http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/my...S00010000000001
strange illness killing them off
Full Version: honeybees,will they go extinct?
QUOTE(fantasycat89 @ Feb 12 2007, 07:29 PM) [snapback]1540227[/snapback]
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/my...S00010000000001
strange illness killing them off
strange illness killing them off
I doubt they will go extinct unless the disease is world wide.
For some reason bees like me. They never sting me.
Well they metabolize the pollen to make the honey...are you really surprised???
yet look at what has happened to most of our plants...!!!
Genetic engineering...
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A...et-mg&P=722
"Has anyone ever established whether the "nutritional components" [functional
food role] of GM crops might have eg stereo aberrations which negate their
efficacy ?
For example, does GM canola [Brassica rapa] produce more trans- than cis-
fats than natural strains ? The information may exist - but be covered up
Dale can you help out ? - else it is for example the following sort of
approach by the pro-GM forces which makes many people (myself included)
anti-GM :
"OTTAWA CLINGS TO AN ABSURD CODE OF SECRECY ON GMOS: WHEN A SCIENTIST ASKED
FOR DATA REGARDING GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLAıS EFFECT ON BEES AND HONEY
PRODUCTION, CIVIL SERVANTS RESPONDED WITH A SUSPICIOUS SKEIN OF SILENCE.
July 18, 2000
The Vancouver Sun
Editorial
A15
Opinion
Mark Winston
Iım a bee scientist and beekeeper by occupation and pastime. Beekeepers have
two concerns about genetically modified crops.
The first is that European consumers have become shy of anything genetically
modified, and our Canadian beekeepers export honey to Europe. Genetic
engineering does not affect honey directly, but bioengineered crops such as
canola are major sources of honey in Canada, and so honey has been swept
along in the general biotech hysteria.
The second concern is that a protein resulting from genetic engineering of
plants might get into pollen, which bees collect and feed to their young,
and perhaps could have some unforeseen negative effects on colony
populations or bee behaviour.
There is no evidence to date that either honey or bees have suffered from
genetic modification of crops, and nothing of concern was revealed at a
recent ``bear pitıı panel I participated in during the annual beekeepers
conference in Saskatchewan. Included on the panel were a honey packer, a
representative from the canola industry and an official from the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Nevertheless, I remain a hard-core scientist at heart, and when the CFIA
spokesman said that pollen from GM crops did not harm bees, my
data-sensitive antennae twitched and I made a mental note to obtain the
relevant studies.
Upon returning to Vancouver, I e-mailed the CFIA staffer, asking him to
substantiate the results alluded to in his talk. In my circles, providing
data for fellow scientists to corroborate statements is akin to passing the
salt at the dinner table. Itıs good manners, if nothing else.
I knew something was amiss when my e-mail message was bumped up to a
higher-level civil servant. The questions I asked were straightforward,
seeking information needed to develop an informed opinion about an issue
that could seriously affect beekeepersı livelihoods. The answers also were
straightforward, although not in the way I expected:
Have honey bee adults or larvae been examined in tests to evaluate effects
of GM pollen on bees? Answer: Yes.
What GM crops were tested? Answer: Canıt tell you that; itıs proprietary
information.
Where did the data originate<from industry or an independent source?
Canıt tell you that; itıs proprietary information.
Can you provide me with the experimental protocols for these tests? Canıt
tell you that; itıs proprietary information.
What were the results? Canıt tell you that; itıs proprietary information.
Why canıt you reveal the protocols and results from these tests? We deem
those to be confidential business details.
Iıll be blunt. There is absolutely no reason for this information to be kept
confidential. I can understand a novel process, or even the nature of a
particular gene product, being kept under intellectual-property wraps. But
how could information like number of replicates, methods and experimental
protocols used, what plants were tested, and how many bees lived or died
possibly be considered a threat to patent protection or industrial
confidentiality?
If a GM crop is safe for bees and people, the public should be allowed to
see the data that says itıs safe. If itıs not, we should have clear
information about the danger. Period. Our government needs to be a
trustworthy arbitrator of such issues, and their secrecy stance torpedoes
credibility.
Itıs not just bee data, and itıs not just GM crops that we should be
concerned about. As one CFIA official put it, ``secrecy is business as usual
as far as weıre concerned.ıı
There are many issues larger than bees and pollen. Our government makes
decisions about biotechnology products, pesticides, antibiotics fed to
livestock and myriad other health and safety matters based on copious data
provided by industry.
