GMO Tied To Bee Decline?

Could be worth looking into the European situation, where colony collapse disorder is also a problem, but rather fewer GM crops are grown AFAIK (perhaps excepting Spain). Don't have time to check it out myself.

Not looking good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/15/bee-harming-pesticides-escape-european-ban

Apparently GM corn pollen is showing up in honey.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/09/14/will-ruling-on-gm-tainted-honey-affect-canadian-producers/

'...I've been taking a "big picture" look at GMO foods, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, growth hormones, etc., and trying to find some correlation to some of the other problems we are facing....'

.

I see your intentions as commendable. Your approach is misdirected and inefficient. It would be a shame to waste your initiative/motivation.

.

Specifically, searching for correlation assigns far too much value to the often arbitrary condition of correlation.

.

The statement 'Correlation does not imply Causation' is not hyperbole.

Looking at it from the other side, an argument asserting 'Correlation proves Causation' has long been widely accepted as a logical fallacy... so long that it has its own Latin title.....'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc'. Many people fall victim to this fallacy and it conjures fertile ground for a bevy of other cognitive biases.

.

Reviewing changing conditions and potential mechanisms that might lead to the changes in question, would be a much better way to identify candidate processes... at which point checking for correlation would not be a bad preliminary evaluation.

.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time.... just trying to save you some time and effort.

Thanks.

So, you don't think that feeding bees pesticide laden GM corn syrup could cause any problems?

I don't have the access to the corn syrup, or the means to do the testing, but I think my hypothesis has merit.

Is there no proven science that started with random speculation?

'....So, you don't think that feeding bees pesticide laden GM corn syrup could cause any problems?....'

.

I'm not defending that practice. What I am saying is that conducting searched based on correlation, can introduce some large biases.

.

Without looking for correlation, I think pesticides are something that deserves closer inspection, since pesticides are, by design harmful, and often not extremely selective.

.

Correlation can be a useful tool for evaluating suspected causal relationships. The utility diminishes as the data become more broad and less specific.

.

My intention isn't to ridicule what you are saying. My intention is to suggest improvements that might make your endeavor more efficient by avoiding methods that are known to introduce significant bias.

Nothing personal truth, but I just knocked down one of your GAs, and I'm not the type to be sneaky about it.

For me anyway, my original premise, combined with the searches and links that I and others have come up with, have been quite a wake up call and learning experience.

I really had no idea how deep and serious this problem is. You should check out some of the links. They aren't misdirected and inefficient.

I was thrown off by SolarEagle's posts because I was responding to the tone rather than the substance. Once he provided the proof that I was correct, it's become quite an interesting journey.

Kramarat:

.

I don't take personally your choice to rate my posts however you choose. I do take it personally that I have failed to communicate effectively my point to you.

.

You asked previously:

'...Is there no proven science that started with random speculation?

...'

.

I suspect in failing to respond, I might have suggested I as conceding the point and given you false encouragement along that line of thinking.

.

So allow me to answer that now:

I believe the chance of 'random speculation' resulting in 'proven science' has to be exceedingly rare....on the order of unlikely to ever happen within the species lifespan of science wielding homo sapiens....and nearly certain not to occur twice within what I estimate to be that time frame.

.

Definitions are important here. While 'scientifically proven' certainly has a lot of room to wiggle, the more important definition here is 'random speculation'.

For the record, I don't think what you have been doing qualifies as 'random speculation'. I do think it is important to understand and allow reasonable review of the processes undertaken in any meaningful scientific endeavor.

A random speculation about bee decline would be closer to something like, ' Bee populations are declining because on average people living at odd address numbers are using motor oil with a weight below their age in years'.

.

Your speculation has at least something where a plausible connection could be drawn. So your speculation is not random.... so there is some process there...wouldn't it be a good idea to flesh out a little exactly what that process is...and make sure the things you are using to assess viability of the speculated process aren't the same thing used to generate the speculation?

It's crazy, huh?

What started off as random speculation by me, turned out to be something that experts in the field had already thought of. SolarEagle was kind enough to provide proof that my random thought wasn't so random after all, and then we went on to find the genuine scientific studies that show causality. Pretty cool.

It's turned into an interesting thread. I'm glad I started it.

I'm glad you started it as well.

I don't think you have read the responses SolarEagle and I have provided. At least not completely.

As previously stated; calling your speculations 'random' obfuscates your real process.

Why refuse to look at a process you yourself are performing?

What purpose could that serve?

You may bee on to something. You have an interesting argument and you do seem to bee making good sense.

Truth is not a Compromise also has a good point in #3.

We now have many changes in this world including the increased use of GMO corn, global warming, increased sales of assault weapons and a trend towards socialism by Washington. If by chance the decline in bee population is due to global warming or assault weapon sales then you would still see a statistical correlation between the bee population and the increase in GMO corn usage.

The tie between feeding the bees GMO corn products and their population does seem to be a more credible theory than trying to tie bee population to assault weapon sales or democratic policy.

That's what I think.

It's not like I spend hours on this stuff. I just really like the internet; it's like having an entire library at my fingertips. Some random thought can pop up in my head, and I'm off to the races.

It's just a matter of coming up with the right search terms. I'm not trying to prove anything, just decided to share this little venture with you guys.

Check this one out:

http://www.naturalnews.com/030959_GM_corn_insecticides.html

Another good study would be to look into the inverse relationship between the increased use of GMO corn and the ability of our leaders to balance the government's checkbook.

Maybe they're ingesting a lot of corn syrup and it's affecting their thinking.

Nice link, Kramarat. Notice the related article Consumption of soft drinks and high-fructose corn syrup linked to obesity and diabetes.

GM corn releases insecticide chemicals that are now polluting rivers and streams

These chemicals are very stabil chemicals..... You know, there are may be a commmoodity here. If we can harvest more of the plants that are now refuse that have these chemicals and reintroduct them........

Bingo!!!!!

A real study:

Lu and his co-authors hypothesized that the uptick in CCD resulted from the presence of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid introduced in the early 1990s. Bees can be exposed in two ways: through nectar from plants or through high-fructose corn syrup beekeepers use to feed their bees.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/colony-collapse-disorder-pesticide/?__utma=1.644578491.1333739272.1333739272.1333739272.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1333739272&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1333739272.1.1.utmcsr=hsph.harvard.edu%25257Cutmccn=referral%25257Cutmcmd=referral%25257Cutmcct=/&__utmv=-&__utmk=89621787

So what's being done about it?

