Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Document Shows It Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees BY Ariel SchwartzFri Dec 10, 2010
The world honey bee population has plunged in recent years, worrying beekeepers and farmers who know how critical bee pollination is for many crops. A number of theories have popped up as to why the North American honey bee population has declined--electromagnetic radiation, malnutrition, and climate change have all been pinpointed. Now a leaked EPA document reveals that the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists.
The document, which was leaked to a Colorado beekeeper, shows that the EPA has ignored warnings about the use of clothianidin, a pesticide produced by Bayer that mainly is used to pre-treat corn seeds. The pesticide scooped up $262 million in sales in 2009 by farmers, who also use the substance on canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat, according to Grist.
The leaked document (PDF) was put out in response to Bayer's request to approve use of the pesticide on cotton and mustard. The document invalidates a prior Bayer study that justified the registration of clothianidin on the basis of its safety to honeybees:
Clothianidin’s major risk concern is to nontarget insects (that is, honey bees). Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide that is both persistent and systemic. Acute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis. Although EFED does not conduct RQ based risk assessments on non-target insects, information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoids insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long-term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects. The entire 101-page memo is damning (and worth a read). But the opinion of EPA scientists apparently isn't enough for the agency, which is allowing clothianidin to keep its registration.
Suspicions about clothianidin aren't new; the EPA's Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFAD) first expressed concern when the pesticide was introduced, in 2003, about the "possibility of toxic exposure to nontarget pollinators [e.g., honeybees] through the translocation of clothianidin residues that result from seed treatment." Clothianidin was still allowed on the market while Bayer worked on a botched toxicity study [PDF], in which test and control fields were planted as close as 968 feet apart.
Clothianidin has already been banned by Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia for its toxic effects. So why won't the EPA follow? The answer probably has something to do with the American affinity for corn products. But without honey bees, our entire food supply is in trouble.
Politics are everywhere in this dumbass country it seems . Knowingly allowing this poison is incredible to me . Short sighted corrupt and IMO downright criminal .
It would probably amaze all of us to know what chemicals we ingest every day through the air, our food, water, etc. I think these government agencies and manufactures just couldn't care less about health in general.
Hopefully they take this crap off the market and allow the bee population to recover before it's too late.
Thanks to my wife I am hyper vigilant about what I eat and to be honest the more I learn the more I fear . You are so right about those in charge could care less about the poisons they allow big Ag to put in our food . Like so many other government agencies they are in bed with the very companies they are suppossed to be protecting us from.
Actually, there is more than one group wanting them boycotted:
There is the aforementioned holocaust group, then there is a European group that wants them boycotted for Bayer's continued involvment with genetically modified crops, then there is a group of veterinarians that wants them boycotted over their Advantage/Advantix products being sold OTC.
Anyway... how does something like this get approved when so many other countries and even the EPA's scientists recommend against it?
Easy: Bayer has $49 BILLION in revenue in 2008.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: Anyway... how does something like this get approved when so many other countries and even the EPA's scientists recommend against it?
One word ... Iowa.
From the article: So why won't the EPA follow? The answer probably has something to do with the American affinity for corn products.
The "corn lobby" has some major pull in this country ... why? Because Iowa is the first state to have caucus elections, and that sets the tone for the rest of the election year. Get the corn-state to vote for you in a primary, and you're well on your way to a nomination. Subsidies anyone?
Quote: Thanks to my wife I am hyper vigilant about what I eat and to be honest the more I learn the more I fear . You are so right about those in charge could care less about the poisons they allow big Ag to put in our food . Like so many other government agencies they are in bed with the very companies they are suppossed to be protecting us from.
I'm not hyper vigilant about what I eat - but I do like knowing we have meat that hasn't been injected with hormones and many other chemicals.......I like knowing our corn is from our garden........ we have about 60 jars of salsa made from ingredients from our garden, etc.
On a slightly different note - a lady was talking to me a few weeks ago - she said something about food, and all the chemicals and hormones in it - and then she said "have you noticed girls "mature" a lot earlier than they used to?
I really hadn't - but if they do, is their a link to the food we eat?
I've never looked it up and verified it, but I've heard this is true a bazillion times. Makes sense. When I was in 9th grade, there was only ONE girl who had developed into an actual woman's size and shape. Now . . .? I'm waiting for my 18 month olds to need a training bra.
I really hadn't - but if they do, is their a link to the food we eat?
I've often wondered this over the past handful of years. And, I'm going to guess that there most definitely is a link.
Well, what this lady was saying made sense to me. Many of my daughters friends are maturing - my daughter is 10, in fourth grade - and one of the older ones in her class. For her friends, they are younger than her - it just seems awfully early to me.
Nothing wrong with that Arch . I do the same whenever possible . You have to watch even the seeds you plant as they may already have been altered . I am amazed at what we ( FDA, EPA. etc.. ) consider "safe".
When I was young...seventh grade...most everyone "matured" around that time frame. Now you hear of girls starting their periods stupid early...like 8 and 9 years old.
It might be hard to convince your daughter that she's the NORMAL one in her group, Arch. It's the others that are pumped up on 'roids and god only knows what else.
I recall all the girls beginning maturing around 7th & grade in my school, too. That's ages 11-13... that's about normal, I believe. There are always going to be anomalies, however... some earlier, some later. It is only when the anomalies become pervasive that there is something to worry about.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Holy crap! I matured EARLY then. I was out of training bras by 4th grade. LOL! But I have noticed it all starting earlier and earlier. My boss's 10 year old just started getting her monthly visitor. Of course, here, I was earlier than most of my friends at 11. (They were more like 12/13).
So, did my parents load me up on 'roids & hormones? And if so, why didn't that make me taller?? LOL
Girls aren't girls for long and boys aren't boys for long.
Fully developed females at 12-13 years old???
13-14 year old boys with the rage of a grown man but the mind set of a kid....that is a extra bad mix not being mentioned???
Our kids are turning in to mutants far different then most of us, and something is causing it.
I agree....it's the food. We are being pumped up in the formative stages with a bunch of crap we shouldn't be eating.
"Roids" for the cow or hog, or wheat germ are turning in to "roids" for us.
Jack Lelanne was WAY before his time....this was in the late 50's....this guy needs some kind of award.
That is one of Jack's many daily lecture's.....pull him up on the net....the guy can still shame most of us, and he might be 95 now, but his words of 50 years ago are even more important now since the ADM's of the world have found chemicals to help their bottom line.
Really, this guy deserves some sort of lifetime achievement award above any already received.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
And all that deer that you and Arch shoot is eating out in the chemically treated corn fields.
We're not getting around it. And then, we're powerless to stop it.
Yes. And no. The beef everyone else eats is eating chemicalized corn (not sure if chemicalized is a word). Plus, the steers are fed other chemicals........given injections of hormones, treated with medicine to cure or prevent diseases. The deer only eat chemicalized corn. And acorns And whatever other natural stuff they can.
There's a reason venison is so lean - as opposed to beef. (and don't get me wrong - we go to a restaurant, I'm ordering chemical beef or chemical chicken)
But the more I think about it the more I realize that processed foods are loaded with chemicals and salt,...er, sodium. Venison is not. There are traces of chemicals - but nothing close to what traditional beef or poultry has.
I wouldn't worry about it being a word Arch. We all know what you meant and anyway, you can always invoke the Sarah Palin rule and we can make it a word "just for you".
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I thought it was a "Bush rule"......" you shouldn't eat meat that has been over chemicalized....I mean, if the deer fool me once, okay, if the deer are over chemicalized twice.......you can't fool the deer,.......er, ......you can't overly chemicalize a deer twice without it being chemicalized."
Or maybe a Clinton rule.....(with near tears in his eyes) "I have never worked harder on anything than I have on under chemicalizing the deer. Now excuse me as I go back to work for the American deer."
Or maybe a Gore rule: "You see, the deer have enlightened us as to effects of global warming. The chemicalization of deer has shown us that within 2 years, unless you give me money - a lot of money - the earth shall cease to exist."
Or the Pelosi rule: "We are going to put a law in place that forbids deer hunting everywhere, unless it is on land that me and my husband own, and you pay a king's ransom to hunt on our land, and if you get a deer, you need to give half of it to us, so we can send 1/6 of it to a homeless shelter to feed those things that go there. There won't be blood will there? We hate blood. Oh, never mind, the rules I make don't apply to me, and I have a staff that makes sure I don't see anything bloody. But there's no way anyone can take care of themselves without the gov't. getting involved"
And all that deer that you and Arch shoot is eating out in the chemically treated corn fields.
We're not getting around it. And then, we're powerless to stop it.
Yes. And no. The beef everyone else eats is eating chemicalized corn (not sure if chemicalized is a word). Plus, the steers are fed other chemicals........given injections of hormones, treated with medicine to cure or prevent diseases. The deer only eat chemicalized corn. And acorns And whatever other natural stuff they can.
There's a reason venison is so lean - as opposed to beef. (and don't get me wrong - we go to a restaurant, I'm ordering chemical beef or chemical chicken)
But the more I think about it the more I realize that processed foods are loaded with chemicals and salt,...er, sodium. Venison is not. There are traces of chemicals - but nothing close to what traditional beef or poultry has.
No doubt,...I love deer meat,...it's just that nothing is completely safe anymore. Suppose buying deer at the store was an option,....it too would then soon go the way of the cow, chicken, and pig.
That's why we're on "one buck/two doe" tags now ain't it ? So it's "under control." I think I should be allowed to go hunting whenever I want, but,.. I'm not a hunter, either.
Quote: I think I should be allowed to go hunting whenever I want, but,.. I'm not a hunter, either.
The population of deer, while large right now, wouldn't be able to handle that strain probably. They'd be over hunted. Deer hunting, because it's so tightly regulated, is one of the success stories of environmental regulation. In the late 1800's, early 1900's, the country faced quite a few environmental instabilities due to overhunting and eventual extinction of key species in certain areas. As a population, humans number too many to just allow willy-nilly hunting. Look no farther than the passenger pigeon or the current bush meat trade in tiger and ape parts.
Quote: On a slightly different note - a lady was talking to me a few weeks ago - she said something about food, and all the chemicals and hormones in it - and then she said "have you noticed girls "mature" a lot earlier than they used to?
I really hadn't - but if they do, is their a link to the food we eat?
I've not researched it myself but I've heard that it's largely due to hormones given to dairy cows to make them more productive milkers and hens to make them more productive egg layers. An estrogen mixture that gets passed right on into milk & eggs and all the other things made from that milk & those eggs. We pretty much only eat organic eggs and milk in our house. Not that that is a fail safe but I've heard it knocks out that specific issue.
On a side note I've heard (again haven't researched it myself) that people who eat a lot of meat over the last several decades have developped a different muscle density due to the hormones given to meat cattle since the 80's. That men in particular are susceptable. Muscle will grow bigger on it's own but has more fluid content and isn't as dense or actually strong. And it can resemble fat on the frame, especially around the torso and chest. My wife has an uncle who's a trainer and he claims that if you're serious about getting in good muscle shape and losing weight you must switch to hormone free meats. I seem to think that if this were totally true we'd see a lot of evidence to back it up but perhaps it's subtle.
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
Quote: I think I should be allowed to go hunting whenever I want, but,.. I'm not a hunter, either.
The population of deer, while large right now, wouldn't be able to handle that strain probably. They'd be over hunted. Deer hunting, because it's so tightly regulated, is one of the success stories of environmental regulation. In the late 1800's, early 1900's, the country faced quite a few environmental instabilities due to overhunting and eventual extinction of key species in certain areas. As a population, humans number too many to just allow willy-nilly hunting. Look no farther than the passenger pigeon or the current bush meat trade in tiger and ape parts.
Quote: On a slightly different note - a lady was talking to me a few weeks ago - she said something about food, and all the chemicals and hormones in it - and then she said "have you noticed girls "mature" a lot earlier than they used to?
I really hadn't - but if they do, is their a link to the food we eat?
There's no data backing this idea that hormone-like substances in our food are causing women to menstruate younger. There is however evidence that the age has been steadily decreasing for quite awhile, at least since the early 1900's, in the US. One of the things corresponding to this time period is the prevalence of food sources. This is a trend that we see in developing countries too. Better nutrition, more food, leads to younger pubescence in all individuals, including males. This is just a wives tale told by people looking to back the argument that modified organisms are unnatural, and therefore, bad for one's health.
Females shouldn't be growing breasts at age 9 or 10, and I don't care about the food sources - in fact, if you look at it - the "food" sources have become more chemicalized in the last 10 to 15 years than they ever were before.
Look at all the processed food people ingest today. Don't tell me that doesn't have an effect. In fact, anyone with any knowledge will tell you the processed foods is bad for colons, your health overall, your heart, the sodium levels are crazy, it affects you liver, contributes to diabetes.............on and on.
So YOU haven't seen proof? Big deal. The food this country eats contributes to so many problems..........and premature maturalization is one of them.
There's no data backing this idea that hormone-like substances in our food are causing women to menstruate younger. There is however evidence that the age has been steadily decreasing for quite awhile, at least since the early 1900's, in the US
Due to? The chemicals in the food we eat maybe? Nah, that can't be it, can it?
Quote:
. One of the things corresponding to this time period is the prevalence of food sources. This is a trend that we see in developing countries too. Better nutrition, more food, leads to younger pubescence in all individuals, including males. This is just a wives tale told by people looking to back the argument that modified organisms are unnatural, and therefore, bad for one's health.
That paragraph reads like a whole lot of blither blather that means "we can't explain it, but damnit, we're going to try." Are you saying that better nutrition (which we don't have, let alone the rest of the world) leads to younger maturity? You are saying that the healthier people eat, the younger they mature and can have kids?
Dude, people do NOT eat healthy. They eat processed foods, full of chemicals and a ton of sodium. Yet you're saying eating chemicals doesn't have an effect?
You want me to believe that nature was set up for 10 yr. olds to have kids? I think that's crazy. And you think the food doesn't have anything to do with it??
Whatever. If you honestly think the chemicals people eat do not affect them, then you have to believe that the food people eat doesn't affect cholesterol levels.........and you have to believe that smoking doesn't affect your health........and on and on.
Quote: Females shouldn't be growing breasts at age 9 or 10
Well my friend, nature disagrees with you. We see it happen everyday.
Quote: the "food" sources have become more chemicalized in the last 10 to 15 years than they ever were before.
Now that's a falsifiable hypothesis probably, one that I think could be proven wrong. I have no idea though and no proof either way.
Quote: So YOU haven't seen proof? Big deal. The food this country eats contributes to so many problems..........and premature maturalization is one of them.
LOL! The proof isn't there Arch, this has nothing to do with me. I'm just relaying, as someone who dabble in endrocrinology and its affects on physiology and behavior, that this is an urban legend with no fact behind it.
Quote: That paragraph reads like a whole lot of blither blather that means "we can't explain it, but damnit, we're going to try."
And how is what i said different than "it's the hormones?" Ah, thats right, epidemiological data on the subject. There's not much data, but it fits the model that says greater food sources are to blame for this, not chemicalization.
Quote: You are saying that the healthier people eat, the younger they mature and can have kids?
No, i said access to a greater amount of foodstuff, not access to healthier food. The more nutrients you take in, the earlier it can happen. If you look in third world countries, children tend to enter pubescence later than in developing or developed countries. If you starve any lab animal you see the same trend, it takes longer for them to develop.
Quote: If you honestly think the chemicals people eat do not affect them, then you have to believe that the food people eat doesn't affect cholesterol levels.........and you have to believe that smoking doesn't affect your health........and on and on.
I think you're missing a level of activity. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all chemicals work regardless of how much is present. Chemicals can affect physiology, but only in the right concentrations. What we ingest any chemicals at from factory farms, etc. is such a small amount that it's inconsequential to how our bodies work. They're generally mopped up by enzymes or destroyed in the gut.
I'm surprised Arch, I didn't think you'd pull the "natural is better" card on me.
This much I have witnessed. When I went to school, if you had alergies or alergic reactions to anything, you seemed to be in a VERY vast minority.
Now? If you have no alergies, you are in the minority. I guess that's just a natural progression to huh?
I guess people will have to wait until "science tells them it's their own fault" before some will ever believe it. But if it is their own falut, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on them to admit it.
At a certain age you can look around you and do the math. Not all that complicated.
jmho
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
General reply to the thread: And yet, still, ... nevertheless ... life expectancy from birth in the U.S. is 78.3 overall, and 80.8 for women. When Social Security was created in the 1930's (before roids), it was less than 65, overall.
My youngest boy is still in hi school,so I do spend a good bit of time there,and I must say that the females have bigger boobs than I recall from my days in school. Although my memories have to be filtered thru the fact that I spent most of my formative years bent over picking up my pencil and staring at Maryjane's white cotton panties.So I maynot be the most informed person on what was going on above desk level. Most farmers in this area stopped using this crap years ago.Right after the 1st mention of it's effect on bees and Maryjane's and my divorce.
Quote: I guess people will have to wait until "science tells them it's their own fault" before some will ever believe it. But if it is their own falut, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on them to admit it.
And I guess some people like to live in fairy tale land where everything they believe is true and it makes no sense to listen to reason. I mean, why would they? They already know the answer. I apologize for letting something as pesky as well-backed fact get in the way of belief.
As to answering your allergy question, I have no idea. You should recognize though that your observations so far are only anecdotal and haven't been properly vetted through study. This website has the information you would need to make that anecdote either true or false. You could possibly look up information and report it back to us.
![[Linked Image from i75.photobucket.com]](http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i302/lrhinkle/d5eaf0b9-e429-4211-b53f-b843bfcf6aa9_zps2ac17420.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
No doubt,...I love deer meat,...it's just that nothing is completely safe anymore. Suppose buying deer at the store was an option,....it too would then soon go the way of the cow, chicken, and pig. 
I think I should be allowed to go hunting whenever I want, but,.. I'm not a hunter, either.
I apologize for letting something as pesky as well-backed fact get in the way of belief.