I donıt happen to share the deep distrust expressed by many on the
environmental left about industry-generated data, but I do share the opinion
that such information should be publicly accessible when it relates to human
and environmental health.
Nor do I have any particular reason to mistrust the quality or
professionalism of the staff at the CFIA or other Canadian government
agencies. Iıve worked with regulators on many issues, and found that the
on-the-ground workers are dedicated, honest and as helpful as they are
allowed to be. They often have told me stuff they are really not supposed to
reveal because they, too, see the foolishness of overdone silence.
The problem lies in government policy that has handcuffed our civil
servants. Stealth may be necessary<for an undercover military spy. But
can someone explain to me why the number of bees killed or not killed by GM
canola pollen is a government secret?"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:16 PM
Subject: [SANET-MG] What is Traditional Plant Breeding?
> I think it is important that we go back and review the current non-GM
> commerical breeding techniques too. Dale mentioned this early on in the
GM
> vs. "conventional" breeding discussion but the topic was never picked up
on.
>
> I don't think the average consumer is aware that the food they are eating
was
> derived by nuking, either chemically or in the traditional sense of the
word,
> the genetic material of the plant that is then developed for their food.
>
> When most people think of "traditional breeding", they think of monks
working
> with sweet pea genetics, not Three Mile Island or Love Canal genetics.
>
> Whether the specialist in the industry sees this as "traditional" or not
is
> moot. It is the consumers who are eating the food without being told what
> they are eating.
>
> Think about it. When you employ a technique that results in significant
> genetic damage, how can you be sure there are not other unforseen
sub-lethal
> changes in the genome? As Dale has said, most of the GM'ed plants die
with
> only a small fraction surviving to be used in later breeding so there has
to
> be a lot of genetic damage to cause most of the plants to die.
>
> Therefore the safety of this GM'ed food is only as good as the testing
done
> on the plants that survive the attack on their genome. When plants are
> declared "substainally equivalent" by the government and thus avoid long
term
> testing then the health troubles caused by GM'ed potatos - like that found
by
> the researchers in Scotland - is to be expected.
>
> Mike Miller
>
>
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > > >methods which do no rely on the use of viri or gene guns or gene
> > > >mutating toxic materials (the tools used in recombinant genetics);
> >
> > it is my understanding that the legal definition of conventional (vs
> > recombinent ) breeding includes mutagens, which have been used to amp
> > mutation for decades before recombinant genetic engineering had been
named
> > or practiced.
> > monte
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:16 PM
Subject: [SANET-MG] What is Traditional Plant Breeding?
> I think it is important that we go back and review the current non-GM
> commerical breeding techniques too. Dale mentioned this early on in the
GM
> vs. "conventional" breeding discussion but the topic was never picked up
on.
>
> I don't think the average consumer is aware that the food they are eating
was
> derived by nuking, either chemically or in the traditional sense of the
word,
> the genetic material of the plant that is then developed for their food.
>
> When most people think of "traditional breeding", they think of monks
working
> with sweet pea genetics, not Three Mile Island or Love Canal genetics.
>
> Whether the specialist in the industry sees this as "traditional" or not
is
> moot. It is the consumers who are eating the food without being told what
> they are eating.
>
> Think about it. When you employ a technique that results in significant
> genetic damage, how can you be sure there are not other unforseen
sub-lethal
> changes in the genome? As Dale has said, most of the GM'ed plants die
with
> only a small fraction surviving to be used in later breeding so there has
to
> be a lot of genetic damage to cause most of the plants to die.
>
> Therefore the safety of this GM'ed food is only as good as the testing
done
> on the plants that survive the attack on their genome. When plants are
> declared "substainally equivalent" by the government and thus avoid long
term
> testing then the health troubles caused by GM'ed potatos - like that found
by
> the researchers in Scotland - is to be expected.
>
> Mike Miller
>
>
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > > >methods which do no rely on the use of viri or gene guns or gene
> > > >mutating toxic materials (the tools used in recombinant genetics);
> >
> > it is my understanding that the legal definition of conventional (vs
> > recombinent ) breeding includes mutagens, which have been used to amp
> > mutation for decades before recombinant genetic engineering had been
named
> > or practiced.
> > monte
>
>
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2142891
yet look at what has happened to most of our plants...!!!
Genetic engineering...
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A...et-mg&P=722
"Has anyone ever established whether the "nutritional components" [functional
food role] of GM crops might have eg stereo aberrations which negate their
efficacy ?
