Are GM Crops Killing Bees?

[OKthatsIT]

Source: SPIEGEL Magazine

Are GM Crops Killing Bees?
By Gunther Latsch

A mysterious decimation of bee populations has German beekeepers worried, while a similar phenomenon in the United States is gradually assuming catastrophic proportions. The consequences for agriculture and the economy could be enormous.

Walter Haefeker is a man who is used to painting grim scenarios. He sits on the board of directors of the German Beekeepers Association (DBIB) and is vice president of the European Professional Beekeepers Association. And because griping is part of a lobbyist's trade, it is practically his professional duty to warn that "the very existence of beekeeping is at stake."

The problem, says Haefeker, has a number of causes, one being the varroa mite, introduced from Asia, and another is the widespread practice in agriculture of spraying wildflowers with herbicides and practicing monoculture. Another possible cause, according to Haefeker, is the controversial and growing use of genetic engineering in agriculture.

As far back as 2005, Haefeker ended an article he contributed to the journal Der Kritischer Agrarbericht (Critical Agricultural Report) with an Albert Einstein quote: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."



Read more: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473166,00.html

---

Is Monsanto killing off the competition, 'culling the masses' OR just plain STUPID?

All pollinators are being effected, not just honey bees. All species of Bees, wasps, hornets, even hummingbirds.

GOOD GOD!!!

[Buzz Clik]

1. Are excessive posts about GM crops killing bees?

There is no evidence to suggest that GM crops are killing bees. ZERO.

But don't let that get in your way -- be sure to cut-and-paste the latest round of bullshit from your favorite website supporting your baseless notions.

[Mojorabbit]

42. The number of studies

looking to see if they do, too few that I have found.
My bees have an infestation of mites that I have to treat this weekend.

[SpiralHawk]

72. Don't want no mutant GM crapola foods

Stuff them back in test tube and send them to Uranus -- where they belong.

Not fit for human consumption.

Not fit for planet earth.

Give us human beings real food -- clean food.

Not mutant GM crapola deviant degenerate consummable product rations.

[DemBones DemBones]

80. Monsanto employee? nt

[merwin]

2. Are people not obeying LBN posting rules killing bees?

[JackRiddler]

52. Every time you criticize a Clinton, you kill a bee.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. As a Honey lover , last week it went from a product I took for granite

and now it's gone.Three places I passed one day were closed the next.

[Maru Kitteh]

35. I took a honey for granite once,

Imagine my embarrasment when I discoverd she was a quartz.

[hootinholler]

40. Quit casting aspargus! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. .

:spray: :evilgrin: :spank:

[mike_c]

4. are little green men flying out of your butt killing off the bees...?

That is an equally speculative question, with an equal amount of supporting evidence.

[villager]

5. I guess a lot of people in this thread have Monsanto stock! Thought these paragraphs were startling

The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.

According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know."...



Thanks for posting...

[mike_c]

6. note that bees do not collect corn pollen....

Corn is wind pollinated, and I presume the "parasites" cited in the study were probably verroa mites. Verroa mites infest the tracheal system, not the intestines. They are a defacto exoparasite since there is cuticle and epidermis between them and the body fluids. They do not invade the body cavity.

It's just as likely that force feeding bee colonies on corn pollen-- not a normal foodstuff whether Bt transformed or not-- altered their resistance to parasitism all by itself. The article does not provide any clue about whether the control colonies were similarly fed large amounts of untransformed corn pollen or whether they were fed a normal bee diet of mixed flower pollen.

I don't have any love for Monsanto-- I'm an insect ecologist with an aversion to bad science and unreasoned fear of biological technology.

[Jcrowley]

11. The monkey's paw

It turns out that the damage done to DNA due to the process of creating a genetically modified organism is far more extensive than previously thought. GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene.

Government and Science: A Dangerous Liaison?
By William N. Butos
Thomas J. McQuade

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=598

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Approval_of_GM_Crops_Illegal.php

The myths of industrial agriculture share one underlying and interwoven concept-they demand that we accept that technology always equals progress. This blind belief has often shielded us from the consequences of many farming technologies. Now, however, many are asking the logical questions of technology: A given technology may be progress, but progress toward what? What future will that technology bring us? We see that pesticide technology is bringing us a future of cancer epidemics, toxic water and air, and the widespread destruction of biodiversity. We see that nuclear technology, made part of our food through irradiation, is bringing us a future of undisposable nuclear waste, massive clean-up expenses, and again multiple threats to human and environmental health. As a growing portion of society realizes that pesticides, fertilizers, monoculturing, and factory farming are little more than a fatal harvest, even the major agribusiness corporations are starting to admit that some problems exist. Their solution to the damage caused by the previous generation of agricultural technologies is-you guessed it-more technology. “Better” technology, biotechnology, a technology that will fix the problems caused by chemically intensive agriculture. In short, the mythmakers are back at work. But looking past the rhetoric, a careful examination of the new claims about genetic engineering reveals that instead of solving the problems of modern agriculture, biotechnology only makes them worse.

http://mulliganstew.wordpress.com/tag/fatal-harvest/

[TheWraith]

16. That article is so wrong in many ways.

It's quite clear that it was either written by someone who has no clue what the hell they're talking about, or who simply has no regard whatsoever for the truth. One example will have to suffice, since I don't have the time to take it apart piece by piece: food irradiation has NOTHING to do with nuclear waste, period, any more than a chest x-ray causes nuclear waste. It's simply a bullshit comparison to deliberately provoke fear and paranoia.

[Jcrowley]

27. Oh

Irradiated fruits and vegetables benefit the packer and grocer, not the farmer or consumer. The consumer receives an inferior product that appears fresh, but has depleted vitamins and enzymes.

Gamma rays with specific energies normally come from the spontaneous disintegration of radionuclides. Naturally occurring and man-made radionuclides, also called radioactive isotopes or radioisotopes, are unstable, and emit radiation as they spontaneously disintegrate, or decay, to a stable state. The radionuclide used almost always for the irradiation of food by gamma rays is cobalt-60. It is produced by neutron bombardment in a nuclear reactor of the metal cobalt-59, then doubly encapsulated in stainless steel “pencils” to prevent any leakage during its use in a radiation plant. Cobalt-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years. This technology has been used routinely for more than thirty years to sterilize medical, dental and household products, and it is also used for radiation treatment of cancer. Radioactive substances emit gamma rays all the time. When not in use, the gamma ray “source” is stored in a pool of water which absorbs the radiation harmlessly and completely. To irradiate food or some other product, the source is pulled out of the water into a chamber with massive concrete walls that keep any rays from escaping. Medical products or foods to be irradiated are brought into the chamber, and are exposed to the rays for a defined period of time. After it is used, the source is returned to the water tank.


