Cardoza and bees

What if bees were declared an endangered species?

Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
Dennis A. Cardoza, (D-CA) Chairman
Jurisdiction: fruits and vegetables; honey and bees; marketing and promotion orders; plant pesticides, quarantine, adulteration of seeds, and insect pests; and organic agriculture.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 29, 2007 Media Contact:
April Demert Slayton (202) 225-6872
april.slayton@mail.house.gov

Subcommittee Investigates Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Dennis Cardoza, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, held a hearing to investigate colony collapse disorder in honey bee colonies across the United States.

Colony collapse disorder (CCD) is characterized by the sudden die-off of honey bee colonies. The cause of CCD has not been determined, and the Subcommittee heard about the situation and its impact on agriculture from scientists and bee keepers, as well as a farmer who relies on bees to pollinate his crops.

“I am deeply committed to raising awareness of CCD and its impact on American agriculture,” said Subcommittee Chairman Cardoza. “Farmers and beekeepers across the country are dependent on honey bees for their livelihoods. It is imperative that we move swiftly to get to the bottom of this, before the problem becomes even more serious. The insight and perspectives we heard in today’s hearing will be very useful as we consider the next steps in addressing this threat to honey bees, and to the livelihoods of commercial beekeepers and crop producers.”

“Honey bee pollination is vital to flowers and many fruit, vegetable, nut and forage crops, as well as forages and flowers. In addition, pollination from honey bees increases yield and food quality and creates billions of dollars of crop value for farmers. Agriculture has a strong interest in maintaining a sound supply of pollinators, and I encourage researchers to work closely with producers to find a solution to the current colony collapse,” said Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Neugebauer.

Witness testimony is available on the Committee website: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/index.html. A full transcript of the hearing will be posted on the Committee website in 4-6 weeks.

Witness List

Associate Administrator Caird E. Rexroad, PhD, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Diana Cox-Foster, PhD, Professor, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania

Dr. May R. Berenbaum, Professor and Head, Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois

Mr. Paul Wenger, First Vice President, California Farm Bureau Federation, Modesto, California

Mr. David Ellingson, Commercial Bee Keeper, Ortonville, MN

Mr. Gene Brandi, Legislative Chairman, California State Beekeepers Association, Los Banos, California

Mr. Jim Doan, Commercial Bee Keeper, Hamlin, New York

Mr. Richard Adee, Legislative Committee Chairman, American Honey Producers Association, Bruce, South Dakota

California Farm Bureau Ag Alert:

Mysterious bee losses threaten several crops
Issue Date: April 11, 2007

By Ching Lee
Assistant Editor

Merced County beekeeper said bee losses over the winter cost him nearly $60.000. Beekeepers nationwide are opening their hives and finding them empty, a baffling phenomenon that has researchers scratching their heads and farmers worrying about their crops.

The bees are mysteriously vanishing and no one is sure why. Instead of thriving colonies, beekeepers say they're typically finding only a queen and a few attendants left--but no trace of the other bees, not even their bodies.

Known as colony collapse disorder, the problem has affected beekeepers in 24 states and Canada, with some losing as much as 25 percent to more than 75 percent of their hives. The sudden unexplained losses have not only been a financial detriment to many beekeepers but could threaten billions of dollars worth of crops that depend on the insects for pollination.

In a legislative hearing before the House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture in March, Gene Brandi, a Merced County beekeeper and chairman of the California State Beekeepers Association, told lawmakers that while bee losses are not uncommon, the current ailment plaguing bee colonies is much more serious.

He said about 40 percent of his colonies died over the winter, his greatest loss in 30 years of business. That equates to a loss of nearly $60,000 in pollination income and another $20,000 in bulk bee sales, plus a cost of $48,000 to restock the 800 dead hives.

"Even though my loss is substantial, other beekeepers throughout the country have suffered much great losses," he said. "Beekeepers who lost over 50 percent of their colonies will have difficulty making up their losses from their own colonies as I plan to do."

Bees pollination is involved in the production of a wide range of fruits, vegetables and forage crops, but it is perhaps most critical in the production of almonds. Nearly 1.4 million bee colonies are needed each year to help California's almond growers set nearly 600,000 acres of this crop, now worth more than $2.4 billion annually. California produces 80 percent of the world's almonds, according to the Almond Board of California.

Other crops dependent on honeybee pollination include apples, avocados, cherries, cranberries, cucumbers, melons and sunflowers.

But as California's almond acreage continues to increase, the nation's bee colonies are dwindling--from 3.2 million in 1986 to 2.4 million in 2006, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. In California, there were 380,000 bee colonies in 2006, compared to 520,000 in 1986.