For example, does GM canola [Brassica rapa] produce more trans- than cis-
fats than natural strains ? The information may exist - but be covered up
Dale can you help out ? - else it is for example the following sort of
approach by the pro-GM forces which makes many people (myself included)
anti-GM :
"OTTAWA CLINGS TO AN ABSURD CODE OF SECRECY ON GMOS: WHEN A SCIENTIST ASKED
FOR DATA REGARDING GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLAıS EFFECT ON BEES AND HONEY
PRODUCTION, CIVIL SERVANTS RESPONDED WITH A SUSPICIOUS SKEIN OF SILENCE.
July 18, 2000
The Vancouver Sun
Editorial
A15
Opinion
Mark Winston
Iım a bee scientist and beekeeper by occupation and pastime. Beekeepers have
two concerns about genetically modified crops.
The first is that European consumers have become shy of anything genetically
modified, and our Canadian beekeepers export honey to Europe. Genetic
engineering does not affect honey directly, but bioengineered crops such as
canola are major sources of honey in Canada, and so honey has been swept
along in the general biotech hysteria.
The second concern is that a protein resulting from genetic engineering of
plants might get into pollen, which bees collect and feed to their young,
and perhaps could have some unforeseen negative effects on colony
populations or bee behaviour.
There is no evidence to date that either honey or bees have suffered from
genetic modification of crops, and nothing of concern was revealed at a
recent ``bear pitıı panel I participated in during the annual beekeepers
conference in Saskatchewan. Included on the panel were a honey packer, a
representative from the canola industry and an official from the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Nevertheless, I remain a hard-core scientist at heart, and when the CFIA
spokesman said that pollen from GM crops did not harm bees, my
data-sensitive antennae twitched and I made a mental note to obtain the
relevant studies.
Upon returning to Vancouver, I e-mailed the CFIA staffer, asking him to
substantiate the results alluded to in his talk. In my circles, providing
data for fellow scientists to corroborate statements is akin to passing the
salt at the dinner table. Itıs good manners, if nothing else.
I knew something was amiss when my e-mail message was bumped up to a
higher-level civil servant. The questions I asked were straightforward,
seeking information needed to develop an informed opinion about an issue
that could seriously affect beekeepersı livelihoods. The answers also were
straightforward, although not in the way I expected:
Have honey bee adults or larvae been examined in tests to evaluate effects
of GM pollen on bees? Answer: Yes.
What GM crops were tested? Answer: Canıt tell you that; itıs proprietary
information.
Where did the data originate<from industry or an independent source?
Canıt tell you that; itıs proprietary information.
Can you provide me with the experimental protocols for these tests? Canıt
tell you that; itıs proprietary information.
What were the results? Canıt tell you that; itıs proprietary information.
Why canıt you reveal the protocols and results from these tests? We deem
those to be confidential business details.
Iıll be blunt. There is absolutely no reason for this information to be kept
confidential. I can understand a novel process, or even the nature of a
particular gene product, being kept under intellectual-property wraps. But
how could information like number of replicates, methods and experimental
protocols used, what plants were tested, and how many bees lived or died
possibly be considered a threat to patent protection or industrial
confidentiality?
If a GM crop is safe for bees and people, the public should be allowed to
see the data that says itıs safe. If itıs not, we should have clear
information about the danger. Period. Our government needs to be a
trustworthy arbitrator of such issues, and their secrecy stance torpedoes
credibility.
Itıs not just bee data, and itıs not just GM crops that we should be
concerned about. As one CFIA official put it, ``secrecy is business as usual
as far as weıre concerned.ıı
There are many issues larger than bees and pollen. Our government makes
decisions about biotechnology products, pesticides, antibiotics fed to
livestock and myriad other health and safety matters based on copious data
provided by industry.
I donıt happen to share the deep distrust expressed by many on the
environmental left about industry-generated data, but I do share the opinion
that such information should be publicly accessible when it relates to human
and environmental health.
Nor do I have any particular reason to mistrust the quality or
professionalism of the staff at the CFIA or other Canadian government
agencies. Iıve worked with regulators on many issues, and found that the
on-the-ground workers are dedicated, honest and as helpful as they are
allowed to be. They often have told me stuff they are really not supposed to
reveal because they, too, see the foolishness of overdone silence.
