Slashdot Mirror


Colony Collapse Disorder Linked To Pesticide, High-Fructose Corn Syrup

hondo77 writes "Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health '...have re-created the mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder in several honeybee hives simply by giving them small doses of a popular pesticide, imidacloprid.' This follows recently-reported studies also linked the disorder to neonicotinoid pesticides. What is really interesting is the link to when the disorder started appearing, 2006. 'That mechanism? High-fructose corn syrup. Many bee-keepers have turned to high-fructose corn syrup to feed their bees, which the researchers say did not imperil bees until U.S. corn began to be sprayed with imidacloprid in 2004-2005. A year later was the first outbreak of Colony Collapse Disorder.'"

398 comments

  1. Not the bees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    1. Re:Not the bees! by Eudial · · Score: 1
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Not the bees! by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      I ain't been inside for a week, and I know my that wife is sleepin' with the bees.

  2. This 'science' is for the bees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    - Big Corn

    1. Re:This 'science' is for the bees! by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Scary. Systemic means it is in the corn oil which means it is in pretty much all processed food which is pretty much any food that comes in a box or jar. About the only saving grace (so far) is the minuteness of the quantities. Hope it doesn't build up in human bodies like DDT.

  3. Still needs more research by sandytaru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While the pesticide stuff is pretty obvious, I'm more skeptical about the HFCS link, especially if they're claiming its Monstanto GMO corn causing it. Or something silly. Yes, sugar is a poison, and HFCS is vile, but it's going to take another few studies to convince me.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Still needs more research by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have any experience in this field that would justify your position? Is there something in the paper that makes you think that this link is not correct? Have you a better idea of what may have caused this?

      --
      .
    2. Re:Still needs more research by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the summary it sounds like the pesticide is piggybacking on the HFCS produced. The first article is more clear in this, that the problem is the pesticide, not the corn syrup itself.

      Monsanto's corn, however, is designed to be pesticide resistant, so farmers can use more pesticide on their corn. It's possible that at low enough dosages colony collapse disorder doesn't occur, but Monsanto's corn allows a much higher dose to be tolerated by the corn.

      All in all, this is a pretty reasonable conclusion I think.

    3. Re:Still needs more research by LikwidCirkel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not about HFCS directly. It's the fact that is has trace amounts of a pesticide in it - pesticide that's intended to kill insects!

      Now, I admit that I didn't fully read the article, but I'm pretty sure you're missing something fundamental. Monsanto GMO is not directly a problem. The problem is dumping pesticide on things because the crops have been given GMO resistance.

      Gee - feed something with trace amounts of bug killer to bugs and it kills bugs. How did no one think of this earlier???

    4. Re:Still needs more research by c0lo · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the pesticide stuff is pretty obvious, I'm more skeptical about the HFCS link, especially if they're claiming its Monstanto GMO corn causing it. Or something silly. Yes, sugar is a poison, and HFCS is vile, but it's going to take another few studies to convince me.

      RTFA, there's nothing about Monsanto. In short, it says: "LD50 is no longer enough to assess the toxicity of a substance... neonicotinoid pesticides were found to impact the bees homing ability, so they get lost and die of exhaustion".

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is so difficult to grasp? These are systemic pesticides. They permeate the plant. You cannot wash them off. These exist in the flowers. In the corn. In the roots. In the stalk. The "industry" selling this poisons keep repeating that they do not get into the nectar, they do not get into the eatable bits. Well, this proves they lied - bees are the canary in the coal mine.

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

      Systemic insecticides are incorporated by treated plants. Insects ingest the insecticide while feeding on the plants.

      Just remember. Whatever is killing the bees, you are also eating. With old school pesticides I used to wash the produce with some soap (pesticides were stuck on plants with a type of a glue, so you need detergent to wash it off), but now with systemics, all I can do is move to organic only food.

      PS. It is rather quite ironic in a sad way that these pesticides, aimed at increasing food production, are actually causing a decrease (no bees, and yields drop)

    6. Re:Still needs more research by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Assuming they used proper testing methods, this sounds like pretty conclusive proof.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gotta read the article. The corn syrup is the delivery vector for the pesticide. The corn syrup comes from treated corn, and has pesticide residues in it, naturally. These trigger the colony collapse. GIven the temporal linkage between when the pesticide comes into use on corn, the prevalence of feeding the bees with corn syrup, and the direct causal link between the pesticide and collapse, I'd say this is pretty damn convincing science.

    8. Re:Still needs more research by oneiron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Normally, I would tell you to RTFA. In this case, however, it seems you didn't even read the summary:

      Many bee-keepers have turned to high-fructose corn syrup to feed their bees, which the researchers say did not imperil bees until U.S. corn began to be sprayed with imidacloprid in 2004-2005

      This quote from the summary implies that, rather than GMO corn causing it, it's the pesticide (imidacloprid) that farmers spray on GMO corn because the corn is engineered to resist it. You're right. The pesticide stuff is pretty obvious...if you read it.

    9. Re:Still needs more research by haruchai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks like Fred Singer, Steven Milloy and the CEI / Heartland folks will have something to distract them from denying global warming for a bit.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    10. Re:Still needs more research by doston · · Score: 2

      While the pesticide stuff is pretty obvious, I'm more skeptical about the HFCS link, especially if they're claiming its Monstanto GMO corn causing it. Or something silly. Yes, sugar is a poison, and HFCS is vile, but it's going to take another few studies to convince me.

      The story didn't say anything about GMO corn, it said that imidacloprid has gotten into HFCS because it's being sprayed on corn crops. Why bother commenting if you're only going to skim the article...the article recap at that? ADD much?

    11. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      My guess is that he's a Ruby on Rails programmer. That clearly makes him qualified to hold an authoritative opinion on any matter in any field.

    12. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is truer than most people realize.

    13. Re:Still needs more research by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a problem of Monsanto corn, or even corn. The problem is the pesticide, not the corn.

      The pesticide is transferred to the bees via corn. Corn without the pesticide is fine. Apparently bees are extremely sensitive to this particular pesticide. Apparently bees are extremely sensitive to this stuff. It only takes 20 parts per billion to kill the colony within six months.

      To put that in perspective, arsenic is allowed in drinking water at a level of 10 ppb. Cyanide is allowed at 200 ppb.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Still needs more research by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they're using HFCS because ordinary cane sugar's price has been artificially propped up by setting tariffs on foreign sugar producers. So in a way, the sugar tariff is ALSO helping cement Monsanto's corn monopoly.

    15. Re:Still needs more research by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Monsanto's corn, however, is designed to be pesticide resistant, so farmers can use more pesticide on their corn.

      No. Monsanto's corn is designed to be herbicide resistant.

    16. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Monsanto's corn, however, is designed to be pesticide resistant, so farmers can use more pesticide on their corn. It's possible that at low enough dosages colony collapse disorder doesn't occur, but Monsanto's corn allows a much higher dose to be tolerated by the corn.

      There are genetically modified crops which are pest-resistant because they produce a bacterial toxin, and ones which are resistant to the "Roundup" (glyphosate) herbicide. However I have never heard of a GMO connection to the "neonicotinoid" class of pesticides which are relevant to this article.

    17. Re:Still needs more research by mkremer · · Score: 1

      GMO corn is engineered to resist a herbicide (roundup ready?) not pesticide.

      So no the summary does not say what you think it does.

    18. Re:Still needs more research by Znork · · Score: 4, Informative

      Much as I think humanity would be better off with Monsanto collectively put to rot in prison, to be fair the gengineered plants are usually gengineered to be herbicide resistant, not insecticide resistant (which, as insects and plants are very different, they tend to be anyway). Gengineering for insect control tends to be along the avenue of making the plants themselves create toxins (bt corn), which doesn't include neonicotinids yet.

      So in this particular case they might not be guilty (unlike other cases of bribery, illegal dumping of toxic waste, etc, etc).

    19. Re:Still needs more research by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to blame Big Agriculture, the culprit this time is Bayer, not Monsanto. They're the ones who make imidacloprid. There are plenty of other things to lay at Monsanto's feet without having to point the finger at them this time.

    20. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, you can switch to organic food. Note, however, that these are neonicotinoids -- they act on insects in the same way as nicotine (which used to be widely used as an insecticide, and is still used by organic farmers), but are designed to lower acute toxicity in mammals. So, assuming you're a mammal, rather than a honeybee, you might actually be choosing the more dangerous option. (Of course, with any pesticide, the levels of application are kept such that the amount in the final product shouldn't be harmful to humans, so the risk to you eating the produce is vanishingly small either way -- nicotine toxicity is more an issue for the farm workers applying the concentrated product.)

      The FDA and EPA do a reasonably good job of making sure pesticides for food crops are pretty safe for humans, both acutely and chronically, because that's what they do. They don't test everything so thoroughly for honeybees, which is why it was assumed that if levels were kept below acute toxicity levels, there'd be no problem. It doesn't follow that it's a problem for humans.

    21. Re:Still needs more research by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sugar tariffs result from Cuba being a major sugar cane producer. The same right wing that wants no trade at all with Castro wants Cuban sugar that passes through other Carribean nations to be so expensive nobody in the US wants to import any, just to prevent those other Carribean states from even possibly serving as pass throughs for any funds getting through to Cuba.

      So in the US we have a right wing that will oppose any science finding that colony collapse has anything to do with ADM, Monsanto, or other Megacorps. Now you point out that the root causes include other right wing policies. That's not going to cause them to rethink their position. THEY can't be the ones responsible for anything bad, so they'll have to double down on blaiming "acts of God", or the Gay Liberal Bees, or something.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    22. Re:Still needs more research by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, you can switch to organic food. Note, however, that these are neonicotinoids -- they act on insects in the same way as nicotine (which used to be widely used as an insecticide, and is still used by organic farmers), but are designed to lower acute toxicity in mammals. So, assuming you're a mammal, rather than a honeybee, you might actually be choosing the more dangerous option. (Of course, with any pesticide, the levels of application are kept such that the amount in the final product shouldn't be harmful to humans, so the risk to you eating the produce is vanishingly small either way -- nicotine toxicity is more an issue for the farm workers applying the concentrated product.)

      The FDA and EPA do a reasonably good job of making sure pesticides for food crops are pretty safe for humans, both acutely and chronically, because that's what they do. They don't test everything so thoroughly for honeybees, which is why it was assumed that if levels were kept below acute toxicity levels, there'd be no problem. It doesn't follow that it's a problem for humans.

      The problem is that the FDA doesn't really do much in the way of studies of long term, low level exposure. They would be awfully difficult to do. Since we don't have very good proxy measures for this sort of effect (unless Colony Collapse Disorder turns out to be such a proxy), it would take long periods of time and many people. Millions and millions of dollars. All we can say is very low level exposure to the neonicontinoids isn't acutely dangerous for humans. Everything else is up for grabs.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just remember. Whatever is killing the bees, you are also eating.

      And chocolate kills dogs, but I'll continue eating it. Caffeine really messes up spiders, but I'll continue drinking soda.

      We don't react the same way as every other life form on earth to chemicals. Even if these pesticides are harmful to us, and they probably can be, there's dosage to consider. What is enough to kill a bee is most likely not enough to do a damn thing to someone of your size and weight. Even proportionally speaking (yes, I know you consume more than the bees).

    24. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corn subsidies are only half the story. There's also the DoA's policies on sugar.

    25. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has Slashdot become? I slightly dumber version of the Daily KOS? Perhaps more like the Democrat Underground.

      Either way, it's filled with too many tin foil hat morons.

    26. Re:Still needs more research by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Pesticide is sprayed on corn, corn gets processed, pesticide gets into HFCS, HFCS with pesticide gets into bees....sounds pretty straightforward to me. Anybody whose done any farming knows no matter how powerful your cleaning methods are you will never gets a vegetable or fruit 100% clean which is why we didn't use pesticides on our small family plots, you can wash until hell freezes over but it gets down into the plant, no way around it.

      I personally think all these GMOs and pesticides is probably why we have so many that are feeling generally "lousy" in these parts, it always seem to come around plating time when the stuff gets thick in the air. Not a decade ago we'd all practically roll around in pollen the stuff was so thick so that isn't it, and more and more people i know are having a harder and harder time tolerating foods they have always eaten like corn and tomatoes. I personally think they have tested all this crap by itself and not tested what happens when everybody is piled on with 40 other chemicals on top.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    27. Re:Still needs more research by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      But it is so much easier and better to blame the Americans for everything, regardless of facts.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    28. Re:Still needs more research by slippyblade · · Score: 1

      Parent didn't even RTFS. Nowhere is it saying that the HFCS is causing it. They are saying the PESTICIDE is a cause. And corn in the USA is heavily sprayed with the pesticide in general. The pesticide is being transmitted to the bees through their food, which happens to be HFCS.

      Amazing what happens when you actually read.

    29. Re:Still needs more research by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected in that Monsanto's corn is herbicide, not pesticide resistant. I really wish /. had editing so I could add this to my "insightful" post. It looks like blame falls squarely on over-use of pesticides then.

    30. Re:Still needs more research by Troggie87 · · Score: 2

      Yes, you can switch to organic food. Note, however, that these are neonicotinoids -- they act on insects in the same way as nicotine (which used to be widely used as an insecticide, and is still used by organic farmers), but are designed to lower acute toxicity in mammals. So, assuming you're a mammal, rather than a honeybee, you might actually be choosing the more dangerous option. (Of course, with any pesticide, the levels of application are kept such that the amount in the final product shouldn't be harmful to humans, so the risk to you eating the produce is vanishingly small either way -- nicotine toxicity is more an issue for the farm workers applying the concentrated product.)

      The FDA and EPA do a reasonably good job of making sure pesticides for food crops are pretty safe for humans, both acutely and chronically, because that's what they do. They don't test everything so thoroughly for honeybees, which is why it was assumed that if levels were kept below acute toxicity levels, there'd be no problem. It doesn't follow that it's a problem for humans.

      Somebody mod this AC up, hes 100% spot on. Who modded the parent up anyway, its a wikipedia link from someone with an obvious paranoid bias. I mean he thinks corn is pollinated by bees for God`s sake (its wind pollinated).

      If these studies are confirmed (and there are various critiques rolling in, so we'll see) they will tell us that the amount of neonicotinoid present in the kernel, a number so small as to be considered zero for the sake of human consumption, is just enough to essentially get bees drunk if fed directly to a hive in quantity (what the beekeepers are doing). The solution is to stop using HFCS in hives; make the things either gather pollen naturally or drink cane-sugar water. Its a pesticide... that it was lethal for insects which prey on corn was never in question. What is facinating is the potential secondary effect here. It might force the EPA to beef up its testing procedures (though I doubt it... pretty hard to discover something like this without large-scale testing).

    31. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, I didn't realize we were calling ROR kids "programmers" now.

    32. Re:Still needs more research by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Herbicide is a subset of pesticide so you're kind of right, just getting mixed up between different types of pesticide. The correct way to state it would be "Monsanto's corn is resistant to some types of herbicide, not insecticides"

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    33. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody mod this AC up, hes 100% spot on. Who modded the parent up anyway, its a wikipedia link from someone with an obvious paranoid bias. I mean he thinks corn is pollinated by bees for God`s sake (its wind pollinated).

      If these studies are confirmed (and there are various critiques rolling in, so we'll see) they will tell us that the amount of neonicotinoid present in the kernel, a number so small as to be considered zero for the sake of human consumption, is just enough to essentially get bees drunk if fed directly to a hive in quantity (what the beekeepers are doing). The solution is to stop using HFCS in hives; make the things either gather pollen naturally or drink cane-sugar water. Its a pesticide... that it was lethal for insects which prey on corn was never in question. What is facinating is the potential secondary effect here. It might force the EPA to beef up its testing procedures (though I doubt it... pretty hard to discover something like this without large-scale testing).

      Curious that you so strongly assume that systemic pesticides/insecticides have no risk to humans. Humans typically eat more than one kernel, and bees displaying this trait are not just from HFCS hives. Beside your assertion that neonicotiniods are inert in mammals is incorrect, yes they do display a much smaller toxicity relative to a pesticides, but by no means are they not toxic.

    34. Re:Still needs more research by dryeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not about HFCS directly. It's the fact that is has trace amounts of a pesticide in it - pesticide that's intended to kill insects!

      To be more exact, the type of pesticide is insecticide. Pesticides also include herbicides, fungicides, avacides (birds), rodenticides, nematodacides, bactericides amongst others. (spelling may be slighty off as it's been over 30 years since I studied this and SeaMonkey's spell checker doesn't know most of these terms).
      Unfortunately bees are quite sensitive to many insecticides so an amount of insecticide that is needed to be effective against insects that have been developing resistance for many generations is very likely to be toxic to bees.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    35. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you are quite naive or just a liar.
      The FDA is OWNED by the industry. The revolving door between FDA management and industry executives ensures it, even if it weren't for the money and power involved.

    36. Re:Still needs more research by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't it time to forgive Cuba? I mean, yes they were nasty to us in the 60s but that was ages ago. This embargo is doing more harm than good at this point.

      This grudge the US has against them is ridiculous at this point. And we can't even use the excuse "but they're COMMIES!!!" because so are the Chinese and we trade plenty with them!

    37. Re:Still needs more research by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you have any experience in this field that would justify your position?

      I stopped reading at "sugar is a poison".

      Without sugar you wouldn't be reading this.

      --
      No sig today...
    38. Re:Still needs more research by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People need justification to be skeptical of answers that don't make a lot of sense (or even those that do--as even the sensical answer is often the WRONG one) pending repeats of the study? Come the fuck on.

    39. Re:Still needs more research by dryeo · · Score: 2

      LD50 has never been a very good method of judging toxicity. LD50 is traditionally measured by feeding rats the chemical until 50% die. Edge cases include where 45% die at low doses but the other 55% take a lot higher dose to kill and cases where the majority get sick at a low dose but don't actually die until the dose is increased by a large amount.
      Then there is LC50, chemicals that barely affect mammals but are quite toxic to fish. In this case LC means liquid concentration. Amphibians are also often much more sensitive to certain pesticides including IIRC glyphosate (roundup).
      They also don't usually measure the effects of other common ingredients in pesticides such as the surfactants used to make them stick to the plant.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    40. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take a genius to connect the obvious dots... if the corn syrup affects bees why wouldn't it affect humans?!?!? Autism, acid reflux, fibromyalgia, the list goes on and on. We're competing/producing ourselves into slow committed genocide... and the clock is ticking. Soon a tipping point will click off and bam... people start dropping like bees.

    41. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in the US we have a right wing that will oppose any science finding that colony collapse has anything to do with ADM, Monsanto, or other Megacorps.

      The religious right lets themselves be a tool for the GOP so they can get representation that in many instances they do not have. If it wasn't for that, their attitude towards other political policies wouldn't be drug so far right.

    42. Re:Still needs more research by ClioCJS · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Arsenic is a poison. Without arsenic you wouldn't be reading this; we need it to live. While you are correct in your assessment of GP, the logic that you used is far, far, far from bulletproof.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    43. Re:Still needs more research by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Roundup is a pesticide, kills pesty plants. The word you're looking for is insecticide, another type of pesticide. Pesticide is very general term.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    44. Re:Still needs more research by Troggie87 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Guessing youre the same AC who started this. Everything is toxic, in sufficient quantity. The link you give lists that particular pesticide as having no discernable carcinogenic effects and a very low toxicity relative to any reasonable exposure. Did you even read your own link? Pesticides in general do have some risk to humans.

      The rule of thumb is that if it kills an insect keep an eye on it, because insects aren't that far from humans. Herbicides are by and large harmless unless you swim in the stuff. But the fear mongering you are doing isn't based on research. Its the same kind of conspiracy theory logic as the anti-vaccine crowd uses. This story is indicating an interesting side effect for a specific insect which ingests a toxin via an unforseen channel in a quantity not thought to be harmful. It could be a great example for a risk analysis course. It is not, however, a sky is falling moment for modern society, nor an "I told you so" moment for the GMO movement. If true, minor tweaks to the existing system fix the problem. Stop pretending its the end of the world.

    45. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we can always ask Peter Gleick the definition of ethics, oh...wait.

    46. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think our Cuba policy is just lame. The only reason we are doing it is because of the hatred of the Cubans in Florida. The second is that it gives money to the midwest which of course where all our right wingers hang out generally.

