http://www.cornell.edu/video/?videoID=1685

Well, add Poncho next to Movento as another German threat to U.S. National Security (if you care about Nations). Does treason apply to cases of EPA ineptitude? -DNR (Thanks Grist! Great work, Mr. Philpott)

by Tom Philpott

10 Dec 2010 8:36 AM

More: beekeeping, bees, Business, corn, EPA, Food, Politics, Victual Reality

Follow the honey: Smoking bees makes them less mad when you move them, but leaked EPA documents might have the opposite effect.Photo: Kris FrickeIt’s not just the State and Defense departments that are reeling this month from leaked documents. The Environmental Protection Agency now has some explaining to do, too. In place of dodgy dealings with foreign leaders, this case involves the German agrichemical giant Bayer; a pesticide with an unpronounceable name, clothianidin; and an insect species crucial to food production (as well as a food producer itself), the honeybee. And in lieu of a memo leaked to a globetrotting Australian, this one features a document delivered to a long-time Colorado beekeeper.All of that, plus my favorite crop to fixate on: industrial corn, which blankets 88 million acres of farmland nationwide and produces a bounty of protein-rich pollen on which honeybees love to feast.It’s The Agency Who Kicked the Beehive, as written by Jonathan Franzen!Hive talking

An internal EPA memo released Wednesday confirms that the very agency charged with protecting the environment is ignoring the warnings of its own scientists about clothianidin, a pesticide from which Bayer racked up €183 million (about $262 million) in sales in 2009.

Clothianidin has been widely used on corn, the largest U.S. crop, since 2003. Suppliers sell seeds pre-treated with it. Like other members of the neonicotinoid family of pesticides, clothianidin gets “taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen and nectar,” according to Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), which leaked the document along with Beyond Pesticides. That effect makes it highly toxic to a crop’s pests — and also harmful to pollen-hoarding honeybees, which have experienced mysterious annual massive die-offs (known as “colony collapse disorder”) here in the United States at least since 2006.

The colony-collapse phenomenon is complex and still not completely understood. While there appears to be no single cause for the annual die-offs, mounting evidence points to pesticides, and specifically neonicotinoids (derived from nicotine), as a key factor. And neonicotinoids are a relatively new factor in ecosystems frequented by honeybees — introduced in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides have gained a steadily rising share of the seed-treatment market. It does not seem unfair to observe that the health of the honeybee population has steadily declined over the same period.

According to PANNA, other crops commonly treated with clothianidin include canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat — all among the most widely planted U.S. crops. Bayer is now petitioning the EPA to register it for use with cotton and mustard seed.

The document [PDF], leaked to Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald, reveals that EPA scientists have declared essentially rejected the findings of a study conducted on behalf of Bayer that the agency had used to justify the registration of clothianidin. And they reiterated concerns that widespread use of clothianidin imperils the health of the nation’s honeybees.

On Thursday, I asked an EPA press spokesperson via email if the scientists’ opinion would inspire the agency to remove clothianidin from the market. The spokesperson, who asked not to be named but who communicated on the record on behalf of the agency, replied that clothianidin would retain its registration and be available for use in the spring.

Wimpy watchdogging

Before we dig deeper into the leaked memo, it’s important to understand the sorry story of how an insecticide known to harm honeybee populations came to blanket a huge swath of U.S. farmland in the first place. It’s nearly impossible not to read it as a tale of a key public watchdog instead heeling to the industry it’s supposed to regulate.

In the EPA’s dealings with Bayer on this particular insecticide, the agency charged with protecting the environment has consistently made industry-friendly decisions that contradict the conclusions of its own scientists — and threaten to do monumental harm to our food system by wiping out its key pollinators.

According to a time line provided by PANNA, the sordid story begins when Bayer first applied for registration of clothianidin in 2003. (All of the documents to which I link below were provided to me by PANNA.) By 2003, U.S. beekeepers were reporting difficulties in keeping hives healthy through the winter, but not yet on the scale of colony collapse disorder. In February of this year, the EPA’s Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) withheld registration of clothianidin, declaring that it wanted more evidence that it wouldn’t harm bee populations.

In a memo [PDF], an EFAD scientist explained the decision:

The possibility of toxic exposure to nontarget pollinators [e.g., honeybees] through the translocation of clothianidin residues that result from seed treatment (corn and canola) has prompted EFED to require field testing that can evaluate the possible chronic exposure to honeybee larvae and the queen. In order to fully evaluate the possibility of this toxic effect, a complete worker bee life cycle study (about 63 days) must be conducted, as well as an evaluation of exposure to the queen.

So, no selling clothianidin until a close, expert examination of how pollen infused with it would affect worker bees and Her Majesty the queen.

Again, that was in February of 2003. But in April of that year, just two months later, the agency backtracked. “After further consideration,” the agency wrote in another memo, the EPA has decided to grant clothianidin “conditional registration” — meaning that Bayer was free to sell it, and seed processors were free to apply it to their products. (Don’t get me started on the EPA’s habit of granting dodgy chemicals “conditional registration,” before allowing their unregulated use for years and even decades. That’s another story.)

The EPA’s one condition reflected the concerns of its scientists about how it would affect honeybees: that Bayer complete the “chronic life cycle study” the agency had already requested by December of 2004. The scientists minced no words in reiterating their concerns. They called clothianidin’s effects “persistent” and “toxic to honeybees” and noted the the “potential for expression in pollen and nectar of flowering crops.”

These concerns aside and “conditional registration” in hand, Bayer introduced clothianidin to the U.S. market in spring 2003. Farmers throughout the corn belt planted seeds treated with clothianidin, and billions — if not trillions — of plants began producing pollen rich with the bee-killing stuff.

A bee does what it does best — thankfully, not in a corn field.Photo: PurplekeyIn March of 2004, Bayer requested an extension on its December deadline for delivering the life-cycle study. In a March 11 memo [PDF], the EPA agreed, giving the chemical giant until May 2005 to complete the research. Clothianidin continued flowing from Bayer’s factories and from corn plants into pollen.

But the EPA also relayed a crucial decision in this memo: It granted Bayer the permission it had sought to conduct its study on canola in Canada, instead of on corn in the United States. The EPA justified the decision as follows:

[Canola] is attractive to bee [sic] and will provide bee exposure from both pollen and nectar. An alternative crop, such as corn, which is less attractive to bees as a forage crop, would provide exposure from pollen, only.

Bee experts cite three problems with this decision:

1. Corn produces much more pollen than does canola;
2. its pollen is more attractive to honey bees; and
3. canola is a minor crop in the United States, while corn is the single most widely planted crop.

What happened next was … not much. Bayer let the deadline for completing the study lapse; and the EPA let Bayer keep selling clothianidin, which continued to be deposited into tens of millions of acres of farmland.

Not until August of 2007, more than a year after its deadline, did Bayer deliver its study. In a November 2007 memo [PDF], EPA scientists declared the study “scientifically sound,” adding that it, “satisfies the guideline requirements for a field toxicity test with honeybees.”

Beeing and nothingness

So what were the details of that study, on which the health of our little pollinator friends depended?