The problem lies in government policy that has handcuffed our civil
servants. Stealth may be necessary<for an undercover military spy. But
can someone explain to me why the number of bees killed or not killed by GM
canola pollen is a government secret?"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:16 PM
Subject: [SANET-MG] What is Traditional Plant Breeding?
> I think it is important that we go back and review the current non-GM
> commerical breeding techniques too. Dale mentioned this early on in the
GM
> vs. "conventional" breeding discussion but the topic was never picked up
on.
>
> I don't think the average consumer is aware that the food they are eating
was
> derived by nuking, either chemically or in the traditional sense of the
word,
> the genetic material of the plant that is then developed for their food.
>
> When most people think of "traditional breeding", they think of monks
working
> with sweet pea genetics, not Three Mile Island or Love Canal genetics.
>
> Whether the specialist in the industry sees this as "traditional" or not
is
> moot. It is the consumers who are eating the food without being told what
> they are eating.
>
> Think about it. When you employ a technique that results in significant
> genetic damage, how can you be sure there are not other unforseen
sub-lethal
> changes in the genome? As Dale has said, most of the GM'ed plants die
with
> only a small fraction surviving to be used in later breeding so there has
to
> be a lot of genetic damage to cause most of the plants to die.
>
> Therefore the safety of this GM'ed food is only as good as the testing
done
> on the plants that survive the attack on their genome. When plants are
> declared "substainally equivalent" by the government and thus avoid long
term
> testing then the health troubles caused by GM'ed potatos - like that found
by
> the researchers in Scotland - is to be expected.
>
> Mike Miller
>
>
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > > >methods which do no rely on the use of viri or gene guns or gene
> > > >mutating toxic materials (the tools used in recombinant genetics);
> >
> > it is my understanding that the legal definition of conventional (vs
> > recombinent ) breeding includes mutagens, which have been used to amp
> > mutation for decades before recombinant genetic engineering had been
named
> > or practiced.
> > monte
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:16 PM
Subject: [SANET-MG] What is Traditional Plant Breeding?
> I think it is important that we go back and review the current non-GM
> commerical breeding techniques too. Dale mentioned this early on in the
GM
> vs. "conventional" breeding discussion but the topic was never picked up
on.
>
> I don't think the average consumer is aware that the food they are eating
was
> derived by nuking, either chemically or in the traditional sense of the
word,
> the genetic material of the plant that is then developed for their food.
>
> When most people think of "traditional breeding", they think of monks
working
> with sweet pea genetics, not Three Mile Island or Love Canal genetics.
>
> Whether the specialist in the industry sees this as "traditional" or not
is
> moot. It is the consumers who are eating the food without being told what
> they are eating.
>
> Think about it. When you employ a technique that results in significant
> genetic damage, how can you be sure there are not other unforseen
sub-lethal
> changes in the genome? As Dale has said, most of the GM'ed plants die
with
> only a small fraction surviving to be used in later breeding so there has
to
> be a lot of genetic damage to cause most of the plants to die.
>
> Therefore the safety of this GM'ed food is only as good as the testing
done
> on the plants that survive the attack on their genome. When plants are
> declared "substainally equivalent" by the government and thus avoid long
term
> testing then the health troubles caused by GM'ed potatos - like that found
by
> the researchers in Scotland - is to be expected.
>
> Mike Miller
>
>
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > > >methods which do no rely on the use of viri or gene guns or gene
> > > >mutating toxic materials (the tools used in recombinant genetics);
> >
> > it is my understanding that the legal definition of conventional (vs
> > recombinent ) breeding includes mutagens, which have been used to amp
> > mutation for decades before recombinant genetic engineering had been
named
> > or practiced.
> > monte
>
>
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2142891
While this is sad one part of me is happy that finally a species is dying out and it has nothing to do with humans...I almost feel relieved.
http://www.thiele-und-thiele-consult.de/Ha...o%20bees_us.htm
"Expertise on health hazards of pesticides and Agro-genetic engineering not only in the beekeeping sector. What are the severe negative side effects of this socalled dayfly-technology? If you don't want to believe only in deceptive statements of TransGen or ISAAA (international biotech organisation, sponsored for instance by Biotech-companies like Monsanto, Bayer crop science and socalled "development aid" organisations like GTZ, USAID) this book is a must.
