GMOs, Pesticides, and Food

From the text of the act:

"If a biotech crop has already been approved (or deregulated) by the USDA and a court reverses that approval, the provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status at the request of a grower or seed producer, to allow growers to continue the cultivation of the crop while legal challenges to the safety of those crops are underway.^[7]"

^{So much for legal remedies. Appeals can go on for years.}

That isn't a simple issue at all.

Suppose this rule was not in place and a small biotech company came onto the market with seeds that have such advantage over what is currently available that it looks certain to be a black swan event, changing who dominates that market.....

....

Even if there were no legitimate concerns about safety of the seeds/crops, without the rule you quoted, wouldn't the companies that currently dominate the seed market effectively insulate themselves from competition, if they could force farmers who bought the seeds, and the seed producer to cease operation and forgo a year of more profits?

...

As you state, appeals can go on for years....(and I would add) without seeming relation to the particular merits of a case.

.

.

I think the rule above is necessary. It doesn't protect the biotech from damages related to producing a dangerous product. Without it, no farmer would take a chance on any new development in biotech.

Farmers have been innovating for years, without the benefit of shield laws.

I'm just skeptical of any industry that needs custom legislation to insulate it from prosecution, for any reason that is not in the interest of national security.

Making money by manipulating genes of crops without any knowledge of the consequences is just plain unethical, if not illegal.

'....Farmers have been innovating for years, without the benefit of shield laws.....'

.

That has the sound of a critical part of a compelling argument....probably felt good to type it in rebuttal. Were you bothered at all that you neglected to verify your assertion ?

.

For the past four decades, farmers in the United States have been shielded from certain lawsuits that would threaten their operation. Right to Farm laws protect farmers from lawsuits that pose the same kind of threat to their operation that the law your quote protects against.

.

Farmers are particularly vulnerable to injunctions that would halt their operations pending the outcome of lawsuits. Their vulnerability has no relation to whether or not the lawsuit brought is legitimate or even whether it is likely to be won.

.

Farmers, even certain seed producers would be unfairly at risk if their operations could be halted for arbitrary periods of time based more on speed of the courts than on any real hazard posed by their operations.

.

.

A couple more points:

.

The denial of food production being a matter of national security suggests not much time or thought has been devoted to understanding national security, or even history for that matter.

.

People have been manipulating genes in crops and livestock without full knowledge of the consequences for roughly a couple thousand years, when domestication of plants and animals began.

.

Do-mes-ti-cate (d-mst-kt)

tr. verb: to change/adapt living organisms at the genetic level to live in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans.

.

.

Haven't I seen you rail against Luddites in other posts?

Right-to-farm laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agricultural nuisances may include noise, odors, visual clutter and dangerous structures. Every state has some form of a right-to-farm law.There's a difference between "farmers" (my father was one) and "commercial farming operations".

Yes, there is a difference between a 'farmer' and a 'farming operation'.

.

There also exists a difference between the true meat of a discussion and a red herring.

I don't doubt that commercial farming will thrive.

Well I think if we leave speculation at the door, and just go with what we know for sure, that being the consequences of halting the technologies that increase the yields from our cropland that is needed to meet the demand of our expanding worldwide population, then we will certainly face a food crisis....There is no scientifically recognized threat from GMO crops that we know of, so to me it is a simple choice....Go with what is working, and dismiss the scare tactics and worst case scenario speculations from those with a vested interest or misguided uninformed activists....

That's a specious argument, "...There is no scientifically recognized threat from GMO crops that we know of...", and ignores the syllogism that you can't logically/generally prove the non-existence of something; i.e., that GMOs cause no damage to the eco-system.

That type of thinking allowed DDT to be continually used until Rachel Carson noticed that the population of singing birds was declining exponentially, then some researcher said words to the effect of "...Wow, I would have never thought that DDT would lead to the thinning of the eggshells to the point that the weight of a bird would crush it, our previous studies never examined/showed that..." The law of unintended consequences is always in action.

I suspect similar studies will someday explain the massive bee die-offs that continue to occur, or maybe it's linked to the new breed of plants that don't need pollen (or bees) to produce crops, hmmm, just think of the marketing literature, "...Don't worry about the lack of bees, if you want to stay in the farming business just buy our seed and never worry about those pesky creatures again...oh and by the way, our new pollenless seeds cost ten times as much as the old variety."

It's already happening, Cornell Univ. has developed pollenless sunflower plants. The stated goal is to eliminate a pesky bug known as a thrip, who just happens to breed four times faster when it eats pollen. But guess what, they seem to be ignoring the food chain, or maybe they forgot to see what eats thrips so it can thrive, our cute little ladybugs, and what eats ladybugs, birds! "You can't fool Mother Nature..."

'....That's a specious argument, "...There is no scientifically recognized threat from GMO crops that we know of...", and ignores the syllogism that you can't logically/generally prove the non-existence of something; i.e., that GMOs cause no damage to the eco-system......'

.

Talk about a specious argument!

.

Actually I take that back.

.

Specious implies, the argument (while being called fallacious) seems compelling at first glance.

.

