Honeybee deaths reaching crisis point in UK

[Raineyrocks]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/12/conservation.wildlife1
   
Honeybee deaths reaching crisis point
• 1 in 3 of UK's honeybees did not survive winter and spring
• Pollination of fruit and vegetables at risk
   
Honeybees

Bees gather around a honeycomb. Photograph: Reso/Rex Features

Britain's honeybees have suffered catastrophic losses this year, according to a survey of the nation's beekeepers, contributing to a shortage of honey and putting at risk the pollination of fruits and vegetables.

The survey by the British Beekeepers' Association (BBKA) revealed that nearly one in three of the UK's 240,000 honeybee hives did not survive this winter and spring.

The losses are higher than the one in five colonies reported dead earlier this year by the government after 10% of hives had been inspected.

The BBKA president, Tim Lovett, said he was very concerned about the findings: "Average winter bee losses due to poor weather and disease vary from between 5% and 10%, so a 30% loss is deeply worrying. This spells serious trouble for pollination services and honey producers."
Link to this audio
Alison Benjamin reports on why honeybee deaths are reaching crisis point


The National Bee Unit has attributed high bee mortality to the wet summer in 2007 and in the early part of this spring that confined bees to their hives. This meant they were unable to forage for nectar and pollen and this stress provided the opportunity for pathogens to build up and spread.

But the BBKA says the causes are unclear. Its initial survey of 600 members revealed a marked north-south divide, with 37% bee losses in the north, compared to 26% in the south. "We don't know why there is a difference and what is behind the high mortality," said Lovett.

The government recognises that the UK's honeybee hives - run by 44,000 mostly amateur beekeepers - contribute around £165m a year to the economy by pollinating many fruits and vegetables. "30% fewer honeybee colonies could therefore cost the economy some £50m and put at risk the government's crusade for the public to eat five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables a day," Lovett warned.

The Honey Association warned last month that English honey will run out by Christmas and no more will be available until summer 2009. It blames the shortage on fewer honeybees and farmers devoting more fields to wheat, which has soared in price but does not produce nectar.

The UK's leading honey company is so concerned by the crisis that it has pledged to donate money to honeybee research. From next month, for each jar of Rowse English honey sold in supermarkets 10p will be donated to a fund dedicated to improving the health of the nation's honeybees.

Stuart Bailey, chairman of Rowse Honey said: "We are working with the UK Bee Farmers' Association and are sponsoring research to the minimum value of £25,000 over the next 12 months to selectively breed a hardier bee that can better withstand parasites and diseases."

Rowse's clear English honey comes mainly from the borage plant, also known as starflower, which has been grown increasingly as a source of a fatty acid rich in omega-6 for pharmaceutical products. But farmers have planted much less borage this year as ready-processed borage oil is being imported and wheat is more profitable to grow due to the increase in demand for biofuels.

Bailey added that the shortage had been exacerbated by an 11% rise in demand for English honey over the last year.

Although British honey only accounts for 10% of the 30,000 tonnes of honey consumed in the UK, other major honey producing countries have also been severely hit by poor weather and bee diseases. Argentina is the world's honey pot, producing up to 75,000 tonnes a year - three times that of its nearest rival Mexico. But Argentina has suffered a 27% drop in yield due to droughts and the planting of huge swathes of land with soya beans for biofuel. As a result, there has been a 60% rise in the price of raw honey.

In the US, honey yields have been decimated by honeybee loses of 36%, many due to colony collapse disorder (CCD), a mysterious disappearance linked to the blood-sucking varroa mite, lethal viruses, malnutrition, pesticides, and a lack of genetic diversity. CCD has spread to Canada, France, Germany and Italy but has not yet been confirmed by government in the Britain.

The BBKA is calling on the the UK government to put £8m over five years into researching honeybee losses and improving bee health.

Farming minister, Lord Rooker, has predicted the demise of the honeybee within a decade. Last November, he told parliament: "We do not deny that honeybee health is at risk. Frankly, if nothing is done about it, the honeybee population could be wiped out in 10 years."

Yet the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spends just £1.3m on bee health each year- less than one per cent of the bees' value to the economy - with an additional £200,000 for research.

The National Farmer's Union said it was essential for government to increase its funding of honeybee research. "Research is vital into varroa, bee breeding and the Nosema parasite," said Chris Hartfield, NFU horticultural adviser. "We are talking about food security and world food supplies being put at risk."