Only certain radiation sources can be used in food irradiation. These are the radionuclides cobalt-60 or cesium-137 (used very rarely); X-ray machines having a maximum energy of five million electron volts (MeV); or electron machines having a maximum energy of 10 MeV. Energies from these radiation sources are too low to induce radioactivity in any material, including food.

Radiation dose is the quantity of radiation energy absorbed by the food as it passes through the radiation field during processing. It is measured in Gray (Gy) or in rad (1 Gy = 100 rads). International health and safety authorities have endorsed the safety of irradiation for all foods up to a dose level of 10,000 Gy (10 kGy).

http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu/Process.html

How Irradiation Works

Food is irradiated using radioactive gamma ray sources, usually radioactive cobalt-60 or .cesium-137, or high-energy electron beams. After packaging and being put into large metal boxes, the foods are placed on conveyor belts that move past the radiation sources. The materials are hit with the equivalent of 30 million X-rays, (according to the Spring 1998 Food & Water journal). The industry

now uses cobalt-60 supplied by the Canadian company Nordion International, Inc. But the only isotope available in sufficient quantities for large-scale irradiation is cesium-137. When not in use the cobalt or cesium is lowered into cooling ponds.

In the process, which takes about 20 to 30 minutes, the gamma radiation passes through the food, killing all bacteria (helpful as well as harmful) and slowing decay but not leaving the food radioactive.

Irradiators are used on the meats at the end of the production line, after it is already sealed in packages. This is particularly important in ground beef, where bacteria can easily get beneath the surface during grinding. However the industry is lobbying for approval of irradiating unpackaged meats as well.

Cesium-137 is radioactive waste left in huge quantities from nuclear weapons production at Hanford in Washington State and Savannah River, South Carolina. A by-product of nuclear reactor operation, cesium-137 is an extremely hazardous isotope that is deadly for 600 years. It is watersoluble, which makes it terribly dangerous in the event of an accident. As radioactive waste, it is extremely expensive to store and keep out of the biosphere.

http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Irradiated-Food-Nuc-Weapon.htm

Collaborators in the food irradiation field, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, among others, tell us that food irradiation is just another way of preserving food to make it safe and wholesome - like pasteurisation, canning or freezing.Nothing could be further from the truth.You can pasteurise milk on your kitchen stove using a saucepan; heating, canning or freezing do result in some loss of nutrients, but cannot be compared to irradiation.

Exposure of food to specified Standards of irradiation smashes apart its chemical bonds, sending electrons flying. Scientific studies have shown the following results:
Increased chromosomal damage in animals and human; Increased frequency of cell mutations; Formation of mutant bacteria;
Increased frequency of tumours, reduced survival rate, and other health problems in animals; Increased carcinogens and other toxins in food, such as: Benzene, Formaldehyde, Octane, Butane, and Methyl Propane. (Benzene and formaldehyde are classified carcinogens); Formation of new and potentially dangerous compounds in foods called Unique Radiolytic Products, which have yet to be enumerated and identified. The higher the dose of radiation, the greater the number of U.R.P.s formed. One of these, 2-DCB, has recently been proven to cause cellular and genetic damage in human and rat cells; and FI causes the formation of free radicals.
Vitamin content is reduced by up to 96% depending upon the food item and other factors. Vitamins affected are A, B, C, E and K. Also, amino acids and polyunsaturated fats can be depleted. *

http://foodirradiationinfo.org/faq.html

[Jcrowley]

13. The question is valid

Report of Gene Transfer from GE Rapeseed
to Bacteria and Fungi in Bees
BEATRIX TAPPESER

The German Television station ZDF reported on Sunday May 21, 2000 that a German researcher found a gene transfer from genetically engineered rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in the gut of honey bees. Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the Institut f?r Bienenkunde (Institute for bee research) at the University of Jena experimented during the last three years with honey-bees on an experimental field with transgenic rapeseed in Saxony, Germany.

106. The field trial was performed by AgrEvo, the rapeseed was engineered to resist the herbicide glufosinate (Liberty, Basta). Prof. Kaatz built nets in the field with the transgenic rapeseed and let the bees fly freely Within the net. At the beehives, he installed pollen traps in order to sample the pollen loads from the bees' hindlegs when entering the hive. This pollen was fed to young honey bees in the laboratory. (Pollen is the natural diet of young bees which need a high protein diet). Then Prof. Kaatz took the intestine out of the young bees and spread the contents on growth medium to grow the micro-organisms. He probed the micro-organisms for the pat-gene, the gene that confers resistance to glufosinate. In some bacteria and also in a yeast he found the pat-gene. This indicates that the gene from the genetically engineered rapeseed was transferred in the bee's gut to the microbes.

107. Dr Beatrix Tappeser of the Oeko Institute in Freiburg, Germany who commented on this latest finding on risk research in Germany on German television, said later that Professor Kaatz had submitted his research to the science journal, Nature, but they had refused to accept it. - Dr. Beatrix Tappeser,
Institute for Applied Ecology,
Postfach 6226,
D-79038 Freiburg.

http://www.pirm.org.nz/submissions/gm2000.html

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."
- Albert Einstein

[rodeodance]

15. I have read several articles last few years about this issue. Genetic crops

are but one of many 'causes' being put forward.

I am glad to see more research being done on this problem.

[Jcrowley]

17. I agree

There are a host of factors involved all of which may fall under the larger umbrella of industrial agriculture. GMO's are one these factors. Destruction of wildflowers is another. Any number of end results that come from monocropping. And so on...

[oblivious]

26. But read the last paragraph of the article.

Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research," says the professor, "and those who are interested don't have the money."

[oblivious]

19. This beekeeper says bees forage heavily on corn flowers to obtain pollen for their hives.

Bees forage heavily on corn flowers to obtain pollen for the rearing of young broods, and these pollen grains also contain the Bt gene of the parent plant, because they are present in the cells from which pollen forms.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/10/HOG5FOH9VQ1.DTL

[mike_c]

28. yes, a couple of points to clarify....