Editorial feature themes are for instance: Health hazards of crops modified by biotechnology on honeybees. The conditions of the bees became over decades treated so unnatural, that it's immune system and "blood system" is debilitated; Parasites, viruses etc. are only the symptoms. Not only newer investigations from Germany have turned out, how important determined, from the bees themselves produced substances and structures are for the communication in the colony. Is the colony being disturbed, while it is being forced to get along with new and unnatural substances, it never had selected itself (for example. Plastic combs), or comes in contact with it (special pesticides, pollen from crops modified by biotechnology), thus this can not only lead to communication - disorders within the colony, but causes by that also till now unexplainable phenomena. Because, if the communication is disturbed, the nectar - and pollen foragers can not decipher that "bee language" in the hive anymore, or too less foragers react on the bee dances (which show up the distance and quality of the feed source), thus too less nutritious pollen resp. nectar is going to be collected and the colony dies by starvation. "
"Expertise on health hazards of pesticides and Agro-genetic engineering not only in the beekeeping sector. What are the severe negative side effects of this socalled dayfly-technology? If you don't want to believe only in deceptive statements of TransGen or ISAAA (international biotech organisation, sponsored for instance by Biotech-companies like Monsanto, Bayer crop science and socalled "development aid" organisations like GTZ, USAID) this book is a must.
Editorial feature themes are for instance: Health hazards of crops modified by biotechnology on honeybees. The conditions of the bees became over decades treated so unnatural, that it's immune system and "blood system" is debilitated; Parasites, viruses etc. are only the symptoms. Not only newer investigations from Germany have turned out, how important determined, from the bees themselves produced substances and structures are for the communication in the colony. Is the colony being disturbed, while it is being forced to get along with new and unnatural substances, it never had selected itself (for example. Plastic combs), or comes in contact with it (special pesticides, pollen from crops modified by biotechnology), thus this can not only lead to communication - disorders within the colony, but causes by that also till now unexplainable phenomena. Because, if the communication is disturbed, the nectar - and pollen foragers can not decipher that "bee language" in the hive anymore, or too less foragers react on the bee dances (which show up the distance and quality of the feed source), thus too less nutritious pollen resp. nectar is going to be collected and the colony dies by starvation. "
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Feb 12 2007, 12:55 PM) [snapback]1540267[/snapback]
I doubt they will go extinct unless the disease is world wide.
Indeed, the worst it will do is probably just wipe out local populations and maybe create a honey shortage.
QUOTE(MR_MOE @ Feb 12 2007, 11:24 PM) [snapback]1540601[/snapback]
Indeed, the worst it will do is probably just wipe out local populations and maybe create a honey shortage.
I think that bees are important for things other than the production of honey. But like you say, this is probably just a localized problem seeing that it's only affected tens of thousands of colonies in 22 states...
KGS
QUOTE(KGS3333 @ Feb 12 2007, 11:34 PM) [snapback]1540619[/snapback]
I think that bees are important for things other than the production of honey. But like you say, this is probably just a localized problem seeing that it's only affected tens of thousands of colonies in 22 states...
KGS
KGS
But the species is a European import, it is not a native to the Americas, it is native to Europe, Asia and Africa, there are native species in the US that will act as pollinaters to the flowers that these species have been feeding upon.
I doubt it will result in extinction of the species.
QUOTE(KGS3333 @ Feb 12 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]1540619[/snapback]
I think that bees are important for things other than the production of honey. But like you say, this is probably just a localized problem seeing that it's only affected tens of thousands of colonies in 22 states...
KGS
KGS
Atleast it is not extiction.
QUOTE(MR_MOE @ Feb 13 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]1540640[/snapback]
Atleast it is not extiction.
...yet...
Maybe this is the result of biological terrorism. Everyone seems to be on the lookout for things that affect humans directly, but such things as this have a serious impact on agriculture and the economy and finding out who's responsible is next to impossible. The same goes for West Nile, I've always found it interesting how this just happened to show up in 1999 in New York. Of course that one seems to have played itself out, at least around here it has.
KGS
KGS
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Feb 12 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]1540651[/snapback]
...yet...
Have you been ignoring previous posts by any chance?
often heard honey bees are a major part of human survial..without their polunation mankind can not survie..
QUOTE(sbradj @ Feb 13 2007, 03:03 AM) [snapback]1540897[/snapback]
often heard honey bees are a major part of human survial..without their polunation mankind can not survie..
No we can because there are many other species which pollanate flowers to, not just bees, also the honey bee is not native to the Americas it is an introduced species from Europe.
Thankfully the chinese honeybee is more resitant to teh mite, so there is that species to continue 
I wonder how many will die though
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.