Defra said a further £90,000 had been allocated to the NBU this year to expand investigations into colony losses. It is currently consulting on a honeybee health strategy, with responses required by the end of this month.

A Defra spokesman said: "Significant public funds are already provided to support this area of work but to ensure this intervention is effective, it it vital that work is driven by a well thought out strategy agreed by all relevant parties."

[Raineyrocks]

Lawsuit seeks EPA pesticide data

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

Tuesday, August 19, 2008
   

(08-18) 18:37 PDT -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is refusing to disclose records about a new class of pesticides that could be playing a role in the disappearance of millions of honeybees in the United States, a lawsuit filed Monday charges.
Images
A special breed of honeybee from Arizona gathers pollen f...A honey bee lands on an almond blossom.An environmental group has filed suit to force the EPA to... View Larger Images 

The Natural Resources Defense Council wants to see the studies that the EPA required when it approved a pesticide made by Bayer CropScience five years ago.

The environmental group filed the suit as part of an effort to find out how diligently the EPA is protecting honeybees from dangerous pesticides, said Aaron Colangelo, a lawyer for the group in Washington.

In the last two years, beekeepers have reported unexplained losses of hives - 30 percent and upward - leading to a phenomenon called colony collapse disorder. Scientists believe that the decline in bees is linked to an onslaught of pesticides, mites, parasites and viruses, as well as a loss of habitat and food.
$15 billion in crops

Bees pollinate about one-third of the human diet, $15 billion worth of U.S. crops, including almonds in California, blueberries in Maine, cucumbers in North Carolina and 85 other commercial crops, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Not finding a cause of the collapse could prove costly, scientists warn.

Representatives of the EPA said they hadn't seen the suit and couldn't comment.

Clothianidin is the pesticide at the center of controversy. It is used to coat corn, sugar beet and sorghum seeds and is part of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. The pesticide was blamed for bee deaths in France and Germany, which also is dealing with a colony collapse. Those two countries have suspended its use until further study. An EPA fact sheet from 2003 says clothianidin has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other pollinators, through residues in nectar and pollen.

The EPA granted conditional registration for clothianidin in 2003 and at the same time required that Bayer CropScience submit studies on chronic exposure to honeybees, including a complete worker bee lifecycle study as well as an evaluation of exposure and effects to the queen, the group said. The queen, necessary for a colony, lives a few years; the workers live only six weeks, but there is no honey without them.

"The public has no idea whether those studies have been submitted to the EPA or not and, if so, what they show. Maybe they never came in. Maybe they came in, and they show a real problem for bees. Maybe they're poorly conducted studies that don't satisfy EPA's requirement," Colangelo said.
Request for records

On July 17, after getting no response from the EPA about securing the studies, the environmental group filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which requires the records within 20 business days absent unusual circumstances.

When the federal agency missed the August deadline, the group filed the lawsuit, asking the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to force the EPA to turn over the records.

Greg Coffey, a spokesman for Bayer CropScience in Research Triangle Park, N.C., said controlled field studies have demonstrated that clothianidin, when used correctly, will not harm bees. He added that all of EPA's requirements for conditional registration of clothianidin have been submitted to the agency.

An EPA spokesman, Dale Kemery, said the agency couldn't comment on the documents required under the conditional registration because the matter is the subject of litigation.
Unusual circumstances

Generally, the EPA has taken the position that the bee deaths occurred under unusual circumstances. In Germany, the corn lacked a seed coating that ensured that the pesticide stuck to the seed, and equipment blew the pesticide into a nearby canola field where bees fed.

The EPA is "reasonably confident" that a bee kill similar to Germany's wouldn't happen in the United States because use is restricted to commercial applicators who use stickier coatings, according to Kemery.

But because the stickier coatings aren't required, Kemery said, the EPA will review its policies on seed-treatment labels.

In California, according to the 2006 Pesticide Use Report Summary, about 3 pounds of clothianidin was used, all on corn. Other members of the neonicotinoid class, registered for a longer period of time, have been used more frequently, including 127,000 pounds on broccoli, grapes, lettuce and oranges. Some pesticides were used in buildings.

"We've been monitoring the bee die-off situation for a couple of years, and it's a complex puzzle that may also involve mites, viruses and other factors," said Glenn Brank, communications director for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.