Well, the EPA initially refused to release it publicly, prompting a Freedom of Information Act by the Natural Resources Defense Council. When the EPA still refused to release it, NRDC filed suit in response. Eventually, the study was released. Here it is [PDF].

Prepared for Bayer by researchers at Canada’s University of Guelph, the study is a bit of a joke. The researchers created several 2.47-acre fields planted with clothianidin-treated seeds and matching untreated control fields, and placed hives at the center of each. Bees were allowed to roam freely. The problem is that bees forage in a range of 1.24 to 6.2 miles — meaning that the test bees most likely dined outside of the test fields. Worse, the test and control fields were planted as closely as 968 feet apart, meaning test and control bees had access to each other’s fields.

Not surprisingly, the researchers found “no differences in bee mortality, worker longevity, or brood development occurred between control and treatment groups throughout the study.”

Tom Theobald, the Colorado beekeeper who obtained the leaked memo, assessed the study harshly on the phone to me Thursday. “Imagine you’re a rancher trying to figure out if a noxious weed is harming your cows,” he said. “If you plant the weed on two acres and let your cows roam free over 50 acres of lush Montana grass, you’re not going to learn much about that weed.”

James Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State, concurred. Frazier has been studying colony-collapse disorder since 2006. “When I looked at the study,” he told me in a phone interview, “I immediately thought it was invalid.”

Meanwhile, Bayer continued selling clothianidin under its conditional registration. Then, on April 22 of this year, the EPA finally ended clothianidin’s long period of “conditional” purgatory — by granting it full registration.

The agency gifted the bee-killing pesticide with its new status quietly; to my knowledge, the only public acknowledgment of it came through the efforts of Theobald, who is extremely worried about the fate of his own bee-keeping business in Colorado’s corn country. Theobald forwarded me a Nov. 29 email exchange with Meredith Laws, the acting chief of the EPA’s herbicide division in the Office of Pesticide Programs, to whom he’d written to enquire about clothianidin’s registration status. Laws’ reply is worth quoting in its entirety:

Clothianidin was granted an unconditional registration for use as a seed treatment for corn and canola on April 22, 2010. EPA issued a new registration notice, [but] there is no document that acknowledges the change from conditional to unconditional. This was a risk management decision based on the fulfillment of data requirements and reviews accepting or acknowledging the submittal of the data.

So, the EPA gave Bayer and its dubious pesticide a full pass without even bothering to let the public know.

Just bee very careful, please

Now we get to the leaked memo [PDF]. It is dated Nov. 2 — three weeks before Laws’ reply to Theobald. It relates to Bayer’s efforts to expand clothianidin’s approved use into cotton and mustard. Authored by two scientists in the EPA’s Environmental Fate and Effects Division — ecologist Joseph DeCant and chemist Michael Barrett — the memo expresses grave concern about clothianidin’s effect on honeybees:

Clothianidin’s major risk concern is to nontarget insects (that is, honey bees).

Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide that is both persistent and systemic. Acute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis. Although EFED does not conduct …  risk assessments on non-target insects, information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoids insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.

The real kicker is that the researchers essentially invalidated the Bayer-funded study — i.e., the study on which the EPA based clothianidin’s registration as an fully registered chemical. Referring to the pesticide, the authors write:

A previous field study [i.e., the Bayer study] investigated the effects of clothianidin on whole hive parameters and was classified as acceptable. However, after another review of this field study in light of additional information, deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental. It does not satisfy the guideline 850.3040, and another field study is needed to evaluate the effects of clothianidin on bees through contaminated pollen and nectar. Exposure through contaminated pollen and nectar and potential toxic effects therefore remain an uncertainty for pollinators. [Emphasis mine.]

So, here we have EPA researchers explicitly invalidating the study on which clothianidin gained registration for corn. But as I wrote above, despite this information’s being made public, the EPA has signaled that it has no plans to change the chemical’s status.

In the 2011 growing season, tens of millions of acres of farmland will bloom with clothianidin-laced pollen — honeybees, and sound science, be damned.

Now, in my correspondence with the EPA, the agency has denied that the downgrading of the Bayer study from “acceptable” to “supplemental” meant that the agency should be compelled to clothianidin’s approval. In a Thursday email to me, the agency delivered a limp defense of the Bayer study, contradicting its own scientists and addressing none of the critiques of it:

EPA’s evaluation of the study determined that it contains information useful to the agency’s risk assessment. The study revealed the majority of hives monitored, including those exposed to clothianidin during the previous season, survived the over-wintering period.

And it downplayed the study’s importance to Bayer’s application to register clothianidin: The study in question is “not a ‘core’ study for EPA as claimed,” the agency insisted. “It is not a study routinely required to support the registration of a pesticide.”

I ran that response by Jay Feldman of Beyond Pesticides, the group that collaborated with PANNA in publicizing the leaked document. “I find the EPA response either misinformed or misleading,” he told me. “The paper trail on this is clear. We’re talking about a bad study required by EPA [that is central] to the registration of this chemical.”

Feldman’s assessment appears to bear out. He pointed me back to the above-linked Nov. 27 document in which EPA originally accepted the Bayer study. There, on page 5, we find this statement:

Specifically, the test was conducted in response to a request by the Canadian PMRA [Pesticides and Pest Management Agency] and the U.S. EPA; as a condition for Poncho@ [clothianidin] registration in these countries, Bayer CropScience was asked to investigate the long-term toxicity of clothianidin-treated canola to foraging honey bees.

So evidently, the discredited Bayer study does lie at the heart of clothianidin’s acceptance. (I have requested an interview with an EPA official who can talk knowledgeably and on the record about these matters; the anonymous-by-request spokesperson is, at the time of publication, still looking for the “right person,” I was informed via email.)

A stinging assessment

At the very least, we have ample evidence that the EPA has been ignoring the warnings of its own staff scientists and green-lighting the mass deployment of a chemical widely understood to harm pollinators — at a time when honeybees are in grave shape.

But why? Tom Theobald, the Colorado beekeeper who broke this story, ventured an answer. “It’s corporatism, the flip side of fascism,” he said. “I’m not against corporations, I think they have a good model. But they’re like children — we have to rein them in or they get out of hand. The EPA’s supposed to do that.”

When regime change came to Washington in 2008, many of us hoped that an EPA under Barack Obama would be a better parent. EPA Director Lisa Jackson inherited quite a mess from her predecessor, and she faces the Herculean challenge of regulating greenhouse gases against fierce Republican and industry opposition.

But as concern mounts — from her own staff and elsewhere — that clothianidin is harming honeybees, there’s no excuse for Jackson’s agency to keep coddling Bayer. Frazier, the Penn State entomologist, put it to me like this: “If the Bayer study is the core study the EPA used to register clothianidin, then there’s no basis for registering it.” He urged the EPA to withdraw registration to avoid unnecessary risk to a critical player in our ecosystem — as have the governments of Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia.

New technology finds pathogens that may reconcile contradictory claims on Colony Collapse Disorder

by JAMES FISCHER

James Fischer (james.fischer@gmail.com) for
“The American Bee Journal”  (http://www.americanbeejournal.com)
(Embargoed by the journal PLoS ONE until 10/06/2010 5pm EDT)

A multi-institutional team of researchers sifted through the ever-growing zoo of new invasive, exotic pathogens of bees, and consistently found the same two disease organisms in beehives suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in samples collected from 2006 to 2009.

