Imidacloprid Pesticide Most Likely Cause of Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder, CA Use Up 35 times!

[Dems Will Win]

The French banned Imidacloprid in 2000 because it killed off the honeybees with CCD!!



Gaucho Pesticide with Bayer's imidacloprid is the culprit!!!!!!!

My first OP on this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=925297

The bee drop off is now termed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

Because of the newness of CCDs, there is not the years of science behind this phenomenon as there are with the connections between some pesticides and cancer.

What is known is that the numbers of bees that have disappeared are placing our food supply in jeopardy. Billions of bees have mysteriously vanished since late last year in the U.S. Is it all that unrealistic to assume pesticides may have a role in the bees' disappearance?

the sake of example, one possibility that comes to mind are insecticides, including Imidacloprid.

According to the Pesticide Action Network, in 1994 in California alone, 5,178 pounds of Imidacloprid were use to treat more than 20,000 acres. It might seem that this is a huge amount, but not when you consider what they used 11 years later.

In 2005, California's use of Imidacloprid jumped to 163,618 pounds, spread 54,961 times treating 787,444 acres. That included 106,591 acres of wine grapes.

Virginia keeps no records of how much pesticide is used. There currently is no process in place.

Some experts believe Imidacloprid confuses bees, so they cannot find their way home to the hive.

The Pesticide Action Network warns that the exposure to Imidacloprid for humans causes skin and eye irritation, fatigue, twitching, cramps, and muscle weakness, including the muscles necessary for breathing.

We must ask ourselves the question: How something so significant can be added to the recipe of the environment, and not make a difference?

How can one possibly think that repeated exposures to chemicals known to kill bees at high concentrations - and confuse them at low concentrations - not make a difference in the bee population?

Because of the known dangers of pesticides, Virginia state officials now recommend that pesticide application sites not be located next to schools, because of the clear findings linking pesticides with asthma and cancer.

So is it really a leap that experts believe pesticides have a role in the vast decline of honeybee hives?

Each year, more than two million bee colonies are rented for U.S. crop pollination. The monetary value of honey bees as commercial pollinators is estimated at about $15 billion annually.

keepers report record losses of 30 to 90 percent of their honeybee hives, according to a Congressional Research Service study released March 29. Testimony from Dr Caird Rexroad, Associate Administrator of Agricultural Research Service gave an overview of Colony Collapse Disorder.

Beginning in October 2006, honey bee colonies were dying across the continental United States. According to Dr. Rexroad, the CCD working group said the stress on the bees' immune systems could be occurring for a number of reasons, including pesticide applications.

Many pesticides are toxic to bees, and in cases where pesticides may not be lethal, they may increase the stress levels of bees, making colonies more susceptible to disease.

The cause of colony collapse disorder has not yet officially been determined. But do we really need official causes to start making healthier choices, while the clock is ticking at least from a preventative perspective?

Communities need to take steps to reduce unnecessary and preventable exposures to pesticides and other harmful toxins that are both known, and suspected, to cause harm to the planet and human health - if not for us, for our children.

Legal does not mean "safe." Invisible does not mean "not present." The current bee phenomenon is a wakeup call that we maybe already too late in picking up.

Both our planet and human health are at risk. And as with human health, all living things on earth are the proverbial mirror for the condition of the planet.

William U. Couzens, of Middleburg, is the president and founder of Next Generation Choice Foundation.


http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=18373221&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506071&rfi=6

PLEASE RECOMMEND TO HELP SAVE THE HONEYBEES AND YOURSELF!

And drop Bayer a line:

Bayer Agricultural Products
P. O. Box 4913
Kansas City, MO 64120

[Dems Will Win]

1. Just sent this to my Rep - everyone do the same!!

[OwnedByFerrets]

40. HAHAHA.....

They dont even care about humans dying in Iraq, why would they care about a little bitty bee.

Sorry, I couldnt help it.;)

[lovuian]

2. if this is true America is majorly screwed

the honey bee is toast...it will be a rarity

[Dems Will Win]

3. It's true all right!!

The commission concluded that it had no serious indicators suggesting Imidacloprid might be dangerous to bees. However, the commission suggested a risk could exist with seed-treated corn pollen.

Gerard Eyries, marketing manager for Bayer's agricultural division in France, was cited saying studies confirmed that Imidacloprid left a small residue in nectar and pollen, but there was no evidence of a link with the drop in France's bee population, adding, "It is impossible to have zero residue. What is important is to know whether the very tiny quantities which have been found have a negative effect on bees." He also added that the product was sold in 70 countries with no reported side effects.

Other studies indicated that concentrations were especially high when the plant is young. These would often be of

10 to 20 ppb in upper leaves
100 to 200 ppb in other leaves
less than 1.5 ppb in nectar
2 to 3 ppb in pollen
Bayer then agreed that the insecticide may cause disorientation of bees at levels above 20 parts per billion of the active ingredient. Recent studies by researchers at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) suggest that bee behaviour is affected at levels between 3-16 ppb or possibly even 0.5 ppb.


Current situation of bees' decline

In 2001, Bayer also brought a judicial case against Maurice Mary, one of the leaders of the French association of beekeepers for disparagement of the chemical Imidacloprid. The action was dismissed by the judge in May 2003.

In 2003, agricultural Minister Jean Glavany again extended the suspension of the use of Imidacloprid on sunflower seeds.

In spite of a 4 year ban already on sunflower seeds treatment, a significant drop in bee individuals is still observed. Beekeepers were cited as saying the measure was insufficient, as studies found that Imidacloprid left a residue which meant that even after two years, plants sowed on the same spot as the crop originally treated contained traces of the product.

Some also suggest that the bee colony losses could also be due to the use of imidacloprid on corn as well, or by the replacement of it by another systemic insecticide called Fipronil. Indeed in May 2003, the DGAL (Direction Générale de l'Alimentation du ministère de l'Agriculture ) indicated death of bees observed in the south of the country had been caused by acute toxicity by Fipronil (as the active chemical in the systemic insecticide called Regent), while it was recognised Imidacloprid had no responsibility in the bees death. Some national field studies are currently under way (2003) to assert the responsibility of Imidacloprid.

A similar battle is occurring in Nova Scotia, where beekeepers are accusing Imidacloprid used on potatoes for massive losses of bees needed for blueberry pollination.

[lovuian]

30. Well then the honeybee is in major trouble especially if this

is in the soil how long does this stay in the soil before it disinegrates?

My guess it stays in the soil for long periods like years

America is so screwed which is what they wanted to do destroy our agriculture

[Critters2]

4. If I'm not mistaken, imidacloprid is in some dog and cat flea

treatments. Bayer has tentacles everywhere.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Might be one of the reasons

there's usually a warning not to use outside.

[Critters2]

8. Advantage is imidacloprid

http://www.nofleas.com/About-Advantage.asp

[dipsydoodle]

12. Ours equivalent to that is called Frontline

I actually meant what is called Acclaim over here - used to spray carpets etc. Not available from stores - vets only. I'd forgotten your brand names may differ.

[kestrel91316]

51. Frontline is NOT imidacloprid. ADVANTAGE is imidacloprid.

IIRC, Frontline is fipronil, a different chemical entirely.

[leftchick]

36. I have been avoiding giving my dog frontline

I imagine it has the same shit in it. Are there natural alternative flea controls? It is weird I never had to use anything on my last dog.

[demgrrrll]

46. I use Buck Mountain Parasite Dust Herbal Gold, works like a charm

100 per cent organic. Wonderful stuff.

[leftchick]

54. I googled it

but can't find a place to purchase it. Do you have any links?

[demgrrrll]

59. Hi Google Buck Mountain Botanicals n/t

.

[Critters2]

47. Pyrethrins are natural and biodegradable

Pyrehtrins are made of chrysanthemum oil. When the topical flea treatments first came out, there were a few that were just pyrethrin, but now they all seem to combine pyrethrin with IGR, permethrin or other synthetics.

I also used to use something called "Gentle Touch" on my crf cat, to avoid any complications of his kidney disease. It used sodium laureth sulfate, which is in many soaps, and which does kill fleas. I can't find it in stores anymore though.

I did see a new product at Walgreen's the other day that claimed to be a natural flea drop. Don't know much about it, though. Made by Sergeant's as I recall.

Here's a page with some natural flea treatments. I'm leaning toward trying the Sergeant's natural topical.

[kestrel91316]

52. See my above post. Frontline is NOT imidacloprid. ADVANTAGE IS.

Frontline is fipronil.

[Critters2]

60. Some natural flea treatment alternatives

http://search.onlynaturalpet.com/search.aspx?searchterms=flea-tick-control

[motocicleta]

5. How can Bayer execs sleep at night?

K n R

[emilyg]

11. How can Bush sleep at night?

[BrotherBuzz]

28. Well, when you consider their history, it might be easy

Between the mid-1920s and mid-1940s Bayer was part of the notorious IG Farben conglomerate . IG Farben produced Zyklon B and other gasses used on victims of the Holocaust. IG Farben also developed chemical weapons and used slave labor.

[Fridays Child]

7. k/r

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. With All Due Respect, You Provided Nothing To Back Up The Assertion Of 'Most Likely".

In fact, I find that declaration to be completely baseless.

You are basically saying "pesticides are bad and can affect bees. Places use pesticides. Therefore, these pesticides are the most likely cause for the ccd problem we're seeing". Well, sorry, but that's gotta be the most simplistic minded attempt at detective work I've ever seen.

If you want to claim a root cause as being 'most likely' to a problem that is perplexing scientists nationwide, then you're gonna have to do just a wee bit better than your logical deduction I summarized above.

[madrchsod]

10. you are right-there`s no smoking gun

but a combination of many different factors according to the bee people. their biggest concern is finding young people to go into the business of bee keeping. it`s extremely hard work and there`s not much of a reward

[Dems Will Win]

17. Here is the scientific proof: 1.5 parts per BILLLION cause the bees problems

M. Bonmatin (CNRS Orléans) analysed in year N. the soils supporting a non-treated GAUCHO crop, knowing that they during the two previous years, i.e. N -1 and N -1 plus N -2 had been treated with GAUCHO. They contained on average Imidacloprid at 4.8 and 8.6 ppb. respectively, which does not invite for the exclusion of a phenomenon of accumulation, seeing that there is nearly a factor of 2 between these values. Also one is able to reasonably imagine that the soils with three years previous GAUCHO treatment (N -1, N -2 and N -3) would contain on average 10 ppb. Imidaclopride. Accepting that Imidacloprid, having very low mobility in soil and that it rests in the upper 30cm soil horizon, one may calculate that with an average charge of 10 ppb. it is equivalent to 50 grammes of Imidacloprid/hectare, and therefore by implication equivalent to a treatment of GAUCHO on sunflowers!!

Considering that:

Imidacloprid has a negative effect on individual bee behaviour, at 1.5 ppb when foraging
between 6 and 12 ppb. when relating to criteria allied with olfactory memory and recruitment
When relating to sub-chronic toxicity and daily doses of 4.5 picog.,

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE SURVIVAL OF THE HARVESTING BEES.

Due to sub-lethal effects of certain metabolites of Imidacloprid to be more toxic than the original molecule

Due to Imidacloprid being available through nectar and/or pollen of crops treated with GAUCHO at a level of up to 5ppb

As the level of accumulated residual Imidacloprid from 3 previously GAUCHO treated crops (equivalent to that delivered by a sowing of GAUCHO treated sunflower seed)

That sunflowers and maize are particularly capable at absorbing residual Imidacloprid


IT IS EVIDENT THAT DURING THE FLOWERING PERIOD OF GAUCHO TREATED SUNFLOWER AND MAIZE AS WELL AS ALL CROPS WITH APICAL INTEREST CONTAMINATED BY PREVIOUS GAUCHO TREATMENTS - FORAGING BEES ARE EFFECTIVELY EXPOSED TO DOSES OF IMIDACLOPRID WHICH IN LABORATORIES HAVE REVEALED A NEGATIVE IMPACT.

In the open countryside, this negative impact is verified by observation - already at least on the sunflower honey flow:

Dr. M.E. Colin ( INRA Avignon ) :

Having analysed video documentation obtained from sunflowers growing in agricultural condition during 1998 and 1999, Dr. Colin has been able to conclude that foraging by bees on sunflowers treated or contaminated with GAUCHO, takes place with less efficiency and with a behavioural comportment very different to that compared with those foraging sunflowers growing in Organic conditions and on soils that have never received any GAUCHO treatment.

The Beekeepers:

Since 1994 for some, from 1995 or '96 for others, depending on the region, they have witnessed exploitation problems concerning the bees on the sunflower nectar flow: problems of acute hive depopulation and of aberrant behaviour patterns, being accentuated year on year. For them, there is no longer any doubt that these phenomena are linked to the crop flowering period. It requires only 3 or 4 days from the start of the sunflower flowering period to initiate the problems - this taking place at the beginning of July or 15 days later in the case of 1998. It is the same and unique itinerary every year - and only when the hives are in the areas of crops treated with GAUCHO. Those hives moved before hand to other areas for such nectar flows produced by sweet chestnut trees, lavender, pine and wild blossom escape totally the fore-mentioned phenomena. The year that GAUCHO is introduced into an area the troubles appear for the first time. The phenomena are: Destabilising for the bee colony to the point that it becomes impossible to undertake all normal activities associated with the honey flow


The regularity and levels of honey harvests from the sunflowers have continually become worse as compared to the 1995-'96 levels, with year 2000 showing only 30 to 40% of the traditional harvest levels. (This is about the SAME PERCENTAGE we are seeing here in the US today - DWW)


The above assessment imposes that a definitive withdrawal of all uses of the molecule Imidacloprid is put into place immediately. We do not imagine that the studies undertaken by BAYER (1995-2000) - certainly judge and jury in the affair - are able to be far from the fore-mentioned contributions made by the Public Researchers of France. If by bad luck it were not the case, it would be a terrible snub for the scientific community; at least they would not have been contaminated by other considerations of another order.

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/manifestation_paris_us.htm

The French beekeepers have "no doubt", but you still do. I assume this answers your doubts, as Bayer admits 20 ppb is present, and has denied the 1.5 ppb claim altogether, meaning of course where there's smoke there's fire. If Bayer's pesticide is safe, why did the French ban it all this time?

HMMMMM?

Only Bayer and you disagree with the ban I guess...

[Dems Will Win]

21. I'd like to ask you something - Did you know that France BANNED Imidacloprid in 2000?

And do you think they would ban Bayer's product without scientific proof?

If so please refute their conclusion that as little as 1.5 parts per BILLION causes foraging problems.

You might want to call Bayer Agricultural Products for help with this one -- they are pros at denying this...

[Dems Will Win]

25. Here's more science for your mind...

From its introduction, "Imidacloprid" the active substance was announced as the first systemic soil insecticide applied as a seed treatment ("GAUCHO"). Neuro toxic, it works by contact as well as ingestion, on the nervous system by maintaining neural activity, inducing a tetanic condition resulting in the death of the insect. It presents a wide spectrum of effectiveness: soil pests as well as piercing/sucking insects are affected.

Even just coating a seed, due to its persistence it will be present throughout the whole of the plants growing cycle, and due to its remarkable systemic properties, it will be transported by the sap circulation to all parts of the plant. It is very toxic for the bee, but the formulation "GAUCHO" was not supposed to contaminate pollen and nectar, which are susceptibly harvested by bees during the flowering of the crop. "GAUCHO" is authorized as a seed treatment for Beet, Maize, all straw cereals and sunflowers.

Imidacloprid is found in other formulations in France: "CONFIDOR" (spray treatments for fruit trees), "POLYAXE" (Horticulture), "ADVANTAGE" (treatment against fleas on dogs and cats).

The principal stages and diverse studies characterizing the research on the possible effects on bees following applications of "GAUCHO" to sunflower seed are as follows:

Autumn 1994, the beekeepers of the central areas of France, faced with problems following the recent sunflower nectar flow questioned BAYER on the subject of "GAUCHO", introduced the same year on sunflowers. Field and tunnel trials are put in place by BAYER: notably in 1995 and in 1997 in the area of central France and in 1996 in Germany. BAYER concluded the strict innocuousness for bees of GAUCHO on sunflowers.

From 1995 and as "GAUCHO"/sunflower took hold in other areas of France, their beekeepers asked about the causes following the phenomenon of depopulation on sunflower honey flows. The symptomatic features led to thoughts of a sub-lethal intoxication via a neuro toxin. According to beekeepers, BAYER was unable to furnish guarantees allowing for the exoneration of its product. (meeting of ACTA, 24th Oct. 1997)

The " Commission des Toxiques" asked its experts Mr's Belzunces and Tasei to make an appraisal using the known and available facts (studies from BAYER, beekeeper witnesses, and articles). Following the presentation of the report (11th Dec. 1997), the Commission noticed the urgent need to study the different hypothesis's.

An extensive program of studies, taking in a number of research groups, and at a cost of 6.000 kF. was realized during the year of 1998. The resulting rapport concluded with "an apparent contradiction": the laboratory trials after analytical results on residues indicated a danger for bees from Imidacloprid at concentrations levels of a few parts per billion (ppb.) possibly encountered by bees in natural conditions. This uncovered risk was not corroborated by observations in the field (this sentence really should not have been written - as contested by beekeepers, there was nothing done!)

The, 16th Dec. 1998, the Commission des Toxiques didn't want to get involved and proposed to renew trials in 1999. Instead the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Glavany, on the 22nd Jan. 1999 stated that the use of "GAUCHO" on sunflowers was to be suspended for the whole of the French Territory, whilst studies to be carried out in years 1999 and 2000 produced results. This was the first time that the "Principal of Precaution" had been applied to an environmental problem.

Notably BAYER before the State Council attacked this ministerial decision. The three Apicultural Unions intervened in the procedure, on the side of the Minister of Agriculture: on the 29th Dec. 1999, the inquest on the cancellation of the decision was rejected!

On the 13th of August 1999, the Dutch Government decided to withdraw all authorizations for the use of Imidacloprid in open-air conditions from 1st Jan. 2000. The reasons invoked were: the too long persistence in soils of the molecule with regard to European Standards, a intolerable toxicity vis a vis birds (A beet treated seed ingested by a bird the size of a sparrow was lethal), toxicity vis a vis bees did not conform to Uniform Principles. BAYER blocked the process notably by submerging the Dutch administration with "new scientific data". A decision is to be taken 1st Nov. 2000.

It seems that France is the only country in the world to authorize the use of GAUCHO on sunflowers: it was also troubling to see that French beekeepers were originally alone in announcing grave problems on "colony melt down" in areas of arable agriculture.
Recently, beekeepers in Spain, Italy, some states in the U.S.A. are encountering problems that cannot be explained other than by sub-lethal intoxication caused by Imidacloprid, very notably from maize treated with "GAUCHO": bees harvest the pollen from maize plants.

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/gaucho_france.htm

Guess you don't believe in "The Principle of Precaution" like the French do.

[Dems Will Win]

26. More proof:

FRANCE

The biological effects on bees are reported as follows:

Dr. Marc Colin (INRA) studied the effects on the frequentation, characterized by several criteria, by bees at sources of food (contaminated and non-contaminated), under semi-controlled conditions. For Imidacloprid, the effects are always present at 6 ppb. At 3 ppb., the effects are present under certain conditions. The toxicity of the Olefin metabolite is clear at 1.5ppb.: they are still present at 0.75ppb., but less regular.

Dr. M.H. Pham- Delègue (INRA) reported in October 2000 that the prolonged ingestion of syrups contaminated with Imidacloprid induces a significant reduction in olfactory learning performances at levels equal or above 12 ppb.

Dr. Belzunces (INRA) notably reported that the prolonged ingestion by the bee at 4.5pg (picogram)/ 24 hr., of either Imidacloprid or its metabolites caused the appearance of significant mortalities three or four days after the start of treatment (for comparison, and with regard to the weight of the individual, this is equivalent to a daily diet for a human of only four millionths of a gram!). He insists on toxicity of the Imidacloprid metabolites, bio-available or resulting from the rapid metabolism of Imidacloprid within the bee.

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/gaucho_france.htm

Don't forget that scientists just don't work for the pesticide industry. There are other scientists in the world...

[Buzz Clik]

43. That's quite an array of scientific articles you have there.

Interestingly enough, those who despise genetically modified crops have even more evidence supporting their absolute certainty that it is GM corn that is killing the bees. Don't even think about telling them otherwise.

So, you're convinced beyond doubt that it's imidacloprid, and they are convinced beyond doubt that it's GM corn. And we're not convinced either way because, well, it's our nature to avoid such certainty in scientific endeavors.

:shrug:

[Dems Will Win]

49. Actually the GM Seed Corn is painted with imidacloprid!!

SO THEY ARE RELATED IN THAT WAY...

;-)

[Judi Lynn]

13. Thanks for the information. Will be looking for more to read on this soon.

Looking forward to some honest investigation and a solution. Hope it comes in time.

[TZ]

14. I heard that some entomologists think it has more to do with the size of the colonies

amoung other things. The bee colonies most affected are the larger corporate types and that the smaller organic and natural hives don't seem to be as effected. There also seems to be some sort of natural die off cycle too and that back in the 50's a similar thing was seen- bee die offs. Whatever is happening is probably not one simple answer.

[Dems Will Win]

20. Size not the problem. Why? Larger bees have been around a while

The exploding use of Imidacloprid is just in the last few tro several years and it ACCUMULATES in the soil.

The Organic bees did better because they are placed in areas where there are just wild sources within the 2-3 miles that bees fly...

So they did not get dosed with imidacloprid the way the commercial bees did.

Any other questions?

[kestrel91316]

53. FWIW, the wild colony out back in my dying apricot tree appears to be

thriving.......

[mike_c]

15. this is not INFORMATION, folks, it's hysteria and disinformation....

Here is the only really pertinent statement in the entire piece:

"The cause of colony collapse disorder has not yet officially been determined. But do we really need official causes...?"

There are several GLARING scientific errors in this piece, including the statement that CCD is "new." In fact, there is considerable evidence that CCD is a new name for an old problem (otherwise called dwindle disease, disappearing disease, etc.)

Imidacloprid IS one of the potential contributing factors under consideration, but there is ZERO evidence to date that low-level imidacloprid exposure is actually causing CCD. None. Nada.

This is simple hysteria. The publisher should be ashamed, and as experience in this thread demonstrates, a poorly informed public can be easily manipulated to believe anything.

[Dems Will Win]

19. Here is the proof from the French Beekeepers. Bayer denied, France BANNED it. Why? Killed BEES!

M. Bonmatin (CNRS Orléans) analysed in year N. the soils supporting a non-treated GAUCHO crop, knowing that they during the two previous years, i.e. N -1 and N -1 plus N -2 had been treated with GAUCHO. They contained on average Imidacloprid at 4.8 and 8.6 ppb. respectively, which does not invite for the exclusion of a phenomenon of accumulation, seeing that there is nearly a factor of 2 between these values. Also one is able to reasonably imagine that the soils with three years previous GAUCHO treatment (N -1, N -2 and N -3) would contain on average 10 ppb. Imidaclopride. Accepting that Imidacloprid, having very low mobility in soil and that it rests in the upper 30cm soil horizon, one may calculate that with an average charge of 10 ppb. it is equivalent to 50 grammes of Imidacloprid/hectare, and therefore by implication equivalent to a treatment of GAUCHO on sunflowers!!

Considering that:

Imidacloprid has a negative effect on individual bee behaviour, at 1.5 ppb when foraging
between 6 and 12 ppb. when relating to criteria allied with olfactory memory and recruitment
When relating to sub-chronic toxicity and daily doses of 4.5 picog.,

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE SURVIVAL OF THE HARVESTING BEES.

Due to sub-lethal effects of certain metabolites of Imidacloprid to be more toxic than the original molecule

Due to Imidacloprid being available through nectar and/or pollen of crops treated with GAUCHO at a level of up to 5ppb

As the level of accumulated residual Imidacloprid from 3 previously GAUCHO treated crops (equivalent to that delivered by a sowing of GAUCHO treated sunflower seed)

That sunflowers and maize are particularly capable at absorbing residual Imidacloprid


IT IS EVIDENT THAT DURING THE FLOWERING PERIOD OF GAUCHO TREATED SUNFLOWER AND MAIZE AS WELL AS ALL CROPS WITH APICAL INTEREST CONTAMINATED BY PREVIOUS GAUCHO TREATMENTS - FORAGING BEES ARE EFFECTIVELY EXPOSED TO DOSES OF IMIDACLOPRID WHICH IN LABORATORIES HAVE REVEALED A NEGATIVE IMPACT.

In the open countryside, this negative impact is verified by observation - already at least on the sunflower honey flow:

Dr. M.E. Colin ( INRA Avignon ) :

Having analysed video documentation obtained from sunflowers growing in agricultural condition during 1998 and 1999, Dr. Colin has been able to conclude that foraging by bees on sunflowers treated or contaminated with GAUCHO, takes place with less efficiency and with a behavioural comportment very different to that compared with those foraging sunflowers growing in Organic conditions and on soils that have never received any GAUCHO treatment.

The Beekeepers:

Since 1994 for some, from 1995 or '96 for others, depending on the region, they have witnessed exploitation problems concerning the bees on the sunflower nectar flow: problems of acute hive depopulation and of aberrant behaviour patterns, being accentuated year on year. For them, there is no longer any doubt that these phenomena are linked to the crop flowering period. It requires only 3 or 4 days from the start of the sunflower flowering period to initiate the problems - this taking place at the beginning of July or 15 days later in the case of 1998. It is the same and unique itinerary every year - and only when the hives are in the areas of crops treated with GAUCHO. Those hives moved before hand to other areas for such nectar flows produced by sweet chestnut trees, lavender, pine and wild blossom escape totally the fore-mentioned phenomena. The year that GAUCHO is introduced into an area the troubles appear for the first time. The phenomena are: Destabilising for the bee colony to the point that it becomes impossible to undertake all normal activities associated with the honey flow


The regularity and levels of honey harvests from the sunflowers have continually become worse as compared to the 1995-'96 levels, with year 2000 showing only 30 to 40% of the traditional harvest levels. (This is about the SAME PERCENTAGE we are seeing here in the US today - DWW)


The above assessment imposes that a definitive withdrawal of all uses of the molecule Imidacloprid is put into place immediately. We do not imagine that the studies undertaken by BAYER (1995-2000) - certainly judge and jury in the affair - are able to be far from the fore-mentioned contributions made by the Public Researchers of France. If by bad luck it were not the case, it would be a terrible snub for the scientific community; at least they would not have been contaminated by other considerations of another order.

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/manifestation_paris_us.htm

The French beekeepers have "no doubt", but you still do. I assume this answers your doubts, as Bayer admits 20 ppb is present, and has denied the .5 ppb claim altogether, meaning of course where there's smoke there's fire. If Bayer's pesticide is safe, why did the French ban it all this time?

HMMMMM?

Only Bayer and you and OperationMindCrime disagree with the French ban I guess...

[nannah]

24. the bayer family and the bush family, partners in crime

no wonder bush was so miffed with the french. they were hurting his pals, the Bayers, by banning their product. the bayer bush connection goes back to the days they were helping the nazis together.

[mike_c]

33. nope, that's not evidence of any link to CCD....

Look, there is no evidence of imidacloprid involvement in CCD. Period. This author states that "It is evident..." but neither gathered nor analyzed any evidence that imidacloprid had anything to do with either CCD or with the "behavior" that M. E. Colin asserts but neither describes nor connects to anything other than his suppositions. Did he find imidacloprid in the tissues of ANY of the bees he "observed?" The "evidence" he presents has no more value than Frist's video diagnosis of Terri Shaivo.

In order to determine whether there is any imidacloprid link under field conditions you must obtain actual data-- measurements of imidacloprid concentration in tissues or known signals of imidacloprid toxicity-- from bees actually undergoing CCD. There are a number of ways to do this but watching videos of randomly foraging bees is not one of them.

Look, I'm not disputing that imidacloprid or some other insecticide might play a role in CCD. But I'm telling you that there is no sound evidence that it does. None.

[kestrel91316]

55. Thanks for your level-headed assessment, mike-c!

I hope if there is any published, peer-reviewed research on the subject of CCD, we can get your reasoned input.

I'm still nervous about imidacloprid. I always did wonder if it was too good to be true, like DDT. I have even said for several years that I hoped it would not turn out to be another DDT.........but it's been a godsend for flea control in my patients and has saved MANY lives.....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Well Yay!!!! You've Established That Imidacloprid Is Bad. Course, That Wasn't My Problem.

It was the whole ridiculous assertion of it right now being the 'most likely' root cause.

Course, if you knew anything about scientific principles and deduction you'd see it takes a lot more rigid of a logical deduction process than "Imidacloprid can harm bees. Bees are being harmed. Therefore, Imidacloprid is the most likely reason!".

Fact is, the problem of CCD is one that is perplexing the hell out of extremely reputable scientists right now and the FACT is that they do not have a most likely cause yet. And sorry to burst your bubble pal, but no matter how much you cut and paste things your little itty bitty internet post ain't exactly gonna be enough refute all of the well established, educated peer reviewed scientific studies being done right now on the problem. Sorry.

What you have here is a POSSIBLE explanation. Did you catch that? A POSSIBLE explanation. That's a huge leap from the 'MOST LIKELY' explanation. Hope you can grasp that.

[live love laugh]

16. WRONG! It's cell phones!

:sarcasm:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Yes, those stupid stupid scientists.

It's all so very simple. One post on an internet forum, and all of the published, peer reviewed science on the subject suddenly becomes irrelevant. Good job!

[Dems Will Win]

22. Peer Review My ass! The Fench BANNED the stuff but you don't care about that at all!

And do you think they would ban Bayer's product without scientific proof?

If so please refute the government's conclusion that as little as 1.5 parts per BILLION causes foraging problems.

You might want to call your friends at Bayer Agricultural Products for help with this one -- they are pros at denying this...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. And yet the French are still losing bees, same as other places in Western Europe.

I never said that it wasn't a factor - I don't know how it relates to the other potential factors. What I do know is that the scientists who study this issue (who are not in the employ of Bayer) have come to no conclusion yet as to the likeliest cause or causes. So pull the stick out of your ass.

[Dems Will Win]

29. They are finished in France because it stays in the soil

And the scientists in the US didn't even know the French BANNED the stuff when you read their "peer-reviewed studies".

I guess you think that was a mistake by all those French scientists...

There's even a film showing the bees dying soon after the Sunflowers bloomed!

Wouldn't it be a grave error of judgment not to correlate the sub-lethal toxic effects of Imidacloprid, which start at a level of some ppb. in laboratory conditions with those of hive depopulation in the field, knowing that it is biologically available at levels of several ppb.?

One may read today: " that "GAUCHO" risks to come into play at a level of a few ppb.". Remarking that in the risk evaluation of a pesticide in relation to human health, there is a security factor resulting from strict tests of 100 put in place for tolerated exposure levels; (undertaken upon animals such as rats, mice, dogs, cats and rabbits). It seems normal that Man should benefits from these safeguards, since apparently in the domain of toxic risk assessment science is not exact. Believing Albert Einstein, Man survives thanks to the bee, "No bees, no pollination, no plants, no animals, no Man". Would it not be better to apply in all cases the results of toxicological studies undertaken in laboratories to bees, with a coefficient of security greater than 1, to fix tolerable limits in bio-availability?

Does "GAUCHO", also used as a preventative treatment against aphid attack not pose a problem as aphids cause harm only one year in six. When the former situation arises only one year in six. Is this compatible with the concept of "reasoned agriculture"?

The bee is considered as a true indicator of the environment's state of the health. As it is not a question anymore that the available Imidacloprid in the natural environment is a danger for bees does it not suggest that other useful insects are being aggressed?


If with the domesticated bee, other auxiliary insects are being attacked, does it not inevitably lead to a lack in pollination plus an absence of predator insects preying on pests? The too long persistence in soils of Imidacloprid, added to its frequent and multiple use result in a fear that there will be an accumulation of it and its metabolites in soil?

The extreme toxicity of Imidacloprid for earthworms has been shown, notably by A.C.T.A.: according to BAYER, the worm population recovers after six to nine months. In these conditions, do we not need to worry for the survival of earthworms, indispensable agents for the working of soils and development of the microbial mass?

The suspension of "GAUCHO" on sunflowers during the last two years has allowed a more recent molecule to establish onto the market: "FIPRONIL" (produced by Rhone-Poulenc, now Aventis). For sunflowers it is found under the form of: Seed treatment ("Régent"); micro-granules (+ aldicarb as "Trident"); Ground spray ("Schuss").

Beekeepers have observed that where sunflowers are treated with "REGENT", bees become ill once the sunflowers start to flower and produce nectar (Filmed sequences are available).

The report from studies undertaken by Dr.M.E. Colin (INRA-Avignon), show that the bees have a foraging behavior less efficient and less conform when compared too the one seen on organically grown sunflowers. "FIPRONIL" concerning its chronic toxicity for bees, is as least as toxic as "GAUCHO". "FIPRONIL" is present in the plant and is very persistent in soil.

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/gaucho_france.htm

I agree to take the stick out of my ass when Imidacloprid is banned here as well, thank you very much...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. You didn't even bother to read my post the whole way through.

But I must admire your cut&paste skills. I think I'm done with this particular thread.

[Dems Will Win]

32. I bet you're done...

[jberryhill]

35. So banning it does not stop the problem?

They banned it in France, and continue to experience bee problems. This is because it stays in the soil, so banning it is not effective to stop the bee problem.

This is the same French government that continued underwater nuclear testing in the Pacific and attacked GreenPeace's Rainbow Warrior, yes? You like these people.

[Buzz Clik]

44. The half life of imidacloprid in soil is at most 190 days.

The French banned the chemical in 2000. With a half life of 190 days, that's about 14 half lives, or degradation leaving 1/16,000 of the original concentration. So, given the initial concentration of 0.25 ppm (assuming 2 million pounds of soil for 6 inches of topsoi), this leaves 0.015 ppb in the soil. No way that imidacloprid could account for the continued disappearance of bees in France.

Maybe it factors in somehow or another, but it's not too simple.

[OzarkDem]

38. Its the "Precautionary Principle"

European countries will often ban substances believed to be toxic without a great deal of scientific consensus based on the "precautionary principle" which places the burden of proof on those using the substances.

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

So when France or another European country bans its use, it doesn't indicate there is conclusive scientific evidence, only enough to warrant precaution.

The US, however, does not use the Precautionary Principle, and places a higher burden of proof of toxicity (scientific consensus) on those wishing to ban substances.

Sadly, it seems we'll have to wait for more research to develop a consensus unless farmers and ag companies decide to stop using it voluntarily.

[Dems Will Win]

23. The stuff stays in the soil for years

The CETIOM.
Imidacloprid is present in soil for several years after the last treatment. Throughout these years, untreated sunflower plants present this residual Imidacloprid.
Dr. J.M. Bonmatin ( CNRS Orléans )

Throughout, where treatments from one or two years previous are present the concentrations of residual Imidacloprid are able to reach levels of up to 10 ppb.. Even in the case of only one "GAUCHO" treatment two years previous Imidacloprid is still detectable in the soil. He states that these results are compatible with recent published results from BAYER. Like CETIOM, he also concludes that sunflowers are capable of absorbing and expressing the presence of residual Imidacloprid from crops treated two years previously with GAUCHO. The capacity to absorb residual Imidacloprid from soils falls in the following direction: Sunflowers and Maize more than self propagating plants (volunteers), more than Rape (Canola), more than Wheat.

Sunflowers and Maize are able to absorb residual Imidacloprid to reach levels of 8 ppb..


http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/manifestation_paris_us.htm

[mike_c]

34. more half-informed pseudo-science....

Imidacloprid persists for a moderate amount of time in soil because it is protected from UV degradation. One way to minimize this persistence is to minimize the amount that enters the soil by using best practice application techniques. But some will get into the soil, no question.

Systemic levels of imidacloprid absorption from residual amounts in soil by plants is quite low, as you've noted. How commonly does this happen? How were imidacloprid concentrations measured? Did measurements include above ground biomass, below ground biomass, or both-- in other words, is soil imidacloprid not only absorbed, but translocated? But the more important issue is that even if there are detectable systemic tissue concentrations in LEAF TISSUE-- the most likely above ground tissues tested (if any)-- which have have little relevance to foraging honeybees-- it cannot be transferred to the bees like surface applications can. What's the concentration in pollen? There is no reason that it would be the same as leaf tissue concentrations-- plant allocations to different tissues vary considerably. For example, I'd bet it's undetectable in nectar, since nectar contains little lipid.

Have any of these measurements been extended to bees? I already know the answer-- it's no. I presume someone will be looking very closely at that this summer, although I'll bet not in France.

[Dems Will Win]

48. Mike C. Sounds like you and I could have a rational discussion

Here are the answers to all your questions. I'd like to convince you that imidacloprid is found in the nectar and pollen and there is enough to disable the bees:

On the other hand, the results of work undertaken between 1998 - 2000 by researchers in public institutes have been supplied to us after their presentation to the Commission des toxiques, 15th. November and 13th. December 2000.

It appears to us that the results we present below entirely respond to the questions raised by the Commission des toxiques.

The metabolism of the product in parts of the plant accessible to bees.

Dr. J.M. Bonmatin (CNRS Orléans )

During the growing period of sunflowers treated with GAUCHO, the levels of Imidacloprid decrease. From the start of capitule formation, this level shows an important and rapid increase. Depending on the plant variety, the average value in the capitule at the beginning of the flowering period varies from 5 to 6 ppb. Equally in maize, Imidacloprid is found throughout the plant, notably in the panicle (average: 4 ppb.) and in the flower (average: 10ppb.). Sunflower and maize both allow for an important bioavailability during the flowering period. In the environment wherever sunflowers are treated GAUCHO and also whenever it was so for maize (GAUCHO sites in field trials undertaken by ACTA in 1998), the pollen from traps commonly contained around 5ppb Imidacloprid.

M. Fr. Laurent ( INRA Toulouse )

Tracing and measurement of the radioactivity at different ages and in different parts of the sunflower plant). In stem sections as in the leaves of one-month-old plants, one finds the occurring gradient, except that the leaves are10 times more charged in Imidacloprid than the corresponding stem section. The metabolic profiles in the different plant organs all show a peak mainly of Imidacloprid (50 -80%). It is established that the half-life of the original molecule by itself in sunflower is in excess of 60 days. At the moment of flowering, there appears to be a transfer towards the capitulum, notably towards during the sepal and outer edge seed formation. It is suggested that this mobilisation is able to cause even higher levels of contamination of nectar and pollen produced by the inner rings of florets. In pollen, the global residue measurement of Imidacloprid is in the order of some ppb.

The CETIOM.

The nectar of sunflower contains between 0.4 and 5.0 ppb. total residue, it being taken that these total residues is essentially of Imidacloprid.

M. Kl. Wallner (Univ. of Hohenheim. Germany)

The nectar of Phacelia, treated with GAUCHO (50 g active material/hectare), taken from the crop of the harvesting bees contained between 3 and 10 ppb. Imidacloprid. The pollen collected by the bees was charged at the same level. (Toxicological studies accept that fruits such as apples and peaches may be put on to the market for human consumption, if the residues of Imidacloprid do not pass the limit of 300 ppb. Consequentially, the presence of Imidacloprid and or its metabolites at a level of a few ppb. in the produce from hives should not pose any problem in terms of human health.)

2. The limit of the toxicity of the product and its metabolites for bees and the quantities present.

Dr. M.E. Colin ( INRA Avignon )

The frequentation, characterised by differing criteria, at a source of syrup either contaminated or un-contaminated - was studied in semi-controlled conditions. For Imidacloprid, the negative effects are still present at 6 ppb. At 3 ppb., the effects are still present under certain criteria. (BAYER communicated in January 1997 during the A.N.P.P. Congress that the first effects on the bee show from levels of 5,000 ppb.. Three years later, this threshold has been brought down to a few ppb.!). The toxicity of the derivative OLEFINE is clear at 1.5 ppb.; it is still present at 0.75 ppb. - but with a less regular occurrence.

Dr. M.H. Pham-Delègue ( INRA Bures sur Yvette )

(November 2000): Showed that prolonged ingestion of Imidacloprid contaminated syrups cause a significant decrease in performance of Olfactory learning at levels between 6 and 12 ppb..
Dr. L. Belzunces ( INRA Avignon )

Showed that prolonged ingestion by bees of 4.5 picogramme of Imidacloprid and associated metabolites /24 hour cause the appearance of significant mortalities, 3 to 4 days after the start of the treatment, which corresponds to the time delay between nectar flow and hive population losses observed by beekeepers. According to M. Belzunces, it is very probable that the intoxication process in bees by Imidacloprid is due to the presence of toxic metabolites with a particularly noxious and "deceitful" action. The breakdown into the toxically significant metabolites originating from Imidacloprid by bees is very rapid: the half-life of the original molecule is situated between 2 and 4 hours.

http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/gaucho/manifestation_paris_us.htm

Interested, Mike C., to see if you have any more good questions that the French already have scientific proof on, since you seem to know what you are talking about.'

This will be a huge battle to ban this -- like it was to ban DDT!

[MrPrax]

37. I'm not convinced...

I want to hear MORE from the industry on this subject.

I think it's "simplistic minded attempt at detective work" at play.
There are "GLARING scientific errors in this piece"

You notice that when one gets shot down, another takes it place? Always

[djp2]

41. You trust the INDUSTRY?!?!

Why would you trust the chemical industry for information that would cost them billions?

[MrPrax]

42. Why...because they buy politicians

like Al Gore, and I am forced to vote for them.

So I Think the position of INDUSTRY (and their minions and why they figure poisoning voters is beyond reproach) should be respected. After all, the media thinks it's important to get the INDUSTRY message across.

I've given up trying to use logic to explain why it is that a limited number of people want to give 'fiat' to another small group of people, so they can stage manage liabilities. Sorry if I seem cynical, but we've all seen this same tactic used to deny Agent Orange victims of their '40 acres and a mule'.

[whistle]

45. What happens when this shit gets into the wine and human food supply?

...:wtf:

[Dems Will Win]

50. Hmmm

[kestrel91316]

56. Nothing. It targets insect metabolism, not human. You'd have to

drink it by the glass to suffer ill effects, I suspect.

[Critters2]

61. But you don't really know. And you sell the stuff, so

you're probably not the most objective voice on the subject.

[BrklynLiberal]

57. KICK!!!!

[Dems Will Win]

58. Another BUZZ!