Bees will forage on corn pollen when other sources are unavailable. The problems are that corn pollen is not very nutritious and that corn flowers don't offer any nectar, which the adult foragers need as an energy source during the day. But corn pollen is a low quality resource and bees do not rely on it if there are other resources available.

Since corn is wind pollinated, if bee colonies are maintained it is ALWAYS for other pollen resources (for which they are required as pollinators). Bee colonies cannot be maintained for any length of time on corn pollen.

I think the article you linked is a bit misinformed on a couple of counts. First, the article speaks of Bt also affecting coleopterans and dipterans, but fails to note that there are many specific strains of Bt, some of which do affect those orders, but NOT through broad, non-specific action. Individual Bt strains are quite specific.

Second, as I said, bees do not normally forage on corn pollen as a primary resource.

Third, the article speculates about whether Bt might be a "slow killer" affecting the immune system. As far as I'm aware, 40 years of research in Bt toxicity has not shown any such mechanisms. I'm not even certain whether Bt toxins could be activated in bee digestive tracts, since they require the acidic conditions of lepidopteran guts and since bees fed Bt corn pollen show no induced leakiness of the midgut epithelium.

[oblivious]

30. Thank you for your informative reply.

[druidity33]

45. sheep in Australia dying off

after feeding on the remnants of Bt cotton. A GM Monsanto product if i'm not mistaken. Oh and proof will be hard to come by SINCE EVERYTHING THEY CREATE IS "PROPRIETARY" KNOWLEDGE. I really wish the "prove that it was GM crops that did it" crowd would understand that there aren't too many ways to test whether this stuff is affecting living things at a cellular level. This stuff is BAD, BAD, BAD, for the planet. Period.

Do bees feed on Canola flower? Because Canola is now a "super weed" in some places. GM crops have contaminated most of Canada's supply and steadily eroding the US's.

If we were just talking about selective breeding and hybrid plants, i would have no problem with it. But the only folk who've studied this stuff is the ROTTEN company that makes it! Do you really think they'd care whos livelihood they destroy?

[mike_c]

49. do bees gather pollen from canola?

oh yes.

[TheWraith]

21. Nice strawman.

It's bad enough that so many people push these paranoid screeds using bad science to back up bad arguments, but it's just plain insulting when these same people insist that the only way you could disagree with the bad science and paranoia is if you're a paid disinformant or something equally ridiculous.

[NashVegas]

31. What Is Insulting

Is the way GM proponents refuse to even consider the possibility that their love object may be capable of wreaking havoc.

[mike_c]

32. I am rather neutral on the GM issue for the most part....

I'd be the first to admit that genetic engineering is "capable of wreaking havoc." One could make a common foodstuff poisonous, for example, or make an innocuous pathogen virulent.

But setting aside such acts of deliberate craziness, many opponents of genetic modification seem to fear the technology itself rather than what it's used for. That's a knee jerk reaction. It often reflects ignorance. (on edit-- Crowley, BTW, is not ignorant at all-- we disagree on this issue, but those disagreements are largely due to differing interpretations of the available information, about which JC is VERY well informed!)

My students do routine bacterial transformations in first year college biology. It's not unusual to hear comments like "that's all genetic modification is? I thought it was super dangerous." Of course it IS super-dangerous if you deliberately mis-use it-- the hammer in my toolbox is super dangerous in the wrong hands.

Still, there is nothing implicitly scary about hammers, nor is there about genetic modification.

For example, what do you think about churning human insulin out with GMO bacteria instead of harvesting pig pancreases? Most diabetics I know are perfectly fine with the idea. There are lots of similar examples.

[Jcrowley]

36. There is absolutely no reason

for GMO crops. They are inherently dangerous and serve no purpose whatsoever.

Noone has ever answered what seems to be the obvious question, "What problem are GMO's suppose to solve?" Even under the faulty premises of GMO proponents this question has never been answered. And the reason is also obvious, GMO crops solve nothing and are in fact an extension of the problem.

I do not fear the technology nor have any knee-jerk reactions to it. I have studied this in detail for over a decade. I am also not ignorant of biotechnology nor am I ignorant of the true nature of a sane and abundant agriculture.

your analogy between the hammer and biotechnology is odious and the same nonsense that is found in Monsanto brochures. I've read those too I am not exaggerating.

Mankind has had many bad ideas such as nuclear energy/waste/weapons and biotechnology ranks right up there as one of the worst.

Have you seen how much energy and how much waste goes into the R&D for GMO crops? Have you seen the rate of failure? It's mind boggling.

[mike_c]

38. you might have read my comments before I added the edit...

...which of course was added specifically with you in mind. I know very well that you are neither ignorant nor misinformed. You know the literature on this topic far better than I do.

You pose an interesting question: What problem is GM supposed to solve. It's a bit of a strawman, I think, and at the same time a good question.

The real problem with answering it is that there isn't any single answer. GM solutions address lots of problems, but rarely in any uniform way that offers a single compelling reason for using the technology. In the case I cited above, diabetics from semitic societies complained for years about the need to use insulin from pigs, harvesting it was messy and limited by the meat packing industry, and GMO bacteria allows the production of large amounts of human insulin readily and easily.

In the case of Bt transformed corn, the "problem" is both obvious and not so obvious. The obvious part is that it allows MUCH easier use of one of the pesticides of last resort-- Bt is difficult to apply effectively AND inexpensively-- and farmers generally like that, as well as its efficacy in reducing loss of yield. The less obvious part of the problem is that modern cropping procedures-- and past pest management mistakes-- exacerbate the problems facing conventional growers independently of the question of GMO crops.

Many GMO crops fall into this category-- solutions for problems that are mainly problems because they're either poorly understood or because of willful mismanagement, often for economic reasons. Still, GMO crops are an attempt to address those problems. The sorts of fundamental changes needed to make the problems go away are unlikely to happen, IMO, because too many economic interests are at stake.

[Jcrowley]

44. Wrong questions wrong answers

I am only speaking of GM crops. The other Biotech applications I am very skeptical of but do not have sufficient years of study to address. So I will go back to your example about Bt corn which gets to the larger presumption that underlies the mistaken notion that GMO crops have any use whatsoever.

In the case of Bt transformed corn, the "problem" is both obvious and not so obvious. The obvious part is that it allows MUCH easier use of one of the pesticides of last resort-- Bt is difficult to apply effectively AND inexpensively-- and farmers generally like that, as well as its efficacy in reducing loss of yield. The less obvious part of the problem is that modern cropping procedures-- and past pest management mistakes-- exacerbate the problems facing conventional growers independently of the question of GMO crops.

Let's examine your above paragraph. The problem with this is that the problem that is supposed to be solved by GMO's isn't a problem at all it is a symptom. This matters. It matters a great deal. The pests that are problematic for corn are not the problem when you take care of your soil and when you avoid monocropping.

The problem is that the perfect environment for pests has been created by monocropped corn. Eliminate that and there is no problem. As long as GMO's are considered the real causes are left ignored. And that is precisely what the corporations that control the food supply, who not coincidentally promote and control GMO research and PR, want to see happen.

I am not speaking out of my ass here I have years of first hand experience on this. GMO's are a "techno-fix" to a problem that only exists when you are engaged in industrial agriculture. Trying to solve a problem by using the same principles that created the problem is like bathing your infection in muddy water.

In solidarity.

[gravity]

48. "What problem are GMO's suppose to solve?"

World hunger

[Jcrowley]

53. Oh

Tell me how.

Even Monsanto doesn't recite that crap any longer.

Again please tell us how and be specfic.

[druidity33]

58. really?

Well it would help then if eating the stuff was safe... i remember they recalled some corn flakes a year or so back because it was contaminated with GM corn.

Teaching sustainable development/agriculture will solve world hunger, not monocropping superweeds.

[gravity]

65. The food was recalled because it wasn't adequately tested

Not because it was dangerous. The corn was approved for animal consumption, but hadn't completed the testing for human consumption yet. It got mixed in with corn intended for human consumption so it was recalled, which is what the regulation agencies suppose to do in this situation.

[bettyellen]

63. by forcing small farmers to BUY SEEDS EVERY YEAR? instead of saving some from

last years crop,which is how they have done it forever?
even GM doen;t ppretend to be saving the world anymore. i remember them trying to DUMP UNWANTED ORANGE RICE somewher in asia (as a tax writeoff- becasuse ty're sucj good citizens). No one wanted their rice. Doh!

[gravity]

64. Thats a whole lot of misinformation

First, golden rice has never been released because it hasn't completed the years of safety tests yet to ensure that it is safe for human consumption.

It's easy to say that developing nations don't want the seeds, when you take proper nutrition for granite. Maybe if millions of Americans went blind, they would change their attitude about

Terminator seeds don't exists on the market, so they aren't forcing farmers to buy new seeds each year. They are still non GM seeds in the market which farmers can choose if they want like always. GM foods are just another option for farmers to choose what's best for them. Golden rice is actually going to be free in developing nations for small farmers.

[Jcrowley]

86. "Golden" rice is a hoax

Total BS.

Do the research.

"Golden Rice": A technology for creating Vitamin A deficiency.


<snip>

As remarked by Mary Lou Guerinot, the author of the Commentary on Vitamin A rice in Science, one
can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard
to short term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability. Unfortunately, Vitamin A rice is a hoax, and will bring further dispute to plant genetic engineering where public relations exercises seem to have replaced science in promotion of untested, unproven and unnecessary technology.

The problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD). It will seriously
aggravate it. It is a technology that fails in its promise.

Currently, it is not even known how much vitamin JA the genetically engineered rice will produce. The
goal is 33.3% micrograms/100g of rice. Even if this goal is reached after a few years, it will be totally
ineffective in removing VAD.

Since the daily average requirement of vitamin A is 750 micrograms of vitamin A and 1 serving contains
30g of rice according to dry weight basis, vitamin A rice would only provide 9.9 micrograms which is
1.32% of the required allowance. Even taking the 100g figure of daily consumption of rice used in the
technology transfer paper would only provide 4.4% of the RDA.

In order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult would have to
consume 2 kg 272g of rice per day. This implies that one family member would consume the entire
family ration of 10 kg. from the PDS in 4 days to meet vitaminA needs through "Golden rice".

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

And still you have not mentioned with details how GMO's are going to feed the world. Please. Even the PR people for the various GMO companies have back-pedaled on this cynical lie.

[gravity]

88. Well GMO's haven't fed the world yet

Past agriculture efforts have greatly increased crop yields around the world especially in developing nations, allowing the planet to support its current population levels. Biotechnology is just an evolution of the green revolution.

I really hate all the misinformation from groups like Greenpeace, which promotes policies which will result in millions of people starving and suffering from malnutrition. It's easy criticize GM food when you take adequete food and nutrition for granite. Listen what Norman Borlaug says about it, someone whose efforts are responsible from saving billions of people from starvation the last half century.

Agricultural biotechnology is essential in developing nations.

ActionBioscience.org: What do you say to those who oppose the use of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries?

Borlaug: Biotechnology will help these countries accomplish things that they could never do with conventional plant breeding. The technology is more precise and farming becomes less time consuming. The public needs to be better informed about the importance of biotechnology in food production so it won't be so critical.

You have to recognize food habits and it's difficult to change food habits. You have to start with the crops that are the most basic to the country and apply technology to it so you can double or triple the yield. You begin by planting in select test plots to demonstrate to farmers the potential of the new crop. You can bring seed to them easier than fertilizer. In places where fertilizer is available, many farmers don't have the money to buy it anyway. Farmers who see success in their test plots will be able to help change governmental policy and public attitude towards biotechnology.

There is a big potential for biotech in Africa. For example, Roundup Ready® crops. The gene for herbicide tolerance is built into the crops. These kinds of biotech crops promote good farming methods. For example, traditional African farms are plagued with razor-sharp grasses and so the farmers slash and burn. Herbicide-resistant crops can eliminate these grasses.