      If they attack the science on this, they are being very foolish. They are playing literally with the human race since without pollination we will not be able to get crops. It would but the entire food chain in the U.S. in danger.

    47. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also most humans would find that the ability to navigate to and from a bee hive is of minimal importance.

    48. Re:Still needs more research by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In general, it should be a default position to never accept anything based on a single study. Being able to reproduce results is one of the cornerstones of proper science. There's always room for unseen elements within a single study that are factored out by further research.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    49. Re:Still needs more research by mohhomad · · Score: 2

      I'd love to see the citation you have for this claim. Which function in human biology requires arsenic?

    50. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it is a vast right wing conspiracy? MSNBC much?

    51. Re:Still needs more research by haruchai · · Score: 0

      Considering that Heartland tried the same tactic 5 years ago on Greenpeace, their cries of victimization ring quite hollowly.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    52. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the EPA sets the limits, and that's mostly owned by other industries (because they regulate so much more than farms. I'm not saying it's great, just "a reasonably good job" of keeping it "pretty safe" -- we don't have near the trouble with poisons in our food as, say, China.

    53. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may claim the pesticides don't get in the edible bits of the crops (for human consumption), but what about the rest of the plant that is used for animal feed or other byproducts that end up on our plate anyway? Is it so difficult to grasp that if we spray tons of this in our environment that it ends up in our food chain and water supplies...

    54. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corn is modified to be resistant to herbicides. Plants are already pretty resistant to most pesticides.

    55. Re:Still needs more research by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Herbicide is a subset of pesticide" No it isn't. A plant, which is what herbicides kill, wouldn't be classified as a "pest". A nuisance? Yes. A bother? Yes. A pest? No.

    56. Re:Still needs more research by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Roundup is a pesticide" Again, no it isn't. from wiki: "A pest is an animal which is detrimental to humans or human concerns." I get what you're trying to say, but you're using an overly broad and to my knowledge, not accepted definition of pesticide. Saying "plant = nuisance which my thesaurus says = pest" does not mean it is a pesticide.

    57. Re:Still needs more research by jc42 · · Score: 1

      So in the US we have a right wing that will oppose any science finding that ...

      You can follow that with just about anything that scientists find, and you'll usually be correct. ;-)

      About the only exceptions are scientific findings that can be immediately turned into products (and the scientists hand over all legal rights to the corporation). But that doesn't happen too often; scientific results typically take years to productize, and often require combining with other results to be useful. The US right wing is strongly business oriented, so it typically doesn't recognize any science-product connection that doesn't happen within a single fiscal year.

      (Yes, I wish I were joking. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    58. Re:Still needs more research by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Especially with a drug that binds irreversibly, LD50 could be misleading, because the effect will depend on the duration of exposures and may be cumulative with multiple exposures over a period of a few days

    59. Re:Still needs more research by steelfood · · Score: 2

      All we can say is very low level exposure to the neonicontinoids isn't acutely dangerous for humans. Everything else is up for grabs.

      You can say that about everything. That risk is the cost of progress.

      To study effects over a long term, you need to do it over generations. And they need to be sufficiently isolated to prevent data contamination.

      In this day and age, when progress doubles in 18 months, that kind of time frame not even on the same level of existence, much less inside the ballpark.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    60. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide "Pesticides are categorized into four main substituent chemicals: herbicides; fungicides; insecticides and bactericides."

    61. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 5, Informative

      I stopped reading at "sugar is a poison".

      It is, in the same way that alcohol is a poison. Alcohol can be burned for energy, and in moderation it even has health benefits, but it has to be processed by the liver as a poison.

      Sugar consists of glucose and fructose. Fructose is processed by the liver much like alcohol, but the brain isn't affected by fructose so you don't feel the same effects.

      Before modern agriculture made sugar so cheap, we primarily got fructose from fruit, which also contained fiber to fill us up and other nutrients. Now sugar is cheap and abundant, and the amount Americans eat per year is staggering, and it almost certainly is the cause of the twin epidemics of diabetes and obesity.

      Is Sugar Toxic?

    62. Re:Still needs more research by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      We have powerful lobbies that think that the government should create tariffs that give them an edge over their competitors. This is not right-wing or left-wing or center-wing. We have that all over. Since free-traders are opposed to these tariffs it's nice to know that you don't conflate "right-wing" with free-trade.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    63. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with that is that Cuba is in fact a minnow in the world of sugar production.

      Brazil is the largest by far and the other major producers are India, China and Thailand. These are all countries without trade sanctions.

      It's really all about protecting the already heavily-subsidised corn growers because they're a powerful voting base. If subsidies were removed then lots of those farmers wouldn't be economically viable and there would be a large amount of consolidation of farms and a resultant depopulation of rural areas like what happened in Australia over the last generation. In Australia they don't subsidise their farmers or have tariffs anymore and their farmers have become so efficient they can compete against subsidised farmers in global trade.

    64. Re:Still needs more research by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      not quite true - grasses pollinate using the wind, they basically spray their pollen all over the grass fields and hope for the best.

      So you won't starve, 'cos you'll have wheat and oats and corn. Just no fruit, or most vegetables.

    65. Re:Still needs more research by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      you're not right.

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_and_herbicides_pesticides

      All herbicides are pesticides, but not all pesticides are herbicides. A pesticide is any material used to eradicate or suppress any other life form which causes a material or economic loss to humans. Pesticides is a very broad term which includes herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, avicides, acaricides, rodenticides and many others.

      and

      http://www.chromatography-online.org/directory/analtcat-24/page.html

      Pesticides are chemicals or biological agents used to control, repel, attract or kill pests. Pests are organisms that include insects and weeds that compete with humans for food, destroy property, spread disease or are considered a nuisance.

    66. Re:Still needs more research by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The Monsanto GMO seeds are engineered specifically to allow for overspraying of pesticides. That's why the are called "roundup ready". It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry to realize that it might not be wise to ESCALATE pesticide use. We already have historical examples of such chemicals running amok in the environment and putting animals on the endangered species list.

      Never mind the fact that WE will end up eating this stuff.

      Extra helping of poison with your soy flour?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    67. Re:Still needs more research by Swampash · · Score: 2

      Oxygen is a poison.

    68. Re:Still needs more research by sjames · · Score: 2

      You should have gone with selenium. Arsenic is just a poison in humans.

    69. Re:Still needs more research by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The current corn subsidy regime is already causing consolidation of farms and depopulating rural areas.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    70. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can not absolve Monsanto just because of the pesticide when Monsanto and Bayer soak their GM corn seeds etc in it before shipping. Further, it is manufactured by Monsanto, Bayer and Dow. Simple search will give you confirmation and more info.

      Frankly, even without confirmation it could be easy to believe any evil accusations thrown Monsanto's way as they have been profiting from death since before our grandparents were born. Often it has been government related and thus they forever seem to dodge any action from the government, at least in the US. Research it, inform and inspire your friends, family, co-workers and other acquaintances to do the same.

    71. Re:Still needs more research by sjames · · Score: 1

      Corn is wind pollinated, but many other food plants need bees. The HFCS is one of 2 vectors for poisoning the bees. The other if foraging crops that have been treated.

    72. Re:Still needs more research by IcyHando'Death · · Score: 1

      Not sure parent deserves a +5. Monsanto does not, in fact, sell pesticide resistant corn seeds. And if it did, the corn would be herbicide resistant, not insecticide resistant. Plants, including corn, are already insecticide resistant -- they're insecticides, after all.

      Monstanto is working on pest resistant corn -- specifically, corn resistant to corn root worm. So, if the bees were actually eating the corn or the corn pollen, that might be something to look at.

    73. Re:Still needs more research by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Frankly, even without confirmation it could be easy to believe any evil accusations thrown Monsanto's way

      Don't you ever get tired of being outraged? Do you not realize there are people out there who are manipulating you, every time you get outraged?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    74. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You are partially correct. What this indicates is that the problem is the pesticide being present in the HFCS being used to feed the bees in the late winter. The solution therefore is for beekeepers to either find a source of HFCS that will guarantee that it is free of these types of pesticides (and possibly of all pesticides) or to find an alternate, pesticide-free product to feed to their bees in the late winter.
      This solution has two things going for it. First, it relies on those who have an economic incentive to find a solution to find that solution. Second, it does not involve government regulation of industries that are only peripherally related to the problem.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    75. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no explanation for the increased type 1 diabetes, severe allergies to wheat and dairy, and autism. I would not be surprised if this also found to be attributed these types of toxins in our food supply.

      Type 1 diabetes is now 1 on 300 kids!

    76. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outrage might be an improvement, been more like a dulled acceptance of things for far too long. Manipulation is all too common, including manipulation to avoid outrage and tolerance for putting down the outraged and to inspire the masses to remain joyfully ignorant. Things don't change much over time, just the names of the players.

    77. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Current U.S. sugar tariffs go back to the 1930s and have nothing to do with the Castro regime in Cuba. U.S. sugar tariffs are, as they always have been, about protecting U.S. sugar producers. If you look closely, you will find almost no support for sugar tariffs amongst the rank and file conservatives. What you will find is that sugar tariffs have a minimal negative impact on a large number of people so that it is not an important issue for them. However, they have a large positive impact on a small group that very aggressively campaigns to maintain them. This group is well aware that if this issue were to become well publicized, their position would be wildly unpopular, so they maintain a very low profile only allowing it to become high profile when they are in a position to spin the story to be about "American jobs".
      This is an issue that if you want to actually make a difference on, you should avoid trying to make it a left vs right issue because it isn't. There are just as many left wing politicians who have supported the sugar tariffs as there are right wing politicians who have done so.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    78. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, but even you slightly miss. The problem is feeding something that contains a bug killer to bugs. Perhaps the solution would be for the beekeepers to find something that does not have a bug killer in it to feed their bees? I am quite sure that now that the problem has been identified, some company or individual will begin marketing a product that has been tested and certified to not contain these types of pesticides.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    79. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Except that these studies suggests that the problem is not the trace amounts of the pesticide in the nectar. Rather the problem is the trace amounts in the HFCS that the beekeepers feed their bees in the late winter. If this is the case, then the problem is solvable without outright banning these pesticides.
      An important point about these particular pesticides is that they have no impact on mammals because mammals do not use the chemicals they interact with as neurotransmitters (insects do). That is why these particular pesticides were developed, they are toxic to insects yet have no impact on mammals (actually, I believe that they have no impact on vertebrates of any kind, but I would need to do more research than I feel like at the moment to confirm that).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    80. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      if the corn syrup affects bees why wouldn't it affect humans?!?!?

      Well, the answer is not necessarily. Of course, the even more complete answer is that the problem is not the corn syrup. The problem is not even the pesticides. The problem is the pesticide in the corn syrup.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    81. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell are herbicides a subset of pesticides. Pesticides kill insects, herbicides kill plants. A chemical could be both an pesticides and herbicide, but could be exclusively one or the other.

    82. Re:Still needs more research by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I have a definite allergic reaction to HFCS: wheezing, shortness of breath, the works. It made no sense, since HFCS should be no more of an allergen than sugar. Meaning, not at all.

      But if there is enough residual pesticide in HFCS to cause bee colony collapse, then there is enough that it could affect my asthma. It is a matter of purity; evidently the makers of HFCS are allowing more contaminants to get through to the end product than is good for bees or people with allergies.

      Since the stuff has no nutritional or health value, I would not be opposed to seeing it be banned. The economic impact would be minimal: every company from Nabisco to Gator Ade that uses the stuff could go back to sugar without any major hit to the bottom line.

      --
      Will
    83. Re:Still needs more research by unitron · · Score: 1

      "It's really all about protecting the already heavily-subsidised corn growers..."

      No, it's about protecting US sugar cane sugar growers and producers.

      Has been since long before soda and candy companies started switching over to corn syrup.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    84. Re:Still needs more research by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Er, from the excerpt, the link to HFCS isn't the HFCS itself or how it's produced, it's that the pesticide in question started being used to protect corn crops exactly 1 year before the breakout of colony collapse disorder. I can understand people around here don't RTFA but the least you can do is RTFE.

    85. Re:Still needs more research by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      FWIW, this isn't the first study suggesting linkage to the pesticides, AFAIK there are dozens of those. This is, however, the first time I've heard of a linkage to the combination of HFCS and pesticides, and it could explain some of the negative correlation studies out there that say that the pesticides do not cause CCD.

    86. Re:Still needs more research by guises · · Score: 3

      No, don't do this. Robert Lustig's claims are as yet unsubstantiated. He himself admits this. He makes a compelling case for his theory and there's no reason why you shouldn't follow his advice, but you should not just assume him to be correct and above all you must not pass this on to other people as though it were fact.

      This is exactly the danger in reporting unpublished papers and why Lustig is the only one making the television circuit, despite being in a pretty broad field.

    87. Re:Still needs more research by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Wiki is wrong. My source is the BC Pesticide Applicators Manual which I had to learn years back when I was a licensed pesticide applicator (forestry). And of course the sibling post has other references.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    88. Re:Still needs more research by budgenator · · Score: 1

      What so hard about it
      1 Farmer grows corn,
      2 Farmer sprays crop with imidacloprid to control earwigs
      3 Corn crop contains traces of imidacloprid.
      4 Corn syrup made from corn contains traces of imidacloprid
      5 Apiarist feeds bee Corn syrup not knowing about imidacloprid contamination
      6 worker bees lose the ability to navigate
      7. Hive collapses due to loss of foraging worker bees
      It hasn't got anything GMO corn, or the vileness of HFCS. If I kept bees, I'd change them to beet or cane sugar, the benefit of avoiding the imidacloprid contamination is just a no-brainer.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    89. Re:Still needs more research by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Cool, collected thought is good. Outrage is dumb. Almost tautologically dumb.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    90. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think nicotine analogues don't affect humans?

    91. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hello!? Moron! EVERYONE on Slashdot is a random guy.

    92. Re:Still needs more research by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Actually, the problem is pesticide in the corn syrup affecting bees. Don't get me wrong... there may be other things the pesticide in the corn syrup has affected... but until now, that has not been a problem. The other issues mentioned; Autism, acid reflux, fibromyalgia etc. etc. etc. may have many and multiple causes... and by looking at the population graphs, it appears we are simply not yet effective at accidently killing ourselves.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    93. Re:Still needs more research by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      My question is will imidacloprid end up in beet or cane sugar? How is imidacloprid removed in sugar refining and not cane sugar refining? Do growers of sugar cane or beets not use imidacloprid on their soil??

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    94. Re:Still needs more research by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, since HTML codemonkeys are now called app developers, why not?

    95. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Robert Lustig's claims are as yet unsubstantiated. He himself admits this.

      Do you have a reference where he says that? Because I highly doubt he would use that word, as there is ample evidence that sugar is the problem.

      If you mean not yet accepted in mainstream medicine as proven, then I would agree with you, but it's a rather sad state of affairs since there is now much more evidence than there ever was when the medical establishment went on the anti-fat crusade decades ago, back when Yudkin was saying no, it's not the fat, it's the sugar. Americans changed their diet and to low-fat high-sugar, and look what happened.

      He makes a compelling case for his theory and there's no reason why you shouldn't follow his advice, but you should not just assume him to be correct and above all you must not pass this on to other people as though it were fact.

      Everything I said was a fact regarding the way fructose is processed by the liver, the way it is found in nature, and the staggering amounts that Americans eat. The only thing that wasn't a fact was the link to diabetes and obesity, and there I said "almost certainly". I think it's a crime to underplay all the evidence given the scope of the problem, and I encourage anybody who cares about health to take this issue very seriously.

      This is exactly the danger in reporting unpublished papers and why Lustig is the only one making the television circuit, despite being in a pretty broad field.

      Lustig provides references to peer-reviewed papers that show correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes. If you have counter evidence to show that he's wrong on any of his evidence, please reference it.

    96. Re:Still needs more research by guises · · Score: 1

      Robert Lustig's claims are as yet unsubstantiated. He himself admits this.

      Do you have a reference where he says that?

      It's in the talk he gave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

      He says pretty clearly that he's talking about metabolic processes that make sense to him, that he's verified with a colleague to be plausible, and that he believes to be true. He also says that there are several studies in progress, including one that he is conducting at UCSF, which he hopes will vindicate his hypothesis, but which are not yet complete.

      Also, from the article you linked:

      To be precise, the F.D.A. reviewers said that other than its contribution to calories, “no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current.” This is another way of saying that the evidence by no means refuted the kinds of claims that Lustig is making now and other researchers were making then, just that it wasn’t definitive or unambiguous.

      Emphasis mine. This was in 1986, well after the Yudkin book that you mention.

    97. Re:Still needs more research by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Fructose is processed by the liver much like alcohol, but the brain isn't affected by fructose so you don't feel the same effects.

      Oh really?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    98. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And chocolate kills dogs, but I'll continue eating it. Caffeine really messes up spiders, but I'll continue drinking soda.

      [citation needed]

    99. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut up. Every 5 years there is a new "sugar is bad" story, no idea for how long that has been going.
      Starting with "sugar break teeth", "sugar causes diabetes", "sugar causes intestine issues (Morbus Crohn etc)" and to my knowledge all have been disproven.
      Those people are a disgrace to science, spouting the same shit over and over again with no prove that stands up even a few years and obviously not learning shit from it.

    100. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      While, yes it is true that there may be other things that the pesticide in the corn syrup has affected, none of the things you list are among those that are likely. The pesticides in question are unlikely to have any affect on these disorders for the simple reason that humans do not have the neurotransmitters which they target.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    101. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It's in the talk he gave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

      That's a 90 minute talk. Perhaps you could reference the times so we can be concrete on what he actually said.

      Also, from the article you linked: To be precise, the F.D.A. reviewers said that other than its contribution to calories, "no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current." [..] This was in 1986, well after the Yudkin book that you mention.

      Yes, I understand the mainstream American medical position, and I already said as much: "If you mean not yet accepted in mainstream medicine as proven, then I would agree with you, but it's a rather sad state of affairs since there is now much more evidence than there ever was when the medical establishment went on the anti-fat crusade decades ago [..]"

      But since you're quoting the article I referenced, let me give you some more quotes:

      • "When Glinsmann and his F.D.A. co-authors decided no conclusive evidence demonstrated harm at the levels of sugar then being consumed, they estimated those levels at 40 pounds per person per year beyond what we might get naturally in fruits and vegetables [..] But 40 pounds per year happened to be 35 pounds less than what Department of Agriculture analysts said we were consuming at the time -- 75 pounds per person per year -- and the U.S.D.A. estimates are typically considered to be the most reliable. By the early 2000s, according to the U.S.D.A., we had increased our consumption to more than 90 pounds per person per year. "
      • "That this increase happened to coincide with the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes is one reason that it's tempting to blame sugars [..] This correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes is what defense attorneys call circumstantial evidence. It's more compelling than it otherwise might be, though, because the last time sugar consumption jumped markedly in this country, it was also associated with a diabetes epidemic."
      • "In 1970, Keys published the results of a landmark study in nutrition known as the Seven Countries Study. Its results were perceived by the medical community and the wider public as compelling evidence that saturated-fat consumption is the best dietary predictor of heart disease. But sugar consumption in the seven countries studied was almost equally predictive. [..] In 1971, Keys published an article attacking Yudkin and describing his evidence against sugar as "flimsy indeed." He treated Yudkin as a figure of scorn, and Yudkin never managed to shake the portrayal. "
      • "By the end of the 1970s, any scientist who studied the potentially deleterious effects of sugar in the diet, according to Sheldon Reiser, who did just that at the U.S.D.A.'s Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and talked about it publicly, was endangering his reputation."
      • "physicians and medical authorities came to accept the idea that a condition known as metabolic syndrome is a major, if not the major, risk factor for heart disease and diabetes."
      • "By the early 2000s, researchers studying fructose metabolism had established certain findings unambiguously and had well-established biochemical explanations for what was happening. Feed animals enough pure fructose or enough sugar, and their livers convert the fructose into fat -- the saturated fatty acid, palmitate, to be precise, that supposedly gives us heart disease when we eat it, by raising LDL cholesterol. The fat accumulates in the liver, and insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome follow."
      • "When Tappy fed his human subjects the equivalent of the fructose in 8 to 10 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day -- a "pretty high dose" he says -- their livers would start to become insulin-resistant, and their triglycerides would go up in just a few days. With lower doses, Tappy says, just as in the animal
    102. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, but I was thinking about the obvious toxic effect of feeling drunk. If people got drunk on fructose like they did on alcohol, they wouldn't doubt it's toxicity and feed it to their children as a treat.

