The survival of Bees can cause WWIII,it's hard to believe,but true

[WWWTT]

I am still not sure I believe this???

Here's the link

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/05/russia-warns-obama-global-war-over-bee-apocalypse-coming-soon/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEuropeanUnionTimes+%28The+European+Union+Times%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

I was always fascinated with bees!

My father had a hive on the south side of our house growing up in Caledon.

When we first got them,our neighbours told us that their gardens were producing a noticeable increase in fruits/vegetables,increase size and quality!

I have seen first hand the importance of these underated insects!

Come to think of it,this serious threat from Russia does sound reasonable.

WWWTT

[Hudson Jones]

What don't you believe? Russia's anger towards Obama's protection over the seed giant or the decreasing bee population and their importance over our food?

[G Huxley]

Neonicotinoids are an insectiside which wipes out bees, and has been causing colony collapse disorder. Europe has recently moved to ban them. Canada should too.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/30-9

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22335520

[WWWTT]

What don't you believe? Russia's anger towards Obama's protection over the seed giant or the decreasing bee population and their importance over our food?

That WWIII can be caused from a dispute or inability to resolve this problem.

WWWTT

[silver72]

I agree with the Russians and for certain companies to be able to control seeds for food is completely wrong. Those MG seeds can only be planted once, that means that if one had a garden and wanted to save the seeds for next year, they don't transplant , which gives these companies the power of FOOD to the world. Besides , we don't know how these foods that comes from these seeds will react to Human Beings. These seeds DNA are changed and so when HBeings eat them could that change our DNA. Too many unanswered questions about this. I imagine that many of the countries politicians have money invested in those companies and perhaps greed wins over common sense?

[Argus]

I understand the agriculture industry is somewhat large - ish, in the United States. That being the case, if all the bees die there I would imagine the American government would have some -- concern. Certainly they would be more concerned than a Vlad the Impaler of Russia.

[Moonlight Graham]

Never heard of this threat to the bee population. Things like genetically modified seeds and pesticides, if used in large amounts, can obviously have a huge effect on human health and the health of the overall environment. Think of the seemingly unending quilt of farmer's fields that cover much of North America that can be seen if you've ever taken a plane ride across the continent or played around with "Google Earth" That much of our environment being changed will have a massive effect on other flora and fauna, whether this effect is deemed "good" or "bad".

Before we use any GMO or pesticide in widespread usage they should be rigorously tested on a small scale or many, many years in order to know their affect on human and environmental health, both in the short and long terms. This entire industry should be very tightly regulated. These products are also used across the world including in poorer continents like Asia/Africa/South America where they can't be regulated as much, which is a concern. GMO's and pesticides need more greatly regulated within the WTO.

[G Huxley]

I don't usually agree with Putin, but this time he's right on.

[GostHacked]

That WWIII can be caused from a dispute or inability to resolve this problem.

WWWTT

Inability or no desire to fix the problem. CO2 will be the last of your worries if pollination of crops does not happen. But that could result in food shortages which will start wars.

[GostHacked]

Before we use any GMO or pesticide in widespread usage they should be rigorously tested on a small scale or many, many years in order to know their affect on human and environmental health, both in the short and long terms.

I completely agree, but that will not be the case, and with the Monsanto Protection Act, this company has the protection of the government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/04/monsanto-protection-act-gm

The key phrases are a mouthful of legal mumbo jumbo but are widely thought to have been added to the bill by the Missouri republican senator Roy Blunt who is Monsanto's chief recipient of political funds. For the record, they read:

"In the event that a determination of nonregulated status made pursuant to section 411 of Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the secretary of agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412c of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorise the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialisation and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimise potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the secretary's evaluation of the petition for nonregulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorised activities in a time manner …"

According to an array of food and consumer groups, organic farmers, civil liberty and trade unions and others, this hijacks the constitution, sets a legal precedent and puts Monsanto and other biotech companies above the federal courts. It means, they say, that not even the US government can now stop the sale, planting, harvest or distribution of any GM seed, even if it is linked to illness or environmental problems.

So they get more protection while continuing to hijack the agricultural industries.

This entire industry should be very tightly regulated. These products are also used across the world including in poorer continents like Asia/Africa/South America where they can't be regulated as much, which is a concern. GMO's and pesticides need more greatly regulated within the WTO.

I came across a test field last year when out with a friend. All new GMO strains and at least 3 of the 40 new GMO strains, were hybrids of two previous GMO strains. After reading into the PDFs on the strains (each one has a code which can be looked up and has their own PDF from Monsantos), I found some things I was shocked by.

Recall when the growth hormone was banned in Canada. This hormone made the cows produce more milk and more meat. This was stopped because it was making the cows sick, produced low quality milk and meat and even killing some livestock. Now they have managed to get a similar growth hormone into the cows by genetically modifying it into the feed (silage). So the cows are STILL getting growth hormones, just not directly injected into the cows anymore.

Also one of the bacteria they use in the silage is very similar to a bacteria that causes mad cow disease and meningitis in humans. But I am sure that is a good thing.

[WWWTT]

Inability or no desire to fix the problem. CO2 will be the last of your worries if pollination of crops does not happen. But that could result in food shortages which will start wars.

Inability or no desire to fix the problem. CO2 will be the last of your worries if pollination of crops does not happen. But that could result in food shortages which will start wars.

Yes I have to agree with you!

Bees are very important for our agricultural industy (the most important)!

I sincerely hope that that whatever happens,the best interest of the bee population around the world take precedence.

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

Yes I have to agree with you!

Bees are very important for our agricultural industy (the most important)!

I sincerely hope that that whatever happens,the best interest of the bee population around the world take precedence.

WWWTT

There are some crops that do not need pollination from bees, but the selection is quite small, and quite bland. Also I am quite respectful of bees. One came into my car the other day, could not make it's way out, so I end up scooping the little dude up and sending him on his way. Go pollinate stuff ya bastard!!

I keep saying Monsanto is one of the most evil corporations on the planet, and now people are starting to get it. With many of the pesticides genetically modified right into the crops over the past couple decades, it really does not surprise me that there is a serious issues with bees that pollinate. If the bees are affected like this, what happens to humans from consuming this stuff in the long run?

I've heard the argument for GMOs that they are needed to yield bigger crops. But that won't matter if you don't have bees to help out with the pollination. Monsanto will probably come out with GMO's that don't need pollination. But then that will guarantee the total collapse of bee colonies and will effect plant life in general. Bees pollinate more than just the crops we eat.

[WWWTT]

Here's another link that suggests that this may get a lot more ugly before resolved.

http://truththeory.com/2013/05/13/insanity-us-approves-bee-death-pesticide-as-eu-bans-it/

WWWTT

[eyeball]

Stupid bees, why don't they just adapt? I guess this is what they get for living in collectives.

a potential $200 billion in global damages per year

Is that $200 billion in natural capital or just real capital?

[TimG]

It is funny to watch the pathetic hypocrisy in action.

On CO2 we are lectured over and over again about the need to rely on science to make decisions.

But as soon as the science concludes something refutes their luddite views the enviros throw science out the window.

Here is was the USDA report says:

Independent studies have shown that bees are exposed to a wide range of pesticides.

Pesticides found in colonies range from those used to control pathogens or pests that

adversely affect honey bees, to commercial agricultural products. A survey of bees,

honey, and comb for the presence of 170 pesticides or pesticide residues performed in

2010 did not find any pattern of exposure that correlated with CCD incidents, which

would be expected if pesticides were a major factor in causing CCD. The pesticides

detected with the greatest frequency and in the largest quantities were those used by

beekeepers to control Varroa mites. Pesticide effects on bees continue to be a subject

area of intense research.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

But as soon as the science concludes something refutes their luddite views the enviros throw science out the window.

What?

[Hudson Jones]

TimG is angry at the other team again.

[TimG]

What?

Environmentalists care nothing for science - they first priority is their religion-like fear of industry and corporations. When the scientific consensus happens to align with their views they attack people who disagree for refusing to go along with the "consensus". When the "consensus" does not align with their views they will jump on whatever crackpot they can find and claim that scientists are stooges of big industry.

In this case, the I read the USDA report which the EPA based its ruling on. It appears there is no scientific support for the claimed effect on bee populations and the calls for bans are driven entirely by environmentalist fear mongering.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Environmentalists care nothing for science - they first priority is their religion-like fear of industry and corporations. When the scientific consensus happens to align with their views they attack people who disagree for refusing to go along with the "consensus". When the "consensus" does not align with their views they will jump on whatever crackpot they can find and claim that scientists are stooges of big industry.

In this case, the I read the USDA report which the EPA based its ruling on. It appears there is no scientific support for the claimed effect on bee populations and the calls for bans are driven entirely by environmentalist fear mongering.

Plenty of work and studies have been done to conclude just that. You think being a bee is being immune to insecticides/pesticides?

Pesticides are but ONE item among a few contributing to the bee population decline. The studies may not show the true cause(s) but they do show that there is a decline in bee colony populations.

[TimG]

Plenty of work and studies have been done to conclude just that.

Provide links to the abstracts of original studies please.

Pesticides are but ONE item among a few contributing to the bee population decline.

Yet you want to ban one of items

As far as I can tell this stuff is used because farmers want it because it increases the productivity of the their farms - not because some corporation wants to sell it. Given the fact that people benefit from the substance there has to be some evidence of a harmful effect. There does not appear to be anything conclusive.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Provide links to the abstracts of original studies please.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/honeybee.htm

http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572

http://science.time.com/2012/04/11/whats-the-buzz-study-links-pesticide-with-honeybee-collapse/

Do your own homework.

Yet you want to ban one of items

That is the item we can easily control that could have very positive effects on the bee colony. We ban items all the time because of let's say carcinogenic reasons. It's one item, but can make a huge difference.

Pesticides go into the environment and do not come out that easily. The life cycle is just that .. a cycle, a circle. The more pesticides we throw into the environment the more it will bio-accumulate and the more problems we face down the road, warranting different pesticides. The environment cannot filter all this stuff out and it goes back into the foods we eat.

Pesticides are not only bad for the bees, they are bad for humans as well. I would suspect other animals are affected by pesticides as well.

As far as I can tell this stuff is used because farmers want it because it increases the productivity of the their farms - not because some corporation wants to sell it. Given the fact that people benefit from the substance there is a burden of proof required to justify bans.

Well here is the thing. Look at it how the powers that be approach global warming or climate change. Any evidence showing the opposite of what they want to put forth is ridiculed and marginalized. Same thing I suspect is happening here. Corporations have a lot of power and can also influence entities like the EPA ect into slanting the rules in their favor.

It's the reason why Monsanto spend millions of dollars in California to push back on the proposition of labeling food that is GMO. Reputation and image to uphold. BUT if their stuff is really nothing to worry about and is beneficial they would openly welcome GMO labeling. And I don't buy the bit about cost being a factor for those companies who use the GMO ingredients in their foods. Companies spend a lot of money redesigning a package regularly. The contents don't change but the presentation always does.

It's not so much farmers anymore as it is corporate agribusiness. With a company like Monsanto which makes GMO seeds that are designed to withstand the pesticides that Monsanto creates ...... do you really think that is good for the insects that are beneficial to our well being?

[TimG]

Do your own homework.

The last link is the only one that references an actual study but this is once of the studies that uses high doses of the substance that have no connection to reality. High does of anything is usually toxic so this study does not tell us much.

That is the item we can easily control that could have very positive effects on the bee colony.

The study you provided suggests the pesticide only has effects if the colony is fed corn syrup from plants that was treated with the pesticide. It does not affect wild bees because they eat their own honey - not substitutes provided by a honey farmer. No one is forcing honey farmers to do this - they could find some other source of sugar which is not affected.

Bans require some evidence of harm. So far there appears to be nothing remotely conclusive so a ban is not justified.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

The study you provided suggests the pesticide only has effects if the colony is fed corn syrup from plants that was treated with the pesticide. It does not affect wild bees. No one is forcing honey farmers to do this - they could find some other source of sugar which is not affected.

You do realize that honey is a byproduct of pollinating crops .... right? Honey farmers lend their hives to other farmers so they get honey and the other guy gets his crop pollinated. Otherwise, no honey and a a dead crop.

Edited May 14, 2013 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

...The study you provided suggests the pesticide only has effects if the colony is fed corn syrup from plants that was treated with the pesticide. It does not affect wild bees because they eat their own honey - not substitutes provided by a honey farmer. No one is forcing honey farmers to do this - they could find some other source of sugar which is not affected.

Good point...wild bees and other insects are far more efficient at pollination than domesticated honeybees.

[TimG]

You do realize that honey is a byproduct of pollinating crops .... right? Honey farmers lend their hives to other farmers so they get honey and the other guy gets his crop pollinated. Otherwise, no honey and a a dead crop.

So? Honey created from these crops appears to be fine. The hypothetical problem identified in this study only occurs when honey is replaced with corn syrup because the farmers want to sell the honey. Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG