In a message dated 1/12/2012 5:59:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:


1.Genetically Engineered Crops in the Real World – Bt Corn,  Insecticide 
Use, and Honey Bees 
2.Are Pesticides Behind Massive Bee  Die-Offs?
---
---
1.Genetically Engineered Crops in the Real World –  Bt Corn, Insecticide 
Use, and Honey Bees 
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 
crops is a  reduction in chemical pesticide use on corn and cotton. These 
chemicals  typically kill not only pest insects but also beneficial insects that 
help  control pests or pollinate crops. They may also harm other friendly 
organisms  like birds.

But in reality, corn engineered to kill certain insect  pests—AKA Bt corn—
has mainly resulted in the replacement of one group of  chemical 
insecticides with another. Previously, corn may have been sprayed, or  soil treated 
with chemical insecticides to control several insect pests,  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  virtually 
all corn seed is treated instead with chemical insecticides called  
neonicotinoids to ward off several corn insects not well controlled by Bt  toxins. 
And while almost all corn is now treated with insecticide via the  seed, 
substantial amounts of corn went untreated by insecticides prior to Bt.  For 
example, corn alternated (rotated) with soybeans from year to year usually  
needed little or no insecticide treatment, and only five to 10 percent of corn 
 was sprayed for corn borers.

Dead bees

A new publication by  several academic entomologists on the impact of 
neonicotinoid insecticides on  honey bees shows that such seed treatment may be 
having serious repercussions.  Previous research has linked neonicotinoids to 
bee deaths as a possible  contributor to colony collapse disorder, which is 
wreaking havoc on bees  across the United States.

The new research is important in showing that  when neonicotinoid 
insecticides are used as seed treatments, they can migrate  through the soil or 
through the air in dust to other plants near (or in) corn  fields, like 
dandelions, 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, and this 
study also shows corn pollen contaminated with this  insecticide and 
substantial corn pollen use by honey bees.

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

There are a few pieces of the puzzle that  still remain to be put into 
place, but it is looking likely that neonicotinoid  seed treatments are harming 
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  
types of beneficial beetles that are found in corn fields showed that  
neonicotinoid seed treatments likely harmed several of these species, although  other 
species may fill in. This study was limited to beetles, did not include  
other beneficial insects, spiders and mites, and did not examine the  
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 treatments 
that have  accompanied Bt corn are just as harmful as the insecticides they 
are  replacing.

And it illustrates that the impacts of GE technology must be  considered 
more broadly than just direct harm from an engineered gene or  protein. As the 
authors of one of the studies wrote: "Field experimentation  must consider 
the effects of these broader systems for realistic evaluation of  currently 
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 article: 
"The current lack of  integration of management tactics for insect pests 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—and  seed from more and 
more other crops like soybeans—is being treated with  insecticides. It is a 
consequence of the susceptibility of our  overly-simplified, 
biologically-pauperized agricultural system, which relies  on piecemeal pest control 
approaches like Bt and chemical insecticides rather  than ecologically based 
systems that greatly reduce the opportunities for  pests 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  
integrate GE into those systems. Such an approach would likely improve the  
sustainability of GE pest control. But how would it advance truly sustainable  
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 breeding 
at much less expense than GE. The fact is that GE seed is  expensive (because 
GE research and development is very expensive). And the  large seed 
companies have a near monopoly on this technology, so they can jack  up seed prices 
even further. Why should farmers be saddled with these  unnecessary costs 
when cheaper technologies will work in the large majority of  cases?

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 new 
article on bees and neonicotinoid insecticides)

About the  author: Doug Gurian-Sherman is a widely-cited expert on 
biotechnology 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-pe
sticide-bee-die-offs?

For  the German chemical giant Bayer, neonicotinoid pesticides—synthetic  
derivatives of nicotine that attack insects' nervous systems—are big 
business.  In 2010, the company reeled in 789 million euros (more than $1 billion) 
in  revenue from its flagship neonic products imidacloprid and clothianidin. 
The  company's latest quarterly report shows that its "seed treatment" 
segment—the  one that includes neonics—is booming. In the quarter that ended on 
September  30, sales for the company's seed treatments jumped 28 percent 
compared to the  same period the previous year.

Such results no doubt bring cheer to  Bayer's shareholders. But for 
honeybees—whose population has come under severe  pressure from a mysterious 
condition called colony collapse disorder—the news  is decidedly 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  based on deeply flawed (by 
the EPA's own account) Bayer-funded science. A  little later, I reported that 
research by the USDA's top bee scientist, Jeff  Pettis, suggests that even 
tiny exposure to neonics can seriously harm  honeybees.

Now a study from Purdue University researchers casts further  suspicion on 
Bayer's money-minting concoctions. To understand the new  paper—published in 
the peer-reviewed journal Plos One—it's important to know  how seed 
treatments work, which is like this: The pesticides are applied  directly to seeds 
before planting, and then get absorbed by the plant's  vascular system. They 
are "expressed" in the pollen and nectar, where they  attack the nervous 
systems of insects. Bayer targeted its treatments at the  most prolific US crop
—corn—and since 2003, corn farmers have been blanketing  millions of acres 
of farmland with neonic-treated seeds.

No one  disputes that neonics are highly toxic to bees. But Bayer insists—
and so far,  the EPA concurs—that little if any neonic-laced pollen actually 
makes it into  beehives, and that exposure to tiny amounts has no 
discernible effect on hive  health. Bayer also claims that bees don'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 
compounds [neonics] and several other agricultural  pesticides in several ways 
throughout the foraging period." Contradicting  Bayer's claim that bees don't 
forage much in cornfields, they found that  "maize pollen was frequently 
collected by foraging honey bees while it was  available: maize pollen 
comprised over 50% of the pollen collected by bees, by  volume, in 10 of 20 
samples." They detected "extremely high" levels of Bayer's  clothianidin 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—and also  in adjacent fields 
that hadn't been recently planted. And they found it in  dandelion weeds 
growing near cornfields—suggesting that the weeds might be  taking it up from 
the soil.

Most alarmingly of all, they found it in  dead bees "collected near hive 
entrances during the spring sampling period,"  as well as in "pollen collected 
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 dust 
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 then 
there's a  gradual effect—what scientists call "chronic"—when bees bring in 
pollen  contaminated at low levels by neonicotinoids. Research by the USDA's 
Pettis  suggests that even microscopic levels of exposure to neonics 
compromises bees'  immune systems, leaving hives vulnerable to other pathogens and pro
ne to  collapse.

The EPA has thus far relied on Bayer-funded research to  maintain its 
registration of clothianidin —even after a leaked document in  late 2010 showed  
that its own staff scientists found Bayer's research to  be shoddy. The 
agency ignored the ensuing controversy and once again let  farmers plant seed 
treated with Bayer's concoction. The Purdue researchers  report 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 spreading  to the other 
most prodigious US crops: soybeans, cotton, and wheat. Now, ahead  of the 2012 
growing season, we have peer-reviewed, USDA-funded research that  bluntly 
challenges Bayer's claims and implicates it in colony collapse  disorder. 
Will the EPA look the other way while tens of millions of acres are  poisoned 
for the nation's besieged honey bees?

Frankly, quite probably  so. Bees can't organize political campaigns, of 
course, and the beekeeper  lobby doesn't wield much influence in the grand 
scheme of things—though  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 administration won't 
likely want to tangle with  heading into an election. Bad news for bees—and 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=nf

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