While biotechnology holds much promise in food production, we cannot ignore conventional plant breeding methods since these methods continue to be important. In the last century, conventional breeding produced higher yields and will continue to do so in this century.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/borlaug.html

[NickB79]

70. Farmers were effectively forced to buy seed every year before GM

Most farmers rely almost entirely on hybrid seed strains to obtain the highest yields per acre. They've been doing this for decades now. My grandfather used hybrid corn in the 60's, and my dad and his brothers all farmed with hybrid corn in the 70's and 80's. They all buy new seed every year for one reason: hybrids don't breed true from seed. The offspring of hybrid crops are very different from the parents in appearance and traits. Assume you grow a crop of non-GM hybrid corn. It is all uniform, same height, same number of cobs per plant, same insect resistance, etc. Now, save some of those seeds and plant them the next year. Your field will be a mismash of corn plants differing in height, yield and insect resistance. Any farmer who attempts to save seed from hybrids will quickly be out of business as his crop yields plummet.

The only crop, as far as I can recall, that my dad has ever saved seed to replant was oats, and that was years ago. He would have me do germination tests in the basement in early spring, planting several hundred seeds and carefully documenting what the percentage germination rate was. Less than 90% and he'd just buy new seed anyway.

[druidity33]

82. propogation is getting more popular...

With the advent of seedsaving groups, and heirloom vegetables taking off. Unfortunately Small Farms are difficult to keep running (forget profitable)... and monoculture is why these GM seeds are prevalent. But It doesn't have to be this way...

it's partly because people expect their vegetables and fruit to be huge and blemish free, looking perfect in every way. I forage for food sometimes, and i'm lucky there's woods and fields enough near me that i can do that. (black raspberries, blackberries, black walnut, wild strawberry, etc) Otherwise, i buy at the Farmers Market and am a CSA member. Next year i will start my first garden.

I may buy some hybrid seeds, not sure...

But i'm not growing for Market... and YIELD is hugely important to farmers who need to live.

so i can understand why things are the way they are...

[DemBones DemBones]

85. But farmers are allowed to save seed from non-GM crops,

which is either forbidden with GM plants, or the plants are modified so they don't produce seed.

The farmers in your family have decided, after trials, not to save seed but they could legally do so.

Some farmers, probably only organic farmers, use non-hybrid seeds and save seeds. Organic crops sell for higher prices in a nice market, which offsets their lower yields.

Hybrid seeds are cheaper than GM seeds and plants. And some GM plants are designed to require more use of herbicides to which the patented plant is resistant, meaning the farmer must buy the herbicide. Plants grown from hybrid seeds may require less herbicide, and the farmer can choose which brand to use, based on cost to him.

Most disturbing to American farmers, I'd think, is the possibility that the US will follow the precedent set in Canada that holds farmers have stolen patented plants if patented plants from a neighbor's field stray into your field. I'd be very angry if the government confiscated all the plants in my garden and my saved seeds and fined me because a neighbor's plants had spread into my garden. (Actually, if I could get the government to come weed my garden, it might not be a bad deal, as long as they left my peonies and hellebores.)


Seriously, it's important to consider that farmers in third world countries do save seed. IIRC, that's one reason why African countries did not want to accept GM seeds from the US, the other being that European countries wouldn't buy GM crops grown in Africa or anywhere else. In any case, subsistence farmers should not be encouraged to give up their old ways if the old ways are working for them.

[gravity]

87. I agree with that point

"In any case, subsistence farmers should not be encouraged to give up their old ways if the old ways are working for them."

There is a proposed humanitarian licenses for Golden Rice in the future that would help in this area a lot, especially for small farmers. I think there should be greater effort to have similar licenses for other patented crops too.

Golden Rice will be made freely available in a humanitarian project.

"Golden Rice will be made available to developing countries in the framework of a "Humanitarian Golden Rice Project". This was from the beginning a public research project, designed to reduce malnutrition in developing countries. Thanks to strong support from the private sector and donations of "free licences for humanitarian use" for intellectual property rights involved in the basic technology, the hurdle of extended IPR linked to the technology used in the scientific project could be overcome. This enables us to collaborate with public rice research institutions in developing countries on the basis of "freedom-to-operate" towards the development of locally adapted Golden Rice varieties. Once Golden Rice varieties have passed the national bio-safety procedures, it will be made available to subsistence farmers free of charge and limitations. It will become their property and they can - year after year - use part of their harvest for the next sowing (without paying anything to anybody). The farmers will use their traditional farming systems and they will not require any additional agronomic inputs. Therefore, there will be no "new dependencies" from anyone. And there is no conceivable risk to any environment which would justify not to grow Golden Rice in the field for breeding and up-scaling reasons. This progress since the scientific breakthrough in 1999 was possible thanks to a novel type of "public-private-partnership". Thanks to an agreement with Syngenta and other agbiotech industries, the use of Golden Rice is free of licenses for "humanitarian use", defined as "income from Golden Rice per year and farmer below $ 10'000.-. "Commercial use", however, (above $ 10'000.- per year) requires a license from Syngenta. Humanitarian use is based on (license-free) sublicenses from the Humanitarian Golden Rice Board (contact: Professor Ingo Potrykus) to public rice research institutions. This sublicense agreement ensures that the material is handled according to established GMO rules and regulations, and that the target population - subsistence farmer and urban poor -receive the material without any additional cost for the trait."

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/potrykus.html

[druidity33]

59. here's a what if...

What if you made that hammer out of a material (new and useful the compnay says) that unbeknownst to you involves a radioactive isotope that in a year or two will make you susceptible to certain cancers?

There have been NO REAL TESTS on human consumption of GM foods... and this is the type of stuff that demands a 10 year triple blind study. How can people even consider GM crops useful?

And honestly the whole idea of growing our drugs in our crops idea is INSANE when we are dealing with wind-pollinated crops...

Oh and my uncle is Jewish and diabetic, he would rather get the insulin from pigs than labs.

I agree that the technology could be useful if it was PUBLICLY funded and researched. In the hands of corporations though, this stuff is just going to end up being BIG TROUBLE.

[NashVegas]

61. I'm Not Neutral, I'm Afraid

And this stands largely because, in my view, GM's single greatest benefit is not to agriculture or mankind but to the patent-holders, and other non-farming "stakeholders" within the satellite industries that depend on GM being adopted for their own economic benefits while, concurrently, methods and knowledge that have been successfully used for thousands of years disappear from public domain.

Still, there is nothing implicitly scary about hammers, nor is there about genetic modification.

Imagine a hammer whose maker led a brilliant PR campaign, using a false claim that this hammer is more efficient than any other hammer, but also came with the hitch that carpenters had pay a royalty on for every project they used it to make and sell. Furthermore, just keeping this hammer in the same room as the other tools meant they would also have to pay royalties on other projects made with those tools, as well.

[DemBones DemBones]

83. Great extension of the "hammer" analogy!

But you forgot that the GM hammers would cost more than other hammers, last only one season, and then you'd have to buy a new hammer, at a price probably higher than the previous year's.
You wouldn't be allowed to build your own hammer, either, using parts of the old GM hammer.

Also, if your GM hammer fell out of your truck onto your neighbor's property, your neighbor -- who didn't have a GM hammer, didn't want a GM hammer -- could have all his tools confiscated and be fined a large ammount of money as well, on the claim that he had "stolen" a trademarked GM hammer.

[NashVegas]

89. I Thought About That

But decided to let another brilliant DUer point it out :)

[DemBones DemBones]

81. It seems that you are deliberately teaching your students that

genetic modification is no big deal. Are you teaching them about all the ways this "hammer" can be misused?

If not, you're preparing them to be mindless consumers, willing to vote for people who will continue the unsound environmental policies of great thinkers like Ronald Reagan, who said that trees created most of the world's air pollution.

[earth mom]

69. Monsanto stock? That's the most VILE reason to dispute this information!

The people who have done so on this thread should be ashamed of their greedy selves! FOR SHAME! :puke:

[youngdem]

7. We MUST ban GM foods before it is too late

WE ARE NOT GOD, and unless we ALL want to meet him really fucking soon, we need to stop this shit.

Selective breeding? Fine. GM? NO MOTHERFUCKING WAY.

[Dr.Phool]

8. Why do people keep casting asparagus on Monsanto?

:rofl: :rofl:

[TZ]

9. bees dying from parasites

Awhile back I posted an article I read which showed that a lot of the bee deaths in this country are due to some immunological problem which is allowing them to get infected by many types of fungi and parasites. I think its some general problem with the environment, ie pesticides more so than GM food. While I do agree the science is not fully studied yet, I find it hard to believe that GM foods are doing this. Monsanto may have its problems but we need to focus on the known carcinogens and toxins (see the posts about the rat poison thats in wheat gluten killing pets) in the environment more than GM food.

[rosesaylavee]

14. It is true that there are parasites and fungi

that pose threats to honeybees. Beekeepers have ways of treating these.

The current problem is more mysterious. Bees are dying in the fields AND not returning to their hives.

[live love laugh]

46. "we need to focus on the known carcinogens and toxins ... more than GM food."

Why? :shrug:

[TZ]

60. because if only because thats good science

If it is GM food, which I have no idea since thats not my area of strength, in order to prove a theory you rule out competing theories first. I.E if you eliminate known environmental toxins first as not being the issue then you can focus on the GM foods. We need to be cautious and rational about getting to the bottom of these very serious issues here.

[Irishonly]

10. Thanks for posting. It's not just Germany

Honeybees Vanish, Leaving Keepers in Peril

VISALIA, Calif., Feb. 23 — David Bradshaw has endured countless stings during his life as a beekeeper, but he got the shock of his career when he opened his boxes last month and found half of his 100 million bees missing.

In 24 states throughout the country, beekeepers have gone through similar shocks as their bees have been disappearing inexplicably at an alarming rate, threatening not only their livelihoods but also the production of numerous crops, including California almonds, one of the nation’s most profitable.

“I have never seen anything like it,” Mr. Bradshaw, 50, said from an almond orchard here beginning to bloom. “Box after box after box are just empty. There’s nobody home.”

The sudden mysterious losses are highlighting the critical link that honeybees play in the long chain that gets fruit and vegetables to supermarkets and dinner tables across the country.

Beekeepers have fought regional bee crises before, but this is the first national affliction.

Now, in a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie, bees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies. And nobody knows why. Researchers say the bees are presumably dying in the fields, perhaps becoming exhausted or simply disoriented and eventually falling victim to the cold.

As researchers scramble to find answers to the syndrome they have decided to call “colony collapse disorder,” growers are becoming openly nervous about the capability of the commercial bee industry to meet the growing demand for bees to pollinate dozens of crops, from almonds to avocados to kiwis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/business/27bees.html?ei=5088&en=3aaa0148837b8977&ex=1330232400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[rodeodance]

20. East coast, FL, Minn, Wiscon. Mississippi (spreading across US)

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=2341763


......The problem of disappearing bees has been gathering momentum. It first was noticed on the East Coast, Adee said, and worked its way down to Florida and then across the Midwest into Minnesota and Wisconsin.

One beekeeper in Mississippi reported that his bee colonies were reduced from 1,200 bees to nine.

The problem also is critical in California.

Some reports have indicated the abandonment of hives in Iowa, but there was no discussion of such losses at an Iowa beekeeper industry convention last November, according to Gordon Powell of Des Moines, an officer of the group.

[lovuian]

23. Its in 22 states and spreading and now in Europe

the american people are sleeping and haven't a clue at the ramifications

[rosesaylavee]

12. It may be GMs

or it may be neonicotinoids ... see post from earlier this month by MissMarple: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=388981&mesg_id=389056

[Pharaoh]

18. Jesus!

Alot of people don't seem to understand the implication of this. They pollinate and produce our food. If they would disappear completely we would be severely fucked.
:crazy:

[TZ]

25. very serious- could this be some sort of disoreintation?

If they aren't coming BACK to the hives it sounds like its some kind of orientation problem. If I remember right bees use physical and chemical cues to find the way home. If there is some sort of new toxin in the environment it could be "blinding" or "confusing" them in some way. Since they have high metabolism they can't stay away from the hive long and therefore if the can't figure out which way to go they will die in the fields. I just read too many things about mutations cropping up in reptiles and large fish kills and birds falling from the sky not to think that its more about whats ON or around the plant, than the plant itself.

[rodeodance]

29. I agree, It is a serious problem.

[lovuian]

22. Bees have been around for centuries but GM crops and

pesticides haven't and neither has the Monsanto company

The Bees are dying and many scientists don't have the answer?