They discovered a new virus never seen before in North America, and found a well-known invasive variant of the intestinal bee disease Nosema. The overlooked virus may explain why prior studies presented mutually contradictory findings. This new evidence could create a basis for consensus among research teams who to date, lacked common ground in their conclusions.

Their paper appeared only minutes ago in the journal PLoS ONE (http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181)

The paper reports on a multi-year study of Colony Collapse Disorder. Researchers used new technology and techniques to detect and unambiguously identify every pathogen in collapsing bee hives, rather than the smaller subset of possible pathogens detectable via other means.

An Invertebrate Iridescent Virus (“IIV”) , newly-found in North America, in combination with Nosema ceranae, which arrived from overseas less recently, was found in “Virtually all of the bees from CCD colonies” sampled from widely dispersed USA hives from 2006 through 2009.

IIV was not found in bees from packages imported from Australia nor in bees from an isolated non-migratory commercial bee operation in Montana, both sites confirmed free of CCD-like symptoms.

Additionally, the researchers “observed the progression of CCD in a collapsing colony… taking bee samples… over a three month period, ending when only a queen and four workers remained.”

Further still, some bees were inoculated with Nosema ceranae, while other bees were inoculated with the “IIV-6” strain of the IIV virus. Their mortality was then compared to bees inoculated with both pathogens, and a control group given a placebo. The results “strongly suggest that the combination of N. ceranae and IIV is associated with increased bee mortality.”

Yet even further, the effort discovered two additional invasive exotic bee viruses never before detected in North America, but determined that they were not involved in CCD.  The viruses found are “Varroa Destructor-1 Virus” and “Kakugo Virus”, both native to Asia.

Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk of U Montana outlined the next steps, “We have a proposal pending to isolate, characterize, and then inoculate bees with the specific iridescent virus that occurs in USA bees. This is a critical step, since the virus does not appear to be any of the world’s known iridescent viruses. Once we have the actual virus, we can complete the inoculation trials that are needed to test whether we’ve truly found the cause of CCD.”

Proteomics – A Brief Summary
The technology used in this study seems ideal for addressing the ever-growing list of pathogens carried across oceans by the globalization of trade. It can detect disease pathogens that need not be identical to any known pathogen. This describes the needs of beekeepers clearly, given the number of invasives that came to plague honey bees in the USA since the early 1980s.

“Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics” (MSP) starts with about 60 bees tossed in a blender, and mixed until homogenous, then filtered. Cells are chemically burst, and proteins are isolated from the mix and “digested”, breaking them down to peptides.  The resulting peptides are run through a device called a “Liquid Chromatograph” to separate them by density, which allows their structure and sequence to be determined by another set of devices, “Tandem Mass Spectrometers”.

Each peptide sequence is then compared to the NIH National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI) database of peptide sequences.  The database used is a collection of the peptides unique to specific organisms. This means that each match of a peptide sequence is a unique match to a single organism. Any peptide used in more than one organism would not be in the database.

Dr. Charles Wick of the US Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center explained the level of certainty with which the virus was detected in colonies showing CCD symptoms: “IIV has 18,900 unique peptides… When we detect a few of these, say 50-100, we have enough evidence for an unambiguous identification.”

But how did they make what Dr. Wick called an “unambiguous identification” of a virus that was said by Dr. Bromenshenk to not be “any of the world’s known iridescent viruses”? How can anyone find what’s never even been detected or identified before?  The answer is that the unknown organism will match the closest organism in the database, which narrows things down to at least the “family” or “genus” level, if not “species”.  So, even without having sequenced the specific strain of IIV of interest, enough peptides matched the IIV strain in the database to confirm that what was found was a strain of IIV.

As an example of the wide net cast by this technique, Nosema was not well-represented in the NCBI database, so there was some ambiguity in the identification of the Nosema via proteomics alone, matching only the genus Nosema. The species and strain was confirmed as Nosema ceranae using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) techniques.

The Claims In Spain Can Mainly Be Explained
Research led by Mariano Higes of the Bee Pathology Laboratory, Centro Apícola Regional in Marchamalo, Spain has repeatedly pointed to Nosema ceranae as the sole proximate cause of rapid colony collapse.  This seemed unlikely to researchers in the USA and elsewhere, as Nosema has not appeared to be as virulent outside of Spain.  But this new work provides an explanation that could support the Higes work with nothing more than the addition of the newly-detected IIV.

As in previous US studies, no one in Spain would have had reason to suspect that a DNA virus like IIV would be involved, as the bulk of bee viruses are RNA viruses. So they’ve yet to look for IIV in Spain, and they have not had the wider net of MSP to find what was not being sought. The good news is that Dr. Higes has historical samples frozen. Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk reports that the Higes team is willing to engage in a joint effort to screen the Spanish samples using MSP.

Does This Explain CCD In The USA?
The samples analyzed in this study showed a wide range of pathogens, including Nosema, Invertebrate Iridescent Virus (“IIV”), Black Queen Cell Virus, Acute Bee Paralysis Virus, Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus, Deformed Wing Virus, Sac Brood Virus, Kashmir Bee Virus, Varroa Destructor-1 Virus, and Kakugo Virus. None of the suspect pathogens named by other research efforts were missed, two new and novel pathogens were found, and the use of MSP implies that no pathogens were overlooked.  Even a new, unknown, and unnamed pathogen would have resulted in a partial peptide match to some other living thing.

So, while the counts or mix of pathogens might have been skewed by an insufficient number of samples, or collecting samples from an insufficient number of operations, it is difficult to imagine that there are additional pathogens yet to be found that could be implicated in CCD.

Insecurity About Biosecurity
Since the 1980s, “Globalization” has increasingly consisted of shipments of goods from Asian ports to Western shores. This research connects the dots by consistently finding specific bee pathogens native to Asia, unknown to USA beekeepers in the early 1980s, but that have since become far too familiar:

“We know that in the Asian honey bee, Apis ceranae, a combination of parasites and pathogens co-exist, including: (1) Nosema ceranae, (2) an iridescent virus, (3) parasitic and predacious mites, and (4) two other RNA-type viruses, Kashmir bee virus and a Sacbrood virus.  We have had both Kashmir bee virus and Nosema ceranae in North America going back a decade or more. We need to see how similar the CCD strain of iridescent virus is to the IIV-24 strain from Apis ceranae.  It is possible that US bees acquired IIV from the Apis ceranae along with Nosema ceranae and Kashmir bee virus.” 

While unsubstantiated “fringe” explanations for CCD abound, ranging from cell phones to pesticides to GMO crops, the common factor is that pathogens previously found only in Asia have spread to countries lacking effective biosecurity, such as the USA, but not to countries with more robust approaches to biosecurity, such as New Zealand.  The research team suggests “Standard quarantine practices such as testing of imported bees before they are added to colonies, and disinfection of equipment would likely help.”

