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