Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
- Chemical Disasters, Agent Orange, and GMOs: Monsanto's Legacy Traced in Exposé
Popular content
Today's Top News
What a Scientist Didn't Tell the New York Times About His Study on Bee Deaths
Few ecological disasters have been as confounding as the massive and devastating die-off of the world's honeybees. The phenomenon of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) -- in which disoriented honeybees die far from their hives -- has kept scientists, beekeepers, and regulators desperately seeking the cause. After all, the honeybee, nature's ultimate utility player, pollinates a third of all the food we eat and contributes an estimated $15 billion in annual agriculture revenue to the U.S. economy.
Jerry Bromenshenk, bee investigator The long list of possible suspects has included
pests, viruses, fungi, and also pesticides, particularly so-called
neonicotinoids, a class of neurotoxins that kills insects by attacking
their nervous systems. For years, their leading manufacturer, Bayer Crop
Science, a subsidiary of the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG,
has tangled with regulators and fended off lawsuits from angry
beekeepers who allege that the pesticides have disoriented and
ultimately killed their bees. The company has countered that, when used
correctly, the pesticides pose little risk.
A cheer must have gone up at Bayer on Thursday when a front-page New York Times article, under the headline "Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery," described how a newly released study pinpoints a different cause for the die-off: "a fungus tag-teaming with a virus." The study, written in collaboration with Army scientists at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center outside Baltimore, analyzed the proteins of afflicted bees using a new Army software system. The Bayer pesticides, however, go unmentioned.
What the Times article did not explore -- nor did the study disclose -- was the relationship between the study's lead author, Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, and Bayer Crop Science. In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination. Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant.
Reporter: scientist "did not volunteer" funding sources
Bromenshenk's company, Bee Alert Technology, which is developing hand-held acoustic scanners that use sound to detect various bee ailments, will profit more from a finding that disease, and not pesticides, is harming bees. Two years ago Bromenshenk acknowledged as much to me when I was reporting on the possible neonicotinoid/CCD connection for Conde Nast Portfolio magazine, which folded before I completed my reporting.
Bromenshenk defends the study and emphasized that it did not examine the impact of pesticides. "It wasn't on the table because others are funded to do that," he says, noting that no Bayer funds were used on the new study. Bromenshenk vociferously denies that receiving funding from Bayer (to study bee pollination of onions) had anything to do with his decision to withdraw from the plaintiff's side in the litigation against Bayer. "We got no money from Bayer," he says. "We did no work for Bayer; Bayer was sending us warning letters by lawyers."
A Bayer publicist reached last night said she was not authorized to comment on the topic but was trying to reach an official company spokesperson.
The Times reporter who authored the recent article, Kirk Johnson, responded in an e-mail that Dr. Bromenshenk "did not volunteer his funding sources." Johnson's e-mail notes that he found the peer-reviewed scientific paper cautious and that he "tried to convey that caution in my story." Adds Johnson: The study "doesn't say pesticides aren't a cause of the underlying vulnerability that the virus-fungus combo then exploits...."
At least one scientist questions the new study. Dr. James Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State University, who is currently researching the sublethal impact of pesticides on bees, said that while Bromenshenk's study generated some useful data, Bromenshenk has a conflict of interest as CEO of a company developing scanners to diagnose bee diseases. "He could benefit financially from that if this thing gets popularized," Frazier says, "so it's a difficult situation to deal with." He adds that his own research has shown that pesticides affect bees "absolutely, in multiple ways."
Underlying cause of bee deaths still unclear
Dr. Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the health group at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says that while the Bromenshenk/Army study is interesting, it fails to ask the underlying question "Why are colonies dying? Is it because they're getting weak? People who have HIV don't die of HIV. They die of other diseases they get because their immune systems are knocked off, making them more susceptible." In other words, pesticides could weaken the bees -- and then the virus/fungus combination finishes them off. That notion, however, is not explored in the new study.
In 2008 the NRDC sued the Environmental Protection Agency after it failed to release Bayer's underlying studies on the safety of its neonicotinoids. The federal agency has since changed course, and NRDC researchers are being allowed to sift through the Bayer studies, an NRDC spokesman says.
The EPA has based its approval of neonicotinoids on the fact that the amounts found in pollen and nectar were low enough to not be lethal to the bees -- the only metric they have to measure whether to approve a pesticide or not. But studies have shown that at low doses, the neonicotinoids have sublethal effects that impair bees' learning and memory. The USDA's chief researcher, Jeff Pettis, told me in 2008 that pesticides were definitely "on the list" as a primary stressor that could make bees more vulnerable to other factors, like pests and bacteria.
In 1999, France banned Imidacloprid after the death of a third of its honeybees. A subsequent report prepared for the French agricultural ministry found that even tiny sublethal amounts could disorient bees, diminish their foraging activities, and thus endanger the entire colony. Other countries, including Italy, have banned certain neonicotinoids.
Bayer v. beekeepers
As for the Bayer-Bromenshenk connection, in 2003 a group of 13 North Dakota beekeepers brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer, alleging that the company's neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid, which had been used in nearby fields, was responsible for the loss of more than 60% of their hives. "My bees were getting drunk," Chris Charles, a beekeeper in Carrington, N.D., and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, told me in 2008. "They couldn't walk a white line anymore -- they just hung around outside the hive. They couldn't work."
Charles and the other North Dakota beekeepers hired Bromenshenk as an expert witness. Bayer did not dispute that Imidacloprid was found among the bees and their hives. The company simply argued that the amount had not been enough to kill them.
As the North Dakota lawsuit moved forward, an expert witness for the beekeepers, Dr. Daniel Mayer, a now retired bee expert from Washington State University, traveled to 17 different bee yards in North Dakota and observed dead bees and bees in the throes of what looked like Imidacloprid poisoning, he told me in 2008. He theorized that after foraging in planted fields where the seeds had been treated with Imidacloprid, the bees then brought the pesticide back to the hive, where it built up in the wax combs.
The beekeepers tried to enlist more expert witnesses, but others declined, according to two of the beekeeper plaintiffs, in large part because they had taken research money from Bayer and did not want to testify against the company. One who agreed -- Bromenshenk -- subsequently backed out and got a research grant from Bayer. Bromenshenk insists the two actions were unrelated. "It was a personal decision," he says. "I, in good conscience, couldn't charge beekeepers for services when I couldn't help them." He adds, "Eventually, the lawyers stopped calling. I didn't quit. They just stopped calling."
In June 2008 a district court judge in Pennsylvania defanged the beekeepers' lawsuit by siding with Bayer to exclude Mayer's testimony and the initial test results from a laboratory in Jacksonville, Fla., that had found significant amounts of Imidacloprid in the honeybee samples.
That same year Bromenshenk brokered a meeting between Bayer and beekeepers. When I interviewed Bromenshenk that year, he said that increasing frustration with the accusations against Bayer, which he described as a "runaway train," led him to contact the company in an effort to create a dialogue between Bayer and the beekeepers. Because of his efforts, in November 2008, Bayer scientists sat down in Lake Tahoe, Nev., with a small group of American beekeepers to establish a dialogue. The issues discussed were "trust and transparency," Bromenshenk told me. "How did Bayer do its testing, and do we trust the results?" Generally beekeepers and scientists have been highly critical of the design of Bayer's studies and deeply suspicious over who is or isn't on Bayer's payroll.
After the meeting, Bayer tentatively agreed to appoint a beekeeper advisory board to help redesign studies so that beekeepers could trust the results. But many beekeepers see the advisory board and grant money as a ruse on Bayer's part to silence its enemies by holding them close. "They have the bee industry so un-united," says Jim Doan, once New York State's busiest beekeeper until CCD decimated his business. "Even the researchers are off working on anything but the pesticide issue."
Bromenshenk's study acknowledges that the research does not "clearly define" whether the concurrent virus and fungus, which were found in all the afflicted bee samples, is "a marker, a cause, or a consequence of CCD." It also notes uncertainty as to how, exactly, the combination kills the bees, and whether other factors like weather and bee digestion play a role. Scientists like Sass at NRDC believe the mystery is far from resolved: "We're even concerned that based on this, beekeepers will use more pesticides trying to treat these viruses," says Sass.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
53 Comments so far
Show AllWas watching that "Do You Want To Be A Millionaire" tv show a couple of days ago, and one question was something like "Which of the following have been trained by the military to sniff out bombs?" There were four possible answers. I remember one was squirrels, another I believe was pigeons, can't recall the third, but the last was bees. Betcha can't guess which was the right answer.
Wonder how many were rounded up to serve? It would certainly explains no dead bodies found.
I appreciated the heads up of this article - warning about the bias of the study as reported by the NY Times (which I had read the other day) - but then noticed that this article is from Forbes. FORBES is blowing the whistle on BAYER?! Am I in an alternate universe? What gives? Is Forbes owned by some company that competes with Bayer? What's the real motive behind this supposed expose'?
"FORBES is blowing the whistle on BAYER?! Am I in an alternate universe? What gives?"
Maybe rich people finally realized that even their foie gras requires bee pollination somewhere along the line. Oh well, let them eat cake! (oops, that requires bees too...)
"The study, written in collaboration with Army scientists at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center outside Baltimore, analyzed the proteins of afflicted bees using a new Army software system."
You don't have to read any further. Move along . . . nothing to see here.
NASS to laypeople & civilians (LAYCIVZ).
Wow. Those filthy commies at Forbes. They're part of the gay agenda.
But the Judith Miller Times never changes. The subject didn't volunteer his funding source or other potential conflicts of interest? Ummm-- that's not his job, Mr. Fancy Pants NY Times Reporter -- it's yours.
The Times continues substituting summaries of press releases for journalism.
Steve Greenfield, You are right on target!
..........lol
Investigative journalism? What's that.
I shouldn't laugh. It's bloody tragic.
To anne faith---
From the article:
"A cheer must have gone up at Bayer on Thursday when a front-page New York Times article, under the headline "Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery," described how a newly released study pinpoints a different cause for the die-off: "a fungus tag-teaming with a virus." "
You ask:
"FORBES is blowing the whistle on BAYER?! Am I in an alternate universe? What gives? Is Forbes owned by some company that competes with Bayer? What's the real motive behind this supposed expose'?"
Answer:
Fascism isn't always monolithic. There do exist competing interests. Bayer is popularly known for its aspirin but it has a far deeper history (e.g., heroin).
As for "a fungus tag-teaming with a virus," to kill off bees, such a tag-team has existed as a possibility for millions of years. So, why now? The obvious answer is that something else has come along to complicate matters. Probably pesticides including those now part of the DNA of GM crops.
Relevant to this is the fact that the so-called "laws" of economics bear no necessary relationship to the laws of Nature.
Profit comes from the creation of scarcity. It is profitable to kill off bees. It raises the price of food by reducing its availability. Even some capitalists see the implications here.
U.S. agriculture is the ultimate terrorist threat. But of course we do not use food as a weapon! So shut up and eat your spinach.
-30-
You mention a relatively innocuous product from Bayer, why forget Zyklon B?
Good old Bayer. They make billions from aspirin as just one example of their thievery. The Native Americans used Willow bark for the same purpose centuries before. How much royalties did the native Americans receive for having discovered this?
ZIP!
What Bayer is doing with bee colony collapse investigation is typical corporate damage control:
From the Corporate Crime Reporter wb site:
public relations spy firm Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin (MBD)
MBD works to divide and conquer activist movements, MBD believes that activists fall into four distinct categories: radicals, opportunists, idealists, and realists. MBD outlines a three-step strategy: isolate the radicals, cultivate the idealists and educate them into becoming realists, then co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry.
- end of snippet -
And yeah, of course they target scientists for co-opting.
Why does Bayer remind me so much of British Petroleum?
Beyond Pollination
Dr. Bromenshenk should have said he was funded by Bayer AND, in spite of that, these were his objective findings.
Yes.
The work should be evaluated on it's own merits regardless of funding.
Are you familiar with the term 'lying through omission?
With his failures of disclosure, Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk has violated scientific protocol and produced a paper that does not conform to the most basic standards of the 'scientific method'. A paper of such glaring omission is not research, but rather, a polemic--propaganda.
As it is pertinent to this discussion, it is helpful to have some notion of the ethic expected from those engaged in scientific research.
In his commencement address to the graduating Caltech Class of 1974, Richard Feynman speaks of the essential elements of the modern scientific method:
"That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school---we never explicitly say what this IS, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can---if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give ALL of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."
Placet , Indeed I am. I am also familiar with scientific method.
The facts of the research; encompassing the scientific methodology, the findings and the tentative conclusions are what is important.
If you have a problem with the method, the findings and the conclusion please share.
duplicate, so sorry
Being familiar with the accepted protocols of scientific method, then you'll completely understand the paramount importance of disclosure. Bromenshenk's omissions are problematic and it amazes one that you choose to overlook and defend such a serious contravention. Perhaps you ought to reread a little more carefully Dr Feynman's explanation of the ethics associated with the modern understanding of scientific method.
Once again, for your benefit:
"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can---if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."
I think commenters should read the article before judging it. A newspaper article has to summarize the findings and is bound to be incomplete, possibly to the extent of distortion, although this one is pretty good. The article has 19 authors from a number of companies and two universities, as well as Edgewood. I'm no expert on bees, but the format of the article meets all the usual requirements (description of methods, analysis and interpretation of the data), including a discussion of possible alternative conclusions. Their conclusion is nowhere near as definite as the NYT article implies:
"Importantly, our limited results do not completely fulfill the requirements of risk characterization, nor do they clearly define whether the occurrence of IIV and N. ceranae in CCD colonies is a marker, a cause, or a consequence of CCD. Our findings do make a strong case for a link between an Iridescent virus and Nosema with CCD and provide a clear direction for additional research to answer these questions."
I agree that Bromenshenk should have disclosed his relationship to Bayer, but there seems to be no place in the article format for such a disclosure, as there is in most scientific journals. Maybe I'm wrong here, but that may be the reason.
As to PLoS, it's no quack publication. It's a peer-reviewed journal that has the same standards for publication as any other journal. I'm sure junk gets in, but it gets into print as well.
As to Bayer, yeah, they were part of IG-Farben during WW II, and were indeed the ones that sold Zyklon B to the camps.
From the report:
"Consequently peptide fragment data acquired by MSP allowed identification and classification of microorganisms from the environment that was unrestricted by the need for amplification, probes, or primers. Furthermore, this approach allowed for the detection, quantification, and classification of fungi, bacteria, and viruses in a single analytical pass."
And what about detection of other suspected agents of CCD, for example the neonicotinoids? Is that what the report is possibly referring to with "acknowledged environmental stress"? That's quite a casual dismissal of one of the principal suspected causes of the disorder.
The viral cocktail, combination of stress theory is not news---versions of it have been circulating about since the first indications of CCD. This is but another iteration of the same, more or less. There exists an ample body of research performed by reputable investigators from around the world that implicates neonicotinoids and other pesticides, as well. The report is only telling half of the story, and in so doing, jeopardizes its integrity.
There is a term used to describe 'research' that challenges certain standards of integrity and honesty. Dr Feyman, in the same Caltech Commencement Address quoted earlier, elaborated further on what he coined as Cargo Cult Science:
"The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson Oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will---including Wesson Oil. So, it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.
We've learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were right or wrong. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science."
--Richard P Feyman from The 1974 Caltech Commencement Address
Not to defend the authors, or Bayer, or the capitalist system, but the paper does say that further work is in progress. I hope that includes neonicotinoids (If they don't, we may well infer that Bayer's hands are in the research) as well as other potentially harmful compounds--I'm continually amazed at the amounts of stuff the foods we eat are exposed to. One thing they do say is that we know how to treat the fungus, and maybe that's a good place to start in dealing with CCD. Certainly if fungicides don't work, people will know they have to look elsewhere.
..and you don't suppose that Bayer just might have such a fungicide on hand in the offing?
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Far be it from me to suspect any pharmaceutical company of having anything but their own profits in their minds. My opinion of drug companies is right down there with my opinion of insurance companies. They'd sell their children and spouses to make a buck.
Ocean, do you believe Bromenshenk was objective?
The bee population collapse is the unfortunate combination of several man-made catastrophes mentioned in this article and thread. There is one more degradation factor not mentioned....cell phones and cell phone towers.In 1997, the Forest Conservation Council, led by John Talberth, combined scientific testimony and ongoing studies at major universities to challenge several cell phone providers about the safety of unlimited microwave transmission specific to songbirds and honey bees. Litigation is STILL ongoing. Evidence is mounting and the battle goes on. "Rule the Air" the Verizon PR ad means more than it says...
