Slashdot Mirror


EPA Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Bees

hether writes "The mystery of the disappearing bees has been baffling scientists for years and now we get another big piece in the puzzle. From Fast Company: '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.' Now environmentalists and bee keepers are calling for an immediate ban of the pesticide clothianidin, sold by Bayer Crop Science under the brand name Poncho."

36 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. EP(what?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmmm and i thought the "P" stood for Protection, but clearly its something to do with Profits and or Pressure.... what a freakin sellout i bet they were pressured to allow more profits by the big agribusiness lobbyists... i guess agribusiness will be the first to cry foul when their crops no longer get fertilised....

    1. Re:EP(what?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Growers of organic food still use pesticides (if you try growing crops without any pesticides you'll realize why).

      Some organic growers use it. They use a lot less of it, and only specific chemicals (with little to no synthetic stuff):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Pesticides
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

  2. Re:Some Questions by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most of your questions are answered in TFA, and those that aren't, are thoroughly covered in the linked PDF (except for the political ones.) The short version is that the stuff propagates very easily through the environment and is toxic to bees even in very low doses.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. Re:Not like Slashdot by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, see, you can live in your little Randroid free-market fantasyland all you want. But when you start poisoning the land, air, and water we all have to share, the rest of us will organize to stop you. We will call this organization "the government." We will give this organization the power to fine you, imprison you, or even kill you if you refuse to mend your ways, and you can't stop us. There are more of us than there are of you, we're smarter, and we're better than you in every conceivable way.

    Don't like it? Move to Somalia. There are a bunch of people there who have taken your ideology to its logical extreme. Let's see how long you last.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  4. Re:Some Questions by Cylix · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know about this "science" stuff, but I thought I would get straight to the root of the issue. To this end, I found a nearby hibernating honey bee and I asked the little fellow what his thoughts were on the matter. At first I couldn't quite make out what he was saying (bee sized and all) so I held him close to my face. Do you know what the little guy told me? Kill everyone, make the rivers flow with their blood and fill the skies with their screams.

    Surprisingly, this is exactly what the article said too.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  5. Seed Enhancement by Nonillion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work in seed enhancement, fortunately, I don't order clothianidin (Poncho) from Bayer Crop Science. However I do order Thiram, Captan and Allegiance (aka Apron FL) from Bayer. Most of these chemicals are used to control pythium, however I've always wondered if these were responsible for the bee hive die offs.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  6. Re:Some Questions by kamelkev · · Score: 4, Informative

    > I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield.

    Prove it. I don't believe this whatsoever.

    There has been a growing of evidence showing that the overuse of pesticides has led to a *decline* in crop yields, not an increase.

    See:
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5995.cfm
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/June/04060701.asp

    Unless you are familiar with changes in farming techniques over time it's very very hard to have a substantive position on this. Since about 1960-1970 there has been a *huuuge* increase in the use of nitrogen fertilizers that essentially parallels the use of pesticides. Sadly there was a limit to how much nitrogen fixation can actually take place in the presence of pesticides. Keep in mind that nitrogen is required for plants to grow, nitrogen fixation is required for plants to use nitrogen and... research has now shown that pesticides interferes with nitrogen fixation.

    I'm not making a broad claim one way or another, but the government clearly isn't researching the things they should be.

  7. Re:Some Questions by jhoegl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Curses.... foiled again by people who read.

  8. One More Bush Era Screw Up by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One more example of how Bush and his greedy incompetent Republican asshats have screwed everybody. This stuff is used because of a conditional waiver that was issued in 2003, against the scientific advices of the experts.

    It's just like the BP Gulf oil spill and the coal mine explosion in West Virginia. There are systems in place to protect people and the environment, but when the Republicans gain control they stop all oversight. It takes five to fifteen years to see all the failures, and by then everyone forgets who turned over control to the crooks and lairs.

    They just wave the flag, blame everything on the government bureaucrats and illegal aliens, scream about the war on terror, and then lie and deny when the shit hits the fan. I guess as long as these morons continue to lie and cheat their way into power we deserve to have poisoned gulf seafood and the end of flowering crops.

    Don't worry, you can just consume more high fructose processed food and get diabetes. The corn/agribusiness lobby will continue to do just fine with their massive tax breaks and government subsidies, and they're so rich that they can afford imported fruits and vegetables. If you get sick and loose your health care you can crawl off and die, and that will solve them problem.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll. The Bush adminstration closed a research lab for honeybees and canceled funding for projects that were focused on determining the cause of the mysterious honey bee deaths. It's tempting to say that the Bush administration canceled those projects because it already knew the truth about what was killing the honeybees, but I don't really see how they could have known that precisely was the cause, more than likely they just didn't care.