The agency is conducting its own review of environmental data from registered neonicotinoid pesticides as well as watching enforcement reports from counties for any unusual environmental incidents involving bees, he said. None was noted, Brank said.

Scientists presenting at the American Chemical Society national meeting Monday reported that dozens of pesticides had been found in samples of adult bees, broods, pollen and wax collected from honeybee colonies suspected to have died from symptoms of colony collapse disorder, including some neonicotinoids.

Entomologist Gabriela Chavarria, director of Natural Resources Defense Council's Science Center, said over the years bees have had to withstand devastating problems.

Bees pick up deadly farm and home chemicals when they visit flowers, or encounter chemical drift from aerial and other applications. Fifteen years ago, queen bees imported from China brought varroa mites that attacked broods of worker bees. Microscopic tracheal mites invade the hives.

And now the new pesticide, clothianidin, is another problem, Chavarria said. Scientists must find out whether the toxicity has been sufficiently studied, she said.

"We want this information now. We cannot continue to wait. Bees are disappearing. Our whole existence depends on them because we eat. The flowers need to be pollinated, and the only ones to do it are the bees."
Colony collapse

Honeybees, which pollinate everything from almonds to apples to avocados, began abandoning their colonies in 2006, destroying about a third of their hives.

Since then, their numbers have not improved. A survey of beekeepers in the fall and winter 2007 by the Bee Research Lab and the Apiary Inspectors of America showed that beekeepers lost about 35 percent of their hives compared with 31 percent in 2006.

Scientists have not pinpointed the cause.

In 2007, Congress recognized colony collapse disorder as a threat and gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture emergency funds to study honeybee disappearances. In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill grants the USDA $20 million each year to support bee research and related work. And earlier this year, ice cream maker Haagen-Dazs, who relies on honeybees for 40 percent of its flavors, awarded a $250,000 research grant to UC Davis and Pennsylvania State University to research honeybees.
More info

-- The Environmental Protection Agency: links.sfgate

.com/ZEOF

-- U.S. EPA fact sheet on the pesticide clothianidin: links.sfgate

.com/ZEOI

-- The Natural Resources Defense Council: links.sfgate

.com/ZEOG

E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I was speaking with Brian Travis, a fellow early mover, who is a hobby beekeeper and his theory and one that he has heard from others, is that beekeepers have been breeding bees to be too big and for some reason the size of the bee makes them easily pickings to certain kinds of sickeness.

[Raineyrocks]

I was speaking with Brian Travis, a fellow early mover, who is a hobby beekeeper and his theory and one that he has heard from others, is that beekeepers have been breeding bees to be too big and for some reason the size of the bee makes them easily pickings to certain kinds of sickeness.

See what happens when people mess with Mother Nature!

[J’raxis 270145]

I was speaking with Brian Travis, a fellow early mover, who is a hobby beekeeper and his theory and one that he has heard from others, is that beekeepers have been breeding bees to be too big and for some reason the size of the bee makes them easily pickings to certain kinds of sickeness.

See what happens when people mess with Mother Nature!

No. "Mother Nature" does this all the time itself.

[Raineyrocks]

I was speaking with Brian Travis, a fellow early mover, who is a hobby beekeeper and his theory and one that he has heard from others, is that beekeepers have been breeding bees to be too big and for some reason the size of the bee makes them easily pickings to certain kinds of sickeness.

See what happens when people mess with Mother Nature!

No. "Mother Nature" does this all the time itself.

I know about natural selection but there is nothing natural about genetically modified foods.  Gene splicing a tomato for instance or combining a gene or whatever they are referred to in this process from a brazil nut into soy.  No, way!  I totally disagree that the bees are disappearing because of natural selection and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

[J’raxis 270145]

I was speaking with Brian Travis, a fellow early mover, who is a hobby beekeeper and his theory and one that he has heard from others, is that beekeepers have been breeding bees to be too big and for some reason the size of the bee makes them easily pickings to certain kinds of sickeness.

See what happens when people mess with Mother Nature!

No. "Mother Nature" does this all the time itself.