Practical Implications For Beekeepers
The team has two suggestions of interest to beekeepers:

1. “Most IIVs replicate at about 21 C (70 F) and do not replicate above 30-32 C (86 – 89 F). Higher temperatures may suppress the virus by halting replication, whereas cool weather and damp conditions may speed up replication of both IIV and Nosema. Many instances of CCD have occurred following extended periods of cool, damp weather.  Several beekeepers have reported to us that they have more problems with bees in areas with frequent fog or in hill areas where the weather is cooler. Placing bees in warm, sunny locations appears to help.”
2. “Varroa may act as a vector for the dispersal of IIV among bee colonies. Varroa is known to increase damage caused by other viruses, and beekeepers who fail to control varroa levels are likely to sustain high colony losses.”

This may not sound like much, but it is a vast improvement over the usual vague platitudes we’ve been handed over and over about “maintaining strong colonies” and “minimizing stress”. It also ups the ante in the age-old debate among beekeepers over placing hives in sun versus placing hives in shade.

“Iridovirus and Microsporidian Linked to Honey Bee Colony Decline”
Jerry J. Bromenshenk, Colin B. Henderson, Charles H. Wick, Michael F. Stanford, Alan W. Zulich, Rabih E. Jabbour, Samir V. Deshpande, Patrick E. McCubbin, Robert A. Seccomb, Phillip M. Welch, Trevor Williams, David R. Firth, Evan Skowronski, Margaret M. Lehmann, Shan L. Bilimoria, Joanna Gress, Kevin W. Wanner, Robert A. Cramer Jr.

(2010) PLoS ONE 5(10): e13181. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013181

Jim Fischer keeps bees in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, and hopes to raise queens in Queens. He teaches the free 16-week full-semester urban beekeeping class in New York’s Central Park for the 846-member non-profit NYC Beekeeping Group (http://meetup.com/nyc-beekeeping)  and helps run the Gotham City Honey Co-Op (http://GothamCityBees.com).

More evidence. I’m happy to elevate these articles to higher readership. -DNR

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/43568

Aug 27, 2010

Insecticide implicated in bee decline
Honeybees, bumblebees and many other insects are being slowly poisoned to death by persistent insecticides used to protect agricultural crops. Small doses of the toxic chemicals accumulate over time, meaning that there is no safe level of exposure. That’s the conclusion from recent research looking at the long-term effects of a commonly used class of insecticides.

As they buzz from flower to flower, bees, moths and hoverflies carry out a vital job. Around one third of agricultural crops are pollinated by these busy insects, a service that is worth £440 m a year to the UK economy alone.

But in recent years these valuable pollinators have been struggling, with populations plummeting worldwide. Honeybees in particular have been suffering, with colony collapse disorder (CCD) – a phenomenon where the bees desert the hive – becoming more common in Europe and North America.

Controversy has swirled around the issue, and everything from mobile phones to GM crops have been blamed. Now new studies indicate that insecticides are playing a significant role.

The most recent studies have exposed a variety of insects to varying doses of neonicotinoid insecticides over long time periods – 12 months or more. Neonicotinoid insecticides are widely used worldwide; they work by acting on the central nervous system of the insect. The chemicals have little affinity for vertebrate nervous systems, so they are much less toxic to mammals and birds.

The researchers found that the total dose of insecticide required to kill the insect was smaller if administered over a longer time period (Ecotoxicology (2009) 18:343–354). In the case of honeybees, up to 6000 times less insecticide was required to kill them if it was administered in multiple tiny doses over a long time period.

According to Henk Tennekes, a researcher at Experimental Toxicology Services (ETS) in the Netherlands, these findings make perfect sense. “Start by considering a high exposure level,” he said. “It may cause an early effect, such as cancer or mortality. At a much lower exposure level you may get a late effect. However, as it turns out, in the latter case you need much less of the stuff (in total) to produce the effect.” Tennekes describes the findings in a forthcoming paper in Toxicology.

So how do these insecticides achieve such a powerful long-term effect? The answer lies in the way that they work. Neonicotinoids bind irreversibly to receptors in the central nervous system of insects. “An insect has a limited amount of such receptors,” explained Jeroen van der Sluijs, a scientist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who has also worked on the problem. “The damage is cumulative: with every exposure more receptors are blocked until the damage is so big that the insect cannot function anymore and dies.”

Even small doses over a short time period can cause serious problems. At low doses insects have been observed to become disorientated and less co-ordinated in their movements, making them easier prey for predators. Sub-lethal effects such as this weaken the insect; they particularly jeopardize social insects, which depend on the entire colony being healthy for survival.

Right now it still isn’t possible to say if neonicotinoids are the sole cause of CCD in honeybees, but it seems likely that they play a significant role. “It explains the rapid increase in CCD since 2004, which coincides with the rapid growth in worldwide use of neonicotinoids – the most widely used class of insecticides,” said van der Sluijs.

Currently the insecticides are commonly used to coat seeds, regardless of whether there are many insect pests or not. They leach easily into soil and water and are taken up readily by plants, making the entire plant toxic to insects. And as the new research shows, even at very low levels they have the potential to cause huge damage to insect populations. “I think these insecticides need to be replaced by less long-lived alternatives that are less toxic to honeybees and less prone to leaching,” said Tennekes.

About the author

March 30, 2010 -The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service, in conjunction with the Apiary Inspectors of America, is conducting a voluntary survey to determine the bee colony losses for the 2009/2010 winter.  This survey is not just for beekeepers with huge numbers of hives, even small-scale beekeepers are encouraged to participate.  The survey takes approximately two minutes, and is completely anonymous.

Data collection efforts such as this may be crucial to understanding bee-related diseases that affect colonies, including colony collapse disorder. The scope of this problem may be poorly understood. According to Peter Borst, a former New York State apiary inspector, no one really knows how many beehives are out there. USDA estimates of 2.6 million bee colonies in the US are derived from national surveys and farm surveys that don’t count the thousands of small apiaries (fewer than five hives)

managed by hobby beekeepers. Based on Borst’s local knowledge, as many as 90% of the local beekeepers may have elected to not register with the state — which is where the national surveys start for the data.

The more beekeepers who participate, the more data the USDA has to work with, which may help researchers get closer to understanding a perplexing problem in our agricultural world. Dr. Jeff Pettis, Research Leader at the USDA-ARS Bee Research Laboratory, notes that last year they surveyed beekeepers who managed about half a million colonies.  Pettis hopes this year’s response to be even greater. 1

If you know a beekeeper with one hive or one hundred, share this information with them.  Good research requires good data.

———————————————————————————————————–
Dear Beekeeper:

The Apiary Inspectors of America and the USDA-ARS Beltsville Bee Research Laboratory are seeking your help in tabulating the winter losses that occurred over the winter of 2009-2010. This continues the AIA/USDA survey efforts from the past 3 years which has been important in quantifying the losses of honey bees for government, media, and researchers.

This year’s survey is faster, easier and does not require your time on the phone. It is all web based and automatic, just fill and click.

Please take a few moments to fill out our winter loss survey at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/beeloss0910

This survey will be conducted until April 16th, 2010.