      As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc. This was done intentionally in the belief that applying the following rules always works: "regulation = bad" "business interests = good". Stupid and short-sighted.... (And yet somehow the American people felt it was a good idea to let these guys back into control of congress? WTF? They're going to get what they deserve, the only problem is I'm going to get what they deserve it too since environmental problems affect everyone.)

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    2. Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll

      Let's see, in reality clothianidin was granted full approval this year -- April 2010! That's 4 years of a completely Democratically controlled congress and 2 years of a Democratic House+Senate+President. Most politically appointees from the Bush years are LONG gone by now. Turnover in agencies is incredible around election time. I'm very, very glad to see more stuff of this type appear on Wikileaks (though I wish some other government's dirty laundry would start showing up too). The troll part is being so blindly partisan. IMHO, it's that kind of super-polarized partisanship that helps lead to so many of our political problems.

      Additionally, CCD is occurring around the globe--even in countries that don't use clothiandin.

      As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% [enO's-newswire.com] under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc

      What on does the EPA have to do with E. coli outbreaks? Does the EPA really control wild boards running through spinach fields? Or indeed have ANYTHING to do with that situation?

    3. Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up by ppanon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does the EPA really control wild boards running through spinach fields? Or indeed have ANYTHING to do with that situation?

      Well that's the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However I think the point the gentleman was making was that the Republicans (in particular their "libertarian" wing) have this tendency to gut red tape, minimize government enforcement, and count on industry self-monitoring and "voluntary guidelines" with the expectation that the free market will redress all wrongs. That doesn't happen with car emissions, with pollution controls, with pharmaceuticals (remember snake oil salesmen promoted snake oil for curing all sorts of ailments), or Ponzi schemes gussied up as investment funds. It also doesn't work when there are only around 7 major meat packing companies in the country and safety problems in one producer create significant shortages that drive up the price and force vendors to turn back to suppliers that have proved themselves unsafe in the past. Too big to fail doesn't just happen to banks. There are areas where excessive regulation may be caused by overzealous bureaucrats, but food safety is one where I generally prefer to err on the side of safety.

      The one exception I would make regarding food safety, if I could still eat cheese, has to do with the mandated pasteurization of soft cheeses. Put warning labels on the cheese and keep them away from small children and pregnant women, but let me make that choice. It's telling that there have been far fewer deaths in Western Europe from unpasteurised cheeses than there have been in Canada or the US with listeria or E. Coli outbreaks from inspected meat plants. Mainly I find it ridiculous that you can't buy an unpasteurized brie, but cigarettes are sold by the carton at the checkout stand,

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    4. Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This stuff is used because of a conditional waiver that was issued in 2003, against the scientific advices of the experts.

      Bees are in decline in europe as well, and the decline has been going on since before 2003.

      Maybe this conditional waiver was bad for the environment, I wouldn't be at all surprised, but to think that it's the root cause of the problem is pretty childish.. The world isn't so simple

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    5. Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up by Boronx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rick Perlstein called them "E. Coli conservatives", because they think helping big business make more money is more important than protecting the food supply from deadly bacteria. The name comes from the Bush era FDA, much hobbled and reduced, and the rash of tainted food deaths that happened under its oversight. But the absolute nadir was when the Bush administration took a slaughter house to court to try to stop them from testing each cow for Mad Cow disease and use the negative results for marketing. They did this on behalf of the rest of the cattle industry, which was afraid they'd have to follow suit and a bunch of positives would turn up.

  9. Re:Some Questions by sqldr · · Score: 5, Informative

    What about the UK

    There was a horizon program on the BBC here called "what's killing our bees?", which suggested that the only country not really affected (yet) was Australia, who have a roaring trade selling bees now.

    That was 2 years ago. Yes, the UK is affected.

    --
    I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  10. Where are those who dubbed wikileaks 'terrorists' by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come again ?

    North american bee population has been declining, scientists estimated that in a few decades this would affect everything in agriculture (pollination), and trying to solve it. it was even dubbed end of mankind. it was that serious.

    Now it turns out that, your government has allowed bee-killing pesticides. noone heard about it. no journalist made news of it. no ngo was warned of it. NOONE KNEW. if wikileaks didnt leak it, you would not know about it, still.

    tell me now, who are the real terrorists ? the ones letting you know that your entire ecosystem and agriculture is being killed by corporations which have been allowed by your government, or, those corporations and the government themselves ?

    wise up. support wikileaks. it is giving you the control over your government that was taken away from you.