That commercial points to the truly evil nature of that corporation! How about those new DirecTV commercials promoting police brutality, casting evil spells on your opponent, blow-darting an employee and stealing the movies he's in charge of, and wringing out a bar-rag in a customer's drink then delivering it to his table.
Not to mention the Russian mafia dude going kissy face with the mutant giraffe.
I beleive the ultimate goal is human extermination by Corporation.
But, but.....Corporations are people, too!! SCOTUS says so.
Bayer is part of a consortium of companies originally from Nazi Germany under the "SuperChemical Company" of them all: I.G. Farben. After WW2, these companies of death could not bear to see their toxic products & profits shut down. So, they brought them into the USA and created other uses for them like insecticides, medicines, etc. No matter the time or place, they will always be masters of death. The US Chemical Act in the 1970s grandfathered in approx. 70,000 toxic chemicals which are now allowed in everything we use from perfumes to makeup to cleaning products. This is not so in the European Union--they will not use our makeup as an example.
Don't forget about all the cell phone towers and wireless communication which has radiation flowing about our air which also harms bees and people too. How can a bee find its way under these toxic conditions unheard of 30 years agp? Of course they're going to die.
This country is doing a slow burn of death of its peoples, wildlife, waters and air. God left this country long ago via the devils in Washington and 1 percent richest in the world,
PLoS One is nothing but a BLOG. When did Homeland Security become a research org? I can ID a dozen suspects, that doesn't make a breakthrough. Is Bromenshenk a Nazi? Is Bayer concerned about losing profits? Just asking.
What has been the outcome to the French beekeeping industry since they banned this chemical in 1999? Just askin
I asked myself the same question.
There is no telling how persistent the neonicotinoids are in the soil. Though they may mostly break down, questions still exist as to how long it takes for them to totally disappear. Minute traces, apparently, can also be lethal to bees.
Dr Eric Mussen's research at UC Davis indicates that as little as a nano-gram of neonicotinoid exposure is sufficient to be toxic to honey bees--a nano-gram is one billionth of a gram.
There is yet another source of neonicotinoid poisoning that bees may encounter. Along with its use in GMO technology, neonicotinoids have found their way into green house production of ornamental plants.
There's no guarantee that the neonicotinoids have been completely eliminated from the environment.
"After all, the honeybee, nature's ultimate utility player, pollinates a third of all the food we eat and contributes an estimated $15 billion in annual agriculture revenue to the U.S. economy."
Well, looks like the food sources are about to collapse--usher in Monsanto to feed the masses when food as we know it will be long gone. The new Prozac nation.
Monsanto's speciality is producing genetic changes in food crops to make them resistant to pesticides, not to induce resistance in pollinators. On the other hand, perhaps we can expect the company to come up with a new Soylent Green.
Is the problem ongoing in areas of the U.S. where the Bayer product or other like products are absent? If the bees are healthy where the pesticide isn't that should say volumes.
Bees thrived in my area up until about five or six years ago. It was about that time that substantial acreage was converted to GMO crop production. Prior to that time the land was mostly open range, subject to little chemical input. Local bee keepers had felt that up until that time, our location away from industrialized farming explained the absence of CCD. However, that has now changed and bee keepers locally are experiencing high percentages of hive loss.
There is no institution in America that is untouched by corruption and this is just another case. The entire society is rotten to the core because extreme capitalism is completely uncontrolled and everything and everyone is for sale.
Having worked in US Government contracting for 30 years, it was common practice to hire any firm who opposed your work so they could not continue to do so. Just another Government scam that few are aware of.
The mumbo jumbo "scientific" explanations for CCD are all skewed by people trying to protect/ promote their incomes. I've kept bees for over thirty years--and never once sold an ounce of honey. At the beginning it was pretty easy. All one had to do was to count to ten when stung.
And you didn't require any "protection" suit that costs $250 because of killer bees from Africa. People liked me because I gave out honey like the prodigal son gave out money.
Now, in the same location, I have to feed my bees sugar syrup made with the subsidized Big Sugar at outrageous cost; I have to give them tracheal mite insecticide; I have to give them elaborate protection from fire ants; I have to put fresh cooking oil in a special device to prevent hive beetles; I have to build and distribute wax moth traps; I have to employ a fungicide; I have to periodically administer tetracycline, and I have to wear a bee suit! I look like an astronaut.