We would also appreciate it if you would forward this email to other beekeepers. The more responses the better.  If you have any questions or concerns please email beeloss@gmail.com, or  Honeybee.Survey@aphis.usda.gov.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Jeff Pettis; USDA-ARS Beltsville Bee Research Laboratory
Dennis vanEngelsdorp; Penn State University
Jerry Hayes; Florida Department of Agriculture
Dewey Caron; University of Delaware and Oregon State University

What would Rachel Carson say to this story? The business publications are an echo-chamber of headlines reading “procedural issues” were what made spirotetramat illegal to sell, while other blogs and newspapers focus of the press release’s spin (harm to bees). The monopoly market publications would like to tell their readers/advertisers that it wasn’t banned because of proven harm to the pollinators and ecosystems (the same ecosystems that support the damned economy in the first place), no no… it was banned because the EPA and BayerCrop Science broke the laws, a.k.a. “procedures,” and got busted!  Why don’t they say “legal issues lead to ban of pesticide” or “secret law breaking discovered, leads to pesticide ban” or “NRDC and Xerces were watching while we tried to sell poison without EPA/public approval and they blew the whistle on behalf of science and public laws designed to protect the People from the Corporation”? (see evidence of eco-chamber) This story reveals the fraud and deceit that is Bayer CropScience and revolving door EPA cronies. It’s so easy to sell their poison and bio-warfare in China and Brazil, because those countries don’t have public oversight like the U.S.A. has with the EPA - Environmental Protection Agency. It’s time to review and renew our appreciation and understanding of our EPA. This story is really about the Xerces Society and National Resource Defense Council forcing the EPA to follow its own rules and public protection “procedures.” Had it not been for them, the EPA and Bayer CropScience would have simply violated the law in secrecy and ineptitude, exactly what Bare CrapScience wants to see happen, IMHO.Important to note that well-known commercial beekeepers Dave Hackenberg (and Dave Mendes?) worked with Bayer CropScience to field test the effects of spirotetramat on honeybees in Florida.  Click image for PDF of report.Here’s a nice footnote from the Judge Cote’s ruling:

 It is undisputed that the plaintiffs have standing to bring this case.  See Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 339 (2d Cir. 2009) (“An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation ofthe lawsuit.” (citation omitted)).

Judge Pulls Pesticide After Finding Impacts on Bees Inadequately Evaluated by EPA(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2010) – A pesticide that could be dangerously toxic to America’s honey bees must be pulled from store shelves as a result of a suit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Xerces Society. In an order issued in December, a federal court in New York invalidated EPA’s approval of the pesticide spirotetramat (manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the trade names Movento and Ultor) and ordered the agency to reevaluate the chemical in compliance with the law. The court’s order goes into effect on January 15, 2010, and makes future sales of Movento illegal in the United States.“This sends EPA and Bayer back to the drawing board to reconsider the potential harm to bees caused by this new pesticide,” said NRDC Senior Attorney Aaron Colangelo. “EPA admitted to approving the pesticide illegally, but argued that its violations of the law should have no consequences. The Court disagreed and ordered the pesticide to be taken off the market until it has been properly evaluated. Bayer should not be permitted to run what amounts to an uncontrolled experiment on bees across the country without full consideration of the consequences.”In June 2008, EPA approved Movento for nationwide use on hundreds of different crops, including apples, pears, peaches, oranges, tomatoes, grapes, strawberries, almonds, and spinach. The approval process went forward without the advance notice and opportunity for public comment that is required by federal law and EPA’s own regulations. In addition, EPA failed to evaluate fully the potential damage to the nation’s already beleaguered bee populations or conduct the required analysis of the pesticide’s economic, environmental, and social costs.Beekeepers and scientists have expressed concern over Movento’s potential impact on beneficial insects such as honey bees. The pesticide impairs the insect’s ability to reproduce. EPA’s review of Bayer’s scientific studies found that trace residues of Movento brought back to the hive by adult bees could cause “significant mortality” and “massive perturbation” to young honeybees (larvae). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops grown in America. USDA also claims that one out of every three mouthfuls of food in the typical American diet has a connection to bee pollination. Yet bee colonies in the United States have seen significant declines in recent years due to a combination of stressors, almost certainly including insecticide exposure. “This case underscores the need for us to re-examine how we evaluate the impact of pesticides and other chemicals in the environment,” said Mr. Colangelo. “In approving Movento, EPA identified but ignored potentially serious harms to bees and other pollinators. We are in the midst of a pollinator crisis, with more than a third of our colonies disappearing in recent years. Given how important these creatures are to our food supply, we simply cannot look past these sorts of problems.”View the court decision here.Read Beyond Pesticides’ read factsheet: Pollinators and Pesticides: Escalating crisis demands action and Backyard Beekeeping: Providing pollinator habitat one yard at a time. See more information on threats to honey bees at NRDC.

Report on Bee Mortality and Bee Surveillance in Europe

from http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/online/default.asp?Date=12/18/2009

AFSSA, the French Food Safety Agency completed a 218-page report on honey bee mortality and the ways that colony losses are monitored in Europe, December 8, 2009. The European Food Safety Authority commissioned the study and published the report. Initially, AFSSA set up a consortium of seven European bee disease research institutes in France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

The project covers 1) a description and critical analysis of surveillance programs that measured colony loss; 2) the collection and analysis of the epidemiological data sets on colony losses; and 3) a critical review and selection of relevant literature on the possible causes and risk factors of colony losses.

The researchers found that bee colony losses in Europe and the USA are multifactorial which include beekeeping and husbandy practices, environmental factors, biological agents as well as excessive use of pesticides. The interaction of these factors create stress, weaken bees’ defense system allowing pests and pathogens to kill the colony.

3.2.3.3 Chemical agents

The debate on chemical agents is mainly concentrated on the agrochemicals used for crop treatments. Neonicotinoids are the focus of the greatest interest in the literature (imidacloprid, clothianidin and fipronil); other publications just mention “pesticides” in general, but certainly with an implicit consideration of neonicotinoids (Figure 75). Scientists are clearly divided on the role of these pesticides, as illustrated in Table 14. Although no involvement of pesticides has been proven for colony losses or CCD, a significant amount of pesticide residues are frequently found in the studies analysing bees, pollen and wax, usually at sublethal levels. A question arises, therefore, about the possibility for a conjunction of chemical residues present in the hive at sublethal concentrations, which may produce a lethal effect or clinical signs affecting the ability of colony to survive. Several authors mention these pesticides as factors contributing to stress or weakening of colonies which, once again, may “open the door” to other causative factors.

3.2.3.2 Biological agents

A significant number of biological agents are reported to be involved in colony losses. Viruses are the biological agents most frequently mentioned (Figure 73). As more than 15 different viruses are known to infect bees, often without any clinical symptoms and since, co-infection with several viruses is not uncommon, they are the subject of much research. Due to their frequent presence, they are found in many colony losses cases where it is very difficult to determine whether they are at the origin of the losses, or just co-factors. Of the eight viruses mentioned in the literature, IABPV is the most frequently mentioned, and some scientists consider it as a “marker” of CCD in the United States (Figure 74). Varroa, Nosema spp and Acarapis woodi infections are the three other most commonly mentioned biological factors. Some scientists consider them to be causative factors in a certain amount of colony losses (for Nosema mainly in Spain). Others consider that they are co- factors, contributing to the stress of the colony or contributing to the “expression” of colony mortality as causative factor of death for a colony already weakened by other stress factors. This is why the factors “multiple infection” and “unidentified disease” appear in the assumptions made by the authors. All these hypotheses open the floor to a debate on possible treatments to prevent or cure these infections. This links together these biological agents with chemical factors and beekeeping practices because beekeeping practices and chemical treatments are used to control infections. The debate on the involvement of the various biological agents is clearly expressed in the author’s opinions summarised in Table 13 with a high rate of “possible involvement” and balanced reports between “unlikely” and “very likely”.

3.2.4 Conclusion and perspectives

The work package on literature review allowed the development of a specific methodology for literature search and analysis. The “priority 1″ references selected and reviewed validate the objectivity of the literature search which is expressed through the variability and the balanced topics included. The results of this work regarding risk and causative factors involved in colony losses have to be taken as a “snap shot” of the scientific community’s opinion as they are today; these are also “time sensitive”, and evolving due to the amount of ongoing research which will likely lead to new findings and a better understanding of the factors involved in the coming months or years.

To summarise this picture, common consensus amongst the scientific community about the multi-factorial origin of colony losses in Europe and in the United States (in the two aspects of this term: combination of factors at one place and different factors involved according to place and period considered) suggests the following factors are important, namely: beekeeping practices (feeding, migratory beekeeping, colony husbandry, treatments applied and so forth), environmental  factors (climate, available forage, biodiversity, etc.), chemical factors (pesticides) or biological agents (Varroa, Nosema spp, etc.) which together create stress, weaken bees’ immune systems that then allow pests and pathogens to kill the colony (e.g. one or several parasites, viruses, etc.).

Figure78. Factors involved in colony losses

Questions remain about the sequence of events that lead to colony mortality, and future studies should be designed and conducted to address this:

- There are many inconsistencies in the ways in which “colony losses” are defined. Up to 17 different definitions for CCD in the literature. This means that involved persons may not always be referring to the same phenomenon, and this creates confusion when trying to explain the origin of what has been identified in the field. The described pathology is varied, with authors/using the same descriptions for different sets of circumstances. A specific study should be undertaken to clearly categorise and quantify the various expressions of colony losses in the field. This study will be closely linked to the strengthening of surveillance systems;

- High concentrations of pesticides have rarely been identified in relation to colony losses (CCD in USA and winter colony losses in Europe) although acute events of pesticide toxicity are well described during the production season (and clearly differentiated from CCD and winter colony losses). However, the questions of possible synergistic effects of various pesticides and the effect of chronic exposure to sublethal doses of pesticides remains, and requires further investigation;

- Biological agents such as parasites, viruses or bacteria, alone or in combination, have clearly been identified as important factors in colony losses. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of knowledge about the exact mechanisms and/or interactions involved, that must also be addressed;

- Even though the multifactorial origin of colony losses is well acknowledged, the respective role of each factor as a risk or causative agent is unknown, and no hierarchy of relative threat posed by each one has been established. These matters require further investigation using appropriate epidemiological studies (case control and longitudinal studies).

Conclusion

This bee surveillance project sought information on both the prevalence of honey bee colony losses, and the surveillance systems respectively in 27 European countries. Through a standardised questionnaire, each of the surveillance systems collecting these data was evaluated. In addition, a thorough literature search of the existing databases, as well as relevant grey literature about causes of colony losses was completed, and the literature evaluated.

The main conclusions from project activities can be summarised as follows:

• General weakness and high variability of most of the surveillance systems in the 25 systems investigated;
• Lack of representative data at country level and comparable data at EU level for colony losses;
• Common consensus of the scientific community about the multifactorial origin of colony losses in Europe and in the United States and insufficient knowledge of causative and risk factors for colony losses.

From these finding the consortium makes the following recommendations:

1. Implementation of a sustainable European network for coordination and follow-up of surveillance, and research on colony losses to underpin monitoring programmes;

2. Strengthen standardization at European level by harmonization of surveillance systems, data collected and by developing common performance indicators;

3. Build on the examples of best practice found in existing surveillance systems on communicable and notifiable diseases already present in some countries;

4. Undertake specific studies that build on the existing work in progress to improve the knowledge and understanding of factors that affect bee health (for example stress caused by pathogens, pesticides, environmental and technological factors and their interactions) using appropriate epidemiological studies (case control and longitudinal studies);

5. The set up of the coordination team at European level. This is a crucial issue and the coordination team should be organized in such a way so as to ensure its sustainability and to enable effective surveillance programme activities at the European level.

Complete report attached and also here: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/27e.htm

When their link breaks, download the PDF here: Scientific Report on Bee Mortality and Bee Surveillance in Europe

Beekeeper: No need to kill bees for the Padres

Removing bees live is less dangerous than trying to kill them, a professional beekeeper writes.

An unidentified usher tries to move a swarm of bees as they cover a chair in left field during the ninth inning of the Padres game on Thursday. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)

A honey bee swarm delayed an Astros-Padres’ baseball game for 52 minutes on Thursday, while a “beekeeper” was called to exterminate them.

I was appalled that a swarm of bees was destroyed in front of thousands of baseball fans! How many more people, probably millions, that saw the incident on national TV now have the message that it is necessary or advisable to kill a swarm of bees this way?

I was disgusted and horrified. I remove swarms of honey bees alive every day. Beekeepers do not exterminate bees!

Something had to be done quickly at Petco Park of course. But exterminating them took as long as it would to collect them, and stirred the remaining bees into a frenzy. I contend that far from being the safe option, this was a risky one.

Benign swarm

Bees in a swarm are at their most benign. When a colony becomes too crowded, the workers create a new queen. Just before the new queen hatches, the old queen leaves the hive with a large proportion of the workers, headed for a new location. This is how new bee hives are created.

Before they depart the hive, the bees fill up with honey to sustain them until they can start foraging again. They’re feeling pretty good, just as you do after a good meal.

They have no hive to defend so are very unlikely to sting anyone. In fact, since they are full of honey, it’s physically difficult for them to sting.

This cluster of bees is called a swarm. They collect somewhere temporarily while the scout bees look for a permanent new location. This is what we saw at Petco Park on Thursday.

Urban myth of killer bees

I frequently collect swarms without any protective clothing. It shouldn’t be necessary.

In more than 20 years of keeping bees, I have collected hundreds of swarms. I have never come across a credible story of anyone being attacked by a swarm of bees. I believe it is an urban myth.

Bees under threat

Honey bees are under a serious threat at the moment. Colonies have been mysteriously dying, not only in the U.S., but across most of Europe. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) leaves the hive completely devoid of bees.

The cause is not known but it is very worrying. Bees account for much of the fresh food we eat by way of pollination.

A swarm of bees can be removed live. (Photo courtesy Geoff Kipps-Bolton)

Farmers, not known for throwing money about, spend billions of dollars annually to rent hives of bees from commercial beekeepers to pollinate crops.

Crops depend on honey bees

Who hasn’t heard that bees are in trouble? We need honey bees. It has been said that one third of all food grown depends on honey bees for pollination. What kind of message does killing 20,000 bees on national television send to the public?

I know people were frightened. But if they had called a true beekeeper, not an exterminator, the bees would have been removed humanely, alive, without the risk of those stray bees, which remained after the exterminator sprayed them.