  11. Snippy "Free Market" Comments by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So when anything bad happens involving some private enterprise, someone on here usually has some stupid comment like "I thought the free market would make life perfect."

    Well, let me be the one to offer a hypothesis: people are no good and there is no perfect system because of people. Or if we want to be sarcastic too "I thought government regulators were going to make life perfect."

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Snippy "Free Market" Comments by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because there are idiots out there known as "libertarians" who believe that emasculating the government will solve everything. They are just as fucking wrong as utopian communists.

      A transparent market is an amazing thing, but unfortunately, a market desires to be opaque in order to increase profits. Unless you have a strong and largely uncorrupted government to continue providing transparency, you don't have a market. You have a conspiratorial oligopoly that will risk destroying entire ecosystems to push up quarterly profits.

  12. malicious skepticism by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've insinuated gross incompetence on the part of the researchers. Have you actually gone out and tried to find the answers to these questions? Are you qualified in the field to question the research? Or are you just going off the article, which is a summary of research that was almost undoubtedly much more in-depth than a journalists' summary?

    I consider myself a strong skeptic, but one of the duties of a skeptic is to realize their limits. I don't attend a graduate-level lecture and start asking questions - I'd be asked to leave, or at least laughed at. So when I'm confronted with something that doesn't seem right, I seek more information. You're not. You're just throwing out questions. Rather slanted ones.

    I see this often, and I suspect it is an actual class of logical fallacy...

    1)A slashdotter posts a series of slanted questions and wondering-alouds that are very FUD-ish.

    2)The questions aren't (properly) answered, because the audience (jokes about parent's basements aside) doesn't have much knowledge on the subject. Or, the answers that are qualified aren't noticed by moderators.

    3)The questions, which are more a challenge to refute a contrary viewpoint to the article than anything else, appear to be valid because there's no response visible. And thus what was probably perfectly legitimate research gets shot down by someone with no background in the subject. Probably not even a mild background in research.

    Lastly: the burden of proof no longer rests on the shoulders of the public. After decades of the chemical industry producing toxins and marketing them for uses which were harmful, then doing everything to cover it all up...they are no longer entitled to public trust. If you want to manufacture a chemical and spray it on thousands of square miles of farmland, you better prove first that it doesn't cause problems.

    This is especially so, given that research shows that old farming techniques and organic practices are equally or more effective, and cause no permanent damage to people or the environment. Virtually none of the artificial stuff spread on the farmlands of the world are *necessary*, even if one's sole criteria is increased yield.

    If anyone wants to see another scary example of this "what, me worry?" attitude, check out methyl iodide, a known toxin, which was just approved for use by California:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2010%2F12%2F01%2Fnational%2Fa143424S98.DTL&tsp=1

    "Hey, it's okay to spread this toxic crap all over the ground, because we'll only use what we think is just enough, and people want pretty strawberries."

    1. Re:malicious skepticism by he-sk · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is especially so, given that research shows that old farming techniques and organic practices are equally or more effective, and cause no permanent damage to people or the environment. Virtually none of the artificial stuff spread on the farmlands of the world are *necessary*, even if one's sole criteria is increased yield.

      Before someone shoots down your argument, wondering what research you are refering to, I thought I'd provide a link to underscore your point: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm

      A study by the University of Michigan showed that organic methods are sufficient to feed the current global population and more without an increase in the landbase used for agriculture.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    2. Re:malicious skepticism by digsbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I see this often, and I suspect it is an actual class of logical fallacy...

      I don't think it's a class of logical fallacy. I think it's a failure to sincerely engage in dialectic, or more likely, an example of bad rhetoric.

      Dialectic requires asking questions, but the questioner must be interested in the answers, and agree to them or follow-up with relevant questions.

      Rhetoric, as opposed to dialectic, is more a means of suasion than a logical approach to discovering the truth, and probably what was intended here.

      Note that dialectic is not widely taught in the USA, even at the college level liberal arts curricula. I suspect that has a great deal to do with the sad state of discourse.

  13. Hold on now... by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds bad, and I admit that this is the first I've heard about this particular pesticide being especially toxic to bees, but let's not get carried away. The longstanding mystery of Colony Collapse Disorder in bees has pretty much been solved. A few months ago, it was published that a double whammy of a fungus and a virus acting at the same time are almost certainly what have decimated bee populations around the world. A bee colony can usually survive either of the two pathogens, and it will recover, but being hit by both at the same time is deadly. The science behind this conclusion looked sound, and most experts have agreed. Sure, this pesticide has clearly not helped bees, and perhaps a ban is in order, but it is not the main factor behind all the recent hubbub about honeybees.