The failure to be persuasive at any point, excludes from rightful description as specious, suggestions that; a lack of scientific evidence of threat alone (because non-existence cannot be absolutely proved) is insufficient reason, to forgo taking action against any number of imaginable threats that might currently be in vogue, until such time as some credible evidence exists.

.

Solar Eagles comment is similarly not specious, though for the opposite reason: though it looks compelling at first glance, it is not actually fallacious. You just became disoriented halfway through.

.

Giving weight to an idea simply because its non-existence cannot be absolutely proved isn't just a bad idea, it is also self-contradictory. Just apply the same non-requirement for evidence to the opposing idea.

.

I don't want to be negative about your entire comment, so I have found a portion that rings true (from a certain perspective).

You wrote:

.

"You can't fool mother nature..."

.

I suspect you are correct. In all likelihood, if you continue using arguments like the previous, mother nature is just a small portion of the very large group of those whom you are not fooling.

Bee's are not dying off, this is just another scare tactic....and I might add when we are talking about CCD(colony collapse disorder) we are speaking of managed bee colonies, not bee's in the wild...I might add that only about 25% percent of the food crops are pollinated, this being citrus, soybeans, almonds etc.....CCD is a historical occurrence that has been known since man began managing bee hives, also known as Spring Die off and several other names....Bee's are not the only pollinators, not even the most efficient, there are at least a dozen other pollinators, bee's are just easy to manage because of their dedication to the queen and they also produce other products, such as bee's wax and honey....

Here is the historical info on bee's.....↓

http://ento.psu.edu/publications/van-mex-2010

Your whole premise that things that are not natural are bad, is flawed reasoning....We, as human animals are part of the system, anything we do can be considered natural...are we all good, or all bad, it makes no sense....

Bee's for sale....

You keep going back to this, and the only thing you're right about, is that the genetic modification itself, is harmless. No argument there....but...

There is plenty of evidence showing that the unintended consequences of Round Up ready crops, is horrible.

I'm not going to bother reposting all of the studies and links that I've already posted on other threads, but there is no way you can sit here and deny the existence of super weeds, super bugs, the need for perpetually increasing amounts of glyphosate, depleted soil, glyphosate runoff that's harming surrounding areas, cross pollination with non-GMO crops...the list is pretty damned big, and it's not coming from crazy people.

As I have said before, I'll bet there aren't many farmers out there that think that Monsanto is doing this to "save the world". My cotton growing Texas cousins hate Monsanto and their predatory business practices.

They're doing it FOR THE ADDITIONAL PROFIT generated by their congressionally protected, genetically altered crops for profit.

I'm old, crotchety, tired and there is a vacuum cleaner running right next to me.

This doom and gloom discussion just makes me want to pull the wings off a butterfly, but I'm too slow to catch one.

In response to SE: "The biological patents last 20 years, and the glyphosate resistant soybeans will become "generic" in 2014". Unless the patents are tweeked by adding some other substance to give the patent another 20 years of propriety protection, as the drug industry already does.

I'm sorry, SE sounds like a Monsanto marketing executive to me.

Well I don't think the're all crazy, just misinformed, speculative, exaggerating, manipulating information, quoting incompetent studies....that's all I've seen....when I say no scientific proof, I mean valid scientific proof, if it has to be said....

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

How many do you require?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm

Are you implying that every university that does a study that shows how bad roundup ready crops are, is involved in a vast conspiracy to tarnish Monsanto's stellar reputation?

Yes that's a fine example of the twisted logic and misinformation and cherry picking quotes, that's used.....Plants become resistant to any pesticide used over time, that's why they rotate to different types....this, stating of the obvious, can only be taken seriously by someone who has no understanding of farming methods....further the use of BT type seeds reduces the amount of pesticide required, as referenced in the OP....

Benbrook is just trying to sell his book.....he has been exposed

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/12/scientists-journalists-challenge-claim-that-gm-crops-harm-the-environment/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628864.200-hidden-green-benefits-of-genetically-modified-crops.html?full=true

Hell will freeze over before I'm convinced that GMO is anything but a cash cow for Monsanto et al.

I was raised on a farm.

Lyn, there are some points with which I agree with you completely. The need for reform to reduce/eliminate the ability to buy enhanced access/influence of of government through lobbying, is a point I believe we both agree is urgently required.

.

However in this last post (the one to which I am currently replying), you make two arguments which I find puzzling:

.

1. You seem to be implying that if a product is successful/profitable, it indicates the benefits of the product are false/based on deception.

.

2. You seem to be implying that because you grew up on a farm that your argument should be given more weight, or benefit of the doubt. While I think growing up on a farm certainly gives you the opportunity to provide more examples from experience, it doesn't suggest that those experiences should be given more consideration.

.

What am I misunderstanding about what you are writing?

1. Not at all. I'm just saying that in this case, Monsanto saw a way to profit by manipulating the genetic makeup of an organism, without the benefit of going through the cycle of a thousand failures to achieve the desired end, as is done in nature.

No one knows the true implications of GMO's long term effect on humanity. How can they?