    103. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gay Liberal Bees? I think we've got an idea for a TV show ...

    104. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsanto's corn, however, is designed to be pesticide resistant, so farmers can use more pesticide on their corn.

      You're thinking of herbicide resistance - the one that kills plants. Why would a plant be affected by a pesticide - one that kills bugs? There are pest resistant crops that make their own poisons, but there's no need for pesticide resistant crops. If your pesticide kills plants - you're doing it wrong.

    105. Re:Still needs more research by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Although nicotinoid != nicotine, it's worthwhile to look at the toxicity of nicotine.

      The LD50 of nicotine for humans is about 50 mg. A single cigarette contains about 9 mg of nicotine, not all of which is inhaled by a smoker. If dissolved in alcohol and drunk, there's enough nicotine in a pack of cigarettes to dependably kill a person. Nicotine affects the nervous system, and probably can cause birth defects and cancer.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    106. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, millions of Americans have become fat and diabetic. What I'd like to see is evidence of why sugar isn't the culprit, instead of more hemming and hawing and waiting for more data.

      Well, the obvious answer would be that Americans are exercising less, and consuming more calories of all types. It just so happens that a lot of foods gained a higher percentage of sugar in the same time period.

      What you'd have to do is a control for sugar vs. calories, and monitor obesity/diabetes statistics among those who consume just as many calories but without the sugar.

      The difficult part about that is, people who are eliminating sugar from their diets are probably more concerned with their health overall and unlikely to consume as many calories as the average person.

    107. Re:Still needs more research by guises · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see the problem. Until I got to you last line there I'd thought maybe we were having two separate conversations. Look, there are plenty of nutty and self-interested people who deny climate change because "the facts aren't all in" or "further research is needed" or whatever, and this has pushed climatologists to ever more extreme language to counter them. They start trowing around words like "fact" and "indisputable." It's an unfortunate perversion made necessary by the public's inability to deal with things that aren't certainty.

      There's a similar problem with evolution, but there's the thing: people aren't saying things like "evolution is a fact" or "climate change is a certainty that needs to be dealt with" lightly. Climate change has a huge amount of supporting data and very few credible detractors while evolution is one of the most thoroughly demonstrated theories in science. This fructose theory has no credible detractors (that I know of), that's good. As for support... there's a correlation between increased sugar consumption and a rise in obesity and diabetes, as you say. This is simply not sufficient to start throwing around absolutes. Especially in medicine and double especially when it comes to dietary advice:

      http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/

      I am admittedly shy about accepting health advice, but I have good reason to be. Most health reporting is just malarkey. That's true for science reporting in general actually, but health reporting is half of all science reporting because the public just eats that shit up. Antioxidents help you live longer? Bunk. Fish oil makes you smarter? Bunk. "Staying hydrated?" Bunk.

      As for the video, yeah I know it's ninety minutes. I thought about providing a more specific reference but came to my senses before I wasted an hour and a half just to win an internet argument. I also wish you wouldn't use the term "mainstream medicine." Around here we just call that "medicine."

    108. Re:Still needs more research by guises · · Score: 1

      Sorry, reading that last bit I think I come off a little snide. Not the intention. I'm just operating from memory on the video, but I do think that my memory is pretty good.

    109. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've looked into this issue quite thoroughly, read through the much peer-reviewed literature on the subject, and whilst not being an expert, my conclusion is that Lustig is an alarmist who is basing his claims on shaky evidence. He is unreasonably extrapolating mainly from rodents fed massive quantities of pure fructose(~60% of total calories), and using short-term studies of already overweight and/or obese adults being fed unrealistically high amounts of fructose(~25% of total calories from fructose.)

      There is a good analysis and discussion of this issue here:
      http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

      Prof Jennie Brand-Miller, one of the leading researchers on the relationhips between diet and diabetes has expressed great dismay at Lustig's claims:

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/war-over-sweet-nothings/story-e6frg8y6-1226261140744

      As for correlations(which a lot of the anti-sugar and anti-HFCS crowd place emphasis on), here's an interesting paper showing sugar consumption has declined during the past three decades in Australia and yet there has been a similar rise in metabolic problems as seen in the U.S.:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22254107
      "The Australian paradox: a substantial decline in sugars intake over the same timeframe that overweight and obesity have increased."

    110. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...errr...BT corn, anyone? PESTICIDE in your corn, courtesy Monsanto and friends...enjoy it...blah
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize

    111. Re:Still needs more research by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I take it you're not a farmer or even a gardener. When a weed is crowding out your crop it is definitely a pest. Some weeds are considered such pests that legally you have to kill them, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noxious_weeds

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    112. Re:Still needs more research by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      I *live* in South Florida, and have experienced these "angry Cubans" first hand. They're a very tiny percentage of the population, and a lot of them aren't quite all there anymore. It's not worth factoring their opinion into this.

      Cuba as a communist country is nowhere near as bad as China when it comes to human rights issues, and we really should be trading with them; it's hypocrisy not to!

    113. Re:Still needs more research by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      This is why trying to apply Moore's law to life in general as if it dominates over all other factors is just asking for trouble.

      In the meantime, find a nice car and double your speed every 18 seconds continuously and let us know how that goes - okay? :)

    114. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had continued reading, you would have seen that he is not saying anything negative about high fructose corn syrup itself, but that the problems started after corn started being treated with the pesticide imidacloprid. It really has nothing to do with the sugar. That's just the carrier of the pesticide.

    115. Re:Still needs more research by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      But I could do it without HFCS.

    116. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the articles? It's the pesticides used on the corn that is still in the high-fructose corn-syrup. Not the corn or the corn-syrup itself.

    117. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supplemental evidence to back up this claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oijbOTeXWw

    118. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's always room for unseen elements within a single study" This is known in biostatistical methods as Confounding, where something systematic you are unaware of is biasing or completely invalidating your results. On the other hand, it CERTAINLY merits further study. It would be great if in fact this is proved true, because among other things the bee colony deaths could be the "canary in the coal mine" for humans, meaning it's also affecting (or will) other biological systems, we just haven't had the light bulb go on yet. We use so many chemicals in the food chain (like using antibiotics in animal feed just to fatten them up, which is completely insane) that WILL come around and bite us in the ass, big time.

    119. Re:Still needs more research by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Poisons and sugar are very different and processed a lot differently. I think they are imagined poisons the nutrution police would have us believe. It's part of natural food and occurs naturally. Strawberries, Pineapple, and so on. In fact, you need sugar to live. Poisons you don't. Also, kidneys tend to process poisons, not your liver. Your liver matabolizes food. I won't go into that, it would probably gross most people out. It's very important though.

      Not sure about Corn syrup. I haven't looked into it yet. However it sure sounds like they are srainin' to do some explainin'

    120. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If you look at the studies on toxicity for imidacloprid, you discover that the toxicity levels for it are off the scale large relative to the dosage levels it is used at as an insecticide. As a matter of fact, the LD50 in the closest human analogs (dogs, rats) for this pesticide is in the same range as that for salt.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    121. Re:Still needs more research by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      I agree... mind you the fear is in the unknown. Many people do not fully understand the method of action of the pesticides and how it targets specific neurotransmitters only in insects while being a perfect compound that does not alter chemically in heat/digestion or have bi-products created in the production.
      <sarcasm>Me, I'd rather worry about being taken out by a freaking magnet.</sarcasm>

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    122. Re:Still needs more research by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Yes, the whole embargo is petty and counter productive. The best way to end communism is flood the nation with wealth and prosperity. Case in point, China. Now that capitalism has taken root, communism in China is all but in name only for its major cities.

      My guess is that our continued embargo with Cuba goes all the way back to Lee Harvey Oswald assassination of JFK. Lee was a known Soviet defector and Castro sympathizer. Given the whole Cuban Missile Crisis, my guess is that this embargo was the final "fuck you" to Fidel Castro and his regime.

      If I have to guess, the embargo will be automatically lifted once Fidel passes away.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    123. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Most published studies aren't neceesarily reproduceable: http://blog.scienceexchange.com/2012/04/the-need-for-reproducibility-in-academic-research/

    124. Re:Still needs more research by initialE · · Score: 1

      If this is true, that the pesticide is so powerful, then bees all over do not stand a chance at all, as we have no means of controlling anything we release into the environment in such small quantities. Here's hoping that bees will develop a resistance to this particular pesticide, as all pests eventually do.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    125. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Poisons and sugar are very different and processed a lot differently.

      The whole point here is that fructose is processed by the liver very much like alcohol, which is a known poison that leads to disease when chronically over-consumed. Lustig talks about the similarities in processing here.

      In fact, you need sugar to live.

      You are using the term "sugar" here, but sugar is made up of glucose and fructose. Your body burns glucose as its main fuel. However, you don't need the fructose component, and you almost certainly shouldn't be consuming it in massive quantities. Also, just because something is found in nature and nutritious doesn't mean it can't be poisonous. A simple example is vitamin A.

      Also, kidneys tend to process poisons, not your liver. Your liver matabolizes food.

      It also metabolizes poison, in particular alcohol.

    126. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      First off, thanks for your links. It's nice to have informed discussion.

      There is a good analysis and discussion of this issue here:
      http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

      There's a lot of text about dose-dependent, but the problem is clearly in the dosage, as Lustig says in his talk. For example:

      "In the single human study I'm aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 nondiet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."

      My answer to his question is, yes, it is groundbreaking when you compare the mechanisms of fructose to that of alcohol. We know it's not good to binge on alcohol, yet parents think nothing about feeding their kids sodas or fruit juices, sugary cereals, and dessert as part of a day's meal. We've put vending machines that serve sugary junk food in our schools.

      All this while what used to be known as adult-onset diabetes is now commonly found in young people. Chalking this up as a lack of exercise and excess calories when their is a clear metabolic mechanism that is dose dependent, just like alcohol, sounds dangerously naive and stubborn.

      Prof Jennie Brand-Miller, one of the leading researchers on the relationhips between diet and diabetes has expressed great dismay at Lustig's claims:

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/war-over-sweet-nothings/story-e6frg8y6-1226261140744

      I can't access it. It looks to be pay-walled, or at least login-walled and bugmenot doesn't work.

      As for correlations(which a lot of the anti-sugar and anti-HFCS crowd place emphasis on), here's an interesting paper showing sugar consumption has declined during the past three decades in Australia and yet there has been a similar rise in metabolic problems as seen in the U.S.:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22254107

      Interesting. I'll have to look at it in more detail, but one thing that strikes me right off the bat is that they don't talk about the rates of diabetes or metabolic syndrome, only obesity.

    127. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      [climatologists] start trowing around words like "fact" and "indisputable."

      I didn't throw around the word "fact". Instead, I listed several facts that you have not disputed. I did not use the word "indisputable", I said "almost certainly". I'd ask that you be more careful in your comparative digressions.

      As for support... there's a correlation between increased sugar consumption and a rise in obesity and diabetes, as you say. This is simply not sufficient to start throwing around absolutes.

      Again, I did not throw around absolutes. Even more importantly, you're completely ignoring the described and demonstrated causal mechanism that leads to metabolic syndrome and its similarity to how alcohol is processed by the liver.

      It's funny how you then reference the red meat Taubes article, because in it he complains about the lack of a causal mechanism and experiment and the sole reliance on association. The causal link for sugar is exactly what I gave you in my quotes from my last post, and those quotes just so happen to be from another Taubes article.

      As for the video, yeah I know it's ninety minutes. I thought about providing a more specific reference but came to my senses before I wasted an hour and a half just to win an internet argument.

      That's fine, but don't expect me to take your argument seriously and to trust your memory, especially when you've been fast and loose with the representations of what I've said.

      I also wish you wouldn't use the term "mainstream medicine." Around here we just call that "medicine."

      I use that term to exclude people in the field who take the sugar hypothesis seriously. This isn't some fringe theory advocated by quacks. Even among the skeptics, I found none that disputed the basic metabolic mechanisms of fructose and its comparison to alcohol.

    128. Re:Still needs more research by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If you look at the information on this compound you discover that they have done studies on how toxic it is when it is taken orally. They discovered that when this compound is eaten by mammals, it has an LD50 similar to that of salt. Any bi-products created in production that would be distributed with the pesticide in use would have been included in the samples administered to conduct the studies.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    129. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it sad that people think soda and caffeine are in any way related.

    130. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but came to my senses before I wasted an hour and a half just to win an internet argument.

      Dude, turn in your geek card. You should be willing to go to ANY LENGTHS necessary to win an internet argument.

      THIS ... IS ... SLASHDOT!!

    131. Re:Still needs more research by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Granted, but was the LD50 tested after prolonged exposure to UV, other pesticides, heat etc.?? that is the unknown... and stories like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13QiSV_lrDQ do not help with the FUD

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    132. Re:Still needs more research by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if it turns out that this is the case, my guess is we'll have to stop using this particular pesticide.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    133. Re:Still needs more research by nobodie · · Score: 1

      The parasite argument is weak, for this reason. Parasites are ubiquitous in nature. They are in and around the hives all the time. They do not, normally, cause CCD.
      Let's use a human parrallel, like bedbugs for instance. Right now, bedbugs are in many homes. But they are not killing people, they are not leading to family or community collapse disorder. Why? because we have the strength to overcome the predations and secondary bacterial attacks that could come from bedbugs if we were already stressed by, hmmm, poverty, TB, overwork, famine, or massive doses of HFCS that rots our teeeth and puts us in continual pain from tooth decay.

      So, the bees are being stressed, not in the pansy wansy way of people (oh my job is soooo stressful, i have to be at work before 9 every day or my boss gives me that look?) but in a real painful struggling way that puts the bees in danger of a number of possible CCD vectors.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    134. Re:Still needs more research by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Gosh, this comment got modded down too? Did I cause someone's anus, er, did I offend someone's delicate RightWingNut sensibilities? Oh, the humanity

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    135. Re:Still needs more research by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      The whole point here is that fructose is processed by the liver very much like alcohol, which is a known poison that leads to disease when chronically over-consumed. Lustig talks about the similarities in processing here.

      Please explain why you think alcohol is a poison. I've been consuming alcohol for about 3 decades now. Most assuredly, my liver is fine. Your response is towards my point. Alcohol is metabolized by the liver, it isn't a poison any more than consuming too much water is also a poison. Consuming too much anything can be a poison. Maybe I really did miss something. Slept through something in a biology class. I doubt it though. Of course, that was a long time ago. Maybe with the revised what some call "science" as it is today, it's a poison now.

    136. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Please explain why you think alcohol is a poison.

      Because unlike water, it is not a necessary nutrient and has toxic effects even at low doses.

      Your response is towards my point. Alcohol is metabolized by the liver

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver#Breakdown :

      "The liver breaks down or modifies toxic substances (e.g., methylation) and most medicinal products in a process called drug metabolism. This sometimes results in toxication, when the metabolite is more toxic than its precursor. Preferably, the toxins are conjugated to avail excretion in bile or urine."

      In other words, it works in tandem with the kidneys. Even more detail:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_metabolism#Phase_I :

      "Phase I reactions (also termed nonsynthetic reactions) may occur by oxidation, reduction, hydrolysis, cyclization, and decyclization addition of oxygen or removal of hydrogen, carried out by mixed function oxidases, often in the liver."

    137. Re:Still needs more research by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Because unlike water, it is not a necessary nutrient and has toxic effects even at low doses.

      Really? Ok, water is many things however it isn't a nutrient. Look at a label sometime for bottled water. Unless it's fortified with something, it should show up as having no nutritional value.

      I think you still miss the point. Explain why something that really is a poison, for example anti-freeze or Ethylene glycol is like the way the body handles ethanol, or perhaps how ethanol damages the body in a manner that's consistent with a poison. Since you like wiki, here's one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Treatment_for_poisoning_by_other_alcohols . Look under poison and see how it's used to help treat a real poisoning. Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol it clearly says - It's toxic! I agree, no doubt about it. Not under ethanol. Maybe it would be useful to look at how they define a poison - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison

      If ethanol were a poison, I'd be dead by now. I've been drinking it for over 3 decades.

      I'd appreciate it if you would either admit your error or come up with something concrete as to why I'm wrong. I might be. It wouldn't be the first time.

    138. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Ok, water is many things however it isn't a nutrient.

      Instead of being pedantic, maybe you'd acknowledge that, unlike alcohol, without ingesting water you'd die, much sooner than you would if you had no food, hence it is not a poison or considered toxic.

      Maybe it would be useful to look at how they define a poison - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison

      Did you actually look?

      "In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. [..] poisons are generally defined as substances absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."

      The first obvious effect of alcohol is that it impairs your brain function.

      Explain why something that really is a poison, for example anti-freeze or Ethylene glycol is like the way the body handles ethanol, or perhaps how ethanol damages the body in a manner that's consistent with a poison.

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

      "Pure ethanol will irritate the skin and eyes.[76] Nausea, vomiting and intoxication are symptoms of ingestion. Long-term use by ingestion can result in serious liver damage.[77] Atmospheric concentrations above one in a thousand are above the European Union Occupational exposure limits.[77] [..] Death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3-0.4%.[80] Prolonged heavy consumption of alcohol can cause significant permanent damage to the brain and other organs. [..] Ethanol within the human body is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase and then into the acetyl in acetyl CoA by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. Acetyl CoA is the final product of both carbohydrate and fat metabolism, where the acetyl can be further used to produce energy or for biosynthesis. As such, ethanol is a nutrient. However, the product of the first step of this breakdown, acetaldehyde,[84] is more toxic than ethanol. Acetaldehyde is linked to most of the clinical effects of alcohol. It has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver[68] and multiple forms of cancer."

      Since you like wiki, here's one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Treatment_for_poisoning_by_other_alcohols .

      "Ethanol is sometimes used to treat poisoning by other, more toxic alcohols"

      If ethanol were a poison, I'd be dead by now. I've been drinking it for over 3 decades.

      This statement is ignorant, as the body has a natural ability to clear poisons, and they can be tolerated in low enough doses. However, there's quite a long list of illnesses associated with chronic alcohol abuse, in particular cirrhosis of the liver, and if you actually watched the video I linked to, many of these same illnesses are implicated with fructose.

      I'd appreciate it if you would either admit your error or come up with something concrete as to why I'm wrong.

      Funny, I feel the same about you. So far you've ignored the video I linked to on the processing of alcohol and fructose, you've ignored the fact that water is needed for life where alcohol is not, instead pedantically focusing on the term I used, and you've ignored the links and quotes I've already posted on the liver's function in breaking down toxic substances. I can only imagine you'll ignore the substance of what I've said in this post, too.

    139. Re:Still needs more research by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Instead of being pedantic, maybe you'd acknowledge that, unlike alcohol, without ingesting water you'd die, much sooner than you would if you had no food, hence it is not a poison or considered toxic.

      Pedantic? Well you are a bit entertaining at least. Remind me of my Son. You called it a nutrient. It isn't and your statement doesn't even address that. You should have said - "You're right." or "agreed" instead of trying to salvage... well something I suppose. Better yet, don't mention water. Stick to the subject at hand.

      (.. bit about me drinking for 30 years...)

      This statement is ignorant, as the body has a natural ability to clear poisons, and they can be tolerated in low enough doses. However, there's quite a long list of illnesses associated with chronic alcohol abuse, in particular cirrhosis of the liver, and if you actually watched the video I linked to, many of these same illnesses are implicated with fructose.

      Where to even begin. You apparently read the article in the NY Times about sugar. Understand that just because it's in print, especially in the NY Times, that doesn't mean it's true.

      You read the stuff on ethanol and I think you didn't understand it. If you are not injured, killed nor impared - it's not a poison. Since you cannot show any toxic effects with a small dose, it's not a poison. In fact in low doses they consider it a benefit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol . So your (actually, it's probably their) assertion that it is, is wrong. Otherwise, explain how a poison can be beneficial. Sure, I read the NYT article. I could show you a whole bunch of un-reproduceable studies by "scientists" in their quest for grants. Unfortunately some end up in the NY Times and believed by people far and wide. Oxygen for example is toxic in too high of a quantity. I don't think many would agree with you that it's poisonous. Just the gullable.

