New at Reason

April 13, 2007

Ronald Bailey drapes himself in mesh gear and investigates what's up with America's bees.

Comments

Guy Montag|4.13.07 @ 7:32AM|#

Oh come on!

The good bees are fleeing the invasion of the killer bees well in advance of their advance. Just like other critters leaving before a disaster.

It is as plain as the nose on your face!

|4.13.07 @ 8:07AM|#

i blame john belushi

|4.13.07 @ 8:23AM|#

Great article. I must admit, I am skeptical about biotech crops. My son has the peanut allergy, and the conspiracy side of me often thinks that peanuts have been genetically altered such that the protein now negatively affects a certain percentage of the population more than they normally would. I understand I have no evidence to support that, however it is easier for me to think that rather than thinking somehow my genes are to blame.

Like I said, good article. Articles like that keep people like me from going off the deep end.

|4.13.07 @ 8:25AM|#

good article. I wouldnt put it past Sierra club to bend the truth to their agenda. But it doesnt strike me as oulandish that GMO crops could have some kind of effect like this.

|4.13.07 @ 8:37AM|#

Matt,

What should strike as outlandish is the fact that GM crops would have this effect, and it wouldn't be detected by the various studies that have been done.

In any case, I think Ron and I can agree on the solution: genetically modified superbees, with nanochips implanted in their thoraces.

Guy Montag|4.13.07 @ 8:44AM|#

MOPAR crops can out run GM crops any day.

|4.13.07 @ 9:00AM|#

The good bees are fleeing the invasion of the killer bees well in advance of their advance.

They're cutting and running. What do you expect from European honeybees? ;-)

|4.13.07 @ 9:04AM|#

I don't mean to make light of this...it is actually one of the more disturbing news stories I've seen during the past week. Bees are obviously very, very important to agriculture and there's no obvious replacement for them, as hummingbirds and fruit bats are much more high-maintenance.

I wonder if the same problem occurred in the southern hemisphere during their spring in October?

|4.13.07 @ 9:12AM|#

Nice articles.

Personally, rather than render GM crops blameless just yet, I'd rather see them investigated along with all other possiblilities. Unfortunately, chicken littles have already begun their well-funded propaganda machine.

Sandy|4.13.07 @ 9:19AM|#

Maybe someone should point out that European honeybees are not native to this continent? So basically an imported bee is not doing well. That's a concern of agricultural specialists (honey production) but not of environmentalists.

Wake me when we show declines in carpenter or bumblebee populations. Then maybe I'll get concerned.

|4.13.07 @ 9:20AM|#

MOPAR crops can out run GM crops any day.

Are you trying to generate buzz for the New Chrysler?

|4.13.07 @ 9:21AM|#

Sandy,

The problem is, they've done well for, oh, 300 years or so, and it's just now that they're getting walloped...and of course they're dying off in Europe, where they are native, as well.

|4.13.07 @ 9:24AM|#

Parasites from Java?

I thought we didn't have to worry about non-native species anymore.

Zebra mussels give the great lakes a fresh, lemony scent!

|4.13.07 @ 9:30AM|#

That study includes the Cornell University researcher, John Losey, who infamously poisoned monarch butterflies in the lab by force-feeding them B.t. corn pollen that was heavily sprinkled on milkweed leaves.

Mmmm...butterfly foie gras is the shizzle.

|4.13.07 @ 9:44AM|#

Isn't dosing subjects with levels much higher than they would realistically encounter pretty much standard practice for determining toxicity?

|4.13.07 @ 9:49AM|#

Parasites from Java

That's gonna be my new nickname for those motherfuckers who smoke Djarums.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 9:57AM|#

Personally, rather than render GM crops blameless just yet, I'd rather see them investigated along with all other possiblilities.

Well, now Mr. Bailey is the scientist here. Since he has disclosed some of the ways that he does not have a financial interest in GM, I think the burden of proof is on us to show that GM did it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinar . . . ah, eff it -- my sarcasm even grates on me sometimes.

Sav|4.13.07 @ 9:59AM|#

So long and thanks for all the pollen.

Look out for the Vogon constructor fleet.

|4.13.07 @ 10:00AM|#

Yes, joe, it is.

But Greenpeace was not claiming that B.t. corn pollen was toxic at some level, they were claiming it was toxic at any level.

|4.13.07 @ 10:04AM|#

That's fine, Isaac.

I'm just wondering why the biologist who did the study gets slandered as "imfamous" for his commonplace research.

|4.13.07 @ 10:13AM|#

That's a pretty low standard you have for slander there, joe.

|4.13.07 @ 10:21AM|#

OK, "slimed."

|4.13.07 @ 10:22AM|#

Obviously the genetic engineers have to get to work on building a healthier bee.

|4.13.07 @ 10:23AM|#

"Isn't dosing subjects with levels much higher than they would realistically encounter pretty much standard practice for determining toxicity?"

Yes and its an unjustified stupid practice. The assumption is linear dose response. This assumption is not reasonable since it is expected that the body should be able to deal with small amounts of toxins without a problem.

|4.13.07 @ 10:23AM|#

joe: Sigh. Dosing lepidopteran caterpillars with high doses of B.t. toxin proves nothing additional since after all B.t. toxin is supposed to kill exactly such creatures. Organic farmers had known this for decades. Also keep in mind that Monarch caterpillars are obligate milkweed eaters, they do not eat corn, soybeans, or any other biotech crop. Please also keep in mind that milkweed grows everywhere, not just in corn fields. So Losey chose to poison Monarchs because they are charismatic lepidopteran species, (not like some nasty old moth larva) and are "state insects" for many states. So Losey chose to poison them in the lab at completely unrealistic doses with malice aforethought aiming for publicity and more grants. But go ahead and give Losey the benefit of your doubt.

|4.13.07 @ 10:24AM|#

It's global warming, fools!

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.13.07 @ 10:27AM|#

Awesome disclosure Ron.

Dammit, I love honey and now prices are going to skyrocket.

|4.13.07 @ 10:28AM|#

Wow, Ron, you really want to start bringing "benefit of the doubt" and "publicity and more grants" into the discussion?

You?

Guess what, people - we need to start ignoring scientific evidence reported by people with a political agenda. Ron Bailey said so.

|4.13.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Oh, wait a sec:

Sigh.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.13.07 @ 10:30AM|#

Ron:

If you filter Joe, H&R becomes much easier to read.

|4.13.07 @ 10:31AM|#

How sad it must be, to be unable to tolerate competing ideas.

|4.13.07 @ 10:34AM|#

No problem with competing ideas.

It's sanctimonious pricks that are the problem.

Chucklehead|4.13.07 @ 10:35AM|#

joe -

Rigging scientific evidence to support your personal political agenda does deserve to be ignored at the least. Mocked, then ignored is better.

VM|4.13.07 @ 10:36AM|#

"Zebra mussels give the great lakes a fresh, lemony scent!"

ha! awesome!

(but if high# happens on by here - the lake doesn't look at all beautiful today)

"How sad it must be, to be unable to tolerate competing ideas."

That's only because Mr Imus was joking. jeez. DEMAND KURV!!!!

(ducks)

|4.13.07 @ 10:37AM|#

joe: I long for the day you will ignore me. ;-)

|4.13.07 @ 10:37AM|#

Chucklehead,

But the only "rigging" was the use of the standard practice for determining toxicity.

|4.13.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Ronald Bailey drapes himself in mesh gear...

His curiousity got the better of him and he decided to order that sexy tank top from the International Male catalog.

|4.13.07 @ 10:40AM|#

All: Could the rest of you just ignore the back-and-forth that joe and I sometimes engage in and get back to talking about the Sierra Club and what's happening to bees. I would appreciate it. Thanks

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 10:42AM|#

I long for the day the guard changes and joe gets moved above the fold. joe may be a statist, but he is also a good critic. He has the "free minds" part down better than most, and that is important.

Jennifer|4.13.07 @ 10:42AM|#

Big Honey would be a fantastic name for a fat Southern madam.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 10:43AM|#

I don't see your name at the top of this thread, Ron.

um. no. not me. was someone |4.13.07 @ 10:45AM|#

but... but... Ron. How else can I one get worked up for BATIN?
(only for storage in the stewardship of Big Pollen, of course. It's for science.)

[runs off]

|4.13.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Ronald Bailey drapes himself in mesh gear

My first thought when reading that was this photo:

http://reason.com/news/show/118459.html

|4.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#

"His curiousity got the better of him and he decided to order that sexy tank top from the International Male catalog."

And he did so in the service of Big Pollen.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

|4.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#

From Wikiepedia on the Irish Potato Famine:

The Famine was partly due to "the (potato) Blight" (also known as phytophthora)- the oomycete that almost instantly destroyed the primary food source for many Irish.

It doesn't take genetically modified organisms to cause a single species to collapse instantaneously.

Domesticated bees do not maintain the same level of genetic diversity that wild bees do. As serious a problem as the current collapse is, it is not that surprising that a minor change in some environmental condition could cause widespread problems for the bees. Hysteria fed by fear and anxiety over GM plants is not going to be productive in identifying the root cause of the collapse of the domesticated bees.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Domesticated bees do not maintain the same level of genetic diversity that wild bees do. As serious a problem as the current collapse is, it is not that surprising that a minor change in some environmental condition could cause widespread problems for the bees. Hysteria fed by fear and anxiety over GM plants is not going to be productive in identifying the root cause of the collapse of the domesticated bees.

Careful, carrick. There are those who fret that more heavily gm'ed species are more susceptible to species collapse.

In other words, traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees more susceptible to species collapse leads one to believe that gm'ed bees would be even more susceptible to species collapse than traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees.

Is that a thought you really want us, your readers, thinking?

|4.13.07 @ 11:04AM|#

So long, and thanks for all the pollen.

Grotius|4.13.07 @ 11:09AM|#

joe,

I will to note that organic farmers use B.T. on their crops; they manually put it on crops. Indeed, such crops grown using B.T. are certified as organic as I recall.

|4.13.07 @ 11:10AM|#

carrick,

If Monsanto succeeds in getting millions of African farmers to replace the thousands of localized strains of, say, casava with the one Monstanto-provided strain (GM or no), would that make a species collapse more or less likely?

Personally, I don't think GMOs per se are a real threat, so much as the loss of biodiversity among crops.

|4.13.07 @ 11:11AM|#

Grotius,

Funny. I'll have to remember that one.

Grotius|4.13.07 @ 11:15AM|#

BTW, does anyone here (besides Bailey and I) know what Bt is?

Well, its bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occuring bacteria.

Jeff|4.13.07 @ 11:15AM|#

Yeah this is totally bogus - many of the crops that bees are pollinating for migratory pollination (say FL to ME for example) are well established citrus crops and blueberry fields. Many of these are old growth (i.e. non-GMO) and have been getting contracts for bee pollination for years. In these cases, including many in California almond groves, honeybee colonies have been dying out because of CCD when there are no GMO crops present within 2 miles (a honeybee's maximum foraging radius)

So GMOs are not even involved in many, many cases of CCD. Of worthy note, many GMO "enhanced" crops aren't even pollinated by honeybees. Corn for example is highly modified by Monsanto and others, but corn is typically wind pollinated. Sure bees will eat its pollen, but only if there are no other better sources. And farmers don't require bees for pollination of corn and other crops (soy, wheat, etc.)

|4.13.07 @ 11:17AM|#

For example, the first study from the "highly respected scientists" the Sierra Club cites actually *contradicts* the notion that biotech crops hurt bees.

Environmentalists, getting the science wrong for their own agendas? Gee, what are the odds?

|4.13.07 @ 11:19AM|#

How sad it must be, to be unable to tolerate competing ideas.

Competing ideas I can take... it is pure knuckleheadedness anybody can detest, *Joe*.

|4.13.07 @ 11:43AM|#

I am going to have to second that we need Franken-bees to pollinate our Franken-crops. Delicious. I can't wait to try the Franken-honey!

VM|4.13.07 @ 11:46AM|#

*shudders of thought of "franken berry" in that world*

|4.13.07 @ 12:08PM|#

joe, normally if someone's work is misrepresented by another person or group he publicly distances himself from that misrepresentation. Like the hurricane researchers did when people started claiming that the 04-05 storms were due to global warming.

This researcher appears to have been quite happy to have his study used by Greenpeace to convey the impression that Bt in GM corn pollen existed in large enough quantities in nature to harm Monarch butterflies. Note that he didn't study its affects on cockroaches.

After all, people who get mailers from Greenpeace won't write checks if they think cockroaches are going to die.

|4.13.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Do cockroaches pollinate corn?

Do monarch butterflies pollinate corn?

Is Monsanto pushing a new straing of genetically modified floor crumb?


I don't know anything about this guy, one way or the other, except that 1) he used the standard toxicity test that every other scientist researching toxicity uses, 2) he tested the toxicity of the material in a crop on the species that pollinates that crop, and 3) someone with a political agenda is trying to spin points 1 and 2 into a conspiracy.

|4.13.07 @ 12:36PM|#

A couple of posters on the thread the other day suggested that the bees were prone to infection and parasites because the bees themselves lacked genetic diversity.