2. My reply was in response to "someone who has no understanding of farming methods" that was suggested by SE. Being raised on a farm gives me a personal insight into what it takes to grow a crop and be at the mercy of Mother Nature and her whims doing it.

Finally, I would not be in this conversation had I not grown up on a farm. I would not have had enough insight into the trials of farming if I had not done it.

I have seen crops fail. I have seen floods and drought and hail wipe out crops and lives. Someone who has never lived on a farm would never understand this.

I don't trust Monsanto and their motives. I see only greed.

"No one knows the true implications of GMO's long term effect on humanity."

Well I'll tell you one thing we do know, and that's that producing more food will keep more people alive......and any negative effects are based on groundless speculation...Would you rather base the future on what we do know, or on speculative hype..?

You seem to think there is some better alternative.....traditional farming methods are not sustainable....We have to deal with the reality of a growing world population...thinking you can halt technology and the arrow of time is not an option...even if swinging a chain the best you can hope for is a minor deflection...

Yes,

A growing world population brought about by technology and innovation and greed is still starving.

Why is it our obligation to sustain a growing world population when each new resident will require social help, as in money somewhere along the line.? Who will get this money? Monsanto!

Is this akin to the software explosion? More power, more games and apps.

Do it all over again a year later? Or six months?

Bye.

I think that genetic manipulation will be awesome; in fact, I'd be all over some of that farm raised GM salmon. RoundUp ready, has been a failure, and nobody can make the claim that increasing our yearly intake of glyphosate is safe. It has gone far beyond the original doses.

http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-crops-increase-pesticide-use

Of course SE, and some of those evil scientists at MIT are also in on the plot.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425

This is a another good example of misinformation from questionable sources....first of all it's an article about the study, not the study....second, the study is done by someone who's expertise and degree's are not in this field....Stephanie Seneff an electrical eng and Anthony Samsel a chemist....retired...

http://www.examiner.com/article/bogus-paper-on-roundup-saturates-the-internet

Ya got me on that one...

It looks like the chick has an agenda.

"chick?" she looks to be in her 80's....

I didn't look at her, but I still think that steadily increasing our ingestion of glyphosate every year, is not going to turn out well.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/jep/

Everyone has a agenda now. That's the problem. It's all about the money.

Nobody does much any more because it's the right thing to do. That doesn't impress the disconnected stock holders who only want maximum ROI at all costs.

What's a little ecological collateral damage along the way if we make a buck?

Oh yeah, they'll be just fine.

There are other things that bug me about the whole GMO thing; one thing specifically, is the government's refusal to allow anyone to label food as GMO free.

Their reasoning behind the refusal, is that they have allowed such widespread cross pollination of non GMO crops, that no one can make the claim that anything is GMO free, because it has contaminated everything.

What kind of convoluted logic is that?

er...ummmmm what other or is there other food enhancement and chemical which is allowed in human food having less than one hundred days of scientific lab testing for safety?

This issue has taken on the same level of hype, hysteria, and rabid detractors/defenders as has global warming.

I can cite scholarly articles to support my case, whatever it is, pro or con. Depends who funded the study, doesn't it?

Fact is, we don't know what the outcome will be.

I firmly believe that corporate farmers, such as Monsanto, are not doing this to "save the world". They're in it for the money.

It would be interesting to see how much money corporate farmers have given to lobbyists and politicians so that they can "save the world".

Monsanto, founded in 1901, has a rich history of being a profitable company, including being the first mass producer of LED lights, working on "The Manhattan Project", developed the first industrial process to chirally synthesize an important compound" - L‑dopa, which is currently the main drug used to treatParkinson's disease, in 1998 patented Celebrex which became the first selective COX‑2 inhibitor to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA)...

The biological patents last 20 years, and the glyphosate resistant soybeans will become "generic" in 2014...Monsanto is also developing drought resistant seeds that are currently being subjected to further scrutiny because of political pressure brought about by a hysterical public....In 2012 Monsanto was the world's largest supplier of vegetable seeds by value, selling $800m of seed. 95% of the research and development for vegetable seed is in conventional breeding and the company is concentrating on improving the taste of several vegetables.^[55] According to their website they sell "4,000 distinct seed varieties representing more than 20 species".^[87]

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

Even the US government is publishing these crazy studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

This one must have slipped through the cracks. I'm sure it will be pulled soon.

....and what is the conclusion of that study???

"This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors "

I guess this would apply if you are drinking "Roundup" on a daily basis....

conclusion:

"However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study."

In the meantime we can conclude that nobody should be drinking Roundup on a daily basis....

These are all on the government's site. Use the ref #'s to access the relevant studies. Here.

http://www.healthyenvironmentgroup.org/glyphosate-toxicity.html

Well if you believe that glyphosate is such a threat, then why are you against GM crops that reduce the need for it's use?

Pesticides are typically not used during harvest time, only during growing season....having used Roundup in my yard for many years, I can tell you it's only active for about 4 or 5 hours....I know this because if you water the area or it rains too soon, then there is collateral damage, and after this time period there is none....It will kill almost anything in that area, that is soft(no woody stemmed plants) and after there has been enough time and conditions met for the area to reseed, then regrowth occurs...Roundup up is by far the most effective defoliant available, so by comparison you use much less than other products, which I struggled with before(because they are much cheaper initially) but found out that in the long run it was actually cheaper because it lasted so much longer....

