Comments on: Unprecedented Pesticide Contamination Found in Beehives

By: Dan Detard

Dan Detard — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:13:36 +0000

WEBSITE owner asks “how else would the chemicals get into the wax if not via the bee?”

the sad answer is by BEEKEEPERS!!!!

Referring to the study and Table 4 titled Pesticide Incidence in wax pollen and bee samples.

Fluvalinate stands out above all other chemicals found in 98% of the 259 wax samples, 88% of the 350 pollen samples and 83% of the 140 bee samples. WOW!!!!

Fluvalinate is the active chemical in Apistan an EPA registered miticide used by beekeepers for 20 years now.

What is most disturbing is the mean sample value of 7239 ppb in wax, puts some of the samples above the LD50 level (LD50 =lethal level) of 15860 ppb as seen in page 12, figure B, titled Wax Fluvalinate.

A logical question that comes from that data table is how representative is this data to beekeepers across America?

To further gain insight into that question I looked at the 5 top chemicals found in wax, pollen and bee samples and those are

Fluvalinate
Coamaphos
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorothalonil
Amitaz

#1,#2 and #5 are all beekeeper applied chemicals for treating varroa mites. #5 is not registered by EPA for beehive use but that has not stopped beekeepers from using it anyhow.

The rest of the list of chemicals show up in less then 47% each of the category of samples of wax, pollen and bees and the percentages drop off dramatically as you go down the list.

Its obvious 3 of the chemicals are self applied by beekeepers. Some further digging into the other two reveals:

In the US, chlorothalonil (trade name Bravo) a fungicide, is used predominantly on cranberry, blueberries, almonds, peanuts, potatoes, and cucumbers. It is also used on golf courses and lawns and is the 3rd most common fungicide in the USA. .

Chlorpyrifos, trade name Lorsban or Dursban is an organophosphate insecticide. The crops with the most intense chlorpyrifos use are cotton, corn, almonds, and fruit trees including oranges and apples.

Since the study indicated on page 2, column one, that the majority of samples were taken from commercial beekeepers, this is a damming report on the widespread self contamination of beehives by the beekeepers themselves and their quest for cash flow in large scale pollination.

Thus this study is NOT representative of what smaller beekeepers experience who use soft treatments that do not contaminate the bees (formic acid, thymol) that are also registered for use in bee hives. Small scale local beekeepers also do not expose their bees to almonds and large scale pollination. This pesticide issue then is really a FEEDLOT beekeeper problem .

A certain very visible “CCD poster Boy” FEEDLOT beekeeper has a long history of using those miticides but yet claims Imidacloprid is killing his bees! Clearly the data is not there to support that claim.

By: Beyond Pesticides

Beyond Pesticides — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:43:35 +0000

The focus of this study was not on one chemical (imidocloprid) as is implied by the above comment, but on the presence of several chemicals (98 total) that are found in pollen and wax and their possible implication as a mixture with CCD. The authors clearly report that the levels they found are considered to be high levels: “98 pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 ppm in bee pollen alone represents a remarkably high level for toxicants in the blood and adult food of this primary pollinator.”

The presence of this many chemicals in pollen and wax implies that bees and their hives are being exposed to high numbers of toxic chemicals and that the synergistic, aggregate, and cumulative effects from exposure need to be explored for their possible contribution to bee mortality, fitness and CCD. They go on to state that the “widespread occurrence of multiple residues, some at toxic levels for single compounds, and the lack of any scientific literature on the biological consequences of combinations of pesticides, argues strongly for urgent changes in regulatory policies regarding pesticide registration and monitoring procedures as they relate to pollinator safety.”

The authors here conclude that: “While exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, the effects of these materials in combinations and their direct association with CCD or declining bee health remains to be determined.”

Whether tests detected chemicals in the actual bee is irrelevant since they are continually exposed via collected pollen and the wax they create; how else would the chemicals get into the wax if not via the bee?

By: Dan Detard

Dan Detard — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:08:38 +0000

I applaud this article but there is a glaring omission. The imidacloprid results show that only 1% of the wax samples, 2.9% of the pollen samples, and 0% or none of the bees had detectable levels. That makes it hard to argue that this chemical constitutes a major problem to bees in the U.S. My reading of the authors conclusions and discussions seems to be – the neonics are reported to cause problems, but this data doesn’t support widespread or high level exposure, with the exception of ONE out of 350 pollen samples.”

“Note, the 49 detections were from 558 samples of pollen and wax, or 698 samples including bees, so only 8.78% of all of the wax and pollen samples and 7.02% of all samples (wax, pollen, bees) had any detectable levels, and
most of these were low levels.

“More importantly, no residues of any of these chemicals were found in any of the analyzed bees – which either says it was so toxic, that any exposed
bees died (outside the hive) and as such weren’t available for sampling, or we have to conclude that not much, if any of these chemicals accumulated in the bees themselves. I have to conclude: These chemicals are in some of the wax and pollen samples (representing a potential dose) but none ended up at detectable levels in the bees (the ultimate fate) sampled.”