Any evidence on this?

Chucklehead|4.13.07 @ 12:40PM|#

... 2) he tested the toxicity of the material in a crop on the species that pollinates that crop,...

Maybe you should actually read his study before claiming this.

|4.13.07 @ 12:42PM|#

In other words, traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees more susceptible to species collapse leads one to believe that gm'ed bees would be even more susceptible to species collapse than traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees.

Traditional selective cross breeding of a limited number of specimens to accentuate specific "good" features has the down-side of limiting genetic diversity. GM-ing critters will have no appreciable effect one way or the other so-long as selelective cross-breeding continues. Cloning, on the other hand, dramatically limits genetic diversity.

If Monsanto succeeds in getting millions of African farmers to replace the thousands of localized strains of, say, casava with the one Monstanto-provided strain (GM or no), would that make a species collapse more or less likely?

Double-edged sword right. New and improved crops dramatically increase production to eliminate famine. Loss of diversity increases risk of total species collapse.

What should we do? Today, small numbers of "boutique" farmers do great work in keeping diversity available. I'm not sure that is enough by itself.

|4.13.07 @ 12:46PM|#

If it is global warming, perhaps the bees have moved to Canada. Yeah that's it: Blame Canada!

lunchgiver|4.13.07 @ 12:47PM|#

"oilseed grape (canola)"

Hmm, PC euphemization run rampant or spell-checker syndrome - you be the judge. It's 'oilseed rape' not 'grape'. No relation to the violent crime, it's just a very unfortunately named plant called 'rape'.

Sorry, not adding to the discussion, just pointing out something mildly amusing.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 12:53PM|#

GM-ing critters will have no appreciable effect one way or the other so-long as selelective cross-breeding continues.

Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of their genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This increases the probability that some latent susceptibility to a microbe, or a prion, or a toxin, or an allergen, or whatever will emerge.

Yes, it would be the selective cross breeding and/or cloning that would cause such an emergent susceptibility to be widespread, but it is the GM'ing that increases the possibility that the susceptibility will emerge in the first place.

GM / selective breeding / cloning are not independent issues in this important sense.

|4.13.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Good article, Ron. Whatever is causing the bee die-off (high infestations of viruses and fungi-- something like bee AIDS?) it's interesting to see the case being used to whip up hysteria against other, unlikely causes.

In point: the other day I read a totally serious letter to the editor in one of the local newspapers in which the author claimed this was because bees are being fed high fructose corn syrup. Really.

Jennifer|4.13.07 @ 1:22PM|#

bees are being fed high fructose corn syrup. Really.

There's no problem HFCS can't cause. Really.

|4.13.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of their genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This increases the probability that some latent susceptibility to a microbe, or a prion, or a toxin, or an allergen, or whatever will emerge.

Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of their genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This increases the probability that some latent immunity to a microbe, or a prion, or a toxin, or an allergen, or whatever will emerge.

Basic risk management means you have worry about the "unknown" unknowns as well as the "known" unknowns. It also means weighing the probability of opporunities (both known and unknown) against the probability of risk (both known and unknown). GM-ing critters will both improve their odds of surving some future threat as well decreasing ther odds of surviving some other future threat.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of their genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This increases the probability that some latent immunity to a microbe, or a prion, or a toxin, or an allergen, or whatever will emerge.

No, there would be a bias toward latent susceptibilities. The reason is that "natural" DNA has been exposed to these pre-existing prions, toxins, microbes, etc. for a long period of time. The immunities are built into the code by evolutionary process.

This is true to some extent with purposefully-cross-bred species. When HnR brags that man has been purposefully cross-breeding wheat for a long time, one implication is that it has given any latent susceptibilities a long time to emerge and be wiped out.

However, when relatively large portions of the DNA look different, and become prevalent, within a few generations, then that is a recipe for species failure.

I am not saying that GM species don't have helpful immunities. They have those by design. What they don't necessarily have is immunity against unforeseen defects that extant species have without us appreciating them.

|4.13.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Ron,
Fifth paragraph, first sentence, it should be:
"oilseed rape(canola)" not "oilseed grape".

That is all.

|4.13.07 @ 1:46PM|#

No, there would be a bias toward latent susceptibilities.

Can you provide references? I would like to follow up on that point. I can't see how a gene sequence from one species inserted into another has some intrinsic risk that it will alter the new organisms level of susceptibility to microbes.

Paul|4.13.07 @ 1:54PM|#

Maybe someone should point out that European honeybees are not native to this continent?

Sandy, this is true and known for those of us who are bee followers. :O

But European honeybees are also in decline. So whatever's happening is a worldwide phenomenon. Uhm, if there's one thing I can usually predict, it's a reaction from the Big Environmentalism, but I have to admit, I fell flat on this one. Has any link to global warming [climate change] been made?

biologist|4.13.07 @ 1:55PM|#

Dave W., your scenario seems very unlikely to me. Possible, but unlikely, and probably easy to overcome with the same technology if it does occur.

|4.13.07 @ 1:59PM|#

The reason is that "natural" DNA has been exposed to these pre-existing prions, toxins, microbes, etc. for a long period of time.

The problem is that the microbes and prions themselves are continually changing. GM crops are in no more danger from new strains than traditionally bred crops, or wild plants for that matter.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:08PM|#

I can't see how a gene sequence from one species inserted into another has some intrinsic risk that it will alter the new organisms level of susceptibility to microbes.

Among other reasons, because the inserted sequence breaks the sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point. If it was the sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point that provided immunity against deadly bacterium X, then the frankenbees will sweep the planet until one encounters bacterium X. This bee is called Patient Zero. He spreads bacterium X through the bee population and then all the bees die, suddenly.

then the tort lawyers come out and say, "who pays?"

Then the carricks and the ray ray's come out and say, "I guess the people unlucky enough to rely on ecosystems that rely on bees. Nobody could have foreseen this tragedy of the commons. It is force majeure."

Then Dave W. sighs, heavily.

Then Ron Bailey thanks a God he doesn't believe in that losses in his corporate investments are limited to the value of his stocks.

Then biologist gets to determine how easy it is for bees to bounce back from something like this. He is hopeful, and it seems like honest work.

biologist|4.13.07 @ 2:16PM|#

if you add a single segment of DNA to an organisms' genome, the previously existing, evolved, naturally selected genome is still there to provide the normal immunological protection unless:

1. the inserted segment itself is toxic (solution: don't release population into the wild, destroy lab colonies, don't use this segment of DNA)

2. the segment is inserted at a position that disrupts normal gene function of a gene involved in immune response (solution: insert genetically engineered segment at a different position)

your tutoring fee is $20.00

|4.13.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Among other reasons, because the inserted sequence breaks the sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point. If it was the sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point that provided immunity against deadly bacterium X, then the frankenbees will sweep the planet until one encounters bacterium X. This bee is called Patient Zero. He spreads bacterium X through the bee population and then all the bees die, suddenly.

Dave, I realize you are smart enough to get an engineering degree and a law degree. However, you also believe lots of stuff that I find completely nuts.

So I am not going to be satisfied with your analysis. Can you provide references or are you trying to derive this from first principles yourself?

Then the carricks and the ray ray's come out and say, "I guess the people unlucky enough to rely on ecosystems that rely on bees. Nobody could have foreseen this tragedy of the commons. It is force majeure."

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:30PM|#

2. the segment is inserted at a position that disrupts normal gene function of a gene involved in immune response (solution: insert genetically engineered segment at a different position)

1. You can do that if gm is introduced sufficiently gradually so that any unforeseen impairment is not catastrophic. That is one reason that purposeful cross breeding has worked so well in agriculture. That may not hold up so well gene propagation is sped up by: (i) economic centralization; and/or (ii) cloning.

2. Although I used bacterial susceptibility as an example, the susceptibility might be structural susceptibility to a virus or prion. It might be susceptibility to a toxin. If the entire next generation of humans were cloned from Cab's kid, I think even Cab would admit that that would be a problem. We don't know why he is allergic to peanuts -- what portions of his DNA make him that way (or do we?).

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Dave, I realize you are smart enough to get an engineering degree and a law degree. However, you also believe lots of stuff that I find completely nuts.

So I am not going to be satisfied with your analysis. Can you provide references or are you trying to derive this from first principles yourself?

I am indeed arguing from "first principles" if you will. Here is what less than 5 minutes of GOOGLE research (2 searches) uncovered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlavrSavr
(scroll down to antibiotic resistance)

the first search regarding the onco-mouse had some interesting results, too, but nothing as directly to the point.

Speaking of nutsy beliefs, I know you would know I was smart even if you had no idea about my degrees. Smart people can recognize intelligence in others. I believe that is actually the best intelligence test.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:39PM|#

what portions of his DNA make him that way (or do we?).

I kind of hope we don't, from an anti-eugenics standpoint.

biologist|4.13.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Dave W.,

it is relatively easy to determine DNA sequences, and it is possible to find the inserted segment, since it is of known sequence and determine if it has been inserted in a gene or in a non-coding region ("junk DNA"), and there are vast stretches of non-coding DNA in which to insert the sequence

as far as genetic variability in general, it is important to maintain genetic variability, so the GM populations ought to be created with this in mind, which is easy enough to do.

|4.13.07 @ 2:44PM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlavrSavr

I read it. I does not support your argument that GM-ing poses an intrinsic risk that the resultant organism is susceptible to future threats from evolving bacteria.

It says that the "designers" of thie tomato made a stupid decision to use a specific gene as a marker that has a potential to increase the rate of bacteria resistant to anti-biotics.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 3:03PM|#

It says that the "designers" of thie tomato made a stupid decision to use a specific gene as a marker that has a potential to increase the rate of bacteria resistant to anti-biotics.

Well, at a more general level it said that wide propagation of the tomato design might have had some unforeseeable and bad effects as far as bacteria go. But you are right, they didn't say that some existing bacterium might have wiped out the tomato, the way smallpox did in the Native Americans.

Let me try a different tack. We don't know what causes multiple sclerosis (MS). there appear to be some genetic links, but these links are not understood at the level of gene sequences. Doesn't this mean that any genetic manipulation could increase a species' susceptibility to MS?

|4.13.07 @ 3:09PM|#

Doesn't this mean that any genetic manipulation could increase a species' susceptibility to MS?

The magic word here is could.

You are not making arguments about probability of latent errors in a fully-peer-reviewed engineering process to generate GM organisms. You are merely arguing from a position of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about every imaginable catastrophe the could happen.

Unfortunately, I am losing my computer in a short while. So if I don't participate anymore, it is not because I have lost interest in the topic.

|4.13.07 @ 3:18PM|#

You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a finite, non-zero probablity that the quadruple redundant flight control system fail in such way that the shuttle falls from the sky and lands on top of my house!!!

I think we should ground the shuttle until the experts can get together and figure out how to prevent that.

|4.13.07 @ 3:32PM|#

carrick | April 13, 2007, 3:18pm | #
You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a finite, non-zero probablity that the quadruple redundant flight control system fail in such way that the shuttle falls from the sky and lands on top of my house!!!

Put me down for $5 that it happens on the next shuttle flight.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 3:32PM|#

You are not making arguments about probability of latent errors in a fully-peer-reviewed engineering process to generate GM organisms. You are merely arguing from a position of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about every imaginable catastrophe the could happen.

Like I said on the previous thread about this -- I am talking about aggregation of small risks. Yeah, MS is just one disease, but you have to keep in mind that there are many potential diseases in the world. AIDS didn't get geared up until the 80s. Neither did the deadly type of e coli that kills people. the could happens are not limited to MS. it is MS plus every communicable disease you have heard of, plus every communicable disease that doesn't have a name yet.

Now even aggregating all these diseases and potential diseases: still the risk of a single gene tweak is probably still small. But tweaking genes aggregates the risk. Hopefully only linearly, and not geometrically or exponentially, but at least linearly.

As far as your faith in peer review (which btw is why you are similar to ray ray), that is what the flavr savr citation was for. all this peer review and they did not foresee low crop yields and the fact that the picking tools would smush the tomatoes. Yikes! the problem with the picking machines should have been foreseeable on "first principles" -- no geneticists required, but somehow they missed this problem prior to rolling out on a commercial scale.

The only scarier possibility is that low yields and smushing were a smokescreen because that would have played better with the public than: "most of the tomatoes got a disease and died." that would not have played well at all, would it have? I mean, if that were the case, then it would not be lying to say that yields were low and the picking machines smushed what tomatoes there were. If I were a CalGene investor, I would be out there smushing sick tomatoes with my own hands, like an Arthur Andersen accountant smashing harddrives.

I mean, maybe not. It is impossible for the likes of you or me to know either way. but I can't believe that you could read the account of the Flavr Savr and believe in the integrity of the process.

Flavr Savrs were the new thing when I was a young patent lawyer in California. Phen fen hit next, just as I was moving to Cincinnati, just in time for P&G's olestra roll-out. it was so long ago that HnR couldn't believe that a knuckleheaded jury would pay out on a VIOXX claim. There is a word for thinking about these things. The word is "paranoia." I wish they hadn't chosen such a loaded word to describe this line of inquiry.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 3:48PM|#

You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a finite, non-zero probablity that the quadruple redundant flight control system fail in such way that the shuttle falls from the sky and lands on top of my house!!!

What if they were launching a hundred shuttles next year? Or a thousand? Or a million?

Now consider that each shuttle crash might take out just one house, or might burn down a whole city a-la the McGillicuddy cow.

At what point do you start worrying?

(Think of each genetic manipulation as one shuttle.)

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 4:15PM|#

The hope in variation is that various susceptabilities are not shared. Insufficient variation in any populaton means they all may share a susceptability.
As far as GM vs "natural" organisms, we only need to take care that we don't remove existing strengths while adding new ones.
New threats are a threat to GM stuff as well as to existing stuff, because it has not existed before.

Russell|4.13.07 @ 7:45PM|#

"The word is "paranoia." I wish they hadn't chosen such a loaded word to describe this line of inquiry."

Actually, it should be saved for speculation that declining DDT levels in the environment have rendered bees more palatable to mites , leading to a food chain collapse as pollination tanks and animals follow flowering plants into extinction.

Don't tell Fumento or he'll sell the exclusive to the Washington Times

|4.13.07 @ 8:23PM|#

You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a finite, non-zero probablity that the quadruple redundant flight control system fail in such way that the shuttle falls from the sky and lands on top of my house!!!

What if they were launching a hundred shuttles next year? Or a thousand? Or a million?

Now consider that each shuttle crash might take out just one house, or might burn down a whole city a-la the McGillicuddy cow.

At what point do you start worrying?

Wow, Dave, just wow.

The probability that the shuttle could fall on my house is non-zero, but it is vanishingly small. A million times a vanishingly small probability is still beyond extremely remote.

Aggregating hundreds or thousands of extremely remote to vanishingly small probabilities is still in the range of remote to extremely remote.

The probability of you getting hit by a bus are many orders of magnitude above that. If you really worry about the stuff you say you worry about, I don't see how you ever leave the house in the morning due to fear of everything.

|4.13.07 @ 8:37PM|#

I mean, maybe not. It is impossible for the likes of you or me to know either way. but I can't believe that you could read the account of the Flavr Savr and believe in the integrity of the process.

Dave, I don't have "faith" in peer review. I am a practicing engineer with 20+ years of experience in an industry that builds machines that can kill people when they fail. I have a detailed understanding of the standard engineering process and I understand what is does well and how it breaks down.

And yes, the primary weakness of the engineering process is the problem that plagues every non-trivial endeavor -- PEOPLE.

Even with well-established engineering processes with robust peer review, mistakes slip through. If you are uncomfortable with that perhaps you should retire to a cave.

Guy Montag|4.13.07 @ 9:35PM|#

Are you trying to generate buzz for the New Chrysler?

Not if it is owned by the old Albert Gore, Jr.!

Ron, I am not so interested in the Siera Club reaction as I am about the Sahara Club reaction :)

|4.13.07 @ 9:57PM|#

Guy Montag | April 13, 2007, 9:35pm | #
Are you trying to generate buzz for the New Chrysler?

Not if it is owned by the old Albert Gore, Jr.!

I'm with you on that Guy.

|4.14.07 @ 3:13AM|#

CCD has hit countries in Europe where there is very little, if any, GM crops. That's just typical of environmental groups to try & hijack the latest environmental "scare" for their own political purposes.

Beekeepers need help financially to stay in business. Before CCD caught everyone's attention, we have been fighting several other major pests for the past two decades that had already eroded the financial viability of beekeeping. There is so little money to be made (net of expenses) in beekeeping these days, it's little wonder that there are half as many beekeepers today, as existed 15 years ago.

Now THERE'S a scary statistic. Either bees are a valuable commodity to national economies, or they are not. If they are, then the Gov'ts of the U.S. and Canada had better start showing some practical support to the folks still remaining in this industry. Many beekeepers I've spoken to are viewing CCD as "the straw that broke the camel's back", in terms of the financial viability of remianing in beekeeping.

|4.14.07 @ 5:21AM|#

Has anyone considered the possiblity the bees are trying to send us a message.

...

"So long, and thanks for all the flowers!"

=D

|4.14.07 @ 7:20AM|#

great article. everyone knows that if scientists do short term testing, the results are definitively accurate and magically predict all long term effects. look at how safe, thorough and trustworthy the pharm. drug testing industry results are. trust the experiments of science above all else. any one who questions the establishment is a traitorous terrorist. if you suggest there is a bee problem due to humanity's meddling, you must be working for al qaeda. Bow to all technology. step on a family farmer to get a better look. donate to your local billionaire. nothing to see here . everything's fine. i cant hear you la la la la la. just obey and wait for jesus.

|4.14.07 @ 7:23AM|#

i just went outside and found a pile of dead bees. they are all coming to my backyard and stinging each other and arranging their dead bodies in the shape of sun myung moon having sex with the virgin mary. and she's finally smiling!!!!!

|4.14.07 @ 8:49AM|#

Beekeeper,
it is true that there is little money to be made as a beekeeper. There is little to be made as a farmer as well... BUT.... No matter how bad it is... never give up...
I grow veggies for a living, and I definately know where you are coming from... but if everyone who does this stuff for a living gave up due to adversity... where would that leave us? Heres a thought.... Diversify.

|4.14.07 @ 11:23AM|#

biologist and carrick: I just want to say thanks for your efforts to educate apparently frightened people about genetically enhanced crops.

|4.14.07 @ 11:45AM|#

You're welcome

Lydia|4.15.07 @ 7:20PM|#

It's clear that Mr. Bailey is not being paid by the Sierra Club. Bashing them achieves little purpose; if it's truth we're after, then we need only look to the "scientific community" (a very homogeneous bunch, to be sure), to the media, or to large multinational corporations that seek to better society (not to make money). In fact, noone really knows why bees are dying from viral infections, but we need to look at everything. And bees have been known to travel to other continents, so what we do here in the U.S. has a global impact. Of course, if a similar phenomenon were occurring in humans, the WHO would be all over it - right?

uncle sam|4.15.07 @ 8:07PM|#

Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?
"Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees"

|4.15.07 @ 10:59PM|#

In their sadly predictable knee-jerk fashion, the good folks at Reason are bending over backwards to absolve corporate America from any possible responsabilty for yet another environmental disaster.

Sandy|4.15.07 @ 11:50PM|#

European environmentalists should worry about honeybees. Everybody else's environmentalists should check if native populations are affected, then shrug if not--unless you're an agricultural scientist. Then you should probably get scared shitless.

If native populations are being affected negatively, it's an environmental concern. Europe appears to have an environmental problem. Everybody else has an agricultural problem, if they want to be consistent with their other policies on introduced species.

I'm mainly pointing out the hypocrisy in the construction of "environment" and "introduced." It's not the clean, objective definition they would like us to believe.

|4.16.07 @ 5:05PM|#

Grotius surprised some of us by telling B.t. is a bacteria organic farmers use. I got the impression some people here conclude that this means this theory of Bt causing bees to die is just as likely caused by organic farmers.

But there's quite a difference.
The organic farmers spray a solution with Bt on (lepidopteran) pest-infected fields.
Bt-crops contain the (original or improved) gene which makes the poison, currently in such a way that they contain the poison all the time in about every part of the plant.
I hope you can spot the difference.

|4.16.07 @ 5:11PM|#

carrick told that it doesn't take genetically modified organisms to cause a single species to collapse instantaneously.

I think the issue is not whether or not only GM could cause this. It is just that according to them the usual diseases take some time to spread. Since these bee hives died at a very fast rate, they are looking to identify causes that could act so fast. This Bt-bee connection is one possible cause that seems worth investigating. Other theories are welcome of course.
Anyway in Europe we already have huge problems with beekeeping, with the Varroa mite and another disease I'm too lazy to look up now.

Stephanie|10.21.09 @ 10:28AM|#

This article does not convince me to dismiss GMO crops as a potential culprit. None of the studies looked at long term effects of the crops, and just because a handful of controlled experiments rejects the idea, does not mean the general public should blindly swallow this.
I would even venture to believe that the writer of this article is biased towards Genetically modified plant crops for one reason or another.

nick tulloh|4.10.10 @ 9:35AM|#

All the snide Sierra Club bashing and the twit of an author doesn't know that bumblebees (article title) aren't honeybees.