I'm assuming you posted this without seeing my previous post...with links and sources.

RoundUp was a great weedkiller for farms and crop land; not anymore. Weeds are becoming tolerant to glyphosate, and bugs are becoming tolerant to the Bt toxin. It seemed like a good idea...it just doesn't work anymore.

I'm sure Monsanto is ecstatic; the failure of their product(s) has led to increased sales/use of RoundUp year after year. Failure rarely leads to massive profit gains.

" It seemed like a good idea...it just doesn't work anymore."

Like ethics and honesty in Washington, and the board rooms of America?

It's actually pretty amazing that weeds and bugs have evolved this quickly. Nobody saw it coming.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Super-bug%2c+meet+super-weed.-a021277674

The GM and chemical companies have found themselves in a seemingly endless loop of creating and selling more potent poisons to combat the new, stronger bugs and weeds that they have inadvertently created. Profits as far as the eye can see, and the government helped them.

Sounds like software development to me.

I think some clarification is needed. The term 'weed' here is not properly defined, leaving the impression that any kind of weed can pick up the herbicide resistance. So to be clear: the weeds that can potentially acquire herbicide resistance are 'weedy' versions of the crop plant.

Here is some additional clarification from an article about the work of the Ohio State professor cited above, Dr. Allison Snow.

"Because both oilseed rape and its weedy relatives were introduced to the U.S. by settlers from Europe, wild versions of the species often grow side-by-side with the cultivated plant. This isn't a problem for corn, soybeans, potatoes, and tomatoes, none of which have weedy relatives in the U.S. Sunflower and squash plants, on the other hand, are both native born, so they naturally have genetically-compatible weeds growing nearby. That's why genes from cultivated oilseed rape, sunflowers, and squash can escape from crop plants into the weed population."

_{- 8/31/98 'GENETICALLY-ALTERED CROPS CAN PRODUCE TOUGH, HARD-TO-KILL WEEDS', Ohio State University Research News.}

http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx

The terms "super bugs" and "super weeds" is misleading....any pesticide or herbicide that is used continuously will create resistant species...that is why it is important that it be used according to instructions(not over dosed application) and varied with other types of control mechanisms....The terms here used as super weeds, means that certain plants are tolerant of glyphosate, there's nothing super about them....Glyphosate has been used since 1970, farmers have grown more reliant on this herbicide because it's so effective and in some cases have overused and not followed recommended procedures and guidelines....so this is no surprise, and it only means that costlier less effective means will now have to be used part of the time to mitigate the resistance...last I heard these "super weeds" have only been reported in 5% of crop areas....I might add that the term used 'more potent poisons are being created' is also misleading, in that it infers a stronger version of the same mechanism is to come, instead of different methods, or existing methods other than glyphosate....which is more likely, and currently being used....Glyphosate came off patent protection in 2000 and is now marketed by many manufacturers, Chinese sources have been accused of dumping into the US market....

As of right now, glyphosate formulations are the #1 pesticide in use globally. I think the term "poison" is quite appropriate. Nobody can say what the effects of daily ingestion from cradle to grave will be.

http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/roundup.pdf

"Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.^[48]"

^"Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in animals. It is excreted in urine and faeces. It breaks down variably quickly depending on the particular environment. "

"Human acute toxicity is dose related. Acute fatal toxicity has been reported in deliberate overdose.^[53][54] Epidemiological studies have not found associations between long term low level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.^{[55][56][57]"}

^"The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.^[48]"

^{Up to 500 mL have been deliberately ingested with no or mild effects....Glyphosate has been called as safe as table salt....which incidentally you can die from if you ingest enough....}

^{This from} wiki....

Glyphosate was originally designated as a carcinogen by the EPA. Monsanto provided studies that told them that the tumors that developed in rats and mice, were normal, and couldn't have been caused by glyphosate. The EPA said, "Oh, okay. Sounds good to us", and changed their minds.

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0057.htm

That's not accurate...The rats used in the study were Sprague-Dawley (CD) rats, over the course of 26 mos....These rats are specifically bred for testing chemicals for carcinogenic effects because they are prone to tumor growth...their life expectancy is about 24 mos, they usually develop cancerous tumors and die, even being fed a normal healthy diet.....The results are only significant if they take place in valid statistical numbers in the early to late mid term of the testing ordinarily....The EPA scientists reviewed the findings of this flawed study and came to their own conclusions....

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf

http://www.criver.com/find-a-model

This is published by the National Pesticide Information Center, and it is one of the most poorly written, conflicted pieces of work that I've ever read. It looks like they are attempting to say that glyphosate mixtures are just fine, and to be careful of them at the same time, because they cause health problems.

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf

"The terms "super bugs" and "super weeds" is misleading....any pesticide or herbicide that is used continuously will create resistant species...that is why it is important that it be used according to instructions(not over dosed application) and varied with other types of control mechanisms..."