Why GM food is suspect is that its a new entity in the world of crops
Wheat and other crops have grown for centuries not needing GM plants
Bees have lived in a interconnectedness with plants

One must wonder if in the Present Bush administration and we know how protective they are to society
Katrina 911 military etc.. etc... if perhaps in their wanting to take over the world agenda

they have thrown a curveball to Mother nature and she is sending a curveball right back

[Pharaoh]

24. All I know is

is you build pesticides into the crop genetically, you are also going to kill beneficial creatures along with the supposed pest.

[RC]

33. And there is the heart of the 'Unintended Consequences'

They did not learn their lesson with the killing of the Monarch Butterfly when first testing GM in the open.

[SpiralHawk]

73. New Wonder Drug: Thalidomide

Step right up and offer yourself as a corporate Guinea Pig.

You can have all the free GM-mutant Crapola Food Product you want to eat if you step up now.

[TZ]

76. thats actually a bad example becuase...

Thalidomide is in end of clinical trials now, with really good promise as cancer fighting drug. I am however all for thorough testing of experimental products before being put on the market. I don't have enough knowledge of the GM food to say if this is so, but in this climate it may well have been rushed onto the market before safety testing was completed.

[glitch]

39. All you know is a hell of a lot more than most people. nt

[nosmokes]

34. thanks for posting!

it's spot on.

[ends_dont_justify]

37. 4 years, eh?

It would coincide with prophecies of the end of the world in 2012 wouldn't it?

[Peace Patriot]

43. We really need to look to the basics of democratic power--who is counting our votes

and how they are counting them (or not counting them), and what this may have to do with continued billions of dollars of funding for war that 75% of the American people oppose, and who has control of environmental regulation, and of much of our scientific research, and how this may be affecting adequate cautions and controls over new products, and over large global impacts of corporate industrial activity.

For instance, I don't think we have begun to understand what the corporate invasion of our universties has meant, in the defunding of objective science, and promotion of corporate-friendly research and results. We are certainly starting to understand what the Bushite control of the EPA means, as to honest scientific reports on global warming. Why isn't there more research on the bee die-offs and GMOs, and why wasn't this done BEFORE GMOs were permitted into the environment? How could such an important element of agriculture, and of all life on earth, have been ignored, in the proliferation of GMOs?

What this mad corporate free piracy (called "free trade") has meant, just simply in terms of tankers circling the globe and other polluting vehicles, and their contribution to global warming, receives little or no study, or mention anywhere, because the corporate rulers don't want it taken into consideration. The same with bees, I think. For instance, taking cotton from the highly polluted cotton fields of Uzbekistan, by tanker, to spinning factories somewhere in Asia, then hauling the cloth, in more polluting vehicles, to the Mariana Islands, where young women--imported by air or sea (in polluting vehicles) from extremely poor Asian countries, and indentured for their passage--end up sewing Gap jeans and other clothing, in sweatshop conditions--thence, once again in a tanker that is polluting ocean and atmosphere, the final manufactured product reaches US docks, where the goods are unloaded, and moved in yet more polluting vehicles all over the country, and sold to us at inflated prices, in shopping malls that encourage transportation by yet more polluting vehicles.

If someone wanted to design a system to kill the planet, this would be part of it. The other parts are deforestation and coal-burning, and a few other activities, which, if conducted on a limited scale, don't do that much damage (the earth has a lot of healing power), but on a worldwide corporate industrial scale, are wreaking havoc with all of the world's ecosystems, and may have already--just in a hundred years time--drastically altered the earth's temperature and weather, and certainly have irrevocably destroyed important components of many, many ecosystems--entire fish and bird species, for instance.

The people here who are saying that GMO crops have nothing to do with massive bee die-off's do not have enough caution about radical changes to the environment and to food systems. We know that impacts sometimes take decades to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." The watchword should be caution--and, indeed, extreme conservatism--when it comes to altering anything so vital as our food system and other life-sustaining systems of earth. But the global corporate predators who are running things--Monsanto among them--have no "checks and balances" on them now, in the US, let alone the extremely conservative restrictions that should be placed on them by our government. They control the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and much of the research in this country. How can they be trusted in these circumstances?

We are seeing massive disruptions of earth's ecosystem--everywhere--affecting all habitats and numerous species, and all of it is very bad news. And we don't get half the bad news, I'm sure. The war profiteering corporate news monopolies make sure of that.

So, what should be our attitude about bee die-off's and GMOs? That some probably underfunded, heavily pressured scientists, operating in the teeth of Corporate Rule, have to prove the impact beyond a reasonable doubt? Or that such scientists, because they merely suspect an impact--because their research is incomplete, or hasn't yet been perfected as to method or focus, or is perhaps off track in some way--should shut up until they know more?

I think that, even with a mere suspicion, all GMO production and distribution should be stopped. World agriculture will continue. It is not dependent on GMOs. GMOs are not a natural part of the earth's biosphere. They are an economic entity--a profit-maker. In fact, many, many farmers around the world think they would be much better off without GMOs. Why favor Monsanto profits, if the consequence could be the end of all life on earth? This potential consequence requires extreme conservatism.

We are seeing multiple, complicated impacts of vast global industrialization, on all ecosystems. These can be very difficult to sort out. It may be impossible to prove that one particular impact leads to one particular consequence. We may never know what, exactly, caused bee die-offs. It is possibly a cumulative effect. And there is much reason to propose a halt to, or severe curtailment of, global traffic, of big industrial impacts--such as massive deforestation--and of any drastic alteration such as the introduction of GMOs, until we stabilize the earth and figure out what the hell we are doing. Trade is a human need and a human joy. It is part of our creative and adventurous spirit. But what we have now is not trade--it is monopoly, monoculture and grave, tyrranical oppression by out-of-control corporate monstrosities. We must find a way to curtail them, and, if our political system fails--and it apparently is--then we must use boycotting, protest and public education. We are really up against it. The World Wildlife Fund gives our planet 50 years, at present levels of pollution and consumptin. 50 years to planetary death. Is that what we want our legacy to be? The death of planet Earth?

The red flags on GMOs are multiplying. Whether bees are victims or not, we don't know for sure. And the very notion of altering the DNA of plant life should be a red flag in itself. This is yet another thing that should never have happened without vigorouos, objective, long term research, on every conceivable impact, and close consultation with traditional farmers--who are the protectors and keepers of seeds, and especially of their variety. Monsanto has shoved traditional farmers aside. That should be enough of a red flag. When profit is the only motive, we all suffer, and our suffering may include utter catastrophe for all of us, and for all future humans, if we don't find a way to enforce extreme conservatism in the alteration of earth's life systems.