    I don't want to hear anything about evil electromagnetic radiation, cell phones, wifi, government conspiracies, aliens, a grassy knoll, or malnutrition induced by an exploding pooh bear population. The answer is simple and makes sense. Bee populations have suffered around the world, including where there is neither ubiquitous wifi nor this pesticide, and the virus/fungus combo has been found everywhere anyone has looked. Now, maybe aliens brought the virus and communists spread the fungus, but...

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  14. Re:Some Questions by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before you go all tinfoil-hat on us, maybe you should get some points straight. Among them is that the Detroit idea is a proposal, is contingent on approvals at multiple levels and securing funding to move people from neighborhoods that would no longer receive full services, and is simply reflective of the reality that Detroit, once a bustling city of 1.85 million people in 1950, is now under half of that, with nearly 35,000 empty homes.

    Besides, urbanization has been happening for centuries. It's picked up the pace in recent decades, but I bet most of the people around in even the 1950s would have been hard pressed to provide entirely for themselves had the need arisen.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  15. This industry is SO CORRUPT. by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My father is an entomologist for a university Extension Service. For those who don't know (non-Americans), the Extension Services are outreach arms of the universities set up to provide advice to the public. His main job is to advise farmers on pest control measures for crops, mostly cotton; the advice is often "if you spray to kill pest A, you'll also kill predator B, which eats pest C which is resistant to insecticide, and C will eat your cotton. So don't do anything and put up with A, they won't eat that much."

    Many of the meetings are sponsored by chemical companies. There are responsible uses of insecticides; used wisely, some insecticides can provide a cost-effective way to increase yields with very minimal long-term environmental harm. But the chemical companies are corrupt as hell. They try to bribe the scientists with lavish gifts to publish studies that favor their products, and encourage farmers (and scientists) to use too much insecticide, or use it when it's not really appropriate. It's sham science done for the sake of greed, and it is disgusting.

    On the flip side, there are "studies" that show environmental harm where there really isn't any -- either by misguided "everything must be grown organically" types, or by people pushing back against the chemical company propaganda.

    It's hard to tell a damn thing from "studies" on this sort of thing, because everyone is so busy grinding axes that who's right and who's wrong gets completely lost. This makes me, as a scientist in another field where there is far less of that, rather angry.

  16. Re:Some Questions by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FDA screens pesticides for how they will be used, how mobile the pesticide is and how long the residue lasts. If this was not done then cry foul.
    ...
    I have not found the application for use as a seed coating but Bayer would have needed to go through a process to get that approved by the EPA.

    Did you RTFA?
    "...Bayer was granted a 'conditional registration' while the Environmental Protection Agency waited for them to conduct further field studies on the pesticides impact on bee colonies."

    Long story short: The original study was crap, the EPA allowed it, and Bayer knew that the pesticide was a bee killer.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  17. Re:Where are those who dubbed wikileaks 'terrorist by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Funny

    You need to relax. It's quite simple if you understand Friedmannite economics. Cutting corporate taxes and deregulation will resolve all of our problems. The Free Market will come up with a cheaper, better solution to bee pollination.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  18. I am sure the EPA will act swiftly by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These leaks MUST be stopped immediately, and those responsible must go to jail for life, and execution may even be warranted. I am sure the EPA will be acting quickly to ensure those responsible for the leaks are rapidly brought to justice.

    This is a clear and dire threat to national security, and the leakers are traitors; think of what will happen when the Bees find out the nature of the pesticide, and the informants who formulated it!

    This will only serve to cause more incidents of bee attacks against us, costing precious human lives.

    Lives are at stake; and the leakers are enemy combatants performing an act of terrorism

    <sarcasm>

  19. Re:Some Questions by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, it's apparently used in the UK. Are only North American bees susceptible to this? The article says:

    Of course not. The better question would be has the UK had a problem with colony collapse as well? The answer to that would be yes, it has.

  20. Re:Where are those who dubbed wikileaks 'terrorist by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here we are. When they released the locations of targets, they became terrorists.

    rest of the world doesnt give a flying fsck about american cia operatives who participated in kidnapping ,or american soldiers who have participated voluntarily in occupations, are being targeted or not. its their choice, their life. they should ask themselves, what are they doing there, in the first place.

    what is appalling is that, there are people who are basically saying that we should be sorry for cia operatives who kidnapped german citizens or other nationals from the middle of europe, took them to bases in client countries in middle east, and tortured them. and, anyone revealing the location of these people, are 'terrorists'.

    the real terrorists are people who kidnap others, and torture them. the world doesnt give a flying fuck about the 'lives' endangered by wikileaks' leaks as such. they are the terrorists which should have been hunted for that long time. they have even violated constitutions and sovereignty of ALLIED countries.

    To recap. get a fucking clue. you dont know right from wrong.

  21. Re:Where are those who dubbed wikileaks 'terrorist by traindirector · · Score: 5, Informative

    While WikiLeaks is a current and exciting topic, the clothianidin/EPA leak has nothing to do with WikiLeaks.

    Quoting a prominent secondary story linked from TFA:

    So how did Theobald (pictured above) end up with such a contentious document?

    Bayer, the corporation behind clothianidin (the pesticide in question), published a life cycle study about it in 2006 at the EPA's request. The study was flawed--test and control fields were, for example, planted as close as 968 feet apart. But the EPA continued to allow the use of clothianidin, which has been on the market since 2003 for use on corn, canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat (and which has been banned by Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia for its toxic effects on bees, birds, and other species).

    Fast forward to this year. Theobald wrote an article in the July issue of Bee Culture about clothianidin. Then an employee at the EPA called Theobald to tell him the article had led the EPA to review the pesticide's original life cycle study before approving clothianidin for use on cotton and mustard.

    "They told me that EPA scientists had reviewed the original lifecycle study and determined it wasn't scientifically sound, and I asked if it had been documented, if there was a hard copy," he says, "The [employee] said yes, and I asked if I could get a copy." And just like that, he had the proof he needed that the EPA had overlooked something that could be killing America's bees.

  22. Real data by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is the EU data on the pesticide.

    Some highlights: It is an insecticide, so it should not really surprise that it kills bees. The toxitity to honey bees is well known (LD50 = 0.004 ug/bee, which the document interpret as "high" risk). And it is approved for use in most EU countries, including Italy and Germany.

  23. Said study by Bayer associate by Esteanil · · Score: 4, Informative

    The study you are referencing was made by Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, who has economical ties to Bayer (The producer of the pesticide cited). Ref: NYT via http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/dr-jerry-bromenshenk/

    --
    I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
  24. Re:Where are those who dubbed wikileaks 'terrorist by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Funny

    If a cure for CCD can't be found, in a few years the supply of hives will be lower than the demand for pollination services.

    And the market wins again.

    When demand outstrips supply the suppliers can up their prices. They'll make a lot more money.
    Now, since the food growers can't get enough bees to pollinate their crops, the supply of food will dwindle - more expensive food, meaning more money for the growers.
    This means that regular workers have to work more to buy the same amount and kinds of food. That means the supply of workers will outstrip demand and salaries can be cut. That's another win for the market and the companies in particular.

    It's Win/Win/Win for the market economy - what's not to like?

  25. Re:Not like Slashdot by ATestR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What government=good???? What part of "the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists" made you think that government is good? Yes, some industry is bad. Some is good. Same goes for parts of government.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
  26. Re:Not like Slashdot by cptdondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Capitalism is a philosophy of private ownership, pacifism, and protection of property rights.

    The only problem is that your argument relies on a sort of "enlightened dictator" in the role of the supreme capitalist. In the history of the world, this has never happened for any significant length of time.

    Look at the history of the labor movement. The mega-companies at the turn of the century had de-facto private armies that beat and killed workers who protested horrendous working conditions.

    Capitalism in its pure form as as rare as any theory; too many people are avaricious bastards who will screw their own mother for a dime. Capitalism without a strong government will not lead to "respect of property rights"; rather it will lead to theft, murder, and destruction of anyone who is less powerful than you.

    Look at the history of the American West; a lot of "pure capitalists" look at that as some sort of proof of superiority of pure american capitalism personified by the immigrants. In fact, those who became wealthy often did so by cheating, killing, and stealing the property of others. It's not a pretty story, and it goes on to this day.

  27. Re:Fungus and virus combo. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, except the NY Times article failed to mention that that study was funded by Bayer Crop Sciences, whose product was the principle other suspect behind Colony Collapse Disorder.

    See this CNN piece in response to the NY Times article: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm

    And this article posted a few threads up: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/dr-jerry-bromenshenk/

    Not clear what the real answer is, but it just goes to show that it's easier to mislead a New York Times journalist than one would think and that any scientific study that answers questions of economic significance are subject to meddling with money. Though we sometimes assume that scientists are truly objective, they are human beings and subject to biases and influence like the rest of us.

    These sorts of potential conflicts of interest need to be better disclosed - and it's rather embarrassing that the New York Times never published a clarification or follow-up story about this (at least as far as I know).