quarterly report shows that i=
ts "seed treatment" segment=E2=80=94the one that includes neonics=E2=80=94=
is booming. In the quarter that ended on September 30, sales for the comp=
any's seed treatments jumped 28 percent compared to the same period the p=
revious year.

Such results no doubt bring cheer to Bayer's shareholders. But for honeyb=
ees=E2=80=94whose population has come under severe pressure from a myster=
ious condition called colony collapse disorder=E2=80=94the news is decide=
dly less welcome. A year ago on Grist, I told the story of how this class=
 of pesticides had gained approval from the EPA in a twisted process base=
d on deeply flawed (by the EPA's own account) Bayer-funded science. A lit=
tle later, I reported that research by the USDA's top bee scientist, Jeff=
 Pettis, suggests that even tiny exposure to neonics can seriously harm h=
oneybees.

Now a study from Purdue University researchers casts further suspicion on=
 Bayer's money-minting concoctions. To understand the new paper=E2=80=94p=
ublished in the peer-reviewed journal Plos One=E2=80=94it's important to =
know how seed treatments work, which is like this: The pesticides are app=
lied directly to seeds before planting, and then get absorbed by the plan=
t's vascular system. They are "expressed" in the pollen and nectar, where=
 they attack the nervous systems of insects. Bayer targeted its treatment=
s at the most prolific US crop=E2=80=94corn=E2=80=94and since 2003, corn =
farmers have been blanketing millions of acres of farmland with neonic-tr=
eated seeds.

No one disputes that neonics are highly toxic to bees. But Bayer insists=E2=
=80=94and so far, the EPA concurs=E2=80=94that little if any neonic-laced=
 pollen actually makes it into beehives, and that exposure to tiny amount=
s has no discernible effect on hive health. Bayer also claims that bees d=
on't forage much on corn pollen.

The Purdue study calls all of this into question. The researchers looked =
at beehives near corn fields and found that bees are "exposed to these co=
mpounds [neonics] and several other agricultural pesticides in several wa=
ys throughout the foraging period." Contradicting Bayer's claim that bees=
 don't forage much in cornfields, they found that "maize pollen was frequ=
ently collected by foraging honey bees while it was available: maize poll=
en comprised over 50% of the pollen collected by bees, by volume, in 10 o=
f 20 samples." They detected "extremely high" levels of Bayer's clothiani=
din in the fumes that rise up when farmers plant corn seed in the spring.=
 They found it in the soil of fields planted with treated seed=E2=80=94an=
d also in adjacent fields that hadn't been recently planted. And they fou=
nd it in dandelion weeds growing near cornfields=E2=80=94suggesting that =
the weeds might be taking it up from the soil.

Most alarmingly of all, they found it in dead bees "collected near hive e=
ntrances during the spring sampling period," as well as in "pollen collec=
ted by bees and stored in the hive."

Now, neonic pesticides likely have two separate effects on bees: an acute=
 one during spring corn planting, when huge clouds of neonic-infested dus=
t rises up, at doses that kill bees that come into contact with it. Those=
 population losses weaken hives but don't typically destroy them. And the=
n there's a gradual effect=E2=80=94what scientists call "chronic"=E2=80=94=
when bees bring in pollen contaminated at low levels by neonicotinoids. R=
esearch by the USDA's Pettis suggests that even microscopic levels of exp=
osure to neonics compromises bees' immune systems, leaving hives vulnerab=
le to other pathogens and prone to collapse.

The EPA has thus far relied on Bayer-funded research to maintain its regi=
stration of clothianidin =E2=80=94even after a leaked document in late 20=
10 showed  that its own staff scientists found Bayer's research to be sho=
ddy. The agency ignored the ensuing controversy and once again let farmer=
s plant seed treated with Bayer's concoction. The Purdue researchers repo=
rt that "virtually all" of the vast US corn crop is now planted with seed=
 treated with Bayer's dodgy pesticide, and the technology is rapidly spre=
ading to the other most prodigious US crops: soybeans, cotton, and wheat.=
 Now, ahead of the 2012 growing season, we have peer-reviewed, USDA-funde=
d research that bluntly challenges Bayer's claims and implicates it in co=
lony collapse disorder. Will the EPA look the other way while tens of mil=
lions of acres are poisoned for the nation's besieged honey bees?

Frankly, quite probably so. Bees can't organize political campaigns, of c=
ourse, and the beekeeper lobby doesn't wield much influence in the grand =
scheme of things=E2=80=94though Pesticide Action Network is working hard =
to amplify their voice. Bayer, meanwhile, is a paid-up member of Croplife=
 America, a powerful agribusiness interest group that the Obama administr=
ation won't likely want to tangle with heading into an election. Bad news=
 for bees=E2=80=94and bad news for the ecosystem of which they're such a =
vital part: ours.

Tom Philpott is the food and ag blogger for Mother Jones.

................................................................
Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=3Dnf

This email should only be sent to those who have asked to receive it.
To unsubscribe, contact [log in to unmask], specifying which list you wish=
 to unsubscribe from.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp