The Signal & the Noise: Neonics, Bees, and Us

KPF · January 29, 2016, 01:04:28 PM

A post on another thread got me to thinking. It's virtually impossible for a nonscientist to interpret the scientific data on neonics, for at least four reasons:
1. the concentration of neonic can be expressed in a million ways: parts per billion, nanogram per gram, nanogram per bee, mg/kg, and a myriad other ways. Tough to compare exposures across studies without a calculator and a mathematician.
2. bees can be exposed to neonic in a lot of ways. nectar, pollen, honey, wax
3. studies of lethal doses often focus on acute toxicity, which uses higher doses that would not be encountered in the field.
4. It's hard to do a a study that replicates natural foraging and quantifies neonic concentration in the source (plant).

So, the questions for you folks are:
1. does anyone have a good source that explains the unit conversions of neonic concentrations?
2. does anyone know how the level of neonic in plant nectar translates into exposure to the bee? For example, if a bee is foraging in a field that has nectar with imidacloprid at 80 PPB, how much neonic gets deposited in hive? (I assume the same, but who knows. Once deposited I suspect this concentration would rise as the nectar is evaporated into honey.)
3. does anyone know of studies that replicate natural foraging conditions and measure neonic concentrations in hives?

That's enough to chew on for now. Actually, for a year or two.

Acebird · January 29, 2016, 02:13:34 PM

Once a chemical comes outside the laboratory it gets much more difficult to measure and predict. You have half life of the chemical reducing it's effectiveness on one side and then you have increased usage building up exposure on the other side. When GMO first hit the market is was low impact. As more and more agriculture begins to rely on GMO it becomes a much greater impact.

Dallasbeek · January 29, 2016, 03:02:36 PM

Acebird, you might want to expand on your comments about GMO. GMO plants that are designed to be toxic to insects are not the same as a genetically modified tomato that's designed to have a longer shelf life without spoilage, for example (one particular tomato was withdrawn because it lacked flavor, not because it was noxious; it lasted almost indefinitely, but nobody would eat it -- just an example of a GMO plant that poses no threat to anything)

Dallasbeek · January 29, 2016, 03:09:55 PM

BTW, I recieved an email from Randy Oliver today in which he discusses a lawsuit filed by beekeeper Jeff Anderson and others against the EPA because rules for planting neonic-treated seeds allow planting closer to bees than other regulations for pesticides, without taking into account the effect of the dust from the seeds. (The email is from his website, Scientific Beekeeping, not a personal email to me, actually.)

Acebird · January 29, 2016, 04:20:07 PM

Quote from: Dallasbeek on January 29, 2016, 03:02:36 PM
just an example of a GMO plant that poses no threat to anything)

I wasn't aware that GMO was use for anything other than pesticide use. Not that I would eat anything GMO regardless of it's purpose. If something doesn't spoil wouldn't have some form of antibacterial agent within?

Dallasbeek · January 29, 2016, 05:16:05 PM

No, I think they used genes from something that had a long shelf-life is all. That tomato could be picked ripe, sent to market and stay firm and nice looking for a couple of weeks. It just had so little flavor that nobody wanted it. This was sometime in the mid-90s, I think, and as a Dallas County Master Gardener, Texas A&M gave us all seeds to try. The tomatoes looked nice, but the experiment was a failure.

Actually, a lot of the fruits and vegetables you eat have been genetically modified. So far, they don't have to tell you. When you get right down to it, most foods are genetically modified. It's just a matter of how it's done. I'm sure what has you and most anti-GMO people upset is gene-splicing, but anytime you cross one variety with another, it's genetically modifying the resulting "offspring."

Even selective breeding is a form of genetic modification.

I read yesterday that scientists somewhere had spliced genes for Alzheimer's disease into macaque monkeys so they could study the disease in brains closer to those of humans than the lab rats that have been in use. A lot of people think that's unethical because it exploits an animal species, but the purpose is to benefit humans. That's a form of genetic modification. What do you think about it -- good, bad, evil, neutral? I think it's a big improvement over some of the research practices of the past, but I haven't got the viewpoint of people who belong to PETA. It does kind of give me a slightly uneasy feeling.

Eugene Willson · January 29, 2016, 05:57:14 PM

Hi all,

We (humans) have been modifying plants and animals since we started eating meat and growing plants for food, The problem comes from not being able to see all of the repercussions that our manipulations cause. As far as it goes we are pretty fallible and usually do not see past the end of our nose. LOL Would you also have to know what percentage of the hive was visiting the pesticide contaminated area?
Gene

Acebird · January 29, 2016, 07:46:48 PM

Quote from: Dallasbeek on January 29, 2016, 05:16:05 PM
Even selective breeding is a form of genetic modification.