Is it possible that bees and humans are simply collateral damage in the effort to feed the artificial demand for higher yields of corn, that was created by the artificial demand for ethanol?

You really should do a little research before you start posting this kind of unfounded unsupported attack on the world's food supply.....

Your study posted here shows that a bee colony collapse could be triggered by exposing the bees to an insecticide, that's all.....Not a study on what actually has caused any reduction in bee colonies, and absolutely nothing to do with GM foods.....which, by the way, are working to reduce pesticide use....This then from the Wiki.....

"

Multiple possible causes of CCD have been identified. In 2007, some authorities attributed the problem to biotic factors such as Varroa mites and insect diseases (i.e., pathogens^[5] including Nosema apis and Israel acute paralysis virus).^[6][7] Other proposed causes include environmental change-related stresses,^[8] malnutrition, pesticides (e.g.. neonicotinoids such as clothianidin and imidacloprid^[9][10][11]), and migratory beekeeping. More speculative possibilities have included both cell phone radiation^[12][13] and genetically modified (GM) crops with pest control characteristics.^[14][15]

It has also been suggested that it may be due to a combination of many factors and that no single factor is the cause.^[16][17][18] The most recent report (USDA - 2010) states that "based on an initial analysis of collected bee samples (CCD- and non-CCD affected), reports have noted the high number of viruses and other pathogens, pesticides, and parasites present in CCD colonies, and lower levels in non-CCD colonies. This work suggests that a combination of environmental stressors may set off a cascade of events and contribute to a colony where weakened worker bees are more susceptible to pests and pathogens."^[19] In a 2013 formal peer review the European Food Safety Authority stated that recent studies show that neonicotinoid pesticides, some of the most widely-used pesticides in the world, pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied is flawed and possibly deliberately deceptive.^[20]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid

Always trying to be head of the class.

Sorry bud. While I completely understand your reliance on wiki, I'll go with the Harvard study. As far as I know, it can't be edited by outside sources.

Are you attempting to make the point that genetically introduced pesticides won't harm bees?

You're going to have to do better than wiki.

BTW- I'm not attacking the world's food supply; I'm making an effort to save it. I'm no expert, but I think it's a worthwhile conversation to have.

And please; do more research before posting on CR4? Shirley you jest.

A shotgun blast copy and paste job, (again), doesn't cut it. Lets have a closer look at your wiki links...

In the March 29, 2012, issue of the journal Science, two separate studies found that neonicotinoids (insecticides) may interfere with bee's natural homing abilities, causing them to become disoriented and preventing them from finding their way back to the hive.^[45][46]

European Food Safety Authority statement

In 2012, several peer reviewed independent studies were published showing that neonicotinoid pesticides had previously undetected routes of exposure affecting bees including through dust, pollen, and nectar; that sub-nanogram toxicity resulted in failure to return to the hive without immediate lethality, the primary symptom of colony collapse disorder; and showing environmental persistence in agricultural irrigation channels and soil. These reports prompted a formal peer review by the European Food Safety Authority, which stated in January 2013 that some neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied on may be flawed and contain several data gaps not previously considered. Their review concluded, "A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. A high acute risk was also identified from exposure via residues in nectar and/or pollen."^[20][47] David Goulson, an author of one of the studies which prompted the EFSA review, has suggested that industry science pertaining to neonicotinoids may have been deliberately deceptive, and the UK Parliament has asked manufacturer Bayer Cropscience to explain discrepancies in evidence they have submitted to an investigation.^[48]

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, pesticides may be contributing to CCD.^[49] Scientists have long been concerned that pesticides and possibly some fungicides may have sub-lethal effects on bees, not killing them outright but instead impairing their development and behavior.

Of special interest is the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, which contain the active ingredient imidacloprid

Virtually all of the genetically engineered Bt corn grown in the U.S. is treated with neonicoticoids and a 2012 study found high levels of clothianidin in pneumatic planter exhaust. In the study it was found that the insecticide was present in the soil of unplanted fields nearby those planted with Bt corn and on dandelions growing near those fields.^[50]

A 2012 in situ study provided strong evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) used to feed honey bees when forage is not available causes bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing. The researchers suggested that "the observed delayed mortality in honey bees caused by imidacloprid in HFCS is a novel and plausible mechanism for CCD, and should be validated in future studies".^[80][81]

I found this under the wiki link for high fructose corn syrup:

Apiculture

In the United States, HFCS has become a sucrose replacement for honey bees. In 2009, a study by Leblanc et al. found that at temperatures above 45 °C (113 °F) HFCS rapidly forms hydroxymethylfurfural, which is toxic to the honey bees being fed HFCS.^[45] In 2012, a study by Chensheng Lu et al. found symptoms of colony collapse disorder (CCD) in beehives fed HFCS that the researchers laced with levels of a pesticide hypothesized to have been present in HFCS feed back in 2006.^[46]

So, you were right; I owe you an apology and a thank you. Your wiki links, (once I had a chance to read through them), has proven beyond a doubt that my hypothesis is right on target. Thanks again.

Did you even read what SolarEagle wrote in #12?

It doesn't look like you read it at all. It looks like you just assumed it was an attack and assumed what it said.

Please do what you can to assure us that this does not exemplify your usual method of 'reading'....

800+ scientists seem to have a problem with GMO.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

More here:

http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

Yes I went through SolarEagle's links, found the published studies that support my original premise, and provided links to them.

Now you're just being silly. There's nothing to argue about here.

If you are disputing the findings in the published studies, please provide evidence that they are wrong.

'800+ scientists seem to have a problem with GMO.'

Science is not done by consensus. Even if it were, a mere 800 would indicate a far greater number don't have a problem with it. But, again, that isn't how science works.

.

Science works by proposing falsifiable hypothesis and then testing those hypothesis and publishing the results so that others may do things like analyze and attempt to reproduce the results.

I'll repost the direct quote from one of the studies, again:

All hives had no diseases of

symptoms of parasitism during the 13-week dosing regime, and were alive 12 weeks afterward. However, 15 of 16 imidaclopridtreated

hives (94%) were dead across 4 apiaries 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing. Dead hives were remarkably empty except for

stores of food and some pollen left, a resemblance of CCD. Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure

to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in HFCS causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid

dosing. The survival of the control hives managed alongside with the pesticide-treated hives unequivocally augments this

conclusion. The observed delayed mortality in honey bees caused by imidacloprid in HFCS is a novel and plausible mechanism

for CCD, and should be validated in future studies.

If you will provide the links that invalidate these findings, I will happily concede. HCFS stands for high fructose corn syrup.

No other links are needed at the moment.

.

In the study you quote, are you of the opinion that the 16 hives in the study you quote were exposed to imidacloprid by being fed typical HFCS based food?

.

If you believe the food given to those hives was not typical, or if the imidacloprid was administered in some way other than the food, I would like you to consider if there is anything in your own diet, which if concentrated to far greater than typical amount and administered to you might have severe adverse affects.

.

Regardless of the answer to those questions, I think this last question is very important: Are you suggesting that the problems with HFCS infer problems with GMO?

Yes. You apparently missed this while reading the study. The term "genetically engineered" and GMO are synonomous.

Lastly, several earlier reports

have shown that corn and sunflower plants grown from

genetically engineered seeds treated with imidacloprid,

one of the neonicotinoid insecticides, produce pollen

with average levels of 2.1 and 3 μg/kg of imidacloprid,

respectively (Suchail et al., 2001, Rortais et al., 2005).

Furthermore, a recent paper published during the course

of this in situ study showed elevated imidacloprid residue

levels of 47 mg/L in seedling corn guttation drops

germinated from seeds treated with 3 different neonicotinoid

insecticides-treated (including imidacloprid)

corn plants that are high enough to kill honey bees instantaneously

(Girolami et al., 2009).

You do realize that imidacloprid is used extensively on non-gmo seeds as well. On those non-GMO seeds amounts can be high enough to kill a honey bee just as dead as if the poison were on a GMO seed.

.

And some imidacloprid aslo gets on the soil..... uh oh.

Better get rid of all plants GMO and non GMO, and better get rid of all the soil everywhere. Imidacloprid could be sprayed on any of those things and kill bees.

Quick! Get hysterical! Panic! Move to action before logic and reason have a chance to voice reasoned opinions. Villify! Rant! Damn with loose association and inference! (and as for the opposition....where ever cool heads threaten to prevail....)KRAMARAT TO THE RESCUE!

Yes, it is the GMO alarmists that are attempting to link GMO to the study, although with GM crops there is a double shot of insecticide; there are the Bt toxins that are spliced into the genetic makeup of the plant, combined with the imidacloprid, which is a systemic pesticide and becomes part of the plant through the roots. So there is a higher percentage of total insecticide in the GM plants.

Almost all corn is now GMO, so it is likely source of the HFCS that is used to feed the bees. One year after the EPA gave the green-light to this entirely new breed of insecticides, (with no real testing taking place), and it went into use, CCD emerged.

And you are correct; the imidacloprid not only gets into the soil and affects other species of plants that bees feed on, but it is found throughout the plant, including the pollen.

So my mistake was thinking that the study was dealing with the genetic modification of the plant, and the Bt toxins that are a result of gene splicing, rather than the chemical modification of the plant through the use of systemic pesticides. But, then again, dead bees are dead bees, and CCD is on the rise.

One thing that's very apparent.....you don't have any idea of what the consequences of losing the bees would be.

You would do well in government. Maybe our commissioner of food safety, (and former Monsanto VP), needs an assistant.

.....you don't have any idea of what the consequences of losing the bees would be.

Actually you do, just look to the East

The US government would call that "job creation".

Typically I don't get too worried about this stuff, but as I become more and more aware of the absolute stupidity that exists within our government, everything deserves a second look. Needless to say, the EPA is completely out to lunch on this one.

its actually practices. In China, this may not be considered excessive labor. I heard on NPR about 3-4 weeks ago on this about the bees pollinated the orchards. But one has to look at the complete picture, wind does some pollinating also.

But I hate to think if it comes down to this.

I remember an episode of "Dirty Jobs" where they were hand pollinating Melon blossoms at a US farm, then sealing the blossom after. The reasons were that natural pollinators were not getting to all the blossoms and also to be more selective what pollen was used. Not so different from what Mendel did. I don't racall a mention of declining numbers of pollinators.

I am also wondering about a parallel between this CCD (among other things) discussion and a story I heard on NPR regarding stress and health. From that story I got that it does not matter what causes the stress to an animal, the physiological result of repeated stress is the same, which includes a weakening of immune systems and reduced vitality. Seems to me that a continuous low level of poison in the environment constitutes a cause of repetitive stress.

'...One thing that's very apparent.....you don't have any idea of what the consequences of losing the bees would be.....'

.

Wait.

.

You are suggesting that, because I insist on having some substantiation for a claim, I am somehow ignorant of the possible consequences of loosing bees as pollinators???

.

You claim that because I will not go along with your 'whatever free-association Kramarat makes with a scientific paper on hive collapse must be equally culpable for hive collapse as the pesticide actually tested in the study, even in the absence of any mention of Kramarat's free-association in the actual study', that I must lack knowledge of the potential for damage to our food supply that would result from losing bees?!?!?.

.

That was really shocking.... for a moment...and then it wasn't anymore.

Once I realized this type of illogical, unfounded leap is completely consistent with your analysis of the scientific paper you site but fail to understand.

.

I should not have been surprised at all by your conclusion given the numerous examples you have provided of drawing conclusions about things that aren't even mentioned in the scientific papers you site.

.

At this point I doubt much can be gained in debating your unfounded accusations.

The people who cannot by this point see that you are bat guano crazy may never be able to see it and might possibly have a little guano contamination in their heads as well..... and there is certainly no hope of demonstrating to your satisfaction the possibility of any problem existing in your thinking....

.

I just need to remember, you are the dude at the off ramp with your crazy message scrawled on your tiny cardboard sign.

It would be silly to roll down my window to argue, and any sane person who sees your delusions as valuable, apparently has acquired a taste for a very odd type of fiction.

.

Good luck with your creations.

I would like to retract the 'bat guano' reference and the 'man at the off ramp with the cardboard sign reference'.

