@農자료창고

환경운동가 Vandana Shiva 씨와 농부 Bija Devi 씨가 거대한 적과 맞서 토종 종자를 보존하기 위해 싸우다.

Two Options from The Perennial Plate on Vimeo.

Paul Christou^1, 2,  

아르헨티나와 미국의 제초제 저항성 유전자조작 작물의 재배와 관련한 정보들... 그린피스에서 제작

필자는 멋진 어조로 합성 생물학, 곧 유전자조작 기술을 옹호하고 있다. 이것이 바로 GMO를 지지하는 사람들의 대표적인 의견의 하나이다. 지금까지 위험한 적이 없었고, 그렇기에 앞으로도 없을 것이다. 이 기술만이 미래 인구 성장과 환경악화 등으로 위협을 받을 인류를 먹여살릴 수 있는 최고의 희망이다라는 주장... 하지만 여기에는 근본적인 성찰이 빠져 있다. 지금 당장 드러나는 현상만을 근거로 할 것이 아니라, 지금 현재의 위기가 무엇 때문에 어떻게 발생한 것인지 반성하는 근본적인 성찰이 필요하다고 생각한다. 

만약 GM이 농업의 포드 Cortina라면, 합성 생물학은 행성에 아무 해를 끼치지 않고 세계를 먹여살리는 페라리 작물을 우리에게 줄 수 있다

'자연세계’의 대처능력은 매우 중요하다. 해결책은 자연세계를 확대하는 것일 수 있다. 사진: Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/29/synthetic-biology-best-hope-mankind?newsfeed=true

Caren Baginski

It turns out, the famous "you like to-may-toes and I like to-mah-toes," lyric from 1937's Shall We Dance, is applicable to today's great genetically engineered (GE) food debate. While the dialect is the same, several acronyms that refer to essentially the same concept are muddying up the dialogue. Whether you use GMO, GE or GM, one thing is clear: there's something going on in our food that isn't natural.

RELATED GALLERY

GMO timeline: 1976-2011

Why is this debate important? GE, or biotech, crops have been adopted by farmers worldwide at higher rates than any other agricultural practice in history, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and since the first significant commercial plantings in 1996acreage devoted to biotech crops has increased 60-fold.

But perhaps even more important is that consumers still aren't clear on what these terms mean. In 2000, FDA conducted a series of focus groups on the terms to see what was understood and how people responded. The study found:

• The term "modification" was seen as a vaguer, softer way of saying engineered.
• The "bio" prefix had a positive connotation.
• Terms such as "product of biotechnology" or "biotechnology" had the least amount of negative implication.
• Most participants were unfamiliar with the term "Genetically Modified Organism" (GMO). It seemed to imply that foods are organisms or contain organisms, which people think is inaccurate and unappealing.

This last point was raised by an attendee at a recent GMO education session at NPA MarketPlace. Can you use GMO alone to denote GE plants? Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety says yes. "Nothing about 'GMO' suggests organisms floating around in corn," for example, he said. "The corn is the organism, and organism is a perfectly acceptable general term to refer to living things."

The study revealed that consumers favored terms that the biotechnology industry currently uses most (chicken or the egg?) to describe a genetically engineered crop. How much has the climate changed since then? Here are the most commonly used terms explained according to regulations and industry.

Genetically Engineered (GE)

RELATED GALLERY

GMO timeline: 1976-2011

The NOSB makes recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) about whether a substance should be allowed or prohibited in organic production. It outlined several GE practices in the report, including recombinant DNA, cell fusion, micro- and macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introducing a foreign gene and changing the positions of genes. However, according to NOSB, GE does not include breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in-vitro fertilization and tissue culture.

The USDA's current definition of genetic engineering is "manipulation of an organism's genes by introducing, eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those techniques referred to as recombinant DNA techniques." The Biotechnology Industry Organization, the world's largest biotechnology organization, also refers to this regulatory definition in its literature.

Internationally, genetic engineering is defined largely by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an organization formed in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization topromote coordination of all food standards work by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. Codex's definition [PDF] is similar to the United States' definition: "Genetically engineered/modified organisms, and products thereof, are produced through techniques in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination." Codex also says GE organisms do not include organisms resulting from transduction.