I don't see that as the same. One is working with nature to affect a desired outcome. The other is working against nature to make money and could give a rats ass what any other outcome prevails.

mtnb · January 29, 2016, 09:35:59 PM

Dallasbeek, you can get a pretty good idea of what you're getting when you're buying fruits and veggies.

http://www.drfranklipman.com/what-do-those-codes-on-stickers-of-fruits-and-some-veggies-mean/

Dallasbeek · January 29, 2016, 10:28:00 PM

Quote from: MT Bee Girl on January 29, 2016, 09:35:59 PM
Dallasbeek, you can get a pretty good idea of what you're getting when you're buying fruits and veggies.

http://www.drfranklipman.com/what-do-those-codes-on-stickers-of-fruits-and-some-veggies-mean/

Thanks, MT Bee Girl, I knew the organic code, but not the other.

BeeMaster2 · January 30, 2016, 05:06:23 AM

That is good to know MT Bee.
Thanks
Jim

little john · January 30, 2016, 06:35:25 AM

Quote from: Acebird on January 29, 2016, 04:20:07 PM
Quote from: Dallasbeek on January 29, 2016, 03:02:36 PM
just an example of a GMO plant that poses no threat to anything)
I wasn't aware that GMO was use for anything other than pesticide use. Not that I would eat anything GMO regardless of it's purpose. If something doesn't spoil wouldn't have some form of antibacterial agent within?

Frequently - but not always ...
A good example is the 'Blue Tomato' (we say "tom-art-oo", you say "tom-ate-oo" ...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_tomato - examples of which have been produced by both GM and natural breeding methods, the purpose of which is to increase the levels of anthocyanin in the fruits.

Can't say they look all that appealing ...
LJ

KPF · February 01, 2016, 07:37:43 AM

I think one of the challenges is understanding the science. I don't trust any chemical company as far as I can throw them, but I do want to have an accurate assessment of risk, for this very important reason: if it's a real problem, I will pay attention to it. If it's not a problem, I'll focus my limited attention elsewhere. My personal mission is to tame the confusion of the science around this issue and really get a good handle on how exposure is measured and the effects of various concentrations of neonic. So far, it's a tough road, mainly because lots of different units of measure are used and it's tough to interpret absolute exposure across studies. Add to that the fact you have to have some understanding of the design of exposure studies to interpret them accurately, and it makes your head spin.

My guess is it's all about dose response. We are all exposed to minute levels of toxins every day, but we survive. If we get exposed too much, we get sick or die. Exposure is a funny thing. If I'm just exposed to one chemical, I can sustain higher dose. If I get exposed to lots of chemicals at once, I can't. There are lots of variables to this question, but I think gaining some common language among beeks about neonics and the science behind it would be really beneficial.

GSF · February 01, 2016, 09:31:44 PM

Little John, I'm from down south, we say toomateter.

Dallasbeek · February 01, 2016, 09:58:54 PM

You mean like maters and taters?

GSF · February 02, 2016, 06:24:23 AM

Yep Dallas, I'm from Alabamer, which is next to Georger and Florider.

splitrock · February 02, 2016, 06:42:04 AM

"Actually, a lot of the fruits and vegetables you eat have been genetically modified. So far, they don't have to tell you. When you get right down to it, most foods are genetically modified. It's just a matter of how it's done. I'm sure what has you and most anti-GMO people upset is gene-splicing, but anytime you cross one variety with another, it's genetically modifying the resulting "offspring.".

Gene splicing varieties of the same species MAY be in bounds,,,, but splicing the genes of different animal life with plant life has crossed a line for sure.

Our bodies, as were all creatures, were designed to run on things the way God made them, not the way we want them, imho.

KPF · February 02, 2016, 11:44:52 AM

Quote from: splitrock on February 02, 2016, 06:42:04 AM
"Actually, a lot of the fruits and vegetables you eat have been genetically modified. So far, they don't have to tell you. When you get right down to it, most foods are genetically modified. It's just a matter of how it's done. I'm sure what has you and most anti-GMO people upset is gene-splicing, but anytime you cross one variety with another, it's genetically modifying the resulting "offspring.".

Gene splicing varieties of the same species MAY be in bounds,,,, but splicing the genes of different animal life with plant life has crossed a line for sure.

Our bodies, as were all creatures, were designed to run on things the way God made them, not the way we want them, imho.

Another area in which specificity is key. Some GMOs use micro RNAs that may be transmittable from food to humans. Much different than gene splicing. I don't pretend to know the details but I personally am suspicious. Another personal mission of mine is to figure this stuff out. The devil is in the details. Genetics and epigenetics are complex systems, and changing one variable could have unintended effects. Splicing in a gene to make tomatoes redder probably could be trivial. Or not. I don't know. But I aim to find out.

Dallasbeek · February 02, 2016, 12:18:44 PM

[quote author=KPF link=topic=47934.msg415913#msg415913

Another area in which specificity is key. Some GMOs use micro RNAs that may be transmittable from food to humans. Much different than gene splicing. I don't pretend to know the details but I personally am suspicious. Another personal mission of mine is to figure this stuff out. The devil is in the details. Genetics and epigenetics are complex systems, and changing one variable could have unintended effects. Splicing in a gene to make tomatoes redder probably could be trivial. Or not. I don't know. But I aim to find out.
[/quote]

Good luck on your studies. I hope you'll inform us of your findings.