To meet growers' demand, bees are brought in from all over the United States and even Australia to work the fields.

"Each year, as growers we worry about the supply of bees and what the weather is like during the critical pollination period," California Farm Bureau Federation First-Vice President Paul Wenger, a Stanislaus County almond grower, told the House panel. "Our crop fortunes rise or fall on what happens."

He noted that he currently pays $130 per hive to pollinate his crop, a steep price compared to the average rental price of $45 per hive in 2003.

The cause of colony collapse disorder is unknown, although poor nutrition, mites, diseases and pesticides have all been suspect. There is also concern that some genetically modified crops may be producing pollen or nectar that is problematic for the bees, said Brandi.

"Lesser known is the fact that some pesticides can also kill or deform immature bees, adversely affect queen and drone viability or may cause bees to lose their memory, which prevents them from flying back to their hive," he said.

The nation's supply of bees was already in danger before the colony collapse disorder came along. For many years, beekeepers have been trying to control the destructive varroa mite, a parasite that has dealt catastrophic losses to the bee industry.

Brandi and Wenger said research is the key to overcoming these current problems, noting the need for more scientists and bee experts at the University of Davis to study the insect's behavior, physiology and genetics. There are currently no active professors of apiculture on the campus, although one UC Extension apiculturist continues to serve the industry, Brandi said. The federal government currently spends less than $10 million a year on bee research.

"The need for additional bee research is obvious," said Brandi. "There are just too many unanswered questions that need to be addressed if the bee industry is to survive and perhaps thrive again."

This article compliments of The Institute of Science in Society ISIS
website at: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

Mystery of Disappearing Honeybees

For some time now, honeybees have been disappearing from farmers’ hives
without a trace

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins on the trail of possible culprits and
explode some myths reported in the mainstream media

Honeybees vanishing worldwide

The first alarm was sounded in autumn 2006. Honeybees are disappearing across the United States, with half of the States affected, and up to 80 percent of colonies are lost in some areas [1-5]. The problem began two years ago and has intensified in recent months. The bees simply vanish from the hives, leaving behind the queen and a few young. This “colony collapse disorder” (CCD) is particularly devastating for growers of fruits and vegetables, as they depend on insect pollinators.

Since then, CCD has been reported from Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal,
Italy, Greece, and the UK [4], where one of the biggest bee keepers reported
that 23 of his 40 hives have gone. (But the Department of the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said that “there is absolutely no evidence” of
CCD in the UK.).

CCD has baffled scientists, because no one knows what causes it. Viruses,
fungal diseases, parasitic mites, pesticides, or chemical designed to control
mites have considered by the authorities, as have GM crops [6-7], and mobile
phones [4] by others. So how good is the evidence?

Extent and causes of decline both unknown

The United States National Research Council Committee on the Status of
Pollinators in North America published its report [5] in October 2006, pointing out that the decline in honeybee pollinators was devastating North America, as
three quarters of the earth’s flowering plants depend on pollinators for
propagation. But it was rather thin on data and information on the precise extent of the present decline in honeybees or its causes.

The report discussed introduced parasitic mites, and the bacterial pathogen
that causes foul brood disease in detail, as there is extensive scientific
literature. But it barely touched on pesticides or GM crops, and did not mention mobile phones at all.

Mites infestations

The introduced parasitic mites, Varroa destructor and Acarapis woodi, began
to cause infestation since the late 1980s, and mite infestation became
established in the US within a decade. Varroa destructor, an external parasite of the honeybee, has caused dramatic declines in honeybee abundance in North America and throughout the world. During the winter of 1995-1996, northern US beekeepers experienced their larges losses in history, in some states 30 to 80 percent of colonies were lost. These losses have occurred despite heavy used of pesticides to control mite populations. Pesticide resistance has become widespread and many beekeepers are no longer able to use the few registered pesticides for controlling Varroa.

The tracheal mite Acarapis woodi is an internal parasite of the honeybee. It
was first detected in the US in 1984, and initially caused serious damage to
colonies, but there appear to be heritable resistance to the mite.

Parasitic mites cannot explain colony collapse disorder as there is no
evidence that mite infestation is directly involved, although it may contribute
indirectly by reducing the immunity of the bees to infections by viruses, bacteria and fungi (see below).

Foul brood disease

Paenibacillus larvae is the most serious pathogen of honeybees. It causes
American Foul Brood disease (AFB), a disease of honeybee larvae. It is highly
virulent and easily spread among colonies, and generally fatal if untreated. During the first half of the last century AFB was the most serious threat to
beekeeping, and caused tremendous loss of colonies. The incidence of AFB was
reduced dramatically by the introduction of antibiotics, and by state inspection programme that required the burning of infected hives. However AFB spores are refractory to antibiotics and can persist on contaminated equipment for more than 80 years. Treatment of colonies with active cases of AFB eliminates disease symptoms, but withdrawal of antibiotics is generally followed by disease recurrence. Resistance to antibiotics has also become widespread since 1994.

As in the case of parasitic mites, foul brood disease is not associated with colony collapse disorder.

Pesticides

The use of pesticides, especially insecticides on crops is known to kill or
weaken thousands of honeybee colonies in the US each year, and local bee kills
have occurred sporadically for decades. The NAS report considered it unlikely
that this has “contributed significantly” to the recent decline. The report
stated [5, p. 79]: “Most pesticide-caused honey bee kills are the result of
accidents, careless application, or failure to adhere to label recommendations
and warnings.” It has obviously ignored sublethal effects that may turn out to
be the most significant single factor contributiing to the recent honeybee
decline (see later).

Parasites reduce bee immunity

Varroa mites infestation reduces the immune response of the bees, causing
them to be prone to infection with virus, bacteria or fungi [8, 9]. A number of
viral diseases are enhanced in the parasite infected bee colony, particularly
the deformed wing virus disease that causes crippling deformity in the bees
[10]. Multiple viruses frequently infect the bees attacked by Varroa parasite.

These viruses are spread not only by the parasitem but also vertically from queen to brood [11, 12]. The parasite-infested colonies are frequently treated
with a pyrethroid insecticide, fluvalinate, but the parasite has grown resistant
to the insecticide [13], and the insecticide may influence the behaviour of
the honeybee (see below). Honeybees have 17 gene families involved in immunity [14], only roughly one-third the number of immunity genes in Drosophila and Anopheles mosquitoes. Honeybees seem to have limited immune flexibility, which may make them more sensitive to devastating pathogens.

Pesticides disrupts bee behaviour at sublethal levels

Numerous pesticides have been found to disrupt bee behaviour following
sublethal exposures [15]. A wide array of pesticides including fluvalinate (the
chemical used to treat hives to eliminate parasites) disrupted the behaviour of
honeybees leading to feeding and navigation problems [16]. Bees suffering from
sublethal pesticide intoxication resembled the behaviour of bees described by
observers of the honeybee disappearance phenomenon. Sublethal doses of fipronil (a veterinary insecticide) impaired the olfactory memory process of honeybees [17]. Spinosad, a prominent and much used natural insecticide fed to bumble bees in pollen slowed down their foraging behaviour while a higher dose of the insecticide caused colony death within two to four weeks [18]. See Requiem for the Honeybee [19] for more evidence that sublethal effects of pesticides may be the single most important factor contributing to disappearing honeybees.

Genetically Modified (GM) crops may have sublethal effects on bees

The possibility that the great distribution of GM crops in North America is
contributing to the decline in honeybees was given little consideration by the
NRC Committee [5] even though the timing of the honeybee decline appears to coincide with the wide deployment of GM crops. GM crops are modified to tolerate herbicides especially gyphosate or to contain biopesticides (the Bt Cry toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis), or both. The insect resistance toxins produced in GM crops are not highly toxic to bees, but are toxic to butterflies, moths and beetles. Nevertheless, in some instances, the toxins cause bee lethality or behavioural modification.

The Bt toxin Cry1Ab caused reduced foraging activity after bees were fed with
syrup containing the toxin. However, the Bt toxin produced less pronounced
impacts on bee behaviour than did the chemical pesticides deltamethrin or imidacloprid [20]. Bt bacteria caused mortality in bees when fed in broth cultures or sugar solutions [21].

A number of purified Bt Cry toxins have been studied in the laboratory to determine their toxicity to honey bees and bumble bees. For the most part, those studies showed little threat from the Cry toxins. But, sublethal effects on the bees were not recorded in the experiments [22].

In a series of experiments in Jena, Germany, bees were found not to be affected when fed on a diet of pollen doped with 100 times the concentration of
toxin found in the Bt maize pollen; and feeding trials with larvae also showed no
effects. In the fields, bee colonies in flight tents were fed with Bt maize
pollen to which a 10-fold concentration of Bt toxin had been added. Again, no
negative effects were detected until chance infestation by the parasite
microsporidia resulted in more significant damage to the Bt-fed colonies. [23].