    140. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Pedantic?

      "marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"

      Better yet, don't mention water.

      You brought it up, idiot. You know it's easy to go back and read the earlier posts.

      Stick to the subject at hand.

      Yes, please do. Instead of ignoring my larger point about why water isn't considered a poison (you need it to live), even though ingesting too much may harm you, you focused on the exact word I used to describe it.

      Where to even begin.

      How about you address my actual points, you know the concrete evidence that you asked for, and are now ignoring just like I thought you would?

      Understand that just because it's in print, especially in the NY Times, that doesn't mean it's true.

      Fine, but it's up to you to demonstrate that it isn't, and you haven't done so and have never admitted you were wrong when provided evidence, like how one of the liver's responsibilities is to clear poisons.

      Since you cannot show any toxic effects with a small dose, it's not a poison.

      As I've already stated, it impairs your brain function even at relatively low doses. It's a toxic chemical that has to be cleared from the body, unlike typical food or water that you can ingest in large amounts and that you need to live. Just because other poisons are more acute does not mean alcohol isn't one.

      I also gave you the mechanism of its toxicity (acetaldehyde), which you asked for, and then subsequently ignored.

      In fact in low doses they consider it a benefit.

      Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a toxic chemical. As I already stated, the body can tolerate and clear poisons naturally, and in this case a low dose is acting in a medicinal fashion. Even cyanide has medical uses and is even put in food.

      Unfortunately some end up in the NY Times and believed by people far and wide.

      Unfortunately, some people ignore the science and don't provide an actual scientific refutation, and spout ignorant crap about how the liver doesn't clear poisons, about how they've been drinking for 30 years and highlighting the benefits of a low dose, while ignoring all the harmful effects of a toxic chemical, and ignoring the danger as it applies to the large amounts of fructose that modern people are ingesting via added sugar and fruit juices. This despite fructose's strong link to metabolic syndrome, as demonstrated by the undisputed scientific description of the metabolic process and by actual experiment.

      I'm not interested in discussing with you any more. I've said everything I've wanted to say.

    141. Re:Still needs more research by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      "marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"

      This may turn out to be worth your time... keep reading. I know what pendantic means. If I didn't, don't you think I'd look it up? Most people would have understood I knew what you were talking about by my response. Sorry, I gave you too much credit. ...

      (NY Timess being full of BS)

      Fine, but it's up to you to demonstrate that it isn't, and you haven't done so and have never admitted you were wrong when provided evidence, like how one of the liver's responsibilities is to clear poisons.

      I did. That is why I had no idea where to start. The Liver is the swiss army knife of organs. It can even do functions of other organs if they are deficient. You clearly have no clue how the body works, and you think you do. To say it processes something like something else doesn't impress me one bit. You'll probably never know just how ridiculous what you said is. You fit into the rat poison category that I speak of later in this post.

      I also gave you the mechanism of its toxicity (acetaldehyde), which you asked for, and then subsequently ignored.

      I didn't ignore it. Sometimes even on slashdot someone has a point and I learn something. You can't know everything after all. For a while I thought you might be right so I looked into it further. Contacted a colleague and he said he knew about the very same article you cited and after about an hour discussion he agreed it was full of shit. Did you by any chance happen to look up acetaldehyde? Look it up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde . It doesn't cause hangovers by the way. The thing you are depending on (and was lied about in the article you cited), isn't toxic in the normal context. Look for toxic in the article.

      Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a toxic chemical. As I already stated, the body can tolerate and clear poisons naturally, and in this case a low dose is acting in a medicinal fashion. Even cyanide has medical uses and is even put in food.

      OK FINALLY.. Someone must have hit you with a clue by four (or you re-read my previous posts). At least you have more of a clue than that fellow that found part of the chemical structure for Aspertame has the same chemical structure as rat poison... so therefore it's poison. Conspiracy theory crap. Something can be toxic and not poisonous. Something that is poisonous is always toxic. They are not the same thing.

      Unfortunately, some people ignore the science and don't provide an actual scientific refutation, and spout ignorant crap about how the liver doesn't clear poisons, about how they've been drinking for 30 years and highlighting the benefits of a low dose, while ignoring all the harmful effects of a toxic chemical, and ignoring the danger as it applies to the large amounts of fructose that modern people are ingesting via added sugar and fruit juices. This despite fructose's strong link to metabolic syndrome, as demonstrated by the undisputed scientific description of the metabolic process and by actual experiment.

      I'm not interested in discussing with you any more. I've said everything I've wanted to say.

      I agree, the "some people" are people like you. I bet you are very well intentioned, perhaps very smart. Like so many kids that I see in science fairs, they simply aren't teaching science anymore. Often Science is being taught by a liberal arts major - like an english teacher. Even at a tech school for the county. Very sad.

      I think you're right on the edge of understanding why fructose isn't a poison. Do you understand now?

    142. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Against my better judgment, and since you actually responded about something of substance, acetaldehyde, I'll reply.

      I know what pendantic means.

      Good for you. Now can you actually not be pedantic and acknowledge the larger point about water, since you are the one who brought it up?

      "In fact, you need sugar to live. Poisons you don't. [..] Please explain why you think alcohol is a poison. [..] it isn't a poison any more than consuming too much water is also a poison."

      I addressed the point you raised, and you pedantically ignored it, and then told me I shouldn't have brought up water when it was you who mentioned it first. If that's not worth a mea culpa from you what the hell is?

      The Liver is the swiss army knife of organs. It can even do functions of other organs if they are deficient. You clearly have no clue how the body works, and you think you do.

      Yet I'm the one who has provided references that one of the functions of the liver is to clear toxins in tandem with the kidneys, while you have provided no references. Here's another reference for you, since you are fixated on acute poisons:

      "Approximately 80% of absorbed cyanide is metabolized to thiocyanate in the liver by the mitochondrial sulfur transferase enzyme rhodanese and other sulfur transferases. Thiocyanate is excreted in the urine."

      I didn't ignore [acetaldehyde]. For a while I thought you might be right so I looked into it further.

      You ignored it in your subsequent post, and if you thought I might be right about it then you should either acknowledge it or shut the fuck up until you learn otherwise.

      Contacted a colleague and he said he knew about the very same article you cited and after about an hour discussion he agreed it was full of shit.

      Wow, great reference. A "colleague" said in a conversation that I wasn't privy to that he agreed it was "full of shit."

      Did you by any chance happen to look up acetaldehyde? Look it up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde .

      What, in particular, do you want me to note? Something like:

      "Acetaldehyde derived from the consumption of ethanol binds to proteins to form adducts that are linked to organ disease.[29] [..] Acetaldehyde is a carcinogen in humans.[17]"

      Or how about this?

      "Under normal metabolism, alcohol is broken down in the liver by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to acetaldehyde, which is then converted by the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the harmless acetic acid. Disulfiram blocks this reaction at the intermediate stage by blocking the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. After alcohol intake under the influence of disulfiram, the concentration of acetaldehyde in the blood may be 5 to 10 times higher than that found during metabolism of the same amount of alcohol alone. As acetaldehyde is one of the major causes of the symptoms of a "hangover" this produces immediate and severe negative reaction to alcohol intake. Some 5-10 minutes after alcohol intake, the patient may experience the effects of a severe hangover for a period of 30 minutes up to several hours. Symptoms include flushing of the skin, accelerated heart rate, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, throbbing headache, visual disturbance, mental confusion, postural syncope, and circulatory collapse."

      Something can be toxic and not poisonous. Something that is poisonous is always toxic.

      I'm not sure where you are going with this, as the chemical reactions of alcohol make it always toxic, unlike water or normal food, and alcohol isn't required for life, unlike water or normal food. Just like cyanide, the dosage for alcohol is important, though of course cyanide is a much more acute poison.

    143. Re:Still needs more research by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Against my better judgment, and since you actually responded about something of substance, acetaldehyde, I'll reply.

      Know the feeling. Sometimes you save a life by sticking in there. Sometimes you get the equivelent of a punch in the face as their personal character flaws show. One guy was so bad it was a lot worse than a punch in the face.

      (liver, universal)

      Yet I'm the one who has provided references that one of the functions of the liver is to clear toxins in tandem with the kidneys, while you have provided no references. Here's another reference for you, since you are fixated on acute poisons:

      "Approximately 80% of absorbed cyanide is metabolized to thiocyanate in the liver by the mitochondrial sulfur transferase enzyme rhodanese and other sulfur transferases. Thiocyanate is excreted in the urine."

      So all of those references I posted you *Didn't* read? I'm certainly trying to not spoon feed like a public school teacher. I want you to look, learn. Hopefully learn how to learn and study. Not sure why you think I'm fixated on acute poisons. You do remember me mentioning drinking for 30 years, right? You even commented and seemed to make fun about it. Flew right over your head, obviously. I also mentioned toxicity and poisons. Something I still think you don't have a good understanding of yet.

      You ignored it in your subsequent post, and if you thought I might be right about it then you should either acknowledge it or shut the fuck up until you learn otherwise.

      Too bad your parents didn't address your mouth better. Improve your manners.
      I ignored it because I presumed that you bothered to look at it and you were a lot further along with understanding. I don't know you so it's sometimes very difficult to determine if I'm dealing with a genius, average guy and sometimes an idiot that manages to make a good point sometimes. Sometimes even a genius says idiotic things. You're not a genius, that's for sure. However it is good that you didn't just roll over and capitulate. When you are shown to be wrong however, you really should admit it.

      Wow, great reference. A "colleague" said in a conversation that I wasn't privy to that he agreed it was "full of shit."

      Well it isn't as if I could conference you in. Even if I could, I have a feeling you wouldn't have understood what we were saying. You're having trouble with what I consider basic concepts and trying hard to not insult or be condencending to you.

      What, in particular, do you want me to note?

      You found it -

      Under normal metabolism, alcohol is broken down in the liver by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to acetaldehyde, which is then converted by the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the harmless acetic acid. Disulfiram blocks this reaction at the intermediate stage by blocking the enzyme acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.

      What part of "harmless acetic acid" during normal metabolism do you not understand? What is so hard about this? There - I spoon fed you. Question is, are you going to spit it out and show more personal character flaws. Yes, I know if you drink too much it's a poison. Yes I know it causes organ damage, again if you drink too much.

      I'm not sure where you are going with this, as the chemical reactions of alcohol make it always toxic, unlike water or normal food, and alcohol isn't required for life, unlike water or normal food. Just like cyanide, the dosage for alcohol is important, though of course cyanide is a much more acute poison.

      Don't play with cyanide. That's a tough way to go.
      Alcohol is not required for life? You really are green. Please go back and read those articles again. It still hasn't sunk in yet. Tell you what, visit a good Biology teacher while she is eating

    144. Re:Still needs more research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weeds are pests and herbicides are a sub-set of pesticides. Parent poster is correct.

    145. Re:Still needs more research by Raenex · · Score: 1

      So all of those references I posted you *Didn't* read?

      No, it's actually like you didn't read them, because I ended up quoting them and using them against you.

      I'm certainly trying to not spoon feed like a public school teacher.

      You're in a debate and can't hold up your end, so you act like some know it all, but when pressed you're just a bag of hot air.

      Not sure why you think I'm fixated on acute poisons. You do remember me mentioning drinking for 30 years, right?

      Which is exactly the point. You used that as evidence that alcohol wasn't a poison, because it isn't acutely toxic. It's been a major theme of yours.

      When you are shown to be wrong however, you really should admit it.

      Given your level of hypocrisy, I don't know whether to laugh at the ludicrousness of it or be infuriated. You ignored, again, the issue with water, which was detailed in my last post. At the very minimum, you said I shouldn't have mentioned it, when you were the one who brought it up first. That's just a big "duh", you made an obvious blunder, but have never owned up to it.

      You ignored that you were wrong about the liver's job in clearing toxins, including indisputable poisons like cyanide.

      You were wrong about the basic toxic effects of alcohol at even mild doses, as I already referenced and "spoon fed" you through quotes, including the metabolic mechanism of its toxicity.

      Well it isn't as if I could conference you in.

      So don't mention it, as it provides no credence or substance. It's pure fluff.

      Too bad your parents didn't address your mouth better. Improve your manners.

      There's more to manners than avoiding swears. In particular, acting like a hypocrite and a condescending, pretentious prick isn't good manners, especially when you've been shown to be wrong again and again. Swearing has its place when you've been driven to it.

      What part of "harmless acetic acid" during normal metabolism do you not understand?

      It's not what I don't understand, it's what you are selectively ignoring, that the precursor, acetaldehyde, is toxic, whereas you claimed it wasn't.

      Yes, I know if you drink too much it's a poison. Yes I know it causes organ damage, again if you drink too much.

      In other words, it's a toxin that has to be cleared from the body, and people know they shouldn't drink too much because of this. So now we're back to just how acute a poison it is.

      Yet while you wouldn't find your average parent feeding their kids alcohol as a treat, there's a holiday dedicated for kids to consume sugar in large amounts, it's put in breakfast foods, we give kids fruit juices and sodas, and even put snack machines in schools, all while there's a corresponding rise in diabetes and obesity in children.

      I think you'll have to admit that without alcohol, life would be a lot different.

      I'm talking about ingesting it, not every single role it plays in life. The simple fact is you can live healthily without ingesting alcohol, unlike water, which goes back to the "water is not a poison" argument because it is not toxic in it's basic mechanism and required for life.

  4. Tangential Jab by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary should be: "CCD Linked to Pesticide"

    I get the feeling including HFCS so prominently in the story is more about triggering an emotional response in readers.

    1. Re:Tangential Jab by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      For the benefit of those of us unaware of any controversy, what kind of emotional response could be triggered by mentioning high-fructose corn syrup?

    2. Re:Tangential Jab by mozumder · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I get the feeling including HFCS so prominently in the story is more about triggering an emotional response in readers.

      And?

      Isn't it the job of an editor to trigger an emotional response in a reader, in order to increase viewership?

      Or should commercial media outlets reduce their viewership?

      Remember, this website isn't academia.

    3. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      For the benefit of those of us unaware of any controversy, what kind of emotional response could be triggered by mentioning high-fructose corn syrup?

      Disgust.

      A shudder of disgust runs through me when I see a 400 pounder sucking on a Coca-Cola (basically a mixture of high-fructose corn syrup and water).

    4. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nothing wrong with deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to get everyone in an uproar. That's their job. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm missing Fox News.

    5. Re:Tangential Jab by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative

      People have been claiming that HFCS is one of the root causes of the obestiy epidemic. Is fructose bad for you?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    6. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bogey-man for tin-foil hatters.

    7. Re:Tangential Jab by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      No. Commercial media outlets should increase viewership by gaining a reputation for accurate, unbiased reporting.

    8. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I had no idea people started feeding bees with HFCS. Have I known, I wouldn't need a study to point out the culprit.

    9. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A shudder of disgust runs through me when I see a 80 pounder sucking on Tea (basically a mixture of rotting leaves and water).

      Mmmm sun Tea; I think I'll go make some.

    10. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's yet another object of ridicule from the head-in-the-sanders.

    11. Re:Tangential Jab by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      That was an interesting read. Thank you.

    12. Re:Tangential Jab by nebosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, if you RTFA, you can see that the link to HFCS is prominently featured because it explains the lag between imidacloprid introduction (1990s) to widespread observance of CCD (2006) because feeding hives with HFCS was not a widespread practice until then. Because the corn from which it is produced is often sprayed with imidacloprid, the HFCS contains trace amounts of imidacloprid well below safe limits for humans, and even below LD50 for the bees, but apparently sufficient to incur CCD over time. A related study described in the second linked article suggests that the class of pesticides to which imidacloprid belongs (neonicotinoids) interfere with the bees' homing ability, which explains the characteristic lack of dead adults in a colony that has suffered CCD--the adults apparently get lost while foraging and can't find their way back to the hive.

      What I find most striking is that CCD did not seem to be much of a problem in the 90s when imidacloprid was introduced, which implies that bees are fine with it being sprayed on crops, but cannot tolerate even minute (measured in double digit parts per billion) traces when it is fed to them (in this case, via HFCS).

    13. Re:Tangential Jab by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You've avoided the HFCS controversy? People who like organic and hate Monsanto also tend to hate High Fructose Corn Syrup. They decry government policies, and go out of their way to drink real-sugar soda (usually imported from Mexico) because it is better for you, and tastes slightly different. HFCS is blamed for everything from childhood obesity to diabetes to cancer. *Republicans* like HCFS (or *democrats*, if you're on the other side of the spectrum, though that type seems to be rarer).

      There are a lot of studies showing that HFCS is really bad for you. This shouldn't be surprising, since it is sugar, and sugar is really bad for you. HFCS opponents try to parse the results of studies to show that HFCS is much worse than sugar. In reality it probably doesn't matter much since both are bad for you, and frankly both sugar Coke and HFCS Coke are vile tasting.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Tangential Jab by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      It isn't the 5k Calories of HFCS he's ingesting each day that makes him fat, it's genetic.

    15. Re:Tangential Jab by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      I think including the delivery method of the pesticide is sort of important for the summary. It's pretty obvious that pesticide kills bugs; what is not obvious is that HFCS contains trace amounts of pesticides.

    16. Re:Tangential Jab by canajin56 · · Score: 2

      So you think the interesting part is that insecticide kills insects, and the fact that HFCS contains various insecticides in significant amounts is both obvious and beside the point?

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    17. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness, ordinary sugar (50% Fructose, 50% Glucose, as a disaccharide that gets cleaved by enzymes) is more or less the same thing as HFCS (55% Fructose, 45% Glucose, as a syrup of the component monosaccharides). HFCS gets a bad rap compared to sugar because "fructose" is in its name. Both are bad.

    18. Re:Tangential Jab by HiThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not misrepresenting, though it is highlighting indirectly significant information.

      The poison gets to the bees through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).
      The poison gets into the HFCS from corn that's resistant to pesticide.
      The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto.
      Ordinary corn wouldn't lead to this, because that much pesticide would have killed it.
      Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.

      So HFCS is a critical link.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't deny that stupidity is genetic...

    20. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, just because "HFCS is bad"?

      It wouldn't have anything to do with the pesticides in it, would it?

    21. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause Europeans don't drink soda and never become fat?

    22. Re:Tangential Jab by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 2

      The way the summary was written, I first thought the bees were getting too fat off the HFCS to get off the ground... Then I RTFA

    23. Re:Tangential Jab by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The summary should be: "CCD Linked to Pesticide"

      I get the feeling including HFCS so prominently in the story is more about triggering an emotional response in readers.

      Yes, because the average obese person ingesting the kind of McShitFood that is tainted quite heavily with HFCS is suddenly concerned about what they're eating because bees died.

      Nevermind their parent that died of a heart attack at 45 last year due to heart disease/obesity...no I'm certain it will be the bees that will convince them.

    24. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...What I find most striking is that CCD did not seem to be much of a problem in the 90s when imidacloprid was introduced, which implies that bees are fine with it being sprayed on crops, but cannot tolerate even minute (measured in double digit parts per billion) traces when it is fed to them (in this case, via HFCS).

      Even more striking will be to watch the FDA continue to claim that pesticide-infused HFCS is still safe for human consumption as we stand here in the wake of the aftermath of the effects of long-term exposure. Of course, the FDA has plenty of excuses(alibis) to blame your cancer on other than products they deem as safe, especially in the long-term.

      Remember, its no longer about safety. It's about liability, and most companies won't waste two cents making a product safer beyond what they legally have to.

    25. Re:Tangential Jab by tmosley · · Score: 1

      HFCS isn't in practically all forms of caloric food in Europe (yet). It is in America.

      The lifestyles of Americans and other first-worlders aren't that different. People, given the same circumstances, aren't that different. The differences come from different circumstances. But people prefer to think that people they don't like are evil mutants.

    26. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget links, HFCS is good for everyone:
      http://www.youtube.com/user/CornRefinersAssoc

    27. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is little difference between HFCS and sugar though. HFCS is only 5% more Fructose than the latter.

    28. Re:Tangential Jab by bunratty · · Score: 1

      To be more precise, both are bad in large quantites. In small quantities mixed with substances that occur naturally with them, such as fiber, they are good for you. Fruits and whole grains are healthy. It's when you process the carbohydrates that they become unhealthy.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    29. Re:Tangential Jab by dzfoo · · Score: 2

      No. It gets a bad rap because of the sheer amount of it included in processed foods.

      You can be sure that if the main ingredient in sugary drinks and processed foods were cane sugar, you'd hear how bad cane sugar is.

      Notice how ordinary table salt and sodium was targeted also some time ago by health food proponents as a bad thing. It was because processed foods were laden with it, not because anybody thought table salt was poison.

      It's a simplified argument, sure, but it is intended to drive the point home.

              dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    30. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So HFCS is a critical link.

      [sarcasm]Nope earth is the critical link because all this takes place on the earth. So clearly the only solution is to destroy the earth.[\sarcasm]
      Blaming HFCS as the problem is just as ridiculous as blaming blaming the earth. You can grow the same Monsanto corn using the same amount of pesticide as a regular corn and the problem goes away. So again HFCS has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

    31. Re:Tangential Jab by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The poison gets to the bees through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

      That's the conclusion of the study, yes.

      The poison gets into the HFCS from corn that's resistant to pesticide.

      It gets into the HFCS from the corn that was used to make the syrup, In the US there is a good chance that some of the corn was GMO, in Europe not so likely.

      The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto.

      The insecticide being associated with CCD has nothing to do with Monsanto seed. There are many other producers of seed corn in the US and other countries; this insecticide can and is used equally on GMO and non-GMO corn.

      Ordinary corn wouldn't lead to this, because that much pesticide would have killed it.

      Totally false. This is an insecticide, not an herbicide. It doesn't kill corn.

      Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.

      Sure about that? This is one of the most widely used insecticides in the world, it's used on many crops besides corn.

    32. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like many of the crops it is used on might not be commonly fertilized
      by commercial hives http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/magazine/?storyid=2063

    33. Re:Tangential Jab by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      No processing them won't make much difference; processed or unprocessed, sugar is the same once it gets into the bloodstream. There can be some benefit to consuming them with other stuff that can slow absorption a bit so that blood levels of the sugar don't spike so high. But some fruit contain even higher levels of fructose than HFCS, and there is reason for concern that this may not be healthful

    34. Re:Tangential Jab by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Even ordinary corn will not be harmed by this pesticide. It's a neurotoxin, and corn does not have nerve cells

    35. Re:Tangential Jab by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I belive EU soda is made with cane sugar, I know the Aussie stuff is made with cane sugar. The cane growers here in Oz have been pissed off at the US for years because they're heavily subsidising the production of HFCS, whilst the cane growers themselves are banned from receiving such subsidies by trade treaties. Still, cane sugar makes you fat if you drink it all day, which is why Aussies prefer beer :)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    36. Re:Tangential Jab by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, the HFCS is one of the two vectors for the pesticide. The other is foraging on treated crops.

      That *IS* significant, but suggests the HFCS would be fine without the pesticide. It also makes me wonder if the pesticide contamination might explain the otherwise difficult to fathom claims of human health issues tied to HFCS.

    37. Re:Tangential Jab by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK. You seem to know more about the subject than I do.

      I reread the articles, and although one appeared to blame HFCS, a more careful reading showed that this was merely the medium of transmission used in the study. And in another place is said that the amount of pesticide used in the study (the Harvard one, I think) was no more than is typical of the ordinary background use.

      So they *added* the pesticide the the HFCS used in the study to equal the background level in areas that they were not controlling.

      My apologies.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    38. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are confusing a pesticide and an herbicide. Pesticides kill bugs not corn plants. The corn is sprayed with it to kill bugs. Non-Monsanto corn would also be "resistant" to this pesticide. Monsanto does make plants resistant to Roundup, which is an herbicide that is used to kill everything that is not the desired plant in a field.
       
      HFCS is important in the chain, but hard as it is to say this, I don't think Monsanto can be blamed for it. Blame the corn industry pushing HFCS for everything.
       
      On a side note, if you are feeding bees with a product that comes from fields sprayed with what is poison to bees, is it a shock when they keel over and die?

    39. Re:Tangential Jab by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Except that what the study shows is that the problem is the pesticide in the corn syrup. At this point, it seems that the pesticide as used on crops is not causing the problem. The corn syrup itself is not causing the problem. The problem seems to be when corn syrup made from corn sprayed with these pesticides is fed to bees. The solution seems to be pretty obvious, stop feeding bees corn syrup that contains these pesticides (this probably means stop feeding bees corn syrup made from corn sprayed with these pesticides, although it may be possible to remove these pesticides from the corn syrup).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    40. Re:Tangential Jab by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      It's not misrepresenting, though it is highlighting indirectly significant information.

      The poison gets to the bees through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). The poison gets into the HFCS from corn that's resistant to pesticide. The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto. Ordinary corn wouldn't lead to this, because that much pesticide would have killed it. Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.

      So HFCS is a critical link.

      Except that points two through four are wrong. It has nothing to do with corn that is resistant to pesticide because the pesticides in question have no impact on the corn itself. The pesticides in question work by interfering with insect neurotransmitters (plants do not have neurotransmitters). These particular neurotransmitters have no chemical analogs in humans or other vertebrates, so humans and other vertebrates are not effected by the pesticides in question.
      However, you do point out a key thing. HFCS is a critical link in this problem. It does not appear that the pesticide gets into the bees in a way that is a problem from the nectar of plants that have been treated with these pesticides. It appears that the problem occurs when the pesticide is introduced to the bees through HFCS used to feed them. It would be interesting if someone would do a study to determine why that is the case (I can think of at least two things that might explain it off of the top of my head and could probably come up with three or four more theories with a little thought)

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    41. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no and no.
      The poison gets to the bees through HFCS.
      The poison gets into the HFCS from corn sprayed with or planted in ground treated with imidacloprid.
      The imidacloprid is sold by a subsidiary of Bayer AG.
      Ordinary corn and HFCS did not contain imidacloprid until around 2005 when corn was first started to be treated with imidacloprid.
      Bee keepers have used corn syrup to feed bees for years with out incidence of CCD.
      CCD first appeared around 2006 when the first HFCS from imidacloprid treated corn was fed to the bees.
      HFCS from imidacloprid treated corn is the critical link.

      Why was this pinhead modded +5, Insightful?
      Slash dot is now broken is the critical link.

    42. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also makes me wonder if the pesticide contamination might explain the otherwise difficult to fathom claims of human health issues tied to HFCS.

      Yes. And they know it.

    43. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto

      Are you sure you're not confused about Monsanto's glyphosate (RoundUp) *herbicide* resistant corn? I don't believe the pesticide imidacloprid, primary manufactured by Bayer, is toxic to corn or most other plants nor has any company, your Monsanto reference notwithstanding, developed imadicloprid-resistant corn.

      I'm fairly confident your entire post is bunk.

    44. Re:Tangential Jab by tmosley · · Score: 1

      And yet the effects in mice are clear. Extreme increases in obesity when fed HFCS rather than table sugar. Empiricism trumps hand waving.

    45. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the effects in mice are clear.

      Actually, no. They are not clear at all.

      Empiricism trumps hand waving.

      Fine, and when those results are replicated a few dozen times, the conclusions will be on much firmer ground.

    46. Re:Tangential Jab by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting that. The flaws in that experimental design are shocking. My lab group does animal studies similar to this regularly (we study wound healing), and oversights like this would get someone in big trouble. We never would have allowed something like that to be published. But then, we publish our results much more slowly than other groups.

    47. Re:Tangential Jab by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      In fairness, ordinary sugar (50% Fructose, 50% Glucose, as a disaccharide that gets cleaved by enzymes) is more or less the same thing as HFCS (55% Fructose, 45% Glucose, as a syrup of the component monosaccharides)

      No. You can't compare molecular composition of two foods and ignore the metabolic processes that operate on them. Sucrose is poorly cleaved by stomach acid - that's why the small intestine produces sucrase.

      The fructose in HFCS arrives in the small intestine ready to be quickly absorbed, and gets to the liver in a short time frame and can overload the liver (and thus be converted to fats and blood-borne lipids). Sucrose fructoses aren't great but they arrive much more slowly. Fructose bound up with fiber (fresh fruit) is similarly slowed down. But still, take it easy on the latter two. Fruits at least have beneficial phytochemicals - table sugar has no redeeming value.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    48. Re:Tangential Jab by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.

      Ordinary sugar would be used if not for Congress's ham-fisted attempts at social-engineering and changing leadership in Cuba and price controls for the benefit of Domino and their ilk.

      (because everybody predicted massive bee death as a foreseen consequence of the trade embargo in 1960, right?)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    49. Re:Tangential Jab by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      otherwise difficult to fathom claims of human health issues tied to HFCS

      It's not difficult - massive doses of unbound fructose overwhelm the liver and put it into fat and harmful-lipid-producing mode. We're not evolved for that because it doesn't happen in nature (except perhaps filtered fruit juice, but that's fairly modern). Real foods will release the fructose at a much slower rate.

      Also, cancers like to feed on fructose especially but that's a separate problem from the obesity.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    50. Re:Tangential Jab by sjames · · Score: 1

      The thing is, when you consume regular sucrose, it splits during digestion into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. I agree it could make some difference, but the observed effects seem to be more than one might expect from that small difference.

      All that said, the empirical evidence shows a significant difference and not knowing the mechanism doesn't change that.

      We have a measurable effect and should be in search of a cause.

      As a (perhaps) separate issue, if the safety testing for these insecticides was that lax, we should seriously reconsider their safety for human consumption. We KNOW humans have some receptors that are affected by these insecticides just not proportionally as many as insects do. The entire basis for safety hinges on the idea that there is a safe threshold of action. Given how wrong the studies were for bees, we have reason to question the rigor of the other safety studies as well.

    51. Re:Tangential Jab by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The thing is, when you consume regular sucrose, it splits during digestion into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. I agree it could make some difference, but the observed effects seem to be more than one might expect from that small difference.

      But it's not a small difference - sucrose digests slowly in the small intestine, fructose in fruit is bound up in fiber which slows digestion, while the fructose from HFCS hits the small intestine ready to be absorbed, which means the liver gets it all at once instead of gradually (it absorbs less quickly than glucose, but it's relatively quick). The liver can't cope with the volume for the normal 5-to-6 carbon mechanism, so it converts to fat with the excess.

      It's largely the same effect whether it's 12oz of Coke or 3oz of Jack. You notice it more if you pound back 2 shots of Jack, because you have a feedback mechanism to your brain. If you sipped a couple beers over a period of two hours you probably wouldn't notice that because the liver would be able to handle it (people are familiar with its maximum processing rate when it comes to ethanol). But most people don't take two hours to drink a can of Coke, and most people would know they had a serious problem if they drank 3/4 of a fifth of whiskey every day (~= a sixpack of Coke as far as the liver is concerned).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    52. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the title suggests HFCS itself is part of the cause. It is not.

    53. Re:Tangential Jab by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unless you have a sucrase deficiency, the limiting factor is the speed that monosaccharides are transported into the bloodstream (it's an active transport) rather than the speed that the sucrose can be broken down. The paper the AC pointed to is a good one.

      So, that's the thing. It really looks like HFCS shouldn't be significantly different than sugar (and since it's sweeter than sucrose, it should be slightly lower Kcal). But then there's credible evidence that it's far more harmful.

    54. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really looks like HFCS shouldn't be significantly different than sugar (and since it's sweeter than sucrose, it should be slightly lower Kcal). But then there's credible evidence that it's far more harmful.

      That's the thing - there's pretty good evidence that very high fructose intake is harmful, but the studies backing that up involve fructose in isolation, at levels much higher than the average human consumes it. Dosage is everything. On close inspection, the notion that HFCS is inherently harmful, or worse than sucrose in any way, evaporates like a fart in the wind.

      This discussion is by far the best in-depth debate over the evidence that I have found, by people who know how to analyze it.

    55. Re:Tangential Jab by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Dosage is everything

      Exactly.

      On close inspection, the notion that HFCS is inherently harmful, or worse than sucrose in any way, evaporates like a fart in the wind.

      It's not inherently harmful but it is worse than sucrose:

      This discussion [alanaragonblog.com] is by far the best in-depth debate over the evidence that I have found, by people who know how to analyze it.

      But it's wrong, at least in part. For instance:

      The bonds in sucrose are quickly broken when sucrose hits the acid environment of the stomach. This means that once sucrose hits the stomach, itâ(TM)s no different from HFCS. Once you get to the small intestine, metabolism is *exactly* the same. This *little bit of difference* does not lead to the problems Dr. Lustig talks about. The fact is, HFCS and sucrose are identical as far as your body is concerned.

      This is old thinking. The current thinking is that there is not enough time/water in the stomach to do this, and if you think about it, if this were true, sucrase in the small intestine wouldn't have much to do. The effect of this is a change in absorption rate, which affects the liver's processing modes.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    56. Re:Tangential Jab by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Unless you have a sucrase deficiency, the limiting factor is the speed that monosaccharides are transported into the bloodstream (it's an active transport) rather than the speed that the sucrose can be broken down. The paper the AC pointed to is a good one.

      Doesn't Figure 2 in that paper (oddly labeled/constructed charts on that one...) show that Glucose-Fructose solution absorbs faster than sucrose?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    57. Re:Tangential Jab by sjames · · Score: 1

      It looks to me like the rates are about the same in that figure.

    58. Re:Tangential Jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is old thinking. The current thinking is that there is not enough time/water in the stomach to do this

      Papers, please?

      and if you think about it, if this were true, sucrase in the small intestine wouldn't have much to do.

      This entirely depends on the amount of sucrose ingested, i.e. the rate, i.e. the dosage.

      The effect of this is a change in absorption rate, which affects the liver's processing modes.

      All current research shows that absorption rates are the same for disaccharides and a mixture of monosaccharides. Prove me wrong.

  5. Explained in Article! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    While the pesticide stuff is pretty obvious, I'm more skeptical about the HFCS link

    I know this is Slashdot but if you read the article the explanation becomes very clear. Some bees are fed with HFCS and the syrup itself is derived from crops treated with the pesticide and so it is present in low levels in the syrup and apparently only very low levels are needed to generate CCD.

    1. Re:Explained in Article! by tomhath · · Score: 4, Informative

      And even more interesting, in all three studies the pesticide was intentionally fed to the bees in the sugar water; it wasn't collected by the bees. The Harvard study also points out the bee keepers feed their colonies HFCS, which apparently started containing trace amounts of the pesticide about the time they noticed colony collapse become a problem. Kind of sounds like they need to stop feeding HFCS.

    2. Re:Explained in Article! by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And stop using those two pesticides.

    3. Re:Explained in Article! by jfengel · · Score: 0

      Even without noticing the presence of the pesticide, shouldn't somebody have noticed earlier that bees fed HFCS die faster than bees that don't?

    4. Re:Explained in Article! by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      And even more interesting, in all three studies the pesticide was intentionally fed to the bees in the sugar water; it wasn't collected by the bees. The Harvard study also points out the bee keepers feed their colonies HFCS, which apparently started containing trace amounts of the pesticide about the time they noticed colony collapse become a problem. Kind of sounds like they need to stop feeding HFCS.

      Which would be a very neat conclusion... if it weren't for the fact that non-HFCS fed bees have also been hit by CCD. It doesn't let the insecticide or even tainted HFCS off the hook, but it does suggest that that it's not so simple as "stop feeding HFCS, bees survive".

    5. Re:Explained in Article! by Zibodiz · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a former beekeeper, I can tell you they don't. They're only fed HFCS during the late winter, once they've run out of honey. A month later, they were making honey again. It didn't used to hurt them at all.

    6. Re:Explained in Article! by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And even more interesting, in all three studies the pesticide was intentionally fed to the bees in the sugar water; it wasn't collected by the bees. The Harvard study also points out the bee keepers feed their colonies HFCS, which apparently started containing trace amounts of the pesticide about the time they noticed colony collapse become a problem. Kind of sounds like they need to stop feeding HFCS.

      But was this food grade HFCS?

      Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My immediate questions are, what biochemical mechanism is in place that makes imidacloprid dangerous to bees, and if trace amounts are found in most if not all HFCS, is there any consumption concern for humans who eat food with HFCS in it? HFCS that has trace levels of imidacloprid in it.

    8. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can we buy shares in organic HFCS now? seems like this is going to be a requirement for soft drinks etc very soon.

    9. Re:Explained in Article! by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what biochemical mechanism is in place that makes imidacloprid dangerous to bees...

      It is an insecticide.

      That's usually dangerous to insects.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    10. Re:Explained in Article! by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to the article, it took more than a month for the bees to show the CCD effects when they were fed trace amounts.

      Also, if the hives are running out of honey in late winter, then the keeper is taking too much honey.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    11. Re:Explained in Article! by Doubting+Sapien · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Could you provide some reference regarding non-HFCS fed bees being hit by CCD? I didn't see any mention of that particular detail in the linked article. Of all that *is* mentioned in the article, the description of the mortality profile of affected bees in the experiment suggests a stronger correlation than you suggest. From the article:

      The characteristics of the dead hives were consistent with CCD, said Lu; the hives were empty except for food stores, some pollen, and young bees, with few dead bees nearby. When other conditions cause hive collapse—such as disease or pests—many dead bees are typically found inside and outside the affected hives.

      --
      ========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
    12. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can we buy shares in organic HFCS now?

      That word - I don't think it means what you think it means!

    13. Re:Explained in Article! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Which would be a very neat conclusion... if it weren't for the fact that non-HFCS fed bees have also been hit by CCD. It doesn't let the insecticide or even tainted HFCS off the hook, but it does suggest that that it's not so simple as "stop feeding HFCS, bees survive".

      SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

      The government uses misinterpreted data all the time to justify stupid shit. Maybe we can use THIS to justify getting rid of HFCS! Quiet you fool!

    14. Re:Explained in Article! by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But was this food grade HFCS?

      Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?

      Welp, farmers are definitely the sort of folks that try to make the best use of anything. "Ah hell, well this batch isn't any good for selling, but I guess I could feed it to the bees..."

    15. Re:Explained in Article! by Doubting+Sapien · · Score: 2
      From one of the links:

      Past research has shown that neonicotinoid pesticides, which target insects' central nervous system........

      I suppose you'll have to do some leg work on your own if that doesn't satisfy.

      --
      ========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
    16. Re:Explained in Article! by emt377 · · Score: 4, Informative

      My immediate questions are, what biochemical mechanism is in place that makes imidacloprid dangerous to bees, and if trace amounts are found in most if not all HFCS, is there any consumption concern for humans who eat food with HFCS in it?

      It's a neurotoxin that causes paralysis by disrupting a neurotransmitter that's present in insects but not in warm-blooded animals. It acts on contact.

    17. Re:Explained in Article! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      My immediate questions are, what biochemical mechanism is in place that makes imidacloprid dangerous to bees

      The one that was engineered into imidacloprid on purpose: it blocks nicotinoid pathways that primarily exist only in the central nervous systems of insects.

      and if trace amounts are found in most if not all HFCS, is there any consumption concern for humans who eat food with HFCS in it?

      No. Most modern insecticides were designed not to target mechanisms that are present in the nervous systems of mammals.

    18. Re:Explained in Article! by Hartree · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So when did you become a beekeeper, Ion? ;)

      It's been long standing practice to supplement food in hives in late winter as it leads to a faster build up of bees before the spring honey flow. It doesn't mean they were stripping out too much.

      (Full, disclosure: Yes, I'm "that" Hartree. And I used to help my dad keep bees. Good to run into you on Slashdot!)

    19. Re:Explained in Article! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      It's a neurotoxin that causes paralysis by disrupting a neurotransmitter that's present in insects but not in warm-blooded animals.

      However that does not mean that it is harmless for us. According to wikipedia it is rated as moderately toxic when ingested by mammals and affects the thyroid of rats and the livers of dogs in sufficiently high concentrations.

    20. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? You can produce organic HFCS. Many yeasts have invertase, and they produce invert syrup which is very similar to HFCS (which is 50% fructose 50% glucose instead of 55% fructose and 45% glucose).

    21. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have trouble navigating back to the hive after a good dose of HFCS.

