Widely Used Pesticides Found to Impair Bee Reproduction

Reader Comments
Back to article

With a letter my organic controller says that I cannot be an organic producer while they have found this Bifentrin in my Honey.
To wich company I can say THANKS for my commercial failure?

Renato 4:34PM July 07, 2010

The Chinese, who do not quite understand the vagaries of successful vulture Capitalism, have broken one of the rules! A well told lie, repeated often enough becomes the truth and fortunes can be made by shading the truth and by outright lying! Capitalism and Corporatism - the base for the chemical corporations- have but one master, the shareholder, and are mandated by American law to protect his interests above all else, even national security and welfare of the people - these are socialist concerns and held in distain as nuisnce factors at share-holders meetings! Ther is no mis-representation here. Corporations are openly and clearly defined in America and the are not to be trusted. Americans have become apathetic in the klast few decades and have let Corporate powers over-run them and their fine democracy and they have become pernicious and cancerous and destroyed our Democratic freedoms with powerful lobby groups that really rule our land! The shareholders vote holds more power than the patriots vote in America today. China will learn by losing market share to keep its mouth shut and go with the flow or lose money, the object of the game if you play it right.

Uncle B 6:42AM April 05, 2010

It seems that new research from China has shown that synthetic pyrethroids - the same chemicals that we have been told to use in our hives against Varroa for the last 30 years, and the same chemicals that the British Bee Keepers Association cheerfully endorse as 'bee friendly' - are in fact toxic to bees and it has now been shown that 'the hatch rate of pyrethroid-exposed eggs was significantly depressed'.
This immediately raises the questions: why was this research not done BEFORE we were told to use them in our hives. And if it was done, how were the manufacturers allowed to fudge and/or conceal the results for so long?
Is it because - in the words of Dr L R B Mann, who was for 12 years advisor on toxins to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, "the chemical industry is, as an historical tendency, a refuge for crooks"?
Link to article: Widely Used Pesticides Found to Impair Bee Reproduction http://tinyurl.com/yzm2let
Link to article: High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health http://tinyurl.com/yg2gssg

Phil Chandler 4:08PM March 20, 2010

Just consider the deadly DDT ban brought about by Rachel Carson’s propaganda piece, “Silent Spring”. Now, every year, millions of people, mostly children die from insect born diseases that were once controlled by DDT.
Also, West Nile Virus, which kills millions of birds, mammals and hundreds of Americans annually, might have been stopped had our nation possessed the political will to use DDT in 1999 when the disease was still confined to one or two counties. Now, this killer will exact its annual toll of death forever.
Paul Muller, the inventor of DDT, won the Nobel Prize in medicine. Franklin Roosevelt said that DDT saved millions of lives during WW II. Entire cities were sprayed with it to prevent the spread of plague and Typhus in Europe, Asia and China. Every American carried DDT powder to prevent typhus and other insect borne disease. It must be noted that no test has ever shown DDT to harm humans in anyway. Some professors have eaten DDT every day just to prove that it is harmless to humans. Further, the animal/bird tests never confirmed the thinning of bird egg shells or any harm to animals.
The World Health Organization - not known as a right wing organization -admits that more than a million children die every year as a direct result of the DDT ban.
Environmentalism is a religion and Rachel Carson was one of the original Apostles. She was no hero - she was an unintentional mass murderer. But, the millions of dead are still dead - intent or not.
Going Green Has Gone Too Far!

R.L. Schaefer of CA 2:40PM March 10, 2010

I wonder why these researchers didn't test a pyrethroid that is being deliberately inserted into many thousands of hives in many parts of the world, for the purpose of killing the awful pest _Varroa destructor_. The brand is Apistan.
I have examined the 1996 Extoxnet bulletin on toxicology of fluvalinate (the generic name for the active ingredient of Apistan®, Mavrik™, and several other branded commercial insecticides).
It is stated to be of the chemical family 'pyrethroids' i.e. its molecular structure is similar to those of the natural insecticides found in the famous African daisy _Pyrethrum_.
However, it is substantially different from natural pyrethrins. In particular, it contains 4 halogen atoms - 3 fluorine atoms and one chlorine atom - covalently bonded to carbon. This is a major drawback, on the experience with such compounds to date.
Such carbon-halogen bonds are very unusual in nature (and when they occur are typically toxic e.g. some natural antibiotics). The general drift of info accumulated since Carson's far-sighted 'Silent Spring' (1962) has been an increasing variety of disconcerting biological harm from such compounds. Organochlorines are, broadly speaking, bad news - especially when chronically absorbed. Organisms generally lack enzymes to metabolise them, and bioaccumulation is the rule. The Extoxnet bull lacks info on tests for such possibilities with fluvalinate. The stated rapid excretion is not the same as evidence on actual residues in the body.
The specific statements in the infosheet tend to read reassuringly, with the exception of high toxicity for fish and aquatic invertebrates (which would not obviously be exposed by use in beekeeping) . But my dozen years on the Toxic Substances Board taught me to distrust such claims by the chemical industry. Numerous pesticides got legal approval on the basis of such soothing reads - forged by Industrial Biotest Corp, whose top executives served years in jail upon conviction for faking these "results". The chemical industry is, as an historical tendency, a refuge for crooks. I could recount many detailed direct experiences consistent with this general pattern. Therefore, I for one disbelieve that fluvalinate has been properly tested or that the summarised claims are reliable.
My personal inclination would therefore be to disparage the concept that our beekeeping should adopt chronic - tho' not continuous - administration of any such organohalide compound to our bees.
The only statement about bees in the bull is:
> Fluvalinate was not toxic to honeybees
> exposed to residues left on cotton leaves after application of
> unltralow volume (ULV) and emulsifiable concentrate (EC) formulations
This is a very different mode of exposure from what prevails in a hive with strips of Apistan amongst the bees for a week or two.

Dr L. R. B. Mann 2:56AM March 09, 2010