[Jcrowley]

55. Great post

K&R

[Karenina]

57. Kicking for Peace Patriot's post!!!

:yourock:

[Richard D]

90. Brilliant

Very well said. This should be read by all.

[dbt]

47. Please do not post about Forbidden Topics here!

1. For openers, you will make us look silly when Rush Limbaugh scans the site for show prep.

2. If you DARE to go outside the lines and post about these Forbidden Topics, the Skep Ticks will be on you like flies on shit. See the first couple of replies to your outrageous OP.

3. After reading the first few replies, oldtimers like me will be compelled (against our better judgement) to rail against the fact that the naysayers are somehow PROTECTED here. Then we will have to say that shit like this is why we rarely post here anymore and REFUSE to donate to such a narrow-minded, double-standard sort of place.

4. Which will undoubtedly get us a Mod Warning or Outright Banishment.

5. Which scares the living FUCK out of me, so PLEASE don't be posting about things like Corporations killing the pollinators on this planet. OKAY?!?!?!?

Yours For Pure Thoughts,
dbt

[MonkeyFunk]

50. I think what

the "Skep Ticks" are saying is that there's no EVIDENCE that GM crops are killing bees - just supposition.

[skipos]

51. kick

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. No, They're Not. Hope You Feel Better Now.

[MadHound]

56. And you know this how?

Funny how you can come to this conclusion before those scientists with much more knowledge that you do.

[dae]

62. Good response! n/t

[gravity]

66. Those scientists already came up with their conclusion

that GM crops don't kill bees. The only complaint comes from a bee keeper, not a scientist. Bee populations have been declining before the inroduction of GM foods, and are declining in Europe which doesn't have many GM crops.

[MadHound]

71. Gee, so dismissive there. Many, many beekeepers are well known entomologists also

Besides, did you actually read the article. Here's a couple of pertinent passages that disprove your point.

"Scientists call the mysterious phenomenon "Colony Collapse Disorder" (CCD), and it is fast turning into a national catastrophe of sorts. A number of universities and government agencies have formed a "CCD Working Group" to search for the causes of the calamity, but have so far come up empty-handed."

"Haefeker recently sent a researcher at the CCD Working Group some data from a bee study that he has long felt shows a possible connection between genetic engineering and diseases in bees."

"According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry'

Ooo, professor, researchers, scientists. Does this give the problem sufficient academic credentials for you? Or are you still somehow convinced that this is all a dillusion of a bunch of beekeepers:eyes:

[gravity]

77. There is a difference in saying that the bee populations are declining

and linking them to GM foods. There are many possible explanations for it, and their is little evidence the says that GM foods are the cause of it, especially when the phenomenon occurred before even GM crops were ever grown.

It's an unlikeley possibility, but there isn't much evidence linking it to GMOs, and other factors are more likely to be the cause.

What causes CCD?

Although there is much attention being given to this situation, it is not yet clear what is causing the die-off. From two intensive surveys of many of the beekeepers involved, some potential causes have been eliminated (see below) and others have been identified as important to investigate (see below). However, at this point it does seem likely that a number of factors may be involved.

What potential causes of CCD is the Working Group investigating?

The current research priorities under investigation by various members of the CCD working group, as well as other cooperators include, but is not limited to:
• Chemical residue/contamination in the wax, food stores and bees
• Known and unknown pathogens in the bees and brood
• Parasite load in the bees and brood
• Nutritional fitness of the adult bees
• Level of stress in adult bees as indicated by stress induced proteins
• Lack of genetic diversity and lineage of bees


What are examples of topics that the CCD working group is not currently investigating?

GMO crops: Some GMO crops, specifically Bt Corn have been suggested as a potential cause of CCD. While this possibility has not been ruled out, CCD symptoms do not fit what would be expected in Bt affected organisms. For this reason GMO crops are not a “top” priority at the moment.

Radiation transmitted by cell towers: The distribution of both affected and non-affected CCD apiaries does not make this a likely cause. Also cell phone service is not available in some areas where affected commercial apiaries are located in the west. For this reason, it is currently not a top priority.

More: http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/FAQ/FAQCCD.pdf

[earth mom]

67. The corporate apologists on this thread are DISGUSTING!

I could barely open this thread because it's all just so horrifying and made my post without first reading only to find that there are shameful greedy bastards here who would dare to defend Monsanto. Is this DU or DLC-Rethuglican Underground?! :wtf:

[Lorien]

75. That was my thought as well

how can anyone who has total faith in megacorporations not be entirely in the B*sh camp? What's next, defense of Wal-Mart's treatment of workers?

[progressoid]

68. 'culling the masses'?? What does that mean?

[Lorien]

74. Want to know what Monsanto is up to? Watch this:

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/trailer.htm

This DVD actually gave me chills. I highly recommend it-ESPECIALLY to corporate apologists! (Netflix carries it, BTW).

[Jcrowley]

91. Thanks for that

Check this out:
http://www.angelicorganics.com/ao/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=

[MissMarple]

78. Could be pesticide use, the bees don't seem to be able to find their way back to the hives.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5351675

More:http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=cd8861f3-805b-421a-99e5-3bae61f3f3eb

"Bees are an indicator species..." Big oops.

"He said beekeepers aren't the only people who should be concerned. Bees are an indicator species and their disappearance could signal greater environmental problems, he said.

"I hope it's not the canary in the coal mine," he said."

[CountAllVotes]

79. I believe that GM crops are not only killing bees

but also humans.

My brother: dead at the age of 42 years and yeah, he ate all of that junk. :(

:kick:

[Lorien]

84. So sorry for your loss

My ccondolences to you and your family. 42 is far too young. :hug:

I agree; there is NO OVERSIGHT of Monsanto and their GM creations. None. I posted a link to a film (post # 74) about Monsanto that no one here has seen, apparently, but Netflix gave it their highest rating. It's terrifying. I even loaned it to a corporate loving Freeper type that I know and it changed his view of the Bush Administration and corporations in general. Now he's questioning everything!

Our food supply is far less safe now than at any time in human history. Dead bees and pets are only the tip of a very massive iceberg. :-(