Those were out of line. I apologize, Kramarat.

.

I stand behind the remained of the comment.

Kramerat is right.

Wiki is not considered a reliable source. You have that plethora of references listed but that doesn't mean the information written is following the references. Wiki can be edited by anyone with misleading information and I don't think very many people actually read the references and even the references may not be reliable. Just because they are listed people will assume they are valid.

Wiki is an okay starting point, but you've got to follow the references and find other sources.

I've embarrassed myself more than once by using wiki as my primary source of information.

All of people agree with WIKI. Can use it writing a term paper at all. But alot of acedemics do confess that the references in Wiki may be ok to use, but still have to be verified.

Just ask wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I trust only one, and thats Number 1.

When I was working on my degree Wiki came up as a source not to use. You can use it as a start but their rule was if you needed to site 5 references and you used WIKI, then you still needed 5 references. All because the information written can be modified by anyone.

What I understand, is similar.

You cannot use Wiki. But Wiki has references, if those are from a competent source. Then use that source, get the information you need. But never ever use data Straight from Wiki in a technical paper if you want it to be legit or have credibility in it.

And anyone can make blanket comments on this blog discrediting any source they don't like.

Wiki has the feature that allows you to change the information just by clicking the (edit) feature. Monsanto is a politically volatile issue so is subjected to people wanting to slant the information to suit an agenda. It's better to add references that are not subjected to editing by just anyone. Especially since congress passed the Monsanto Protection Act with a 73% vote and the President approved it. The blame game is in play. Some people are saying the Monsanto Act is no big deal, they obviously don't understand the ramification of not being able to bring judicial action against Monsanto for anything. While everyone was arguing about who's rights are being taking away, the money maker for a private interest slips through.

'...they obviously don't understand the ramification of not being able to bring judicial action against Monsanto for anything.....'

.

Is this really what the legislation does; make it impossible to bring judicial action against Monsanto for ANYTHING?

.

I find that hard to find, and hard to believe.

.

Care to support that assertion? or alternately, perhaps you care to help me out with which things are excluded from your definition of 'anything'?

Janissaries:

You wrote:

'.... Wiki can be edited by anyone with misleading information....'

While I think misleading information certainly can find its way into Wikipedia (like almost any other reference), and there are some notable cases of misleading information being discovered in Wikipedia, I think the common belief you espouse above overstates the ease and frequency with which it might occur.

I challenge you to support your assertion with some proof.

For the purposes of this challenge I am willing to agree that you qualify as just 'anyone'. With that. it should be fairly easy for you to provide some support for your assertion (should it be valid), by posting before and after screenshots (or a before copy, and after link) that document changing, in a significantly misleading way, the information in any well developed article in Wikipedia. I say well developed because articles with zero or few references don't really seem to be what you were describing above.

.

I think you are likely to find editing in misleading information to a well referenced article may be more difficult than you think.

.

On a side note, the fact that people often fail to read or understand referenced material (or even material much beyond the title or summary) is not something unique to Wikipedia. Examples abound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

Let's take this one for instance.

There is a lot of contention over gun control right now and Nazi Germany is being brought up quite a bit.

The only thing Hitler did in changes in gun control was made it that only citizens could possess firearms and stripped the Jews of citizenship. He did not go around confiscating guns, he didn't take firearms away from the Jews until they were being routed to ghettos, then the guns were collected along with the rest of the plunder.

You see the (edit) in the lower right corner of the windows. I clicked on that and it brought up a window for me to edit the information. I could have changed the wording to suit my needs and agenda and anyone following me would not know the difference. Especially when on FaceBook, they are stating that the Nazis went around and confiscated everyone's firearms, when that wasn't even true. Hitler was received with open arms by practically everyone and he had nothing to fear from them. The place where I read that also stated that prior to Hitler the people were under a Liberal Government and were fed up them. Somebody else coming along might not like that wording and change it.

http://mk.christogenea.org/content/gun-control-germany-1928-1945-excerpt

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Those two support my statement.

This one sort of goes in a different direction, it lists things out of context:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

Regardless, notice with all three of them, you can't edit the information yourself and all three have a reference. And if you can add references to Wiki, then you can delete them as well.

With the Monsanto Protection Act. That was pushed through under the radar, it leads to the blame game when both parties pushed it through overwhelmingly while everyone else was arguing over gun control and gay marriage. When something is political like this, those sites that have that (edit) feature should always be held suspect. When issues are political even sites such as Snopes is not reliable.

I'm not saying not to use Wiki, I'm just saying if you feel the need to justify your statement to also add another reference.

'...

You see the (edit) in the lower right corner of the windows. I clicked on that and it brought up a window for me to edit the information. I could have changed the wording to suit my needs and agenda and anyone following me would not know the difference....

....And if you can add references to Wiki, then you can delete them as well....'

.

.

I'm not suggesting the edit function doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that if you actually edit the Wikipedia page on 'Gun-politics in Germany' or 'Nazism' in a meaningful way, either with the addition of unsupported information, or by removing well supported information without reason, your edit will be undone VERY quickly.

.

The idea that blatantly or even subtly inaccurate information is easily or commonly edited into well developed Wikipedia articles is a widely held belief.

.

I use to believe it myself, until I tried several different edits. I was amazed at the speed with which all of those edits were reverted. Some were fairly subtle.

.

I am fully aware that there are exceptional examples of erroneous info persisting on Wikipedia. In my opinion those are the exception, not the rule.

.

Here is the thing, you can talk yourself into believing it is easily corrupted... that anyone can make detrimental edits to important subjects... so if you believe it is so easy, go ahead and demonstrate how easily it can be done... just for experimental purposes. If it works, you can repair the damage 24 hours later....

.

...but if it is a well developed topic, your edit won't last one day. It probably won't even get close to an hour.

.

You seem pretty to be fully vested in your belief.

Why not demonstrate what you say is possible by editing in a meaningful and misleading way the Wikipedia articles on 'Nazism' and on 'Gun Control in Germany' and document your success?

'....You seem pretty to be fully vested in your belief....'

WTF did I type there? I wish I had caught that before the edit time expired....or that CR4 was as easy to edit as some people think Wikipedia is..

.

What a ridiculous thing to overlook..

.