    22. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?

      There is poison in the food and water. The economic collapse was orchestrated. The West is being deliberately de-industrialized. No one has been arrested for the MF Global theft. The US government did 9/11.

    23. Re:Explained in Article! by kimvette · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a neurotoxin that causes paralysis by disrupting a neurotransmitter that's present in insects but not in warm-blooded animals. It acts on contact.

      Does it also affect reptiles and other cold-blooded animals, or just the insect world? I'm just curious because I wonder if we feed this to politicians and lawyers it might solve all the world's problems and result in world peace.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    24. Re:Explained in Article! by ktappe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But was this food grade HFCS?

      Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?

      Welp, farmers are definitely the sort of folks that try to make the best use of anything. "Ah hell, well this batch isn't any good for selling, but I guess I could feed it to the bees..."

      The much more likely scenario would be that the maker of the pesticide lobbied the FDA to make it "acceptable" for the pesticide to appear in non-zero amounts in HFCS. That's how things work in this country.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    25. Re:Explained in Article! by ktappe · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article, it took more than a month for the bees to show the CCD effects when they were fed trace amounts.

      Also, if the hives are running out of honey in late winter, then the keeper is taking too much honey.

      Sorry, that's simply not the case. If a hive produces only enough honey to get itself through the winter, then under your plan, the beekeeper can harvest no honey. That's not viable business. It's quite normal to take most (no, not all) the honey from a hive and augment what the bees have left with sugar water or (more recently) HFCS.

      (Yes, I grew up performing these very duties.)

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    26. Re:Explained in Article! by gtall · · Score: 1

      "The government uses misinterpreted data all the time to justify stupid shit." Citation or it never happened.

    27. Re:Explained in Article! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Hey, so you are going to make the Muslims love the Jews? Or the Hindis love the Muslims? Or FARC love the Colombian people?

      You have a weird idea of what causes the world's problems.

    28. Re:Explained in Article! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Maybe [government] can use THIS to justify getting rid of HFCS!

      Crush the corn lobby with science? - I very much doubt it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    29. Re:Explained in Article! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I meant, we've had a lot of scientists looking at this problem for a while. If there was a correlation between HFCS and CCD, even if it only appeared in the last few years, I'd have expected somebody to notice it before now. The fact that it wasn't the HFCS itself, but the pesticide in it, would eventually have followed from that.

      I'm sure the HFCS itself is a fine substitute for the bees, as long as the fructose is all they're getting. But I'd have expected somebody to note the correlation.

    30. Re:Explained in Article! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Awfully spry for someone who died in 1958.

    31. Re:Explained in Article! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      HFCS is the product of processing the corn after it's been harvested. It is completely independent/orthogonal to the practices that were used to grow the corn.

      You could certainly make HFCS out of organic corn.

      Whether or not the organic HFCS could be used in any products marked organic for human consumption is another matter.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    32. Re:Explained in Article! by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      How is that interesting? Did you expect the bees to go pick up their own HFCS at the supermarket?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    33. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You could certainly make HFCS out of organic corn.

      Then it could legally be labeled "made with organic ingredients," but not "100% organic."

      HFCS is manufactured with enzymes that are extracted and applied in an industrial process. It's the antithesis of organic farming and food production.

      I have nothing against HFCS as a food product - I think it's basically the same as sucrose and has been made into the bogeyman for no good reason. But I would also never think of it as "natural" or "organic."

      You can't squeeze an ear of corn and get corn syrup. It's an elaborate process to convert corn to corn starch to glucose to HFCS, it's nothing like boiling sugar cane and letting it dry out!

    34. Re:Explained in Article! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that bee keepers had been feeding bees HFCS for some years before the pesticides (and the increased occurrence of CCD) started showing up int the HFCS, so there was no reason to connect HFCS to the CCD. Looking at the information from this study, it looks like the correct answer is for beekeepers to find a source of HFCS (or some other sugar solution) that guarantees that it does not contain these pesticides. These studies seem to imply that the problem does not occur from the use of these pesticides in agriculture, but from the small amount of pesticide that finds its way into HFCS that beekeepers feed their bees at the end of the winter. If this is correct, it does not require outlawing these pesticides. It just requires beekeepers to be aware of the problem and avoid HFCS that is so contaminated.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    35. Re:Explained in Article! by unitron · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded you redundant is, not to put to fine a point on it, an idiot with no appreciation for drollity.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    36. Re:Explained in Article! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      But was this food grade HFCS?

      Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?

      Apparently so, and here I was thinking that they were through with that $hit after DDT and Silent Spring.

    37. Re:Explained in Article! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      My immediate questions are, what biochemical mechanism is in place that makes imidacloprid dangerous to bees

      The one that was engineered into imidacloprid on purpose: it blocks nicotinoid pathways that primarily exist only in the central nervous systems of insects.

      So, would it make a good "Stop Smoking" patch too? /humor

    38. Re:Explained in Article! by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      That may be the more difficult option, thus not the one immediately suggested.
      You can quite easily substitute the small sugary food source for your own bees. It's could be much trickier to get your neighbors to risk their crop yields by trying out a different pesticide.

    39. Re:Explained in Article! by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Given insects by definition have 6 legs, all we have to do is make GM bees with 7 legs, and the insecticide problem will surely go away.

    40. Re:Explained in Article! by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Not "that" Hartree. But one that IonOtter has met.

    41. Re:Explained in Article! by trevelyon · · Score: 1

      Good thing we're not eating that stuff. Who knows what it might do to us. I'm sure they studied that effect first though *end sarcasm*

    42. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, bees don't actually exist merely for human benefit. And just because its standard practice and makes "good business sense" to take all the honey and feed the bees sugar doesn't make it right or good or sustainable or resemble the natural life of bees in anyway. Just sayin'.

    43. Re:Explained in Article! by Rei · · Score: 1

      Except that the article neglected to mention that nobody so far has successfully measured imidacloprid levels in HFCS. One study found "trace" levels but couldn't quantify it.

      And if HFCS is the problem, how does this explain population declines in wild bees?

      --
      Virgin birth, water into wine; it's like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.
    44. Re:Explained in Article! by Rei · · Score: 2

      Here's the problem. Neonicotinoids went into wide use starting in the 1990s to replace other pesticide families such as organophosphates, which are generally much more indiscriminate in what they hurt and more hazardous to human health. Organophosphates are the same family of chemicals that include VX and sarin. Neonicotinoids are in the same family as nicotine and are analogous to the old technique of spraying plants with tobacco juice to kill insects.

      And also, just to make clear, we're not talking about "two pesticides". We're talking about a whole family.

      And anyway, the study has all sorts of other problems that I've talked about elsewhere, and is like the 10th study to loudly proclaim, "we've solved it!" with a different solution.

      --
      Virgin birth, water into wine; it's like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.
    45. Re:Explained in Article! by Rei · · Score: 1

      I usually have to let my sugars be eaten by yeast first before they cause me trouble in navigating ;)

      --
      Virgin birth, water into wine; it's like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.
    46. Re:Explained in Article! by spongman · · Score: 1

      citations?

      how about this?

    47. Re:Explained in Article! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      "The government uses misinterpreted data all the time to justify stupid shit." Citation or it "never happened".

      FTFY

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    48. Re:Explained in Article! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It seems it mostly effects invertebrates specifically.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    49. Re:Explained in Article! by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      I think this tells it better: it's not that we are immune to it, we are just effected by it by a very large margin:

      Specifically, it causes a blockage in a type of neuronal pathway (nicotinergic) that is more abundant in insects than in warm-blooded animals (making the chemical selectively more toxic to insects than warm-blooded animals)

      I'm not sure why that is present in that article, and not in the article on the chemical itself?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    50. Re:Explained in Article! by Fruit · · Score: 1

      Posting to undo incorrect moderation. Was trying to moderate +1 Insightful (just because there's no +1 Duh). :)

    51. Re:Explained in Article! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The detection of trace amounts of chemicals has improved greatly over the last few decades. For many chemicals, a few parts per billion are detectable, and laws with "zero tolerance" will reject amounts that are harmless. The advances of science have turned poorly written laws into nuisances.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    52. Re:Explained in Article! by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Reaganomics

    53. Re:Explained in Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many politicians qualify as cold blooded, snakes and otherwise. The certainly speak with forked tongues.

    54. Re:Explained in Article! by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Five would be easier. You don't even need GM -- just tweasers.

    55. Re:Explained in Article! by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      That to me is the 64 million dollar question. And likely one that we will never ever get a truthful answer to. There is too much at stake in the marketing of HFCS to ever let an FDA regulation even attempt to control it, or any pollutants it may carry.

      As for the linkage between CCD and HFCS that has been treated with this insecticide, it makes just as much sense to me as any one of the other theories, and more sense than most of them.

      In the meantime, over 20% of the population that has been sucking this shit up in a many a day sugary pop habits, are now type 2 diabetic, with projections being made that at the presently rising rate, 50% of the population will be by 2030. In case you missed it, we went ape shit over polio before it got to 10% of the kids, and it was called an epidemic then.

      Only the entrenched agribusinesses intent on selling all this sugar have now apparently bought, or threatened with billion dollar legal actions, anyone who knows how to spell "epidemic".

      I'm in that type 2 group, forced to limit my intake of damned near anything with starches in it because it is instant sugar when digested. That means no white breads, no potato's, damned little fruit because its naturally sweet, leaving the meats as low sugar foods, or fish as a no sugar food. So you have a sweet tooth, you go buy the "sugar free" crap that has 22 grams of "sugar alcohols" in it, thinking it really is sugar free. First off, that crap ain't an alcohol, and second its worth about half those grams in effective sugar, third off, it, like the left handed fats in some of those potato chips, gives you a good case of the trots that won't stop until you are cleaned out. Not a bit pleasant and often quite painful.

      Anybody who claims sugar, in whatever form, is not a poison in the quantities we now consume because its everywhere, is a future type 2 diabetic, so enjoy it while you can. When you can't, and the circulation in your feet gets so poor you literally can't go out when the temps are below 65F, or even worse they start dying and have to be amputated to stop the gangrene, come back to me then (if I'm still around, I'm 77 now and could have a diabetic effects related heart attack before I can hit send) and claim sugar isn't a poison. In the meantime the deniers really ought to STFU, you have not experienced it, so it, to you, doesn't exist. That's your problem, I can testify it is very real.

      Hell, for all I know, maybe its population control, just a hell of a lot more subtle than the famines & wars in Africa. Slower action, like cooking the frog I guess.

      Cheers, Gene

  6. How soon before something is done about it though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if there is proof pesticides are causing colony collapse, good luck in getting anything done about it until it's too late. It's happened too many times in the past that evidence is found that some chemical is bad for people or the environment (smoking, CFCs... there are many more examples) but lobbyists representing the makers of the pollutant manage to hold back any change in the law until the evidence against them is absolutely overwhelming.

  7. But... by Hatta · · Score: 2

    I thought it was fungus.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:But... by bunratty · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That study shows correlation, not causation:

      "At this stage, the study is showing an association of death rates of the bees with the virus and fungus present," Bilimoria said. "Our contribution to this study confirms association. But even that doesn't prove cause and effect. Not just yet."

      The study in this article shows evidence of causation:

      "Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health '...have re-created the mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder in several honeybee hives simply by giving them small doses of a popular pesticide, imidacloprid.'"

      It's easy to regurgitate that "correlation is not causation", but most people don't seem to quite understand what that sentence means.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:But... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      I thought it was fungus.

      I think this is the third cause discovered in the past month.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inconceivable

    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it simply means that two variables that occur in sync do not show that one causes the other. It comes from the more rigorous epistemological study of empiricism that recognizes causation cannot be shown at all by means of the scientific method. Even with full variable control(which is impossible if you consider even simple things like differences in time between tests), the natural scientific method deals in historic frequency of occurrence, not causality. This isn't a dig at the natural scientific method, that is just the truth about this little bit of reality. There is nothing wrong with this approach at all, so long as the limitations of this method of investigation are understood, and its prerequisites met.

      So, when you claim one test shows correlation and one shows causation, you are really simply identifying more variable control. It is still simply correlation, its just stronger.

    5. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed - but moreover I'd say the study is flawed. They used unnatural levels of a chemical mixed directly with a food source. This is like saying using rat poison to kill rats will kill you because it kills you when mixed with a bowl a Chicken Alfredo.

    6. Re:But... by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want to be pedantic the HSPH study merely demonstrates that imidacloprid is a potential cause not the cause. There are likely multiple causes each making a contribution, especially considering CCD is a worldwide phenomenon and HFCS and imidacloprid are not used everywhere.

      It's easy to regurgitate that "correlation is not causation", but most people don't seem to quite understand what that sentence means.

      Who doesn't understand what it means? The scientists who did the study? Who published this?

      Cage trials of 1–3 day old newly-emerged bees demonstrated increased mortality in the experimental group fed both N. ceranae and IIV-6 in comparison with the control group (P = 0.0001) and bees fed only N. ceranae (P = 0.04) or only IIV-6 (P = 0.04, Figure 3). As the actual infectious dose of N. ceranae or IIV that occurs in the field is currently unknown, we chose to utilize a relatively low infectious dose for both pathogens in our experiments. As is common in cage bee trials, mortality was observed in the control groups in all four biological replicates. To confirm that the controls likely died from a non-infectious cause, deceased bees from all treatment groups were further screened with MSP. The controls did not have any detectable IIVs, but did show some evidence of Nosema, which was not apparent from PCR analysis of the same samples.

      It's the same standard of evidence that you applied to the pesticide study.

    7. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fun thing to do to really make the "Correlation != Causation" stand out to people is to REVERSE the cause-effect chain. If they are correlated but no causal link is shown, then it is just as likely that the "effect" led to the "cause."
       
      In your first quote above, that would change

      A virus/fungus combo causes high death rates among bees

      to

      High death rates among bees causes virus/fungus combo to flourish.

      Opportunities to point this out are numerous, and often hilarious as people go "But, but--wait! That doesn't make any sense!"

  8. Flawed by Megane · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I read this article yesterday when it was in Firehose. While it may be reasonable that this pesticide is causing the problems, the article failed to specifically show a link to HFCS as the source of the problem. In particular, they apparently made no attempt to test the HFCS itself for pesticide levels. It is more likely that bees would get the pesticide directly via the environment than via highly processed corn product. Not to mention that maize corn is inside a husk, which should reduce the amount of pesticide in the kernels to begin with.

    It's the scientific equivalent of saying "smoking causes cancer" + "cigarettes are sold in grocery stores" = "you can get cancer from going to a grocery store".

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:Flawed by doston · · Score: 1

      I read this article yesterday when it was in Firehose. While it may be reasonable that this pesticide is causing the problems, the article failed to specifically show a link to HFCS as the source of the problem. In particular, they apparently made no attempt to test the HFCS itself for pesticide levels. It is more likely that bees would get the pesticide directly via the environment than via highly processed corn product. Not to mention that maize corn is inside a husk, which should reduce the amount of pesticide in the kernels to begin with.

      It's the scientific equivalent of saying "smoking causes cancer" + "cigarettes are sold in grocery stores" = "you can get cancer from going to a grocery store".

      They should test the corn syrup, of course, but your grocery store analogy is ridiculous. It would be closer to the study to say "cigarettes began selling at Safeway in 2005" + "Safeway customers who smoke started showing up in emergency rooms in 2006" + "You can get sick from buying cigarettes being sold at Safeway", which is pretty much how the CDC operates with any given outbreak. I guess they're real unscientific there and Harvard is just out to get "big corn", right? If I performed a Sendmail upgrade last Wednesday, then thousands of customers started calling into customer care complaining of SMTP connection failures last Thursday morning and I finally got wind of it the Monday after, I'd be sure to think it was something other than the Sendmail upgrade, right? Yeah, right. Time correlation and likely impact of changes matter....a lot.

    2. Re:Flawed by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right. Because anything inside a husk was teleported there from an alternate universe.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "you can get cancer from going to a grocery store".

      Only if you visit a store in California. (see also proposition 65)

    4. Re:Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Note the *systemic* nature of the pesticide, meaning that unlike sprayed-on surface pesticides it's absorbed by the plant and incorporated into it's tissues, the husk does nothing to shield the kernels in that case

    5. Re:Flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA!! Both of them.

    6. Re:Flawed by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      The poison in question is what is called "systemic". The husk doesn't matter, the poison leeches into every part of the plant. The roots are poisoned, the leaves are poisoned, the stems are poisoned, the husks are poisoned, the fruits are poisoned, the entire plant is poisoned. But since the levels are well below the lethal dose for humans, it is safe to eat! But it is classified as "moderately toxic" so foods must be tested to ensure that they are not toxic. The FDA randomly does this, and finds them in lots of foods, though they've never found widespread cases where they are considered "dangerous" to humans, though no chronic exposure tests have been done. At any rate, Bayer says that 20 BBP is "safe" for bees, and most HFCS tested is around that level. What TFA shows is that although 20 BBP is well below the LD50 for individual bees, it still is high enough to result in CCD 15 times out of 16, within 6 months of exposure. So, to repeat myself, they didn't test HFCS because the government does. How dare they trust the government? I don't know, but for whatever reason they don't suspect that the government is reporting greatly higher levels of poison in the food supply than are actually present.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    7. Re:Flawed by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      It is more likely that bees would get the pesticide directly via the environment than via highly processed corn product.

      Then why didn't CCD start happening in the 90s, when this pesticide came into wide use on corn?

      CCD didn't start happening until bee keepers started feeding their bees HFCS in 2005-2006.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    8. Re:Flawed by doston · · Score: 1

      The poison in question is what is called "systemic". The husk doesn't matter, the poison leeches into every part of the plant. The roots are poisoned, the leaves are poisoned, the stems are poisoned, the husks are poisoned, the fruits are poisoned, the entire plant is poisoned. But since the levels are well below the lethal dose for humans, it is safe to eat! But it is classified as "moderately toxic" so foods must be tested to ensure that they are not toxic. The FDA randomly does this, and finds them in lots of foods, though they've never found widespread cases where they are considered "dangerous" to humans, though no chronic exposure tests have been done. At any rate, Bayer says that 20 BBP is "safe" for bees, and most HFCS tested is around that level. What TFA shows is that although 20 BBP is well below the LD50 for individual bees, it still is high enough to result in CCD 15 times out of 16, within 6 months of exposure. So, to repeat myself, they didn't test HFCS because the government does. How dare they trust the government? I don't know, but for whatever reason they don't suspect that the government is reporting greatly higher levels of poison in the food supply than are actually present.

      Sorry I read that wrong. You could be right.

  9. Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by Dega704 · · Score: 2

    in 3, 2, 1

    1. Re:Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Why? Nothing in any of the studies links this to Monsanto or GMO crops.

    2. Re:Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Monsanto engineers crops to be more pesticide resistant, so that heavier levels of pesticide can be applied to corn, and then possibly transferred to the bees via HFCS.

    3. Re:Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      GMO plants is not the only thing Monsanto sells. In fact, it is not even the most important thing.

      Pesticides are their main business, and their GMO crops exist mainly to suppport that business. They also sell fertilizers (they are what made Monsanto huge).

    4. Re:Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARRGGHHH!!! STOP THE STUPID, YOU PEOPLE MAKE MY BRAIN HURT.

      Don't confuse herbicide and insecticide, okay? They're different things. Different. Things.

      Engineering plants to be pesticide (herbicide) resistant doesn't mean you apply heavier levels of pesticide (insecticide) to them!

    5. Re:Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by tomhath · · Score: 2
      You hurt your own cause by making claims like that. Hating on Monsanto and GMO crops is a separate issue; Roundup Ready crops are modified to be specifically resistant to a very low toxicity herbicide, has nothing to do with insecticides. I've never seen any study, even by the organic guys, that shows a problem with glyphosates.

      The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers glyphosate to be relatively low in toxicity, and without carcinogenic effects.[40] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields, and with residue levels remaining at their maximum levels, and concluded no adverse effects would exist under these conditions

    6. Re:Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      This is a neurotoxin. Corn does not have neurons, so all corn will be equally (and probably highly) resistant

    7. Re:Monsanto-sponsored smear campaign by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      According to wiki, Slovenia banned the class of pesticides made up of neonicotinoids in 2003 after Monsanto's lobbying. The primary manufacturer of pesticides made from the neonicotinoid family is Bayer, a competitor of Monsanto.

      So it would not be surprising if Monsanto had funded the research leading to this study. I'm not personally aware of any links. But it is clear that in the past, they have funded such.

      But, to be clear, the source of the funding matters less than if the results can be replicated. I'm not really interested in the question of who might benefit from the results of the study so much as if the results of the study are true.

  10. imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid pesticides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid pesticides need to be banned immediately. Loss of bee colonies is one of the most important agricultural issues that is dramatically effecting yields. Its costing hundreds of billions of dollars in losses annually.

    If bee colonies start to recover the problem will be solved and we can move on. The timing of the link is too much of a coincidence to be a chance event given the lab data. Too much money and food is at stake to wait. The ban must be immediate and total. Its not as if farmers couldn't profitably grow corn without it. There are other pesticides, but in general use of pesticides should be avoided to every extent possible as they are linked with so many other problems both ecological and human health related.

    1. Re:imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid pesticides by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Actually, it sounds like farmers may just need to stop feeding their bees with corn syrup

  11. Re:How soon before something is done about it thou by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty soon once bee keepers start sourcing non-pesticide-laced feed for their bees.

    If I were a milk producer and fed my cows a concoction that caused 90% of them to drop dead at the same time every two years I'd sure as hell look for a new feed source -- it could be fairly expensive even and the fact that I don't want to risk fundamental failure in my ability to survive would mean it's still a good deal for me.

  12. this is really good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we'll stop using this chemical, and the bees will recover. This is wonderful!
    In some areas of the world, like in China, there are places where people pollinate
    trees by hand, because all the bees are dead.

    Meanwhile, I wonder if the CCD has killed all the Africanized bees. I thought they were supposed to be tough?

    1. Re:this is really good news by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I doubt people feed High-Fructose Corn Syrup to bees at China. Nearly nobody out of the US uses it.

    2. Re:this is really good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. It's used extensively in Europe as well. It's called glucose-fructose syrup over there.

  13. Do bees like tobacco plants? by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    Bees seem to be plenty willing to take nectar from tobacco plants so I'm having a hard time believing this study. Yes, I'm an imidacloprid fan but you can keep you HFCS.

    1. Re:Do bees like tobacco plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a chemist, but I suspect the natural nectar produced by tobacco plants might not have the same effects as this man-made pesticide.

    2. Re:Do bees like tobacco plants? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what the Harvard study points out. The bees aren't being poisoned by the nectar they gather, they're being poisoned by the HFCS that the bee keepers are feeding them (they take the honey that the bees produce and feed the bees sugar water as a replacement).

    3. Re:Do bees like tobacco plants? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      This would appear to indicate that the substance in question does not occur in tobacco nectar, nor anywhere else in nature:

      "The invention of imidacloprid, the most important neonicotinoid insecticide, was initiated by replacement of the framework of nithiazine with an imidazolidine ring."

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Do bees like tobacco plants? by reverseengineer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Imidacloprid is considered neonicotinoid, but its biochemical effects should not be compared to natural nicotine. Just as humans do, insects have a couple of different types of receptors for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, including a nicotinic receptor. Insect physiology favors the nicotinic receptor pathway such that some insectides which are mildly toxic to humans are extremely poisonous to insects. Nicotine can activate these receptors temporarily, which is responsible for its physiological effects. However, imidacloprid irreversibly binds to the nicotinic receptor, which blocks acetylcholine transmission and leads to the insect's death. It appears that sublethal concentrations may still cause significant impairment, similar to myasthenia gravis.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    5. Re:Do bees like tobacco plants? by Hartree · · Score: 2

      Nicotine sulfate has been used for a long time as an insecticide (Black Leaf 40 was a well known trade name.). Tobacco plant parts contain nicotine, but not the honey and pollen.

      The neonicotinoids are a bit different. The arrangement of atoms in nicotine is used widely in living things for some of the chemicals that make them run. That's why putting something similar, like nicotine sulfate or the neonicotinoids into them messes them up. It takes the place of nicotinic chemicals and screws up the systems in the cell based on them.

      Insects tend to be more sensitive to some of these nicotinic poisons than mammals and such. This was one of the reasons for adopting neonicotinoids. They are much less toxic to humans and some other animals than many of the other things used as seed coating insecticides. (Remember dieldrin and aldrin?)

    6. Re:Do bees like tobacco plants? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Damnit, why is your incredibly informative post so damn far down? Nobody reads this far...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  14. Doctor Who must now redo the Agatha Christie ep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Without the subplot of bees being aliens that vacate the planet.

  15. of course, no links between autism by decora · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    and the radical experimentation going on in our food supply. nope.

  16. we actually banned CFCs by decora · · Score: 1

    and the ozone hole has been stablilized.

    1. Re:we actually banned CFCs by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      And people are yelling about how freon costs so much and the government should not be picking winners and losers.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    2. Re:we actually banned CFCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, you know, how people keep saying this. If you go and LOOK, you'll find that the ozone hole is as big as ever.
      Go ahead! Look it up! The ozone hole is still there, and as large as it ever was. Go ahead, look! I'll wait.

    3. Re:we actually banned CFCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you go look up the word "stabilized" (it's a few pages further than "shrunk").
      Slashdot, 2000: http://science.slashdot.org/story/00/12/04/057256/ozone-hole-will-heal-say-british-scientists
      "According to the London Times, inside of 50 years the ozone hole will be healed, and it will shrink in a decade, ..."

  17. Whether it's cane sugar or corn sugar by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    The bees can tell the difference!

  18. This reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of the plot of Batman (the one with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson)

    Also, AUTISM

  19. one has to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If pesticide-laden hfcs is having this impact on bee colonies, what is it doing to human beings given the prevalence of hfcs in modern 'diet'?

    1. Re:one has to wonder... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      If pesticide-laden hfcs is having this impact on bee colonies, what is it doing to human beings given the prevalence of hfcs in modern 'diet'?

      Bees are important to the economy. People aren't important enough for anyone to get excited about.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:one has to wonder... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Dunno. This may explain why the general population can't navigate it's way out of a paper bag.

      "Turn left at the next stop sign."

      "No! Left! Not Right, turn Left!"

      and so on....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:one has to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neonicotinoids are relatively non-toxic in mammals, especially big ones like us.

    4. Re:one has to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing opiates have always done to the masses: mollify them.

      These also probably cause memory loss though.

      (It's intentional)

  20. What did they feed the bees before HFCS? by blindseer · · Score: 1

    The article did not mention what was used to feed the bees before the beekeepers switched over to HFCS. Did they feed them honey?

    I'm also a bit concerned about these pesticides showing up in my food. I'm not so naive as to think that all my food was free from pesticides before HFCS was put into everything, but I'm a bit concerned that the same pesticide is in just about every food I eat.

    If the bees are feeding on pesticide laced food then how much of that pesticide is showing up in my honey?

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:What did they feed the bees before HFCS? by will_die · · Score: 3, Informative

      sugar syrup, cane or beet, was used

    2. Re:What did they feed the bees before HFCS? by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The same pesticide IS in every food you eat. Not because of HFCS, which doesn't contain that much (except if you're an insect), but because they spray the same pesticide on everything. There is 50-1000 PPB in your fresh greens, 10-40 PPB in your mashed potatoes, 0.0004 in your tap water (averaged over the USA, as high as 0.01 BBP in farm lands, and 0.1 from well water in farm land). When you buy organic, the levels are still only lower, not gone. It persists in the ground for years upon years. But don't worry, they've tested the LD50 so they know how much it takes to kill a person instantly, and presumably anything not instantly fatal is harmless. Sure, it causes birth defects in rats, but rats aren't people.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  21. Also Linked To Parasites by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But parasites can't be pinned on Humans so it's no worth mentioning.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Also Linked To Parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, too bad. Looks like the intellectual analogs to Skaters have been moderating today.

      Next time, just say something about GM this or that and pretend you don't like them. That will make the weekend losers happier.

    2. Re:Also Linked To Parasites by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's been linked to about a dozen different things, with each study calling itself "conclusive". It actually starts to get annoying after a while.

      Here's the most balanced and detailed article I've seen on this most recent paper so far. In particular, I like Krupke's comments:

      “If the relationship was as easy as that, we’d have noticed it long ago. There are areas where neonicotinoids are used, but you don’t have colony loss,” Krupke said. “But what these studies are showing is that because neonicotinoids are absolutely ubiquitous, and we’re seeing sub-lethal effects, is that they’re stressors. They’ve softened up the bees for other parasites.”

      Pesticide risk analysis in the United States has focused too much on whether chemicals are immediately, obviously toxic, said Krupke. “Our way of thinking is fundamentally flawed,” he said. “We need to look at sub-lethal effects, and for a longer time period. These pesticides are everywhere, every year. We’ve never used pesticides in the way we’re using them now, where we charge up a plant and it expresses pesticides all year long.”

      I think that's a fair view on the subject, and ties in well with all of the other "conclusive" studies.

      It's also worth remembering -- not that it helps anything now -- that honeybees are not native to the US. We only need them because of our extreme use of pesticide-heavy monoculture. Pesticides obviously kill off native pollinators, but monoculture is just as bad -- when everything for dozens of miles around, for the most part, all blooms at once and then there's virtually nothing for the rest of the year, you can't support most types of pollinator populations.

      --
      Virgin birth, water into wine; it's like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.
    3. Re:Also Linked To Parasites by omfgnosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh I get it. This is like when people say that global warming is also linked to natural warming-cooling cycles, but that can't be linked to humans so it's not worth mentioning. Which all sounds great on its face, but the subtext is: pay no attention to what humans are doing (or can do differently) because gee whiz the world is a big complicated place and by golly we can't be responsible for such drastic changes.

      It reminds me of a rant I heard last night in an old exchange between Bill Maher and Bill O'reilly (yeah I like to dig through old videos sometimes when I'm bored), where Maher pointed out that the Republican party...

      can turn anything into a wash, like they're doing now with Kerry's military record. And Bush has a pretty indefensible military record, especially for someone who's running as a "war president". But they're able to muck up John Kerry's record, spin it, tarnish it to the point where people go, "hey, you know what, there's some crazy stuff about Bush in the war, and there's some crazy stuff about Kerry. It's a wash." (Source)

      It may not be your conscious motive, but it's really clear what the tactic is.

      From TFA (I know, I know):

      In the summer of 2010, the researchers conducted an in situ study in Worcester County, Mass. aimed at replicating how imidacloprid may have caused the CCD outbreak. Over a 23-week period, they monitored bees in four different bee yards; each yard had four hives treated with different levels of imidacloprid and one control hive. After 12 weeks of imidacloprid dosing, all the bees were alive. But after 23 weeks, 15 out of 16 of the imidacloprid-treated hives—94%—had died. Those exposed to the highest levels of the pesticide died first.

      The characteristics of the dead hives were consistent with CCD, said Lu; the hives were empty except for food stores, some pollen, and young bees, with few dead bees nearby. When other conditions cause hive collapse—such as disease or pests—many dead bees are typically found inside and outside the affected hives.

      That's science. You can't just brush it off with innuendo about whatever mysterious bias it is that apparently enjoins otherwise self-interested people to promote their own species' repression (even though all of the evidence suggests that those using this kind of innuendo and anti-science rhetoric are the ones threatening our species). But since it's science—and therefore falsifiable—if you really want to promote doubt of their findings, you can always research their work and find the errors in it. In the meantime, it may be that there are two contemporary causes of bee colony collapse, and it may be that one of them isn't human-driven. But the other one is. And we have the power to stop it.

    4. Re:Also Linked To Parasites by omfgnosis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also worth remembering -- not that it helps anything now -- that honeybees are not native to the US. We only need them because of our extreme use of pesticide-heavy monoculture. Pesticides obviously kill off native pollinators, but monoculture is just as bad -- when everything for dozens of miles around, for the most part, all blooms at once and then there's virtually nothing for the rest of the year, you can't support most types of pollinator populations.

      While true and (yes) worth remembering—and even with the caveat that you seem to be getting at that we still depend on them whether they're native or not—there's also the matter of the combined dangers of sidelining those other pollinators, so that we may not be able to rely on them even if we get our shit together in terms of food production; and the danger of other pollinators, also part of a complex ecosystem, being subject to the same kinds of stressors and industrial challenges the honeybees suffer. The honeybees serve also as a figurative canary in the coal mine. The quite obvious upshot is that intensive meddling in the name of efficiency or profit might have a profound impact on our survival.

    5. Re:Also Linked To Parasites by sycodon · · Score: 0

      You should seek help.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Also Linked To Parasites by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      You should seek a better argument. Or a stupider audience.

  22. Re:How soon before something is done about it thou by HiThere · · Score: 1

    This, however, is something that beekeepers can directly address. All they need to do is stop feeding their bees syrup made from high fructose corn syrup.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. And nobody tried that before????? by gweihir · · Score: 0

    Are they all stupid in this area of "Science"? Or terminally afraid? This is an incredible disgrace! Especially as they must know that without the bees it is curtains for the human race too.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. Isn't this the third or fourth reason for collapse by lowkster · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember a few past slashdot articles on what is causing colony collapse. The causes ranged from cell phones to a DNA-based virus to fungus and now pesticide. What gives me pause about this current theory is that it is linked to the much maligned by the left high fructose corn syrup. How many people would believe a scientific study that linked cancer to abortions? Not many, you would want to know more about the politics of the people doing the study than their scientific credentials. Welcome to science of the 21st century!

  25. Re:How soon before something is done about it thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Locally, here in Washington State, we had a situation where a farmer grazed his dairy cows on a field that had been sprayed with an herbicide. Those cows were then moved to another farm--an organic farm--to graze there as well. They dropped cow pies that contained the herbicide from the previous field. ANOTHER herd of dairy cows were grazed at a later point in time on the same "organic" field where they subsequently ingested the herbicide that transferred from the cow pies to the grass they were eating. THOSE cows then dropped cow pies elsewhere that were gathered for "organic" compost. This compost was then used to fertilize numerous organic farms throughout the area.

    Some of those fields are no longer classed as "organic farms" due to the measurable levels of the same herbicide. In fact, the whole thing wasn't exposed as being an issue until local hobbyist farmers noticed that the compost was KILLING their crops. So, that means that despite being passed through the soil twice, and being digested twice by cows, the herbicide remained in the droppings of the second set of cows, in high enough concentrations, to continue killing plants.

    This shit is persistent.

  26. Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by IonOtter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, so we've learned that HFCS that is derived from corn treated with a pesticide is responsible for causing CCD. And from the articles, it appears that bees that aren't fed HFCS (laced or not) don't seem to be collecting enough of the pesticide via their natural habits.

    Great! Great news. Yay! Whoo-hoo, and all that jazz.

    So why are we feeding the bees HFCS or sugar water?

    A former beekeeper pointed out that they're fed HFCS and sugar water in late winter when the hives run out of honey. (In case you didn't know, bees don't make honey just for human benefit. It's supposed to be their food.)

    So the next logical question would be, "Why are they running out of honey in late winter?"

    Answer: Keepers are taking too much.

    So! CCD isn't necessarily caused by a pesticide, it's caused by HUMAN GREED when idiot bee keepers harvest too much honey for a quick profit, and then try to keep their bees limping along on garbage. If they weren't stealing the winter food supply, and restrained themselves to taking only the summer surplus, then CCD would most likely never have happened. (Using sugar water USED to be a last-gasp, keeper-has-shit-the-bed-and-has-to-fix-it method of helping your bees survive your lack of proper planning? But now it's become canon.)

    Once again, the cause of the problem is human greed and stupidity.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by dr2chase · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not just "human greed". If you want to keep bees someplace that it gets good-N-cold, feeding them can help them get through the winter. I had bees, a new batch. I took NO honey the first year. We had a nasty winter (not this one just past, but the previous year). Bees did not survive, partly because I did not feed them. Another way to feed them (not sure how much HFCS is in this, but I will check) that a beekeeper friend recommended was to get bulk fondant icing, smear it on wax paper, and just stick that in the top (?) of the hive.

      When I was a kid, we kept bees in Florida. That was pretty much dead easy, compared to beekeeping in the Northeast.

    2. Re:Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commercial bulk fondant icing is going to be pretty much straight HFCS. It's the cheapest sugar available, thanks to trade tariffs and crop subsidies.

    3. Re:Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And human greed is the reason that I'm warm at night, lying on a soft bed with a warm blanket. I could sleep out in the open, shivering in the rain - but, no, I like my comfort, and I'm greedy.

      The first greedy person who made themselves a bed out of an antelope skin probably suffered for it; they caught the antelope's lice, or got sick from the bits of rotting meat attached to it. But they persevered, and today I can snuggle down under my cotton-encased duck-feather marvel of modern bedding technology. Same deal here: bee-keepers are still learning how best to keep bees. They came up with a hack to increase their production, but there was (if you'll excuse the pun) a bug in it. They've identified the bug, and now they'll fix it; and because of this, we'll all have more, cheaper honey.

    4. Re:Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by IonOtter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ooooh, ouch. I'm sorry, losing a hive is terrible. A friend of my dad's used to cry for days if he lost a hive, but those were the "good old days".

      Putting in a new colony is an exceptional event, and supplemental feeding is most certainly understandable. It takes time to get a colony firmly and safely established.

      It is generally accepted that a healthy, well-established hive will require approximately 60lbs of honey to survive a typical "northern" winter. Some of the permaculture-minded documentation suggests that a keeper should go even further, and refrain from harvesting during the summer or fall, and wait until the spring when new flowers are coming out. That way, they can be absolutely certain that whatever honey is left over is truly "surplus".

      But that's not what we're doing.

      I would actually go so far as to suggest that "mobile hives", the ones that are freighted across the country from field to grove to field, shouldn't have *any* honey harvested from them at all. That way, they would have the very best food available to them when they arrive, as they work, and when they're in transport.

      Heh. You might have guessed, but I don't see bees as "workers", but partners.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    5. Re:Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by IonOtter · · Score: 0

      Fondant icing is corn syrup, gelatin/agar, and vegetable shortening, which is yet another garbage product we're feeding to bees. "Traveling" hives that you see getting trucked from place to place have small cakes of sweetened shortening placed inside the hives to help 'tide them over' as they're transported. They also add antibiotics to control disease, and the shortening helps to smother tracheal mites.

      They probably would not need antibiotics, or help with tracheal mites, if they weren't being trucked around like slaves.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    6. Re:Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bees stay alive in northern climates living completely in the wild with no food from humans. The success rate of a colony might go up with human feeding, but it is not required to keep them alive.

    7. Re:Something Nobody Seems To Be Saying/Asking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems to be as good of a place as any to ask this question, with all of the former bee keepers around.

      The last two years I have been having trouble with fruit plants in my yard (apple, raspberry, grape) growing well but not bearing fruit and my hunch is that it might be a lack of pollinators problem.

      How difficult and expensive is it to set up a hive?

      Is it possible to have one a city neighborhood?

      Do they survive the winter outside?

      I'm in South Minneapolis, specifically, where "urban farming" is gaining some popularity (gardens, chickens, etc.).

  27. Re:How soon before something is done about it thou by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 0

    Funny how that herbicide didn't kill plants the first two times it passed through the soil into the plants which were then digested by cows, it only started killing plants when it got to the hobbyist farmers. It's obvious the local hobbyist farmers were doing something wrong... since they were tofu-eating tree-hugging hobby-farmers they probably forgot something obvious like watering the crops when it wasn't raining. Damned hippies.

  28. What a sick world... by idji · · Score: 2

    ...in which bees are fed glucose instead of going foraging. They are not going out and pollinating the environment and bringing back bio-rich foodstuffs. They are being fed an effectively sterile product from a monoculture, that enhances a monoculture world - bio-feedback with a bad outcome.

    1. Re:What a sick world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. They're fed the corn syrup during winter to supplement their honey reserve. They don't forage in the winter.

    2. Re:What a sick world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They are not going out and pollinating the environment and bringing back bio-rich foodstuffs."

      Then the bees would not have nectar to produce honey - but they do produce honey. Ergo: the bees do go out and do their thing.
      (HFCS is fed to help the bees survive the winter)

      Think before you reply.

    3. Re:What a sick world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please... Of course bees are foraging and pollinating our environment. But if we take the honey from them we need to feed them something else, no? Sugar was the substitute food of choice for centuries, now we apparently switched to HFCS.

      BTW It's still a mystery to me how HFCS can be cheaper that sugar.

  29. Imidacloprid is Gaucho by klapaucjusz · · Score: 1

    Imidacloprid is better known as Bayer's Gaucho, at least in Europe.

  30. This is only the most recent report by Yoik · · Score: 2

    I used to keep bees, but after the FDA approved this class of insecticides (~2004) none of my colonies made it over the winter. The law is that bee-lethal insecticides cannot be used where bees are present, but FDA made an exception for these "systemic insecticides" despite documented evidence of bee harm. I learned about this by 2006 and believe one of my neighbors was an early adopter of this bee poison. I am still waiting for FDA to reverse this approval.

    CCD started getting press soon after, as beekeeping started to dwindle. The cause was controversial, because it wasn't a simple poisoning; the affected bees just disappeared from the hive. The history, and FDA test documents, we're really pretty clear. Bayer and other manufacturers have fought long and hard to keep selling their poison. This study is just one more in a long series. Sometimes they get coverage, usually not.

    The /. comments are interesting, because HFCS has little to do with the story. Bees get the insecticide from nectar and pollen from dosed plants, including fruit trees, that circulate it throughout their system. The test added the insecticide to the HFCS that the bees were being fed, and the authors commented on the difficulty of measuring its concentration in the syrup and speculated on the amount in commercially available corn syrup. The GMO corn doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the story. I am amused that an issue that is important to me is getting so much play for the worst of reasons.

    1. Re:This is only the most recent report by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      The GMO corn doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the story.

      I understood the GM corn was engineered to be resistant to the pesticide, thus allowing farmers to spray much more of the muck on their crops. I'd assume the manufacturing process picks up enough of the excessive amount of insecticide from the environment and external parts of the corn.

    2. Re:This is only the most recent report by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      My media and art teachers would taught me that all media is a construction... every little detail you read or see is often chosen... therefore it is important to approach everything with an open mind. In your case, based on what you have learned in the media (be it conventional or alternative), you belive GM food allows more pesticide... but pesticide is mis-used intentionally in the talk of GM food because pesticide implies living things like use dieing, not living things like crab-grass. Never mind the differences between us and plants. Now there is a vocal bunch repeating mis-information and this mis-information propogates into other debates and discussion often being left uncorrected. Like in this case. Try considering what are the buzz words/constructions/and alternate viewpoints when you see or read an article. I am not saying you should wear the tinfoil hat but most 1 to many media productions contain a message that was not written simply for your well being.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    3. Re:This is only the most recent report by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I don't care whether GM crops are good or bad here, but I know that this particular crop is deliberately produced to be pesticide-resistant (that's what the manufacturer says so I believe this incontrovertibly), I also believe that the reason for sowing such a crop is so the farmer can spray more pesticide, ensuring a better crop of corn. This is the intent of the whole thing.

      Whether GM crops are good or bad as a whole has nothing to do with this case. Except, of course, the intent of this strain practically intends to kill insects, or in other words "d'oh"

  31. Part of the problem at best: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    The die off in bee populations started earlier than 2005. The specific problem of CCD may have started in that time frame, but there were articles on dropping bee populations going back much earlier.

    Anecdotally, one of the things I noticed when I moved back to Illinois in 1999, was the near lack of wild honeybees, and how bumblebees had increased in number to fill that niche (where they could). At the time it was speculated to be due to the varoa mite.

    There is also a nosema (common bee disease) variant, nosema ceranae that is much more virulent that has been showing up in various places worldwide.

    It would be nice if this was all due to one easy problem of a single substance. But, this has been a tough puzzle to work out as it appears to be the combined effect of a number of stresses on bees.

  32. crap by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

    crap. I am a confused person, apparently. The role of arsenic is different than I thought it was.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    1. Re:crap by Rie+Beam · · Score: 2

      A more apt example would have been chlorine or sulfur, each of which has a biological role in human beings but not exactly something one would want to chug.

    2. Re:crap by unitron · · Score: 2

      You are confused.

      It's actually different from what you thought it was.

      But the central point of

        "Is it poison? Well, that depends on the size of the dose."

      remains valid.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:crap by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew that when I attempted to say that :)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  33. EU has non-zero limits by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?

    Very likely yes. This article lays out the european limits for it in food as ranging from 0.02 mg/kg in eggs to 3.0 mg/kg in hops. While this is not proof that the US FDA has a non-zero limit usually Europe tends to be more conservative with food regulations (at least they are with things like growth hormones).

    1. Re:EU has non-zero limits by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry - got the source of the limits wrong - those limits are from the US EPA so there are acceptable, non-zero limits in the US for food.

  34. Re:How soon before something is done about it thou by Neo+Quietus · · Score: 1

    This is in Washington State; it never stops raining.

  35. This is causation by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    not correlation. Your standard for causation is unreasonably high. Using your standard, we'd have to conclude that it's mere correlation that when we suspend a ball above the ground and then release it, gravity pulls it down. You would have us looking at the million plus tests of a ball falling to earth and decline to call that causation because we don't know how it works. (And we still don't know why matter has mass, which is what the whole hunt for the Higgs Boson is all about--see related articles).

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and posit that researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health know about the scientific method and the difference between correlation and causation, and that they wouldn't make a wild claim, unsupported by solid empirical data, that would harm their careers.

    Do you dispute their results? OK, great. Then you go out and repeat the study and try to recreate the results. That's what science is supposed to be about: testable conclusions.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  36. Re:Isn't this the third or fourth reason for colla by LanMan04 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nope, there was a correlation between those viruses and funguses and CCD, but no causal like.

    They researchers give the bees TINY amounts of this pesticide, and POOF, they can create CCD on demand.

    So we know this pesticide causes CCD, and the most likely vector is via HFCS. Bee keepers start feeding bees HFCS in 2005-2006, right when CCD started occurring.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  37. Camel's back theory? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll never find a smoking gun because the colonies collapse when one too many stresses are applied.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  38. Re:How soon before something is done about it thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it be OK Mister if I ate those dead cows of yours?

  39. Re:How soon before something is done about it thou by tomhath · · Score: 2

    I'd really love a citation for this. Herbicide passed through grass, through cows, through another generation of grass, through different cows, and still proved fatal to plants after it was composted? Not believable.

  40. Biochemical mechanism by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is an irreversible agonist that binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and first activates then blocks them. At high doses it will paralyze muscles. At these low doses it would more likely act by interfering with cognition. Because it is irreversible, it likely has a cumulative effect.

    1. Re:Biochemical mechanism by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      Because it is irreversible, it likely has a cumulative effect.

      Not necessarily. Irreversible just means that the now non-functioning receptor has to be targeted for degradation. As long as the receptor gets turned over at a reasonable rate, it won't accumulate.

    2. Re:Biochemical mechanism by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      With an irreversible inhibitor, the amount of irreversibly inhibited receptor will accumulate with duration or frequency of exposure and can greatly outlast the presence of the agent in the environment. There is no threshold dose below which receptor inactivation does not occur. Recovery will occur after exposure ceases, but will be slow and limited by the rate of production of new receptors. Although there is no equilibrium short of complete inhibition of all receptors, a type of steady state may occur at very low levels of exposure in which the rate of receptor inactivation is balanced the rate of production of new receptors. The latter is very slow, as the half-time of receptors is typically on the order of many hours or even days.

    3. Re:Biochemical mechanism by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      You are assuming continuous and constant exposure to the inhibitor. And you are also assuming a high in vivo stability of the inhibitor. I'm not sure what you mean by a "threshold dose" because I'm not sure such a thing ever occurs with a drug, but there are definitely kinetic parameters that define the rate of inactivation. Lower concentrations of the inhibitor will necessarily have lower rates of inactivation unless you are saturating the binding site (unlikely). Which means, your liver has more time to clear it out of your system before it reacts with its target.

      Accumulation is certainly one of the reasons why irreversible inhibitors have toxicity side effects. But quite a few are used safely clinically, so it is not an inherent problem. Also, tight-binding inhibitors are functionally equivalent to irreversible inhibitors, and there are a number of those in clinical use as well.

    4. Re:Biochemical mechanism by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Generally if you are a couple of orders of magnitude below the dissociation constant of a drug for its target, it will have no physiological effect, because this puts the effect of the drug within the range of random variation that biological systems must necessarily be able to tolerate. But an irreversible inhibitor does not have a dissociation constant, and the magnitude of its effect is limited only by kinetic considerations (forward rate constant, turnover of the target, duration of exposure). Such drugs can safely be used clinically, where the exposure parameters have been worked out, and in some circumstances can have substantial advantages (e.g. the use of phenoxybenzamine in treatment of pheochromocytoma). But when they are chronically present (as in this case, where it was apparently a contaminant of corn syrup that the bees were fed with), the net effect is difficult to predict, and could be large. I don't know of any clinically used reversible inhibitors that bind so tightly that dissociation is rate-limiting on duration of action; what examples did you have in mind? There are certainly some toxins for which this is true, such as alpha-bungarotoxin.

    5. Re:Biochemical mechanism by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      An irreversible enzyme inhibitor necessarily has a binding step. There are, of course, many possible mechanisms, but the two reduced models used most often are:

      E+I -> EI (non-covalent complex) -> E-I (covalent complex) [when inactivation is slower than binding]
      or
      E+I -> E-I [when inactivation is fast enough to be second order with inhibitor concentration]

      Either way, there will be a concentration at which the inactivator will be ineffective as a drug. This "threshold" value may certainly be lower than is typical for a reversible inhibitor, but it is not infinitely lower.

      I don't know of any clinically used reversible inhibitors that bind so tightly that dissociation is rate-limiting on duration of action

      Mizoribine and methotrexate are two that come to mind. You are certainly right about chronic exposure in the bees, and I too would be wary of it. I am just trying to point out that while the binding kinetics of an inhibitor are important, they are probably the least significant factor determining the efficacy of a drug. Take methotrexate, for example. Equilibrium dissociation constants for the human dhfr have been measured in the picomolar range. Yet, a typical clinical dose is ~20 mg/m2, which is far more than is needed to completely inhibit all of the dhfr in your body at any given moment, and it must be administered daily. The bioavailability and metabolic stability turn out to be the factors that matter most.

    6. Re:Biochemical mechanism by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Either way, there will be a concentration at which the inactivator will be ineffective as a drug. This "threshold" value may certainly be lower than is typical for a reversible inhibitor, but it is not infinitely lower.

      I don't see that it makes any difference whether the binding or inactivation reaction is rate-limiting with respect to the rate of inactivation. Each binding event has a constant probability of leading to irreversible inactivation, and at any concentration, the fraction of inactivated receptors will increase continuously with exposure time. So the only case in a particular concentration of inhibitor will be ineffective regardless of duration of exposure is when it is so low that the rate of inactivation is small relative to the rate of receptor turnover.

      Mizoribine and methotrexate are two that come to mind. You are certainly right about chronic exposure in the bees, and I too would be wary of it. I am just trying to point out that while the binding kinetics of an inhibitor are important, they are probably the least significant factor determining the efficacy of a drug. Take methotrexate, for example. Equilibrium dissociation constants for the human dhfr have been measured in the pico molar range

      pM doesn't sound so low to me. I looked up the dissociation rate of methotrexate, and the numbers I found gave a dissociation t1/2 of a minute or so. It's hard to see how that could be at all rate-limiting for a drug with a blood t1/2 on the scale of hours. Bungarotoxin has a dissociation time constant on the scale of hours, but its Kd is in the fM range.

      Yet, a typical clinical dose is ~20 mg/m2, which is far more than is needed to completely inhibit all of the dhfr in your body at any given moment, and it must be administered daily. The bioavailability and metabolic stability turn out to be the factors that matter most.

      I'll bet a much lower dose would work if you gave it by continuous infusion. I don't think bioavailability is likely to be much of an issue with a lipophylic compound like imidacloprid. It looks like it will get in if you so much as spill it on your skin.

    7. Re:Biochemical mechanism by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      I don't see that it makes any difference whether the binding or inactivation reaction is rate-limiting with respect to the rate of inactivation.

      Precisely what I said. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the binding step is there, which means that the rate of inactivation is dependent on the inhibitor concentration. Where you decide the concentration is insufficient depends on how long you want to wait. With a modest k,app for inactivation of 5x10^-3 uM^-1 s^-1 and a "trace concentration" of inhibitor--not sure what that is here, but let's say 2 nM, it would take 19 hrs. to inactivate half of the enzyme/receptor, assuming pseudo-first order reaction kinetics, which is uncertain (how much acetylcholine receptor do we have typically hanging around?). It would take 45 hrs. to inactivate 80% of the receptor.

      This is fine if you just have your enzyme/receptor in a tube on your bench and plenty of time to waste (err, quantitate), assuming nothing else happens to it in the meantime (ex: nonspecific denaturation, oxidation, etc). But in your body, that inhibitor is being degraded over time and flushed out of your system. Not all of the inhibitor makes it to the target. The inhibitor has to compete with other ligands for the target, lowering the effective Ki. The inhibitor may react non-specifically with other targets (always a formal possibility). And, of course, the target is being turned over like you've already mentioned.

      I looked up the dissociation rate of methotrexate, and the numbers I found gave a dissociation t1/2 of a minute or so. It's hard to see how that could be at all rate-limiting for a drug with a blood t1/2 on the scale of hours.

      I'm not sure where you got your numbers for methotrexate, but in this paper they measure a koff of 1x10^-4 s^-1 for the human enzyme, which amounts to 2 hrs. to recover 50% active enzyme/receptor in the complete absence of additional inhibitor (ie: as soon as the inhibitor dissociates, it is infinitely diluted away). This may or may not be longer than its lifetime in the blood, I don't know, but it doesn't matter. It has an essentially diffusion-limited on rate, so if you have even, say, 100 pM floating around, it will immediately rebind to DHFR after a dissociation event takes place.

      I don't think bioavailability is likely to be much of an issue with a lipophylic compound like imidacloprid.

      Perhaps, it's hard to say. A lot depends on how it is administered. If it is coming in through the digestive track (ie: on contaminated food), a lot may be lost before it ever reaches the bloodstream.

  41. Re: Tangential Jab: Wrong chemical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto.

    All plants are resistant to pesticide.

    Monsanto makes plants that are resistant to herbicide.

  42. Old school pesticides by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Don't it always seem to go....
    That you don't know what you've got til it's gone
    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot

    Hey farmer, farmer, put away that DDT now
    Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees.
    Please!

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  43. It's "corn sugar" you insensitive clod by mindcandy · · Score: 1

    What's this HFCS I keep hearing about? .. sounds like a funny chemical.

    1. Re:It's "corn sugar" you insensitive clod by lpq · · Score: 1

      HFCS isn't natural corn sugar. It's genetically modified corn syrup. They use a genetically modified bacteria to produce an HFCS that has much higher levels of Fructose (vs. sucrose, which our government places a tax on in order to support the Hawaiian sugar industry -- something that results in about a 10X price difference for sucrose in the US vs. the rest of the world -- thus manufacturers here try to use fructose, because it is much cheaper than sucrose; The US even charges higher prices for baked goods and other foods as they are imported based on their sucrose content (this was to close a loophole whereby people imported high -sucrose pastries / foods and deconstituted to get the raw sugar -- cheaper than paying "free market" [sic] prices in the US).

      It doesn't break down in the body the same way that regular corn syrup does because it's normal balance of sugars isn't natural -- as a result it puts a higher strain on the liver to turn it into energy -- with a result that the liver over converts it to fat -- making less available for energy. The Given the proximity to the liver, HFCS-fat tends to accumulate near the stomach more so than other types which are released more slowly -- increasing the apple-shaped body (vs. pear shaped), that is associated with increased diabetes and heart and circulatory problems.

      In short -- it's coincides with America's 'fat explosion' starting in the late 70's early 80's...

    2. Re:It's "corn sugar" you insensitive clod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't break down in the body the same way that regular corn syrup does because it's normal balance of sugars isn't natural

      Regular corn syrup is mostly glucose. Regular table sugar (sucrose) is half glucose and half fructose. Honey is about the same as HFCS.

      So, obviously, the effects of HFCS on the liver should be no worse than for sucrose or honey. There's nothing "unnatural" about the way HFCS is broken down. That doesn't mean too much isn't bad for you!

    3. Re:It's "corn sugar" you insensitive clod by lpq · · Score: 1

      But our mouths have grown up used to the taste of sucrose -- which is not good for you in volume, -- but out bodies know how to hit the satiation level faster with sucrose.

      HFCS that has been artifically made more fructose - is something our taste buds are not evolutionarily designed for .. thus it is harder to judge proper intake. not too many people can consume large quantities of honey -- because it is too sweet. But put it in soda...and cut it with sucrose... HFCS, and it becomes palatable enough (though a bit thicker/syrupier than the sucrose variety -- thus it doesn't cut thirst as well).

      Numerous studies show that our body doesn't digest fructose well -- it results in fat around the belly/abdominal area -- were as glucose results in fat distribution under the skin as a whole. Fructose was also connected with a rise in 'Bad cholesterol'... and a lowering of 'good' cholesterol' (likely related to it being more syrupy)...

      The problem is -- if it was in small enough amounts, it wouldn't be harmful, but it has been put in most foods -- it has been in most baked goods --- even the store-baked muffins I've bought at the store... I see it in yogurts, puddings, (and soda), as well as breakfast cereals...)... it's put in everything -- which makes it an environmental toxin.

      That's why it is so bad. If our bodies were made of 70% HFCS, it would be
      as healthy as water. But they aren't. So it isn't.

  44. Autism link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think there might be a link to the uptick in autism?

    1. Re:Autism link? by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      I think you have a point that needs to be explored. It makes far more sense than vaccines.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
  45. 20 parts per billion?!? by Dopeskills · · Score: 1

    FTA " It doesn't take much to eventually kill the bees accord to Lu, who said an incredibly small amount (20 parts per billion) of imidacloprid was enough to lead to Colony Collapse Disorder within 6 months. " 20 parts per billion?!? Maybe Homeopathy isn't a myth?

    1. Re:20 parts per billion?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until 100% pure H20 cures cancer and every other disease known, homeopathy is a myth...

  46. patented corn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wish someone would graph the increase in planted corn for ethenol,the increased use of patented insect resistent corn,
    and this hive disorder on a timeline.
    i think the results would be interesting.
    if i knew how to do it i would because this has been my pet theory for five years.
    mike

  47. Monsanto's corn banned in Poland, France, others.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monsanto's GMO corn was just recently completely banned in Poland [http://www.infowars.com/poland-announces-complete-ban-on-monsantos-genetically-modified-maize/] and has been banned in other places, too. France even found Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning. [http://naturalsociety.com/breaking-monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-france/] This GMO corn has been heavily processed and made into High Fructose Corn Syrup since the end of the 90s! It's been alleged that the self-produced pesticide in the corn, which is produced by every cell in the corn, has negative side effects on humans; the rise of the science of gut permeability (how readily foods or pollutants can escape through the walls of the gut, into the bloodstream) and a heavy rise in people with food allergies started a few years after the GMO corn entered the human food supply, and it's alleged by some that the GMO pesticide-corn eats away the lining of the gut and intestines. The mechanism by which the Bt toxin kills bugs is to break open the lining of their guts, and their bodies do the rest. We have much thicker guts, but do we really think that it can utterly devastate any bug, causes organ failure in rats [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html], but doesn't hurt people? Get real.

  48. Must be a Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeat the same lies over and over again, thinking if you do it enough people will believe you.

  49. Miami by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    A large core of powerful, monied (hence, Republican) interests reside in Miami, having been displaced from Bautistan Cuba, where they were even more powerful and monied. That's the real reason for the continued US policy towards Cuba.

  50. Great! We found the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the race is on to engineer and patent some neonicotinoid-resistant bees!

  51. Colony Collapse Disorder and HFCS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If interested, you can read what experts like sweetener expert, John White, Ph.D., and Bee Expert and Biologist Randy Oliver have to say about this study http://blog.sweetsurprise.com/2012/04/20/ccd-insecticides-bees-hfcs/

    Therese, Corn Refiners