My bees and honey cost so much money and effort that it's really a task of love to continue keeping them. The billionaires are to blame. And they don't send me a dime.
There's something very wrong with the current system. The bees are the "canaries in the mine." Help your local beekeepers--become one. Keep them on the roofs of your condominiums. Save the planet by keeping bees. You can do it.
When I was a kid back in the late 1960's I helped my neighbors tend their bees and the only protective suit we wore was a pith helmet with bug netting and a drawstring around your neck to keep the bees out of your eyes.
The tools were much the same as those that had been in use for centuries, a smoker with a bellows that burned cloth from old burlap bags (smoke calms honey bees) and a pry tool to open the hives and pry apart the sections that held the honey. These were then taken back to the honey house where the comb sections were removed and a hot knife was used to cut off the comb cap of bee's wax from the combs which were then spun in an extractor to remove the honey. The emptied combs were then replaced back to hives to be refilled with honey by the bees.
Hives were moved around locally, being placed in orchards during the spring bloom, then moved to hay fields so the bees could harvest pollen from the clover or near soybean fields to improve the pollination of the beans. It was about this time in the early 1970's that the family that owned the bees started trucking some hives to Florida to pollinate citrus crops.
As I understand it now, it's not unusual for hives of the big commercial beekeepers to be moved to different crops several times a year, sometimes all the way across the continent. I'm told this helped spread the tracheal mites (they're called that because the mites set up housekeeping inside the bee's throats) and another mite that attaches to the body of the bees (think of a parasite the size of a house cat hanging on your back drinking your blood).
Pretty much all of these changes were forced on beekeepers by the "invisible hand" of the free market which always maximizes short run profits without giving a rat's ass about the long term consequences of always choosing short run profits.
interesting posts...
The corporations own us, folks. Further proof, here.
We're all going straight to hell, handbasket or no.
Mo Rage
the blog
Wasn't Bayer a Nazi corporation? Or is it voodoo science?
the lesson here I think is that while we have always known capitalists are mad greedy, more than willing to kill people for profit, we did
not know they would injure themselves.But here we have capitalists, (Bayer, NY times,)and many frightened scientists all colluding to kill bees. Bayer does not mind if bees go extinct because they make money from their deadly poisons. Do they have plan for the future of plant life when the bees are gone? doesn't matter. they are making money. we are used to that. it's the bedrock of capitalism. But his seems somehow different-a new dimension capital crazy. because this time they must necessarily
hurt themselves. it's not possible for them not to know the stakes here. second graders know about colony collapse, and they know how essential bees are in plant pollination. so Bayer execs know. NY Times execs know. But they right goon doing it.
the list of big pharma's crimes against humanity is very long. but this one is the only one that will harm the perpetrators.
I think they are losing their minds.
When I first read of colony collapse, I was stunned to find that bees were trucked all over the nation to pollinate crops.Then as others have brought up the GMO crops, I started to wonder if 'You are what you eat" applied equally to bees as it does to humans.
Imagine beeing a bee and trucked somewhere where all you had were huge fields of the same plant, and you worked there for a few weeks, and then were trucked somewhere else for a few weeks for another single product; the same food for weeks at a time!
It seemed like it would be the same for people if they were forced to eat only McDonald's french fries for a few weeks, and then for another 2 weeks eating only chicken nuggets. No wonder the bees are sick and dying.
GMO =McDonalds? As more and more kids are born with autism, and other problems, we seem to be at risk as much as the sick and dying bees.
Hearing that the military is using bees to bomb sniff, well, no wonder bees are confused, and what a waste of money that is. Bees like hanging around my very sweetened coffee cup, so what does that prove?
America... the land where where kids are bred for military computer games, and bees will get you identified as a WMD!
I always thought Disney was weird for personifying everything, but the corporate devils seem to be depersonaliizing Nature herself.
I had the priviledge of attending a lecture by Dr. Shiva last night. She spoke, of course, about deep ecology, gmos, etc.
Afterwards, i spoke with her and asked what she thought were the causes of colony collapse. She said three things. However, i could only understand two of them, since it was rather noisy. But she mentioned the toxins, as discussed in this piece and electro magnetic wave interference.