Sounds like you are now also talking about MRSA, TB, and gonorrhea, all of which are becoming "super" resistant and all without the aid of GMO. (Unless there is another conspiracy of which I am unaware.)

You are completely correct. The overuse of antibiotics has brought about highly resistant strains of infection.

Why would it seem like the same couldn't happen with weeds that have been continually sprayed with glyphosate? There is no conspiracy. It's happening all over the place, as we speak. I provided one link, but a simple google search will provide plenty of others.

I'm a little confused as to why some of our members have become convinced that only the studies that Monsanto has done, (which is all the EPA uses), are valid. It doesn't make sense to me.

Nobody would fund such a study, except those who want to skew the results.

"Trust us, this stuff is harmless".

I think GMO is a "proceed with extreme caution" kind of deal. Sure, you can target a gene and get the change you want from it, but, out of a genome of 39,000 genes, the plant uses those genes in a million or more different ways, and so, any one change in the plant that is desired results in many other changes that aren't even being looked for. A plant that was edible before and susceptible to a disease may become resistant to the disease and also inedible. But, because only the disease resistance is targeted, only the disease resistance is tested for. The plant is still assumed to be the same otherwise. To me, this is a powder keg waiting to go off.

In the end, I would trust breeding over GMO because the changes, all of them, are being studied and bred into the resultant crop, not just the target trait.

These are the very same companies, and the very same government, that told us that Agent Orange and Paraquat were completely safe.

2-4-D, a primary component of Agent Orange, and Paraquat, are still in wide use...

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/paraquat/basics/facts.asp

We all need to just shut up and trust them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Just a little point now. Trying to declare a general rule of the type "GMO's are safe" or "GMO's are a disaster" is just as stupid as the people that phrase rules like that. There are NO such rules. Every GMO is a different case, it COULD be safe, It may also very well PROVE to be a long term uncorrectable disaster. Now since the "results" can only be studied statistically, and as most of us know or just suspect, the transvesti of statistics methodology that is applied these days has reduced to less of a science than f*cking astrology, and can be maliciously used to "prove" any darn lie for use by someone that has the money and/or the will, practically forever. So this whole thing is the definicion of a vicious cycle, and the truth just becomes irrelevant. S.M.

This issue will probably not be fully resolved in our lifetime (esp. us older geezers), it seems. Opinions can swing too far in both directions.

I tend to look at "Conclusions" and "Summaries" in papers before looking at the details. It might even be all that is required reading. If worded properly, it should, in fact, be a capsule of the presented data. Regarding the paper which is cited to rebut bee declines as untrue, or that bees are not dying off, the Summary, itself implies that, while overall populations have increased over the last 5 decades, there is a current trend to declines. And the authors discuss possible causes for bees "dying off." Here is the Summary (I have underlined noteworthy statements):

Managed honey bees remain a critical resource for world agricultural and food security. While global honey bee population have increased over the last 5 decades, this increase has not been universal. Notably, Europe and North America have suffered steep declines in managed populations. However, within these regions some nations have seen increases while others have seen decreases. Disease factors, such as the bacterial diseases AFB and EFB, have likely played an important role in honey bee colony declines in the US over a century ago; however, their role in current overall declines is likely minimal. Varroa mites, together with the virus complex associated with mite parasitism, are likely one of the major causes for considerable overwintering losses documented by many northern nations over the last several years. However, overwintering losses do not have a direct or measurable effect on total managed colony numbers as enumerated by national surveys in the US, likely because beekeepers are able to replace losses quickly. Pesticides, specifically those that directly affect colony health, had a pronounced effect on colony populations in the US. However, modern pesticides with reduced acute toxicity may have sub-lethal effects that are more difficult to quantify. Additional factors, such as reduced bee forage, climate, narrowing of the gene pool, poor queens, and socio-economic factors all have measurable effects on managed honey bee populations. Many of these factors influence the profitability of beekeeping which may have the most dramatic effect on managed populations of honey bees.

I read this to mean that overall increases have been happening until recently. (The paper includes the Fig. 1 graph of managed bee colonies from 1961-2007). This FDA article cites 2006 as the year when bee keepers started reporting losses. That's awfully close to the 2007 graph, such that significant declines may not have occurred until 2008 or later. In other words, this paper doesn't reflect any declines that might have happened since 2007, and in countries that show an upward trend. Whether the alarms going off are a "Chicken Little," response or not, I guess remains to be seen.

Fig. 1 is an aggregate, while Fig. 2 clarifies that declines by country show the U.S. to have overall declines over the period of 1961-2006. Trying to think if there is a possible common factor for the countries showing declines over that period - Austria, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico and the U.S. -- isn't straightforward from my limited knowledge of the subject.

Also, the authors state that the decline in U.S. populations were affected in a pronounced way from pesticide use. They then note that less toxic pesticides may still have unforeseen consequences, harder to quantify. Certainly a note of caution in the authors minds. I don't know if increased populations from other countries have been or would be exported to the U.S. to help stem this decline.

While the discussion certainly is about bee populations worldwide, we are, understandably, more concerned with U.S. declines. True, bees are not the only pollinators in nature, they are specific pollinators for some plants. But I would suggest they play a significant role in the ecosystem as a whole. This fabric is what many of us are concerned with most. Which tear may cascade/domino? Balances can be upset.