In some parts of the world it is illegal to exterminate bees unless a beekeeper has inspected the situation and been unable to remove them alive. This should be the case in the United States.

Padres’ response

Richard Andersen, Executive VP, Ballpark Management & General Manager of PETCO Park, called me in response to an email I sent. He was very keen to get the facts and I’m sure in future they will try to take the socially responsible action. The Padres won an award.

Tom Garfinkel quipped that Luke Yoder, Padres’ director of field and landscape maintenance, has a beekeeper on speed-dial. I say next time, call a professional beekeeper to do the right thing!

There is a network of true beekeepers who would respond straightaway in circumstances like these.

Geoff Kipps-Bolton is owner of San Diego Bees and www.bees-on-the-net.com.

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-07-03/news/beekeeper-no-need-to-kill-bees-for-the-padres

Kim Flottum found out for us (thaaaaaank youuu!)

A year ago USDA CSREES (Cooperative State Research Extension Education Service) awarded a $4.1 million grant to a group of university researchers for the express purpose of solving the current honey bee health problems confronting the beekeeping industry. Without actually nailing it down, this was a project to look into the current Colony Collapse Disorder malady and, over four years, find out what was going on. But at the same time the grant was to fund an extensive education program for beekeepers, and to develop as much information as possible so beekeepers could keep their bees healthy, and had a place to go for questions … and answers. Moreover, 25% of the funds were to go to study non-apis pollinators, such as bumble bees, alfalfa leaf-cutting bees and the like. To date, this is the only government money to be distributed to beekeeping researchers to study this problem other than normal budgetary funds to keep the USDA projects up and running.

So what’s happened in a year? I’m glad you asked, because I wanted to know too. So I ventured to the University of Georgia in Athens to visit with Dr. Keith Delaplane, the leader of this large and varied group studying this large and varied problem.

In this first year each of the cooperators in the program have hired the people they need to work with or brought on board the grad students who will do the work or the post-doc who will assist in the project. Probably the biggest accomplishment so far, said Dr. Delaplane, is the establishment of the seven stationary apiaries to monitor honey bee health and the environment. These apiaries, consisting of 30 colonies each, are in Maine, Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Texas, Washington and California. Each is administered by one of the researchers and will be managed using the techniques particular to their respective locations … bees in Minnesota are not managed on the same calendar or with the same methods as those bees in Texas, for instance. But each area does have best management practices that reflect these differences, and those will be followed.

However, one constant is that each colony in each of these apiaries will be sampled once a month for the duration of the study to look at what’s going on inside. Samples of bees, honey and wax will be taken, and measurements of bees and brood will all be taken routinely. The samples will go to a lab at Penn State to look for viruses and nosema disease, to the University of Minnesota to count nosema spores, and to the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to look at the pollen and wax samples for residues of agricultural pesticides. At the same time, USDA scientists will be taking identical samples, and doing identical counts from a series of migratory beekeeping operations. Samples and data will be identical from each apiary and each migratory operation, and at the end the mountain of data will be easily comparable and very useful, said Delaplane.

Because this grant also covers non-apis bees (that is, bees that are not honey bees) identical samples will be taken from managed non-apis bees at each of the apiary sites. Scientists are looking for cross infections or other relationships.

Other non-apis projects include looking at increasing the efficiency and reducing the stress of managed bumblebees when used for pollination. The effects of the neonicitinoid pesticides on non-apis bees are also being studied, and especially the sub-lethal effects and any effects from residues. This should be interesting.

Meanwhile, the Extension and Education part of this has moved right along, and in July the USDA is launching its eXtension.org website. It is to be a one-stop shopping experience for agricultural information. The honey bee health section is housed and administered from the University of Kentucky in Lexington. All of the information that goes on this web page, the bee page included, is well-researched and well-refereed work, with oversight by a large team of honey bee scientists. There will be a Frequently Asked Questions section, an Ask The Expert question, Best Management Guides section and more. All coming from the Bee Health Community group. This effort will be federally supported, but all states will contribute with funds from their individual extension budgets. This will, over time I imagine, erode the personnel in each state’s Extension core. Unfortunate, but at least there won’t be a vacuum left behind.

Public release date: 4-Jun-2009

Contact: Dennis O’Brien
dennis.obrien@ars.usda.gov
301-504-1624
Public Library of Science

Bee-killing parasite genome sequenced

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists have sequenced the genome of a parasite that can kill honey bees. Nosema ceranae is one of many pathogens suspected of contributing to the current bee population decline, termed colony collapse disorder (CCD). Researchers describe the parasite’s genome in a study published June 5 in the open-access journal PLoS Pathogens.

In 2006, CCD began devastating commercial beekeeping operations, with some beekeepers reporting losses of up to 90 percent, according to the USDA. Researchers believe CCD may be the result of a combination of pathogens, parasites and stress factors, but the cause remains elusive. At stake are honey bees that play a valuable part in a $15 billion industry of crop farming in the United States.

The microsporidian Nosema is a fungus-related microbe that produces spores that bees consume when they forage. Infection spreads from their digestive tract to other tissues. Within weeks, colonies are either wiped out or lose much of their strength. Nosema apis was the leading cause of microsporidia infections among domestic bee colonies until recently when N. ceranae jumped from Asian honey bees to the European honey bees used commercially in the United States.

The ARS scientists used genetic tools and microscopic analysis at the ARS Bee Research Laboratory (BRL) in Beltsville, Maryland to examine N. ceranae. They collaborated with colleagues at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, Columbia University, New York, New York, and 454 Life Sciences, of Branford, Connecticut.

Sequencing the genome should help scientists trace the parasite’s migration patterns, determine how it became dominant, and help resolve the spread of infection by enabling the development of diagnostic tests and treatments.

ARS is a scientific research agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Supported by the USDA-ARS Administrator fund, www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome (JDE, JC, JP), North America Pollinator Protection Campaign, www.pollinator.org (JE, JC), USDA-NRI grant # 2002-0256, www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome (JE), Northeast Biodefense Center Grant # U54AI57158, www.nbc.columbia.edu (WIL), and Google.org Contract # 17-2008, www.google.org (WIL). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this paper is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

COMPETING INTERESTS: ME, SH, and BD are employed by 454 Life Sciences/Roche Applied Sciences.

PLEASE ADD THIS LINK TO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN ONLINE VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000464 (link will go live upon embargo lift)

CITATION: Cornman RS, Chen YP, Schatz MC, Street C, Zhao Y, et al. (2009) Genomic Analyses of the Microsporidian Nosema ceranae, an Emergent Pathogen of Honey Bees. PLoS Pathog 5(6): e1000466. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000466

Disclaimer

This press release refers to an upcoming article in PLoS Pathogens. The release is provided by the article authors and/or their institutions. Any opinions expressed in these releases or articles are the personal views of the journal staff and/or article contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of PLoS. PLoS expressly disclaims any and all warranties and liability in connection with the information found in the releases and articles and your use of such information.

About PLoS Pathogens

PLoS Pathogens (www.plospathogens.org) publishes outstanding original articles that significantly advance the understanding of pathogens and how they interact with their host organisms. All works published in PLoS Pathogens are open access. Everything is immediately available subject only to the condition that the original authorship and source are properly attributed. Copyright is retained by the authors. The Public Library of Science uses the Creative Commons Attribution License.

About the Public Library of Science

The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a non-profit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource. For more information, visit http://www.plos.org.

“If the EPA had sufficient concern about harm to bees that they would insist on other studies, it seemed unwise to approve it anyway and ask for research after the fact,” says Aaron Colangelo, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The EPA’s job is to make a decision about whether a chemical is safe or not.”

Colangelo envisions a similar scenario in coming years. The EPA has announced it will review clothianidin and other chemicals in the same family, but not until 2012. In the meantime, there’s nothing stopping the agency from approving the insecticides for use on new crops based on existing policies. In the end, Colangelo has little confidence the federal agency will bring a hammer down on the agribusiness giant. The EPA, he explains, often keeps its test results confidential for proprietary reasons at a company’s request. As a consequence, it’s unclear where gaps or discrepancies occur until a company makes a disclosure similar to Bayer’s.

“They’re not making decisions about whether the pesticide can be put on the market based on impacts to bees, no matter how much evidence of harm there is,” Colangelo says. “The EPA will just approve it anyway and put a warning label on the product.”

Halting the sale of pesticides, though, would be no mean task. Over 120 countries use imidacloprid under the Bayer label on more than 140 crop varieties, as well as on termites, flea collars and home garden landscaping. And the product’s patent expired a few years ago, paving the way for it to be sold as a generic insecticide by dozens of smaller corporations. In California alone, imidacloprid is the central ingredient in 247 separate products sold by 50 different companies.

In a statement, the EPA says that before banning a pesticide, it “must find that an ‘imminent hazard’ exists. The federal courts have ruled that to make this finding, EPA must conclude, among other things, that there is a substantial likelihood that imminent, serious harm will be experienced from use of the pesticide.” The EPA did not clarify what is meant by “imminent hazard” and why the death of honeybees does not qualify.

As Mussen points out, though, a few million dead honeybees may be the cost of doing business. “If they didn’t register products that were toxic to honeybees, there wouldn’t be a lot of products on the market that were available for pest control.”

All the more reason to start taking the world’s most ubiquitous insecticide off the market and invent a safer one, argues Walker, of the National Honeybee Advisory Board. “It’s on every golf course, it’s on every lawn. It’s not just an agricultural product. There’s really not one part of our lives it’s not touching.”

YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO SECURE FARM BILL FUNDING
FOR NATIVE AND MANAGED POLLINATOR RESEARCH

Please contact your Senators and ask them to sign on to a letter by Senator Boxer in support of vital research on agricultural pollinators. Please read below for additional information. The deadline for Senators to sign on to this letter is Wednesday, May 6.

Find the contact information for your Senator’s office

Thank you,
Scott Hoffman Black
Executive Director, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

Providing funding for research into the causes and remedies of honey bee and native bee declines is a critical step in pollinator conservation. Please take a moment to call or write your Senator, let them know how important pollinators are, and ask them to 1) support this appropriation and 2) contact Senator Boxer’s office to sign on to this important letter.

Senator Boxer has written a letter requesting that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee allocate $20 million in Fiscal Year 2010 for pollinator research projects as authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. These funds will increase the resilience and security of our farming systems by supporting vital research into Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in managed honeybees and to promote the health of honey bees and native pollinators through habitat conservation and best management practices.

BACKGROUND
As you may know, the 2008 Farm Bill includes language authorizing $100 million over five years to further our scientific understanding of the essential agricultural services pollinators provide our nation. The letter only seeks to fully fund critical provisions that were recently signed into law through legislative consensus.

Managed and native pollinators, such as honey bees, bumble bees, and other native bees, are needed for the production of over $18 billion (and possibly as much as $27 billion) per year in agricultural products in the U.S. These animals are required for 35 percent of the world’s crop production. Yet, total pollinator spending at USDA in the 2008 Fiscal Year accounted for merely 0.01 percent of the agency’s budget. Without pollinators, our current yields of alfalfa, almonds, apples, cherries, cranberries, blueberries, kiwifruit, strawberries, melons, squash, peppers, peaches, pears, plums, carrot, onion, and other seed crops, would not be possible.

Arising in 2006, the as yet unexplained phenomenon termed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) diminished our nation’s already dwindling honey bee colonies, and highlighted our relative ignorance of the complex systems that support animal pollinated food production. It is vitally important to conduct research to better understand and solve this problem.

Studies in other developed nations have well documented a diminished presence of honey bees and other vital pollinators in interdependent agricultural and ecological systems, but much information is lacking in the U.S. A major conclusion of a comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences in 2007 found that for most North American pollinator species, long-term population data are lacking and knowledge of their basic ecology is incomplete.

Funding for pollinator research will protect the health, future, safety, and sustainability of our nation’s most nutritional food crops. These funds will ensure that we base our sustainable future in agriculture on a more comprehensive understanding of the science that supports it.

Thank you for your help in this effort.

Read more about the 2008 Farm Bill Benefits to Crop Pollinators >>
Read more about the Xerces Society Agricultural Pollinator Conservation Program >>
Browse the Xerces Society Pollinator Conservation resources >>
Browse the Xerces Society Pollinator Conservation publications >>

ABOUT THE XERCES SOCIETY
The Xerces Society is an international, nonprofit organization that protects wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat. For over three decades, the Society has been at the forefront of invertebrate conservation, harnessing the knowledge of scientists and the enthusiasm of citizens to implement conservation programs.

Ok. I’m finally done laughing at my headline. I came across the GrowBetterVeggies gardening blog while looking for bulbing fennel advice. Turns out to be a gardening resource worth pollinating! Not only does she prep her tomato transplant holes with fish heads, she’s got a beekeeping class. There’s a lot more: compost-heated greenhouse and essays from her gardening students, really nice stories. (I can’t blog too much here about the regenerative revival in organic farming, the Greenhorns as some call them.) Also, if you want to see a well-monetized blog, this is it. (Sheesh) The photos and instruction are grade A. It’s really a fantastic example of a well-purposed blog for a farm-to-restaurant business that in effect showcases their legacy. Cynthia Sandberg gets to be my mentor in the garden! Thanks. -DNR

Our “anarchy apiary” in New York appeared to lose about half of the hives wintered there. Some died recently of starvation, others had more squatter field mice who scampered out of the hive suckling babies stuck to their bellies. Eviction. No mysteries behind the losses. Several hives survived as well, from bees bred from local queens.

These pics were take last week, April 20th or so.

This is an UN-identified insect that I’d like comment on from an expert. What is it? Dragonfly nymph? (see comments for answer!)

Read a great New York Times column by Leon Kreitzman about the circadian rhythms of honeybees and Carl Linnaeus’ floral clock idea. -DNR

I checked my hive in New York and discovered some furry squatters, to my deep dismay. Check out the galleries to see the  story. The bees were installed in mid-June and may have run out of food stores throughout winter. Comment if you’d like. Now I’m swarm hunting soon … (The other top bar hives that Anarchy Apiaries has nearby are looking lively, though it’s been chilly.)

With bad news, there’s always good news… despite my loss, I’ve gained hope from the White House’s Organic Garden and news of their choice of using varroa-resistant Russians in their beehive!