I just assume you meant to write in something like "certain", I have done that often enough too, you don't see them right away, that's why newspapers have editors or you have someone else proof read your papers or come back later and re-read your work to catch those things.

No, you're argument is good. I'll still be skeptical about Wiki information, I just won't be so militant telling people not to trust it it's Wiki anymore.

I think skepticism is a good way to approach most things.

.

For the record, I'm as skeptical of Wikipedia articles as I am of most things I read, even with numerous references.

Research papers vary wildly in their quality. I remember reading one paper from a PhD ( I think from Stanford) that concluded low frequency vibration from wind turbines was making people sick. She based this conclusion on interviews with just 10 families spread across 5 countries that were within I believe 5 kilometers of a large wind turbine.

You shouldn't even begin to consider trusting a study unless you have reviewed the data.

.

So agreeing to be skeptical, lets look at the current outrage over the 'Monsanto Protection' act.

..

As far as I can find, this legislation does the following:

For previously USDA approved products only, allows growers to continue with cultivation while legal challenges are underway.

It doesn't prohibit legal challenges, and it doesn't protect cultivation should the conclusion of legal challenges result in requirements to change or cease cultivation.

.

I can't find anywhere that suggests that Monsanto is protected from civil or criminal charges or penalties.

.

What do you think?

Yes. What I'm getting is that I am free to plant a crop using a GMO seed and you are planting Organic and my crops contaminate yours, you can't take any legal action against me.

What I am also getting is that the outrage to the Section 735, is that it was included through back door dealing to add that rider. Monsanto is being named in this because they spent $6 million to lobby having it added.

I don't see that at all in the legislation.

.

I can't really quote a portion of the bill that isn't there, so help me out by copy/pasting the part you are reading that indicates what you are saying....

"Are you attempting to make the point that genetically introduced pesticides won't harm bees?"

I don't see why I would, and there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence that they do....You seem to have made this inference purely on speculation based on lack of knowledge....

"Genetically Modified Crops

A connection between Bt maize and CCD was raised in experiments conducted in Germany that were described on the Internet but never published in a scientific journal. In these studies honeybees were fed Bt maize pollen and, although healthy bees had no acute or chronic toxic symptoms, in one experiment where bees were infested with parasites, the study was aborted because Bt pollen appeared to accelerate the bees' decline. Although not repeatable in subsequent experiments, Bt in GE corn pollen thus became a possible cause of CCD.^[142]

However, there are no data in the scientific literature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GE crops engineered to make Bt proteins. For example, in 2008 a meta-analysis^[143] of 25 independent studies assessing effects of Bt Cry proteins on honeybee survival (mortality) showed that Bt proteins used in commercialized GE crops to control lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively impact the survival of honeybee larvae or adults. Additionally, larvae consume only a small percent of their protein from pollen, and there is also a lack of geographic correlation between GE crop locations and regions where CCD occurs.^[142]"

KRAMARAT, I commend you on your research!

Now for a few facts, surmises and guesses. And they have to be described as such. And I speak from biochemistry.

1,. HFC is a cheap artificial sweetener. It is also a biochemical abomination.

1.1,. In organic life, food converted into glucose is the beginning of the currency of energy. Yes, there is an exception, and yes it is not relevant to this discourse.

1.2,. Fructose is NOT glucose. As every conversion is very limited, fructose is sloooowly converted to glucose.

1.3,. When a reagent is in low concentration, biochemical control is possible. When a reagent is in high concentration, spontaneous (out of biochemical control) is prevalent. That sugar attaching itself willi-nilly produces unnatural garbage. That is unknown to the body's garbage removal system. Hence, difficult if not impossible to remove, to maintain healthy function of the cells.

1.4,. Hence, setting up an unnatural situation the biochemistry was not "designed" is asking for trouble. There is not even an excuse for it, except being cheap and wilfully ignorant. Our ancestors in chemistry knew well all I have said.

2,. The pesticide causing forgetfulness is well documented. Adequate reason for bee colony crash too.

3,. The organic beekeeper association reported early, that they did not experience any decline with their bees. They singled out oversized hives, overworked bees, and at last spray for the commercial's decline. Their own stability is not debatable.

4,. Wiki is a great depository. It represents the commonly accepted knowledge of the time, more or less. It has no relevance in the ongoing, not yet settled research.

5,. At this time I have not even touched upon all the other issues, that definitely need to be discussed, reserving for later time.

6,. To head it off at the pass, so to speak. Before a "sonny" attempts to characterise me, I suggest to check out my prior positions, and try to describe me with convenient broad brushes after that.

A previous thread by me on this matter pertaining to apparent "ownership" of progeny by a GMO company through, not only patents, but also by re-engineering the seeds to die after first germination so that farmers have to buy seeds each planting season :

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/81266

"Big picture" = GMO great business but horrible for mother earth and all its inhabitants.

My 1.99 cents.

I tend to agree. I think an entire book could be written on the unethical practices of the industrialized GMO mega farms and the companies behind them. It's too much info to pack into a single thread.

We don't get much information out of Africa. Is there an issue with pollinating bees over there?

I don't think that people understand the gravity of the disaster that a continuing bee die off would cause.

kramarat, its worse than you think.

Colony collapse syndrome is only one facet of the issues surrounding GMO. I'd argue that this is merely a symptom that something is "off" with the genetic make-up of the crop. The bees surely know something we don't since they've been eating nectar for millennia.