One thing that stood out in the graph on declines, is that both Mexico and the U.S. had declines over the 1961-2006 time period while Canada did not. Which factor(s) might explain this is up for speculation.

I think we are most in danger of our own undoing by misplaced arrogance in our understanding of life and life systems as we go about tinkering with them.

First, they are talking about managed bee colonies, not bee's in general.....The periodic die off of managed bee colonies is nothing new and typically between 10% and 25% has been the norm....the recent die off was not the same, the losses were not always dead bee's, but bee's failing to return to the hive and the bee's keepers overall losses were around 35%, this number combines the missing and dead bee's....Now there is a study that say's at higher than normal levels pesticides can cause disorientation, certain people have taken it upon themselves to blame pesticides, even though these levels are not typically encountered....Poor management of the colonies is just as likely to be the culprit...this along with parasitic infestation, poor diet, stress, are all contributing factors....If bee's are being exposed to increased levels of pesticides, then the coordination between the farmer's and the bee colony managers is to blame, because the farmers are spraying the crops during bloom, which should not be done, or the bee keepers are arriving early, or the bees are straying from the targeted crops to some other crops that are being sprayed....Does anybody doubt, that in this day and age, where mismanagement is rampant, that it could be the defining factor here....Not I....

You forgot to mention that their diet is made up of primarily high fructose corn syrup. I don't know if it has to do with the glyphosate or bt toxin, but at the very least, it's devoid of nutritional value.

Why do you insist that no studies are valid, but those done by Monsanto?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637?np=y

Studies like this one warrant a closer look, and not by the company that is making billions from Roundup.

Does the EPA and FDA always rely solely on company supplied data, for every product that's on the market?

I don't know the answer, but if they do, I think we have a major problem.

"Reviews of long term studies by scientists, physicians, and regulators have reached the conclusion

that GM crops are safe.

Scientific review:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

European reviews:

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1410.long-term-studies-safety-gm-food.html

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1378.genetic-engineering-feeding-experiments-meta-study.html

American Medical Association (2012):

https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.amaassn.org&uri=%2fresources%2fdoc%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fH-480.958.HTM

Swiss National Science Foundation

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/ProductSafety/seralini-sept-2012-monsanto-comments.pdf

AMA:

https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=%2fresources%2fdoc%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fH-480.958.HTM

Thanks. I'll pull quotes from your scientific review link:

I contend that none of these studies are valid; at least in regard to Roundup ready crops. Sure, they are feeding animals genetically modified food, but there is no mention of the Roundup concentration in the plants. I think some scientists are using GM plants that have never been sprayed, and others are using plants that have been repeatedly saturated with Roundup. Nobody knows what the farmers are doing, and nobody is standing over them to make sure they are following the directions. Roundup concentrations in our actual food supply probably run from near zero to way over the recommended amount. No study is measuring the reality. Given the massively increasing sales of Roundup, I'd say that it's probably not being used according to the directions.

4.3. Cooperation between public laboratories and private firms

Because of recurrent lack of compliance with international standards

of many studies, a critical situation has arisen where the private

sector may not want to provide plant material for studies.

Unfortunately, without such collaboration from the private sector,

public laboratories may not always be able to conduct studies

using appropriate plants lines. In this context, more rigorous statistical

prerequisite and sound toxicological interpretations of the results

would encourage a virtuous scientific collaboration between

public laboratories and private firms, particularly to access to the

different isogenic lines that are true comparator of GM lines.

The observations of major flaws in some papers highlight the

urgent need to improve the reviewing process before publication

of papers addressing this subject. This would avoid spreading confusion

in the general press, which may not be able to judge the real

scientific quality of publications.

Complementary fundamental research should be conducted

using different animal models, but a need for harmonization between

studies is crucial to provide better results that are more

reproducible within a given animal model and more comparable

between neighboring animal models. Such research would help

to better analyze the physiological differences arising between

short, mid and long-term tests and, hence, the conditions of choice

of the most appropriate experimental design.

Good points. Management is crucial, when dealing with lethal substances -- not necessarily to us directly, but to bees and other organisms.

I may be wrong, but I would think it logical to extrapolate that whatever is happening with managed colonies, may be happening also to some wild colonies. To temper the tendency to immediately panic, there is this article in Scientific American. A key statement in the article is this: "But the fact that they're not finding mass extinctions is not the equivalent of knowing whether species are declining or in jeopardy." I think most would agree that being cautionary is prudent in matters of such potential import. But then, I feel the same way about climate change/global warming, or whatever one wishes to call "it."

I was quoting the summary to substantiate that the authors of the paper were ascribing some declines (in the U.S. as stated) to pesticides. The mechanism -- maybe largely due to mismanagement as you suggest -- is still a mechanism whereby the effects manifest. The substance (pesticide) does play the key role. But, probably, even under the best management practices, there would be some "collateral" damage, as is the popular "numbing" pseudonym. I doubt if marauding insects restrict their activity to non-blooming periods, allowing for spraying exclusively when bees are not as active. Spraying may be deemed necessary during blooming season, too, depending on the onslaught. I would suggest that mismanagement is also a form of arrogance -- or at least disregard.

I sometimes wonder if the very common theme of many SF movie plots, that we're fighting against some environmental catastrophe, to save the planet, is an unconscious realization that we are headed in that direction. A cynic (or realist) would say it's a Hollywood perspective and that fear sells. The media does certainly thrive on it. But, what if? Just a thought.

It is definitely irresponsible to cry wolf when it isn't warranted. But, IMO, as a species we can't afford to ignore possible warning signs, once noted. Even if we do investigate them it doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Take frogs, for instance.

Some may scoff at the idea of a "web of life." But there is no denying that symbiosis is a key feature of life on the planet. I would liken the Eco-system to the body. Take away even one molecule in any of the complex systems/processes which keeps the body functioning properly and it can become catastrophic. It is true that some species, seemingly, go extinct without any help from man. But we don't know enough to differentiate in all cases, which ones Nature had in queue vs. those we instigated and/or accelerated... it is yet another perspective on the value of all life. Why we seem to be so cavalier about so much of it boggles my mind.

Just think it was not more than a few years ago we were all terrified(at least according to the press) that we would be under attack from the killer bee's.....yuk yuk

Well, down here in Texas I occasionally hear of attacks (and deaths) from them. They didn't migrate as far and as fast as feared, but they are here.

The reason the killer bees aren't as far north as expected, is because all of the global warming models were wrong.

Yet another fallacy that the US government bought, hook, line and sinker.

Update on bee die offs.....new study out, claims it's all of the above....

http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discover-whats-killing-the-bees-and-its-worse-than-you-thought/

This is all moot.

Because of all the greenhouse gases that mankind has introduced into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age, the polar ice caps will all soon melt and release enough methane into the atmosphere to kill all of us anyway.

That is assuming that Yellowstone doesn't explode and kill us all first.

Slinks off and waits for flames.

Probably so. I don't buy organic, and make no effort to avoid GM food.

I'm sure something else will get me before GMO food does. Still, I have to wonder about the kids. They already are going to have to find a way to pay off our spiraling debt; we don't want to saddle them with too much more crap.

This is still going on today. We need to send SE down there to tell the people that it is completely safe, and that their symptoms are imaginary.

http://colombiajournal.org/colombia77.htm

Why does everybody hate us, when all we do is try to help?

Well look at it this way. We all know that Monsanto is always trying to do what's right for the world, even if it kills us.

I have never been in favor of spraying coca plants....and am in fact in favor of legalization....at least to some degree.....it's the surfactants that get you anyway, not just the 26% concentration(WHAT?)....Holy Cosmo!!

Welcome to the latest edition of Dueling Links, where the contestants each try to convince a well educated world renowned learned impartial disinterested audience which one can win a debate based on the supporting evidence they can produce.

Disclaimer: Supporting evidence can readily be purchased by both contestants, just like politicians.

END ROUND 1 2 3

The only agenda I have, is thinking that this shouldn't be so widespread, when we are pretty much learning as we go.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060926072327.htm

Unlike drugs, there are no human studies. The entire population of the planet is the study group. I can't imagine the magnitude of the health crisis, if it turns out that adverse symptoms don't present themselves for 15-20 years.

I know it's been around for that long, but it is now in almost everything we eat, along with our food animals. The cross pollination with non-GMO plants, has guaranteed that GM is here forever...it cannot be reversed.

Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to www.sciencedaily.com

Is this the missing link?

It's just a link to how bt toxin works...or a little bit more about how it works. They had no idea until 2006; they just knew that it killed bugs; the rest was assumption.

Not only is it a component in GMO crops, but the organic farmers love it because it's "natural".

I couldn't make the link work before.

Now it does.

Maybe it's a Congressional link and only works 33% of the time.

This is an exciting breakthrough in understanding the relationship between different bacteria .....nice find ...

Yeah. Exciting and a little spooky, when you consider that we unleashed this in our entire food supply, without even understanding how it killed the bugs, or how the flora in our own guts works.

Is it all made up fear mongering?

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/5notes

I sure hope you're right about all of it being completely harmless. We're gonna have some pretty big problems if you're wrong.

http://science-autism.org/gutflora.htm

Symbiosis is ubiquitous. Because of this, the idea that there is a single, "magic bullet" for health is preposterous.

The phrase I like in the article is "scientific house of cards." This is why so many mistrust the safety of GMO's, etc., based on the assurances of those who are working with cards and don't realize their own lack of knowledge about it all. "Safe until proven otherwise," is a bad M.O. Short-term financial gains blind people in all fields to put at risk others money and health.

Many dismiss the idea of taking supplemental "probiotics." The article lends weight to the idea. Our knowledge of the body is magnitudes beyond what it was just 100 years ago. But articles like this show that we are still, likely, magnitudes away from truly understanding it all. As I think (? do I) I have posted before, when I was being interviewed for a support position (electronics) in the Mass Spec. group I work in, I asked a post-doc what the practical result of "Proteomics" is. He explained that the complexity of the genome was less than the complexity of protein activity in the body. He said the number of proteins was much greater (hypothesized ?) than the genome variations. Personally, I think we are decades, if not more, away from unraveling even basic mysteries, with attendant surprises, like this article/find indicates. I believe that an unadulterated body has the means (excepting genetic defects and having nutritious food available) to be robust in the face of most life stresses and pathogens, without the need for a bevy of pills.

Houses of cards... I expect the "epidemic" of Type II diabetes in young people to, ultimately, be an effect of some of our processed/engineered food, coupled with missing nutrients that aren't in said food. (That, and our missing ascorbic acid.) And, likewise, other chronic, degenerative, diseases. If so, is "Oops!" a sufficient response to all who have suffered the consequences of ill-conceived technological and scientific advancement?

I would be more hopeful if at least some in the banking industry had been held responsible for the suffering they created in the last financial crisis. But the lack of that is indicative of an across the board negligence (and apparent helplessness) on society's part. So hope is dim to my eyes.

We're doing the same thing across the board.

None of the pills we are passing out like candy, for depression, ADHD, and a host of other "supposed" mental/behavioral/emotional issues, are completely understood. We know what's in them, but almost nothing about what happens in the brain, or why they work.

When it comes to GMO crops, the goal was to be able to kill weeds and bugs. Health risk assessments were way down the list...and yeah, 90 day studies done by the seed and chemical manufacturers, don't quite cut the mustard.

My reference to agent orange was not off topic. It was another harmless herbicide that was declared to be entirely safe by the US government.

Oops!!! The dioxins were supposed to be a harmless byproduct....it didn't turn out that way.

(Sigh.)

Look, the more we know, the more we know we don't know, know what I mean? We are part of a dynamic system, a perfect state will never be achieved because the goals keep changing....But take a minute and imagine yourself living in the "dark ages", no clean water, plague from an unknown force of evil, and thank your lucky stars....What would this conversation look like if it was taking place in the 1200's?

I'm not anti- GMO, technology, medicine, or anything else.

I have a problem with forever altering the entire ecosystem, and possibly our own bodies, without knowing exactly what we are doing. The GM traits are out of the bag, and they can't ever be put back in. I think it's pretty dangerous to create things that would never occur in nature, and just let it go, to cross pollinate other varieties, spread across the land globe, with no way to reel it back in, and introduce those things into the entire food supply.

In the US, the FDA is completely out of the picture, and the EPA claims for safety are based entirely on Monsanto's own studies. It's insanity.

Doesn't the government employ any scientists that can feed a variety of animals, a variety of GMO foods, in a variety of concentrations....and just tell us the truth?

Practically, it has been difficult to fully understand something before it hits the market and the true testing begins. Government agencies like the FDA are hounded for not approving drugs already approved and used elsewhere, even after FDA successfully keeps something like Thalidomide ( cf Dark Remedy ) off the market. Most drugs are accepted as effective long before the mechanism of their effect is understood. This has been true for aspirin, penecillin in the past and serotonin reuptake inhibitors more recently. Acceptance is simply a positive answer to the question "Is this drug statistically different than the current treatment or a placebo?"

I am not saying the concerns expressed are not valid. I am saying it is not likely that we could ever fully understand something before it is deployed. Heck, even when we do fully understand something, we still often do it wrong.

True enough; and I'm one of the people that has complained...particularly when people with terminal cancer can't sign up for human trials on new drugs. Stupidity.

The big difference is, that drugs can't replicate and propagate themselves.

As far as the kids being put on all of these ADD drugs and all of that other stuff, I don't hold it against the fact that the drugs exist; I think the drugs are drastically over prescribed. But that's another discussion.

I would say the main article for the thread is fodder for many topics of discussion -- not just GMO's.

Genetic engineering shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But because of epigenetics (which, now, we also know so little about) won't have final results for a generation or two. And then effects may manifest in such a way that they can't be traced to a GMO directly, yet still be due to said GMO. Not illogical or impossible, I think. (i.e., we haven't identified all the proteins and their part in processes in the body, so we may not know the protein or it's part in some pathway we don't even know about, in a long chain of interlinked processes -- symbiotic -- in the body, that might be due to a GMO effect.)

Since life is adaptable, I have a less enthusiastic view, than staunch proponents, of genetic engineering's ultimate success regarding developing food products to defeat natural enemies -- some animate and some not. I think our experience with antibiotics and "super bugs" and the fact that "super weeds" are their corollary, should temper our expectations for grandiose victories. It's a race we will always likely lose. Or at best, just keep par with Nature. If so, what was really gained? And we may also find our "victories" will have unintended and unforeseen costs. I guess time will tell.

Population control/planning is, still, in my view, the most crucial part of resource use planning. That and the realization that some geographical areas just aren't suited to human habitation. But, then, that cuts into individual freedom of having as many children as one wants. A whole other topic. Plus, some people are stuck in inhospitable habitations and can't easily be moved.

Wisdom, in general and in science, ultimately leads back to simplicity, in my opinion. Reducing life to the basics circumvents the apparent need of much technology. But we are a striving species.