I know about natural selection but there is nothing natural about genetically modified foods.  Gene splicing a tomato for instance or combining a gene or whatever they are referred to in this process from a brazil nut into soy.  No, way!  I totally disagree that the bees are disappearing because of natural selection and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

No, it's not natural selection that's modifying the bees, it's artificial selection (selective breeding by humans and/or gene splicing). But in reality that's just a special case of natural selection, because human beings are products of the natural environment, too. There are a multitude of examples of the evolution of one species of animal being caused by pressures put upon it by another animal—and the conscious guidance we give to evolution is just a special case of that.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Nothings unnatural

[Dylboz]

I was speaking with Brian Travis, a fellow early mover, who is a hobby beekeeper and his theory and one that he has heard from others, is that beekeepers have been breeding bees to be too big and for some reason the size of the bee makes them easily pickings to certain kinds of sickeness.

See what happens when people mess with Mother Nature!

Yeah, they live longer, healthier lives, with cheap and nutritious food (or tasty junk, if they like) available year 'round, they have pets like dogs and cats to protect them and fill their lives with joy, and livestock for milk and meat, reliable crops and medicines, immunizations, anti-biotics, and analgesics, they fly through the air in huge hunks of metal, the hurtle over the landscape in beautiful and efficient machines listening to the latest tunes, etc. etc. etc.

Need I go on?

[Dylboz]

OK, go on I will...

I know about natural selection but there is nothing natural about genetically modified foods.  Gene splicing a tomato for instance or combining a gene or whatever they are referred to in this process from a brazil nut into soy.  No, way!  I totally disagree that the bees are disappearing because of natural selection and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

All life comes from a single common ancestor. There are no "unnatural" genes. A tomato with a fish gene works because fish genes are compatible with tomato ones. Did you know that mixing in a carrot gene with rice has alleviated the problem of childhood blindness across a large swath of southeast Asia (Golden rice), with no negative health side-effects whatever?

The only problem that exists with GM products is government. It is the government that protects companies from the consequences of bad products reaching the marketplace. It is the government that protects so-called "IP" in seeds, using force to prop up a monopoly. It is the government that prevents others from taking these technologies even further, doing even more good, and it prevents those who do ill with them from facing the consequences, in terms of strict liability, form their improper or detrimental application.

You are free to choose not to consume them, and I wish you were able to seek compensation for any real damage they do to you, though I can't imagine that there is now or ever has been any. I only think they should be as free to develop and offer them as you are to spurn them for more traditional ones. I am a gardener and a budding locavore, but if I could get GM versions of stuff that would stay healthy and grow large with less water, it would help save me money and the water table here in the desert. When I move to NH, I wish I could get freeze resistant plant strains, a reality that could result from splicing marine life (fish, I think) genes into their DNA. If I am willing to grow and eat them, why should you want to stop me?

Unless you are an anti-human, anti-life, eco-vangelist who sees humans as a virus, a plague or cancer on the planet, then you shouldn't resent anything that promises to get more from less. More food from less land, more fish from less food and smaller aqua-cultures, more energy for less effort, and all of it while reducing the impact on the environment and the consumption of resources. Even if you are skeptical, or even fearful of it, for your own personal use. I suggest you cultivate some cautious optimism about GM foods and other biotechnology. Humanity cannot hope to survive without it in some form.

[dalebert]

John Stossel did an excellent special called Tampering With Nature. I recommend it.

[Raineyrocks]

OK, go on I will...

I know about natural selection but there is nothing natural about genetically modified foods.  Gene splicing a tomato for instance or combining a gene or whatever they are referred to in this process from a brazil nut into soy.  No, way!  I totally disagree that the bees are disappearing because of natural selection and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

All life comes from a single common ancestor. There are no "unnatural" genes. A tomato with a fish gene works because fish genes are compatible with tomato ones. Did you know that mixing in a carrot gene with rice has alleviated the problem of childhood blindness across a large swath of southeast Asia (Golden rice), with no negative health side-effects whatever?

The only problem that exists with GM products is government. It is the government that protects companies from the consequences of bad products reaching the marketplace. It is the government that protects so-called "IP" in seeds, using force to prop up a monopoly. It is the government that prevents others from taking these technologies even further, doing even more good, and it prevents those who do ill with them from facing the consequences, in terms of strict liability, form their improper or detrimental application.