Also, imagine the economic/political impact it will have if only a handful of multi-nationals held all the seeds for the world? It would be great for them but horrible for everyone else and especially the farmers, who for centuries have been saving and trading grain from previous harvests as seeds for the next season. With GMO they would now have to buy seeds each season (Not to mention the effect on bio-diversity) Too late! Already happening in India. Cotton farmers were approached with GMO cotton that promised higher yields and resistant to the dreaded boll-worm. After subsequent seasons with no success, the farmers found themselves in the huge debt and since the farm was placed as collateral for securing loans to purchase aforementioned seeds, the companies took their land. This led to a wave of suicides.

http://www.scidev.net/en/features/gm-in-india-the-battle-over-bt-cotton.html

Here in Kenya, last year the Kenya Medical Research Institute scientists in collaboration with experts from local universities BANNED GMO products. In a public press Conference, the Public Health and Sanitation minister said

"My ministry wishes to clarify the decision was based on genuine concerns that adequate research had not been done on GMOs and scientific evidence provided to prove the safety of these foods (on consumers),"

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/GMOs-banned-as-cancer-fears-grow/-/1056/1626252/-/15tgrvlz/-/index.html

It doesn't stop there! The government is treating the encroachment of GMO seeds as a crisis. Today, there are reports that the government is conducting a systematic sweep of any GMO crops in barns, silos or plantations. It has been officially declared a crime to be in possession of GMO crops and prosecutors are ready to charge perpetrators:

"Those who have allowed illegal imports of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) should be pursued, charged and made to compensate the affected Kenyans,"

Parliament's Agriculture Committee chairman John Mututho said.

http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/New-push-to-prosecute-GMO-importers-after-Cabinet-ban/-/539546/1627138/-/15b8gdqz/-/index.html

As far as I know, Kenya is the only country in the world thats handling this like the crisis that it is. "I AM PROUD TO BE A KENYAN," this is a rare occasion where I say this objectively.

Wow!!! That's incredible.

Thanks for the input. I've always suspected that GM crops were being foisted on populations of people that don't have the lawsuit culture that we have in the US.

I think your government is doing the right thing; both in recognizing the inevitable crisis, and averting it.

The US government is dead silent on the issue. The best we get, is that the EPA may have studies finished sometime in 2018.

Even more disturbing, the former vice president of Monsanto is now holding a cabinet level position in our government.

http://networkedblogs.com/lMhWu

He has spent decades sliding between the sheets with Monsanto, the USDA and the FDA, and is currently holding the newly created position of Commissioner of Foods, appointed by president Obama.

I'll stick with the wiki source. It's the best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

Now that I've publicly apologized to SolarEagle, and thanked him for jumping in my corner and proving that I was right; I guess the next question would be...

Is anything being done to stop this practice, and if not why?

We could all argue this forever. The only way to find out is to carry out a controlled experiment feeding one hive GMO corn syrup and another non-GMO (of course, double blind), or find a trusted reference to such a study that has been done.

Here is the study. It was buried in the Harvard link from an earlier post.

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol65-2012-099-106lu.pdf

There isn't anything left to argue about.

All hives had no diseases of

symptoms of parasitism during the 13-week dosing regime, and were alive 12 weeks afterward. However, 15 of 16 imidaclopridtreated

hives (94%) were dead across 4 apiaries 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing. Dead hives were remarkably empty except for

stores of food and some pollen left, a resemblance of CCD. Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure

to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in HFCS causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid

dosing. The survival of the control hives managed alongside with the pesticide-treated hives unequivocally augments this

conclusion. The observed delayed mortality in honey bees caused by imidacloprid in HFCS is a novel and plausible mechanism

for CCD, and should be validated in future studies.

Time to do some more digging, and looking at why nothing is being done. Dare I say, that he that controls the food supply, controls the world.

http://www.sej.org/publications/watchdog-tipsheet/epa-hides-data-pesticide-link-bee-die-off

The plot thickens...

http://www.naturalnews.com/035688_Monsanto_honey_bees_colony_collapse.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annie-spiegelman/bee-deviledscientists_b_1884294.html

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/figures/fig7.htm

Trends in pesticide use:

kramat,

I recommend this talk by Vandana Shiva.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYwOTLopWIw

Its an hour long. Its a comprehensive analysis of GMO's widespread impact in our precious mother Earth (Biosphere, Atmosphere, "everything-sphere" etc).

However, as far as your thread is concerned, jump to 12 min 23 seconds.

She is an Ecologist, Author, Physicist and a decent human being.

source of pic

Thank you. I'll check it out.

I commend your thread. I'm not so worried about bees dieing as people (myself included). There is so much done to our food supply, it is almost impossible to find anything good for us. Cellulose may be one of the reasons I seem to always have a gut ache. I was buying crackers from a Canadian company, but gave them up because of medical problems. Canada is where the biggest GMO problem is. See The World according to Monsanto.

Thanks. I don't seem to have any food related problems. I just try to minimize fast food and processed foods.

I think that if we lose the bees, a human decline can't be far behind. It's difficult not to fly off into conspiracy theory when the silence from our, (all caring), government is so deafening.

I'll continue wading through links and post anything pertinent that I come across. Lots of fear mongering sites out there.

You are correct. Canada is having a big problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wTvmEFy_CXQ

I've got a large hill in my backyard that's usually covered with weeds. I'll be buying flower seeds this spring. This is getting scarier, the more I look.

You guys draw your own conclusions. There is a lot of pressure to increase corn yields.

It would be quite the irony if we killed all of our bees in our misguided effort to save the planet. 2007 is the year that CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) set in.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was concerned about when I suggested you temper your correlation= causation line of thinking.

.

Let's take a couple steps back and look at an image you called 'trends in pesticide use'

.

This graph seems to correlate about as well with the previous three as well as they do with each other.

Here is another one that many will say correlated well with the previous group you posted:

.

Let's be more specific about what is shown on these two graphs:

The first one I posted (the one you posted earlier and labeled 'trends in pesticide use') is a graph detailing the amount used and acreage treated in California of a group of pesticides given 'reduced risk' status by the EPA. This group is not inclusive of the nicotinoids thought to be so harmful to bees.

.

The second one I posted is a similar graph, but instead of 'reduced risk' pesticides, this graph details the use of biopesticides in California. Essentially biopesticides are microorganisms or naturally occurring chemicals or or very similar chemicals that are not significantly toxic to the target pest.

.

With it clear what these graphs depict, how strong is your conviction that correlation might be a good indicator of causation now?

.

.

I haven't seen anything that really ties GMO crops to the decline in bees. I do think the decline in bees is a serious problem. I also think misdirected efforts to alleviate the problem have the potential to exacerbate the problem.

.

.

By the way, the graph you posted on the bee decline would suggest (to someone who had a strong belief that future trends in diminishing rates of decline would correlate well with the previous) the decline is leveling off....likely to level out somewhere around 1.8 - 2.0 Million (hives?bee? where are the data?)....

.

Correlation does not deserve your faith.

I stand corrected on the graph; I thought it was for the entire US.