The Center for Food Safety, an organization which works to promote organic and sustainable agriculture, most commonly uses the term genetically engineered, but "in our materials we use the same definition and then suggest that the abbreviation could be GE, GM and GMO," said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director for the Center.

The Center's definition states: "agricultural biotechnology refers to the use of recombinant DNA techniques and related tools of biotechnology to genetically engineer crops used in the production of food, feed, and fiber. The resulting products are referred to interchangeably as 'transgenic' or 'genetically engineered' crops and foods."

Genetically Modified (GM)

RELATED GALLERY

GMO timeline: 1976-2011

Karen Batra, director, Food and Agriculture Communications of the Biotechnology Industry Organization also acknowledged that GE is used more in the U.S. "perhaps because the technology we're referring to here is mostly genetically engineered using recombinant DNA techniques."

The USDA's regulatory definition of genetic modification is "the production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods."

This differs from its aforementioned GE definition by eliminating the use of "manipulation of an organism's genes" in favor of "the production of heritable improvements." The GM definition also includes "genetic engineering" but does not specifically call out "recombinant DNA techniques," and includes a mention of "more traditional methods."

The biotech industry prefers to use "genetically modified," said Freese. "The term lends itself to one of their favorite arguments: Humans have been genetically modifying plants for millennia (through natural plant breeding) and GE is just 'an extension' of that," he said. "They thus gloss over the insertional mutagenesis, the generation of novel compounds never before in our food supply, and the breaching of species barriers that are all unique to GE."

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)

RELATED GALLERY

GMO timeline: 1976-2011

"Because consumers are more familiar with GMO, the organic and non-GMO industry has used GMO," said Spector. "Industry is using it because consumers are using it" and not the other way around.

Perhaps the term became popular thanks to recent media coverage and initiatives such as the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the availability of non-GMO food and products. In 2008, the Non-GMO Project began enrolling products in its 3rd party verification program. The Project's spokeswoman was unavailable at the time of publication for comment.

GMO is also used in front of a plant, such as "GMO corn." Freese said this is technically incorrect because it's redundant. "It says literally 'genetically modified organism corn.' The proper term is 'GM corn' or 'GE corn,'" he said.  

The biotechnology industry does not use the GMO term as frequently. "I tend to use 'biotech crops' or 'biotech plants' in most of my communications to avoid confusion," said Batra of Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Genetically engineered organism (GEO)

According to the USDA, GEO is an organism produced through genetic engineering. This term is rarely used.

Non-GMO

Non-GMO, as the name suggests, means an organism that has not been genetically modified. The Non-GMO Project is the only North American independent verification program that allows products to sport a "Non-GMO Project Verified" seal. In the organic industry, the term Non-GMO implies organic, and supporters of organic are worried that the extra Non-GMO label may take away from organic advocacy efforts or create an unwanted distinction between Non-GMO and organic.

Non-GE/Non-GM

These terms are not defined by the USDA and are rarely, if at all, used as synonyms for Non-GMO.

GMO free

This claim is a cue to be skeptical. "GMO free" and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible, according to the Non-GMO Project. This is because GMOs have proliferated so much in our food system that it is unreasonable to expect that even trace amounts have not made their way into final products. The USDA reported in 2009 that 93 percent of soy and cotton and 86 of corn grown in the U.S. was genetically engineered.

http://newhope360.com/non-gmo/whats-difference-between-ge-and-gmo?page=1

왜 농업 문제에 접근할 때 과학만이 아닌 사회적, 경제적, 문화적 측면에서도 접근해야 하는지 잘 보여주는 글.

과학은 어떻게 이용해야 하는가, 새로운 과학기술은 어떻게 적용하고 접근해야 하는지... 

일리노이주 LaSalle County의 이러한 Bt 옥수수 식물은 넓적다리잎벌레 피해의 결과로 누락되었다. 아이오와주에서 넓적다리잎벌레 피해에 취약해지고 있는 여타의 Bt 식물처럼, 이러한 옥수수 식물은 해마다 똑같은 Bt 단백질을 나타내는 옥수수를 심은 밭에서 Cry3Bb1 Bt 단백질을 함유한다. Credit: Michael Gray

높은 옥수수 가격은 많은 재배자가 해마다 옥수수를 심고 옥수수 수확량을 최대화하기 위해 다른 곤충도 죽이는 기술인 농약을 과용하도록 이끌고 있다고 연구자들이 보고한다. 많은 사례에서, 통합해충관리의 근본 원칙을 위반하면서 농약이 필요한지 밭을 살피지도 않고 뿌린다. 그 결과 중서부 농업 지대의 많은 옥수수와 콩밭이 생물다양성의 불모지가 되고, 살아 남은 곤충들은 현재 농민들이 사용하는 몇몇 주요 벌레잡이 도구에 내성을 갖는다. 

일리노이대학 작물과학의 Michael Gray 교수와 그의 동료들은 2011년 7월 말부터 8월초까지 일리노이주의 47개 카운티에서 옥수수와 콩의 해충을 조사하고,  많은 카운티에서 일부 주요 곤충 해충의 밀도가 0이나 0에 가까워졌다는 것을 발견했다고 결론을 내렸다.

"난 22년 동안 이런 종류의 연구를 하면서 이런 일은 처음이다"라고 Gray 교수는 말했다. "곤충다양성의 관점에서, 그러한 밭의 대부분은 생물학적 불모지이다." 그는 심지어 서부의 옥수수 뿌리선충 성충(보통 늦여름에 옥수수밭에 알을 낳는)은 대개의 카운티에서 찾아보기가 힘들었다고 말했다.

부북적으로 이러한 적은 숫자는 지난 몇 년 동안의 환경 상태 -특히 습한 봄- 가 인한 결과라고 Gray 교수는 말했다. 그러나 하나나 그 이상의 살충 성분의 단백질을 생산하는 Bt 옥수수 하이브리드품종의 광범위한 사용과 옥수수 및 콩밭에 살충제와 살균제의 혼합물을 널리 사용하는 관행도 그에 역할을 했다고 그는 말했다. 

그리고 Gray 교수가 재배자 모임에서 농민들에게 물으니, 그들이 올해 다시 Bt 옥수수를 심으면 대개가 그렇게 된다고 이야기한다.

"많은 생산자가 다수확 생식질에 접근하기 위하여 Bt 하이브리드 품종의 사용이 필수라고 말한다"고 Gray 교수가 말했다. "많은 재배자가 Bt 하이브리드 품종을 사용하더라도 재배하며 토양 살충제를 사용할 가능성이 높을 것이다."

이는 통합해충관리 -곤충 개체수를 조사하여 어떠한 처방이 필요한지 철저히 평가하고, 옥수수 수확량을 황폐화할 수 있는 서부의 옥수수 뿌리선충과 유럽 조명나방 같은 해충에 적합한 전술을 사용하자고 주장하는 Gray 교수와 같은 연구자의 조언을 몇 십 년 동안 역행한 것이다. 

"우린 콩과 돌려짓기하려고 생각하는 재배자들에게 현재 수준에서 곤충이 수확량에 영향을 줄 것 같을 때만 뿌리고 해마다 Bt를 심지 말거나, 그래도 심는다면 다른 Bt 단백질을 나타내는 다른 유형의 Bt 옥수수를 심으라고 요청했다"고 Gray 교수는 말했다.

하지만 통합해충관리를 사용하는 대신, 재배자들은 그가 "보험해충관리(insurance pest management)"라 부르는 해마다 그들의 작물을 곤충에게서 보호하고자 무기고에서 모든 것을 꺼내 쓰는 방법에 의존하고 있다. 

"일리노이주 중부에서 옥수수의 경우, 토지 비용 이외 -비료, 종자, 작물보험, 농기계와 같은 것들- 의 평균은 1200평에 약 513달러이다"라고 Gray 교수는 말했다. 다수확 토지에는 현금 임대료가 1200평에 325달러 추가될 수 있다고 그는 말했다. "그래서 많은 재배자가 850달러의 투자를 보호하기 위한 꽤 값싼 보험으로 20~25달러의 토양 살충제를 쓴다고 생각한다."

지주들은 이 경기장에서 임대료를 올리고 있고, 일부 대부업자는 재배자에게 그들의 수확물을 보호하기 위해 모든 힘을 다하도록 권하며, 연방의 장려금은 Bt 옥수수를 사용하는 재배자를 위한 작물 보험의 비용을 낮추어 왔다고  Gray 교수는 말했다. 그렇게 농민들이 그런 방식으로 농사를 지어온 데에는 많은 이유가 있는 것이다.

대부분의 재배자는 적은 수의 곤충에 놀라거나 하지 않고 자신의 전략이 제대로 작동하는 증거로 볼 것이라고 Gray 교수는 말했다. 그러나 또 다른 증거는 단기간의 혜택이 뜻밖의 -해로운- 결과를 야기할 것이라 경고한다. 

연구자들은 이미 예를 들어 아이오와, 일리노이, 미네소타, 네브라스카에서 넓적다리잎벌레에 대한 Bt 옥수수의 실패를 발견했다. 2011년 PLoS onE 학술지에 게재된 연구에서, 아이오와주립대의 Aaron Gassmann 씨와 그 동료들은 아이오와의 넓적다리잎벌레로 손상된 옥수수밭에서 그 새끼들이 개체수 통제보다 특정 Bt 독소(손상된 밭에서 사용한 Bt의 유형인 Cry3Bb1)에 영향을 덜 받는다는 것을 입증했다.

Gray 교수는 Cry3Bb1 품종의 Bt 옥수수를 심은 일리노이주에서도 똑같은 종류의 넓적다리잎벌레에 의한 심각한 피해 가능성을 보여줬고, 그는 일리노이에서 Bt 옥수수의 실패에 대한 새로운 연구를 Gassmann 씨와 함께하고 있다. 지금까지 연구자들은 아직 이러한 Bt 실패의 원인을 입증하지 못하고 그 구조를 조사하고 있다. 

"아이오와에서 연구한 Gassmann 씨의 밭에서처럼, 여기 일리노이주에서의 실패는 돌려짓기 없이 여러 해 동안 계속하여 똑같은 Cry3Bb1 Bt 단백질의 옥수수를 반복하여 심은 밭에서이다"라고 Gray 교수는 말했다. 

Bt 옥수수에 대한 재배자들의 신뢰는 아마 1900년대 초에 미국에 우연히 들어온 유럽 조명나방에 대한 커다란 성공 때문일 것이다. 그 곤충은 일리노이주에 1930년대 후반에 이르렀다. 

"치명적인 해충이었다"고 Gray 교수는 말한다. "주요한 수확량 도둑이었다."

Science의 2010년 논문에서, Gray 교수와 몇몇 중서부 지역 대학의 동료들은 1996년 Bt 옥수수의 도입이 중서부 상부 지역에서 유럽 조명나방의 깊고 지속적인 감소를 이끌었다고 보고했다.

이러한 성공은 두 가지 가장 큰 요인이라고 Gray 교수는 말했다. 첫째, 조명나방이 먹는 지상의 옥수수 조직에서 Bt 단백질의 높은 수준을 얻기가 상대적으로 쉬웠다. 둘째, 규제가 Bt가 아닌 옥수수를 심는 보호지구라 불리는 넓은 완충지대를 제공했다. 보호지구는  Bt 내성 변종의 발전을 줄이기 위해, Bt에 노출되어도 독성에 저항하여 살아 남는 곤충과 짝짓기하는 Bt에 취약한 많은 곤충을 공급했을 것이다.

그러나 넓적다리잎벌레 유충은 뿌리에 가장 피해를 주고, 뿌리에서 Bt 독소의 발현은 지상의 조직보다 훨씬 덜하다. 이는 넓적다리잎벌레가 조명나방보다 특정 독소에 훨씬 영향을 덜 받는다는 것을 뜻한다고 Gray 교수는 말했다. 그 사실에 더하여 일부 재배자는 완충지의 필요성을 무시하고 내성을 일으킬 수 있도록 해마다 Bt 옥수수를 심는다고 그는 말했다.

"옥수수가 1부셀에 3달러였고 재배자들이 우리에게 제한된 자원을 어디에 넣을지 묻고 있다면, 우린 이런 대화를 할 필요가 없었을 것이다"라고 그는 말했다. "그러나 이러한 높은 농상품 가격 때문에 값싼 보험과 같은 투입재를 추가하여 더 많은 부셀을 짜내는 것이 나아 보인다."

통합해충관리 방법을 채용하기 위해 옥수수 생산자의 실패를 설명하는 논문은 2010년 9월 27일 'Agricultural Food Chemistry' 학술지에 실렸다. 2010년 논문, "유전자변형 농업생태계에서 상업적 옥수수 생산자를 위한 전통적 통합해충관리(IPM) 전략의 타당성: 과거의 시대인가?"는  U. of I. News Bureau이나 온라인으로 이용할 수 있다. A report on Michael Gray's insect surveys in Illinois is available online.

http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Researcher_tracks_agricultural_overuse_of_bug_killing_technology_999.html

by: Richard Schiffman, Truthout | News Analysis

 

(Photo: tpmartins)

http://www.truth-out.org/dow-and-monsanto-join-forces-poison-americas-heartland/1329933936

Of all the crops and countries in GMO controversies today, few are as important than Bt cotton in India. GMO debates keep going back to small farmers and developing countries, and India has by far the most small farmers planting GM seeds.  (In Brazil and Argentina, which account for most of the GM plantings in the developing world, most of the GM seeds are planted by large commercial soybean growers.)

The ISAAA has recently put out a series of publications on the “remarkable success of Bt cotton in India” (see an example).  Articles by economists routinely attribute major yield gains in Indian cotton to Bt.  In a recent interview with Down to Earth I was asked to respond to the claim by a seed industry spokesman that Bt cotton showed “how a technology can double yield of a crop in 6-7 years.”

If all this is true, it is very important.  Is it?  Well I’m a data guy and I happen to have the latest data on Indian Bt cotton (courtesy of the International Cotton Advisory Board).  First let me say that I have already discussed the controversy over Bt cotton causingfarmer suicides: the data just don’t support it.  But if we take a similarly objective look at the data on Bt cotton’s “remarkable success,” there are some equal surprises in store, and a few inescapable ugly facts.

India approved Bt cotton in 2002; now it accounts for 92% of all Indian cotton.  Average nationwide cotton yields went from 302 kg/ha in the 2003/3 season to a projected 481 kg/ha in 2011/12 — up 59.3% overall.  This chart shows the trends in yields, which took off after Bt was introduced in 2002 (as we are constantly reminded by GMO enthusiasts).

(The depiction of Bt cotton as a coquettish boll is courtesy of the ISAAA’s Mandy and Fanny, subject of literary criticism in an earlier post.)

The problem is that while yields did take off right after Bt cotton was approved, this was well before hardly anyone was actually planting Bt cotton!  Look at this graph showing the yearly percentages of all Indian cotton land planted to Bt cotton.  Now here’s ugly fact #1: Most of the yield increase happened between 2002-5 when Bt comprised between 0.4-5.6% of India’s cotton.  Obviously Bt couldn’t have accounted for more than a tiny speck of the national rise.

The graphs also show that — and here comes ugly fact #2 — in the last 4 years, as Bt has risen from 67% to 92% of India’s cotton, yields have dropped steadily.

Could it be that there is more going on than just Bt adoption?  KR Kranthi, director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (and as knowledgeable a person on Indian cotton as you are likely to find), writes that “While there is a general perception that Bt cotton technology was singularly responsible for the dramatic improvement of cotton fortunes in India, it is pertinent to examine other probable factors that may have contributed to the higher yields.”

One issue is the spread of poorly regulated private hybrid seeds that require pesticides; cotton farmers have been on a pesticide treadmill ever since.  The hallmark of the pesticide treadmill is short-term yield increases, and the yield increases in the early 2000′s probably had more to do with conventional pesticides than Bt.  KR Kranthi writes that the insecticide imidacloprid is

used as a seed treatment for protection against sap-sucking insects. Even a naïve student in India would know that none of the vast majority of Bt hybrids would have been able to sustain that onslaught of leaf hopper infestation without seed treated with imidacloprid. Gaucho, as it was known commercially, has been used in India since 2000 and was known to have contributed to at least 25% to 30% yield enhancement in the conventional hybrids, long before Bt cotton was introduced in the country. Since 2002, every Bt cotton seed has been treated with the highly effective insecticide, imidacloprid…

But it’s hard to generalize about a country that is as large and diverse as India, and those countrywide averages are hiding very different local patterns.  This chart shows the yield trends in the 8 states with significant cotton crops; the trends are all over the map.  Pretty messy.  So let’s zero in on the 4 biggest cotton producers (the legend in this chart gives their ranking based on cotton acres in 2011).

Let’s start with Andhra Pradesh, where I have been doing research for the last 12 years.  Yields did go up when Bt came along, but the upward trend clearly started after the 1997/8 season; farmers didn’t adopt Bt in significant numbers until 2005/6 which is 8 years after the yields started climbing.  (More on the A.P. story is available here.)  Then the ugly fact #3: since 2007, yields in AP have dropped back to below where they were before farmers started adopting Bt cotton.

Now for Maharashtra, kind of like AP but not as pronounced: yields started rising well before Bt became popular, and now have dropped back to around where they were before.

Next is Madhya Pradesh, where yields have been going down ever since the 1997/8 season.  Bt cotton 

doesn’t seem to have done anything to improve the steady slump.

Finally we get to Gujarat, which is where the real action is. This state accounts for most of the national rise in yields after 2002/3.  Nobody knows for certain how much Bt cotton was being planted in 2001-3 because there were illegal Bt seeds on many farms (it’s an interesting story). Bt, illegal or not, surely played a role in the rise in Gujarat yields.  So doesn’t that surge between 2000-2005 qualify as a “remarkable success

” for Bt?

Here comes ugly fact #4: In Gujarat, the state 

mainly responsible for India’s remarkable rise in yields, there were many factors contributing to cotton yields other than Bt.  According to KR Kranthi:

It is important to consider that maximum productivity gains were obtained from the 0.6 million to 0.7 million hectares of new area under cotton in Gujarat, which had the benefits of more than 100,000 newly constructed check dams apart from the highly fertile soils that were under groundnut cultivation for several years before cotton was taken up. New technologies such as pesticides with novel modes of action…were introduced during 2001 and 2002.

Therefore, it is probable that the new pesticides, new hybrids, new micro-irrigation systems, new areas, and Bt-cotton together may have been effectively contributing to the enhanced rate of production and productivity. The role of Bt cotton in effectively protecting the crop from bollworms… cannot be underestimated, but need not be overhyped either.

I have read that the army of activists writing on GMO’s in India try to avoid the facts of the case.  I think on some issues –like the suicide narrative — that’s a fair charge.  But the counter-narrative of Bt cotton’s “remarkable success” also needs to he held up to the facts, and when you do, it gets ugly very quickly.

Bt did not “double yields” in 5 years.  National yields did rise from 302 to 554 kg/ha (up 84%) in the first 5 years after Bt was released, but almost all of that rise occurred in 2003/4 (when only 1.2% of the cotton was Bt) and 2004/5 (when only 5.6% of the cotton was Bt).  In short, Bt couldn’t have been responsible for the rise.

A more likely explanation for a rise in national yields in the early 2000s were the short-term gains from insecticides for sap-sucking pests.

Bt adoption didn’t top 10% until 2005/6; since then, adoption has climbed to 92%.  In that same period from 2005 to the present, national yields rose from 478 to 481 kg/ha — up 1%.

In none of the top 4 cotton-producing states do the trends fit the claim that Bt cotton has boosted yields. Even in Gujarat, where yield gains were most dramatic, the adoption of Bt was only one of several key changes in cotton production.

Over the last 4 seasons, with Bt adoption topping 90%, yields have dropped 13.2%.  In AP, where I have watched the Bt saga closely, yields are lower than they were before Bt became popular.  Now that’s ugly.

To access all the articles in this month's issue of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, SUBSCRIBE NOW.

Sierra Club, US bee and honey groups urge EPA to ban clothianidin

An insecticide used as a seed treatment on genetically modified corn and other crops has been found to be highly toxic to honey bees, according to a study published recently in the journal PLoS onE.

The study may be a key to solving the mystery of Colony Collapse Disorder that has decimated bee populations over the last five years, causing losses of 30% and more of honey bee colonies every year since 2006, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Found at levels 700,000 times a bee’s lethal dosage

Scientists at Purdue University documented major adverse impacts from the insecticide clothianidin (product name “Poncho”) on honey bee health. The study found that bees are exposed to clothianidin and other pesticides throughout the foraging period. Researchers found extremely high levels of clothianidin—as high as 700,000 times a bee’s lethal dosage—in seed planter exhaust material. It was found in foraging areas long after treated seed had been planted and in dead bees near hives in Indiana. It was also found in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. The study raises questions about the long-term survival of this major pollinator.

“This research should nail the coffin lid shut on clothianidin,” says Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club’s chairwoman of the Genetic Engineering Action Team. “Despite numerous attempts by the beekeeping industry and conservation organizations to persuade the EPA to ban clothianidin, the EPA has failed to protect the food supply for the American people.”

“Clothianidin is among those most toxic to bees”

Clothianidin, which is manufactured by German agricultural company Bayer Crop Science, is of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides. Clothianidin is taken up by a plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen and nectar from which bees then forage and drink. Neonicotinoids are of particular concern because they have cumulative, sublethal effects on insect pollinators that correspond to Colony Collapse Disorder symptoms—namely, neurobehavioral and immune system disruptions.

According to James Frazier, Ph.D., professor of entomology at Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, “Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bees; and this combined with its systemic movement in plants has produced a troubling mix of scientific results pointing to its potential risk for honey bees through current agricultural practices.”

Clothianidin has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country’s major crops, particularly GM corn, since 2003. Back then, the Environmental Protection Agency granted it a “conditional registration,” while EPA waited for Bayer to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide’s threat to bee colony health.

“Continued use is in violation of the law”

Bayer submitted its study to the EPA in 2007, two years after it was due. A memo written by EPA scientists and leaked in 2010 said that Bayer’s study was flawed, stating that “deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental.”

The memo was found by Tom Theobald, a founding member of the Boulder County Beekeeper’s Association. “The document reveals that the agency has been allowing the widespread use of this bee-toxic pesticide, against evidence that it’s highly toxic to bees. Clothianidin has failed to meet the requirements for registration. Its continued use is in violation of the law,” Theobald says.

Upon learning of the EPA’s failures, the National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and the American Honey Producer’s Association urged the agency in a December 2010 letter to cancel the registration of this pesticide. Yet despite the fact that clothianidin had failed a critical life cycle study which was required for registration, the agency responded in a February 2011 letter stating that it wasn’t “aware of any data that reasonably demonstrates that bee colonies are subject to elevated losses due to chronic exposure to this pesticide” and “does not intend to initiate suspension or cancellation actions against the registered uses of clothianidin.”

“Time for EPA to cancel this bee-killing pesticide”

Now with the published study documenting harm to bees from clothianidin, beekeepers, honey producers, and environmental groups are calling on the EPA again to ban it.

“EPA said we don’t have the science (to ban clothianidin). Now we have the science,” Theobald says.

Neil Carman, Ph.D., scientific advisor to Sierra Club, says: “A huge shoe has dropped. US researchers have documented major adverse impacts from clothianidin seed treatments in corn on honey bee health.” Carman further explains “Because of the vital role played by honey bees in crop pollination, honey bee demise threatens the production of crops that produce one-third of American diets, including nearly 100 fruits and vegetables. The value of crops pollinated by bees exceeds $15 billion in the US alone.”

Hopwood exclaims, “The time is now for EPA to quit dodging the illusion of oversight and instead, cancel this bee-killing pesticide.  If we travel too far down our current path, we could create conditions in our food system much like those that brought down the financial system.”