You are free to choose not to consume them, and I wish you were able to seek compensation for any real damage they do to you, though I can't imagine that there is now or ever has been any. I only think they should be as free to develop and offer them as you are to spurn them for more traditional ones. I am a gardener and a budding locavore, but if I could get GM versions of stuff that would stay healthy and grow large with less water, it would help save me money and the water table here in the desert. When I move to NH, I wish I could get freeze resistant plant strains, a reality that could result from splicing marine life (fish, I think) genes into their DNA. If I am willing to grow and eat them, why should you want to stop me?

Unless you are an anti-human, anti-life, eco-vangelist who sees humans as a virus, a plague or cancer on the planet, then you shouldn't resent anything that promises to get more from less. More food from less land, more fish from less food and smaller aqua-cultures, more energy for less effort, and all of it while reducing the impact on the environment and the consumption of resources. Even if you are skeptical, or even fearful of it, for your own personal use. I suggest you cultivate some cautious optimism about GM foods and other biotechnology. Humanity cannot hope to survive without it in some form.

I don't want to stop you from planting your garden or eating anything you want to, knock yourself out.

  I understand that genes are natural but is splicing and combining them in a lab setting?  If it were natural then it would occur in nature, which I admit some of it does, but most of it is done in science labs with corporations such as Mononsato calling the shots and the government covering up for them if they make "errors" that effect people's lives in a detrimental way.  So are you trying to tell me that splicing a carrot gene with rice allievated childhood blindness?  Why not just provide those people with carrots and rice?  Wouldn't the same good outcome have occured?


I believe humanity cannot hope to survive because of overconsumption, (waste not population), pollution, and reckless greed and evil.  Perhaps if the 4 things I noted didn't exist then the possible need for genetically modified foods wouldn't either.  How do you know that humanity can't survive without the continuation and expansion of gmo foods anyway?  If gmo foods were so natural why then were the Monarch butterflies dying in mass numbers since the initial phase of planting Bt corn?
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/environmental-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-crops-recent-experiences.html


"They" should be free to offer them I agree; however "they" do not label their gmo foods to give me a chance to decide for myself whether or not I wish to consume them.
http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/10/18/3db994e62c284   
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/60/biotech


Just because I have an opinion about something doesn't make me an anti-human, anti-life, eco-vangelist who sees humans as a virus, I truly resent that remark.  It was not needed in the discussion at all just as I feel your previous rambling post before this was way off point so I won't be responding to that one.


Where did I ever write that you couldn't eat or grow whatever you want?  Why would you assume that's what I meant?  When have I ever presented myself as an anti-human person?   I love people, the only thing I see as a sort of "virus" is greed and evil.

[dalebert]

I understand that genes are natural but is splicing and combining them in a lab setting?

Why do people think humans and what we do is not natural? If beavers build a dam, it's natural, but if humans build a skyscraper or a new kind of rice, it's not natural? I would posit that the next step in our evolution is for us to take an active role in it leading to the inevitable transcendence from our biological bodies and that it's completely natural for us to do so; practically destiny even.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Dale had the epiphany the other night that he is The Singularity. I agree with him.

[Raineyrocks]

I understand that genes are natural but is splicing and combining them in a lab setting?

Why do people think humans and what we do is not natural? If beavers build a dam, it's natural, but if humans build a skyscraper or a new kind of rice, it's not natural? I would posit that the next step in our evolution is for us to take an active role in it leading to the inevitable transcendence from our biological bodies and that it's completely natural for us to do so; practically destiny even.

I can understand humans doing things to live such as the beaver builds a dam for shelter, we build houses for shelter however I believe that humans go overboard and make some "advancements" for greedy reasons.   There's no way anyone can convince me that NutraSweet which is genetically engineered, benefited anyone.  The FDA passed it to the public quickly without performing all of the necessary tests to make sure it was safe for humans.  Why did they do this?  Because a powerful cooperation that had a lot of cooperate backing and money wanted it passed through so the FDA is a bought and paid for unit of the corrupt government.

For instance, reading a book is good, people learn a lot but first what had to happen?  Trees needed to be cut down to produce paper for these books, right?  If humans are going to cut down trees to produce a "good thing" then they should also replace those trees by growing more not raping the wilderness and leaving it barren of trees.  There lies the problem in my opinion, humans, (not all), take but they don't give back when it comes to nature, they don't think or care of how their polluted waste will affect the future.   Look at water and how polluted it is, why?

I'm not against all advancements however if these advancements are going to have a negative impact now or in the future then I don't think the advancements should be made.