As far as whether or not I was right, there are two published studies in the links, that show a causal relationship between GMO corn, the high fructose corn syrup that is being fed to bees, and the bee decline. I'll let those speak for themselves.

Are you thinking that the studies were somehow rigged to produce a certain outcome?

It's the only reason I can think of, for you to argue that nothing has been shown.

I have not found convincing evidence.

.

Perhaps I haven't read every link as thoroughly as I should have. I don't pretend to be infallible. I am always willing to learn new things.

.

Since, you do seem to have found something that satisfies, to your understanding, the requirements to establish a causal link between GMO corn and Bee decline; perhaps you are willing to explain, in your own words, how that causal link was established?

.

I apparently missed it. Perhaps, if you rephrase it for me, and point me to the link you are referencing (so I can follow along with your interpretation) I can also be in the know.

Sure thing. In my own words...

The Harvard research study, which was published in the insect journal, fed corn syrup that contained trace, (non-lethal), amounts of insecticide to hives of bees; a control group did not receive the corn syrup.

At the 23 week mark, 15 of the 16 hives that were fed the corn syrup, died off; the control group did not. The corn syrup regimen was the only difference between the two groups, therefore, it seems highly likely that it was the corn syrup that led to the collapse of the hives.

Unfortunately, since GMO only started in the 80s, we won't have any study results from the EPA until sometime in 2018. I'm sure they are hard at work finding answers.

You do realize that HFCS and GMO are not synonymous, right?

.

HFCS can be made from non-GMO crops.

.

Also, are you sure you actually read the study? HFCS was fed to every hive in the study, not just the 16 of which 15 collapsed...ALL the hives.

.

The difference was that the 16 (of which 15 collapsed) had their HFCS laced with the pesticide in question.

.

Coming to the conclusion that this implicates HFCS is like coming to the conclusion that broccoli is bad for you because people die when they eat broccoli laced with arsenic.

.

I have a feeling your response is going to include some accusation that I am denying the problems that have been documented concerning diets high in HFCS. To head that off at the pass, I am not defending HFCS, I am saying that this study does not implicate HFCS as the causative agent, and reading that into it is flat out wrong.

Correct. In the US, 80 - 85 percent, (and growing), of corn grown is now of the GMO variety. The laced HFCS contained the trace levels of pesticide that would be found in HFCS that comes from GMO corn, therefore, there is a strong indication that there is an 80 - 85 percent chance that the HFCS that is being fed to commercial hives is contributing to CCD.

In addition, there is evidence that the soil around the corn fields is also contaminated and causing other plant life to contain pesticides. I found another study that showed that the contaminated pollen that is blowing off the GMO corn fields, is landing on other plant material that insects use for food, and it is killing monarch butterflies.

All in all, not a very pretty scenario. The 18 minute video in the post going into food allergies, is fairly enlightening.

Where are you getting this interpretation?

This isn't what the study says at all.

.

The term 'GMO' occurs exactly zero times in the study. The same number of times that 'genetically modified organism' occurs in the study.

.

There is no mention of the amount of Imidicloprid being related to am amount found in typical HFCS, either GMO or otherwise.

.

Beyond that, your claim is completely unreasonable. If the amounts of imidicloprid administered in the test were found in all GMO corn syrup, and that corn syrup were fed to 85% of bees alive since 2006, with the effects noted by the study,.....

....for every 10,000 bees in 2006, there would be less than 2 bees alive now in 2013.

While bees have been in decline, the drop has not been that precipitous.

.

You are distorting the facts, at least of this study. I'm not sure why, but I think you are doing more harm than good.

GMO will be the death of us all, all species on this planet. Monsatan developed "roundup" as a weedkiller but the weeds fought back and developed resistance to "roundup". Not good for business. The solution is to increase the effectiveness of "roundup" but now it kills all plants not just the weeds.

The next step by this company is to make the plants that we use as food resistant to "roundup". This they do by changing the genetic makeup of these plants, now corn is not corn anymore etc.

This is where the problems for all species start. The modified food is not recognised by human,animal or insect bodies as food. The human body goes on the offensive and wraps a layer of fat around the particle and then stores it.

Enough research has been done by all sides to prove their respective conclusions. Only one side actually starts to find answers for the questions that Kramarat posed. The other side is only interested in profit. Who are you going to believe?

'...Who are you going to believe?...'

.

Fortunately, I don't judge the validity of point based on the statements of those who either agree of disagree with that point.

.

You are apparently of the opinion that GMO crops are detrimental to our species and to others, yet if I were to judge the validity of that claim based on your other statements, I would come away believing there is absolutely no problem with GMO.

.

Take this little gem you provided for instance:

'...The modified food is not recognised by human,animal or insect bodies as food. The human body goes on the offensive and wraps a layer of fat around the particle and then stores it.....'

.

Can you document other instances of the body reacting to non-food foreign material in this bizarre manner?

If I were to evaluate potential dangers of GMO crops, based on the validity of that statements, 'GMO' would come away looking like the next best thing to 'organic'.

'...The human body goes on the offensive and wraps a layer of fat around the particle then stores it...'

Wow! That sounds very energy intensive. Eating a 100% GMO diet sounds like a great weight loss diet... none of the particle recognized as food, and each one individually wrapped in calorie dense fat, then stored.....that is a lot of calorie burning and no calorie uptake....

...wait a minute...aren't Americans mainly made of corn? A good portion of that being GMO corn? Shouldn't that mean that Americans have been getting skinnier as the portion of GMO corn increases?

.

I smell a conspiracy! and the scale makers are at least complicit!

Stored in the body not outside, so the fat must still be in there somewhere, along with the genetically modified "food". Explain how the calories were burnt by this process and how "no calorie uptake" took place.

'....Explain how the calories were burnt by this process and how "no calorie uptake" took place....'

No problem.

'No calorie' - If as you say the body does not recognize GMO matter as food, and wraps each GMO matter particle in a layer of fat, then it is not using those GMO particles for energy is it.....it can't both encapsulate every particle AND use it for food now can it?

.

Calories burned - How could discriminating each GMO particle then moving fat to wrap that particle, then moving the fat wrapped GMO particle to a place for storage, not burn energy?!? Come on! Your position is weak enough already without throwing in an over-unity argument to boot.

Now that a causal link between GMO and bee deaths has been established, lets move on to the GMO tie in, to the ever increasing rates of childhood food allergies. This is evidenced by the fact that peanut allergies have become so prevalent in my daughter's kindergarten school, that peanut butter and anything else that contains peanuts, have been banned from the property. When I was a kid, peanut butter was the primary staple of all kids. I never saw any peanut allergies.

Since we are in the process of completely altering our food supply, on a molecular level, it seems like a good place to start looking around.

The chart is from this Australian site. I'll look for more US info, but our government has told us that it's all safe, so data is scarce.

http://madge.org.au/gm-food-safe-eat

Here is an excellent short video, by another short sighted fool that went looking for answers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA

'...Now that a causal link between GMO and bee deaths has been established...'

.

Perhaps just for us simpletons out here, you could explain in your own words how this link has been established.

.

Before we 'move on' it seems very important to clear up this important point. While it may seem a little frustrating to dispense with your hand-waving and slow things down to explain how you have come to understand how this link has been established, it is critical to our understanding.

Hopefully since you see this as so important you won't mind investing a little of your own time to explain, in your own words, your understanding of how this link has been established, so that we might share your enlightenment.

I'm assuming that you were typing as I was posting.

Obviously bees were declining before before the advent of GMO crops, so I don't think they are the sole cause; more like the straw that broke the camel's back. The declines also appear to be escalating.

No.

You wrote:

'...Now that a causal link between GMO and bee deaths has been established...'

.

You clearly are claiming that a causal link has been established. You are even implying that it is beyond debate.

.

Please show me how that was established. Please show me what you are basing that statement on and thereby establish for me that you weren't blatantly lying.

Please establish for me that I should trust at face value anything you have to say in the future without verifying each and every assertion.

.

Unless you can document otherwise, your 'now that it has been established' comment goes way beyond unintentional negligence. It is difficult to understand how it could be anything other than willful deception. I hope I am mistaken. I hope I owe you a big apology.

I didn't read every word of the study. This came from one of SolarEagle's wiki links, with citation. There is no better source than wiki.

Here is an entire wiki page on the subject. The insecticede becomes part of the corn plant, the corn is made into HFCS, and the trace amount in the HFCS has been show to killl bees. I can't make it any simpler for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid_effects_on_bees

A 2012 in situ study provided strong evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) used to feed honey bees when forage is not available causes bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing. The researchers suggested that "the observed delayed mortality in honey bees caused by imidacloprid in HFCS is a novel and plausible mechanism for CCD, and should be validated in future studies".^[80][81]

(NaturalNews) Studies linking neonicotinoid pesticides to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a condition in which entire bee colonies suddenly disappear or die, have been gaining national attention in recent months as they continue to flood scientific journals. But one area that has been largely overlooked is the role high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) plays in killing off bees, as the vast majority of it comes from genetically-modified (GM), pesticide treated corn crops.



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035610_honey_bees_pesticides_corn_syrup.html#ixzz2O More from wiki:

Sub-lethal doses (<10 ppb) to aphids have been found to lead to altered behavior, such as wandering and eventual starvation. Very low concentrations also reduced nymph viability.^[37]

In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority stated that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied may be flawed, concluding that, "A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. A high acute risk was also identified from exposure via residues in nectar and/or pollen."^[10] An author of a Science study prompting the EESA review suggested that industry science pertaining to neonicotinoids may have been deliberately deceptive, and the UK Parliament has asked manufacturer Bayer Cropscience to explain discrepancies in evidence they have submitted to an investigation.^[11]

^Here

Are you mixing the topics and sources on purpose?

Look, the study is measuring levels of imidacloprid. All bees were fed HFCS, some with the pesticide some without.

That second part of the big block you highlighted is not part of the study. It is not based in science. It is wholesale alarmist speculation. It is disingenuous to tie the two together with nothing more than a '(natural news)' to inform the read that this is no longer a quote from the study.

.

You have not provided any evidence of a causal link that you previous declared to be established.

I find your mixing of GMO, HFCS, and various neonicotinoids to be disturbing. I also find you mixing of quotes from scientific papers with speculation devoid of support to be equally disturbing.

Do you really think you are getting to the truth of the matter? Can you possibly think that effort spent in this manner (yours or those you motivate) could be time well spent?

.

very disappointing

No, I'm seeing what's happening now. The tainted HFCS is coming from GMO corn, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's GMO. Link after link is trying to make the connection, (including from wiki), but it's the insecticide not the corn that is killing the bees.

I also got confused by the fact that there are spliced in (Bt) insectides, and outside insecticides, (which they are treating the seeds with). The seed treatments still become part of the plant, and make it poisonous to insects, but it isn't tied to the fact that the plant is GMO. That's where I got thrown off.

The insectides are residing in GMO corn, and the HFCS from the corn is causing CCD. They could have left out the fact that the corn was GMO. So the EPA list of safe insecticides should be revised. They are not.

Is there someone feeling you this? Seriously. Or is this really what you read into the study?

.

Imidacloprid is the most widely used insecticide in the world. It is not specific to GMO crops nor to HFCS.

.

The bees in the study we have been talking about did not get the imidacloprid from trace amounts typically found in HFCS. The imidacloprid in solution in methanol (of all things) and added to the HFCS of the study group of bee hives.

.

I am able to find some evidence of seeds being coated with Imidicloprid, both GMO and non-GMO. But I can find no evidence of pesticides being 'spliced' into plants (you seem to be suggesting into their genes?!?).

.

Your comments seem more and more alarmist and sensationalist.

Instead of clarifying, siting sources and developing sounds rational arguments, you respond to question about your previous wild assassertions by piling on even more outrageous assertions.

.

From my perspective, your credibility, when it comes to understanding and communicating information in research papers, is completely shot. I'll still look for your comments on other subjects, but on this subject, for some reason, your cheese has slipped completely off your cracker.

'...This is evidenced by the fact that peanut allergies have become so prevalent in my daughter's kindergarten school, that peanut butter and anything else that contains peanuts, have been banned from the property....'

.

Are you sure that the banning of peanuts at your daughters school isn't an indication of much needed tort reform or even mass psychogenic illness instead of an indicator of increasing prevalence of peanut allergies?

Just as a reference, around 10 people per year die from allergic reaction to peanuts in the United States.