Transgenic glyphosate-tolerant canola pollen was reported to pose no threat
to honeybees [24]. However, when organic, conventional, and herbicide-tolerant canola were compared with regard to pollination by wild bees in Alberta, Canada, the herbicide tolerant canola plots had the greatest pollination deficit, while conventional and organic plots were equally well served by the wild bees 25].

Clearly, the existing evidence calls for fuller investigations on the
sublethal impacts of GM crops such as learning and feeding behaviour, and immunity to disease. The potential consequences of pollinator decline on food crops can be staggering and the impact on biodiversity may be irreversible [26].

Mobile phones and bee decline

There has been widespread report in the mainstream media that mobile phones
may be responsible for the decline of honeybees [for example, 4, 27].
Scientists at Landau University in Germany were supposed to have shown that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. This turned out to be total fabrication.

In fact, the scientists involved placed the base station of a DECT-mobile
phone (which sends out electromagnetic radiation ~ 1 900 MHz) under the
beehives. But that had no effect on the bees; the bees did not avoid it, and did not change their behaviour [28, 29]. This is not to say that mobile phones and
mobile phone base stations have no effect on bees, as the base station was on
standby only, the mobile phone being not in use, so the radiation from the base station was very low; and it was a very limited preliminary experiment.

There is evidence that bees are indeed sensitive to weak static magnetic
fields, as they use the earth’s magnetic field to navigate [30]. The bees’ waggle
dance on the honeycomb, which tells hive mates where to find food, can also
be misdirected by extremely weak pulsed magnetic fields at about 250 Mhz [31], and bees can even learn to detect very low levels of extremely low frequency alternating electromagnetic fields [32]. So the impact of mobile phones and base stations on bees remains an open question.

The mystery remains

The mystery of disappearing honeybees is far from solved. The most likely
culprits so far are the pesticides, which are not only sprayed on crops, but used
universally to dress seeds in conventional agriculture, including GM
agriculture [19]. However, it is likely that sublethal effects due to GM crops, mobile phones, mites infestations and other factors which alter the bees’ behaviour, affect their memory and learning process or compromise their immune system will also have a role to play.

Honeybees may be our most sensitive indicator species for all the
environmental pollution and dangerous technologies we perpetrate. When honeybees disappear, we too, shall follow.

References

1. “Mystery illness devastates honeybee colonies” Roxanne Khamsi
NewScientist.com news service, 14 February 2007,
_http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11183_ (http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11183)

2. “Honeybees, gone with the wind, leave crops and keepers in peril” Alexei Barrionuevo, New York Times 27 February 2007. _http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B1FF8355A0C748EDDAB08...
(http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?
res=F10B1FF8355A0C748EDDAB0894DF404482)

3. “Bee vanishing act baffles keepers”, BBC News, 27 February 2007,
_http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6400179.stm_
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6400179.stm)

4. “Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?” Geoffrey Lean and Harriet
Shawcross, the Independent on Sunday, 15 April 2007,
_http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece_
(http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece)

5. Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America American
National Research Council,Status of Pollinators in North America 2006
ISBN:978-0-309-10289-6

6. “Are GM crops killing bees?” Gunther Latsch, Der Spiegel, 22 March
2007, _http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html_
(http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html)

7. “European bees also taking a nosedive – perhaps GM crops?” Craig
Mackintosh, Celsias, 29 March 2007
_http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/29/european-bees-taking-a-nosedive/_
(http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/29/european-bees-taking-a-nosedive/)

8. Yang X and Cox-Foster DL. Impact of an ectoparasite on the immunity
and pathology of an invertebrate: evidence for host immunosuppression and viral amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 24;102(21):7470-5

9. Yang X and Cox-Foster D. Effects of parasitization by Varroa
destructor on survivorship and physiological traits of Apis mellifera in correlation with viral incidence and microbial challenge. Parasitology. 2007, 134(3), 405-12.

10. Yue C and Genersch E. RT-PCR analysis of Deformed wing virus in
honeybees (Apis mellifera) and mites (Varroa destructor). J Gen Virol. 2005, 86(12), 3419-24.

11. Chen YP, Pettis JS, Collins A and Feldlaufer MF. Prevalence and
transmission of honeybee viruses. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006, 72(1), 606-11.

12. Chen Y, Evans J and Feldlaufer M. Horizontal and vertical
transmission of viruses in the honeybee, Apis mellifera,. J Invertebr Pathol. 2006, 92(3), 152-9.

13. Liu Z, Tan J, Huang ZY and Dong K. Effect of a fluvalinate‐resistance‐
associated sodium channel mutation from varroa mites on cockroach sodium
channel sensitivity to fluvalinate, a pyrethroid insecticide. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2006, 36(11),:885-9.

14. Evans JD, Aronstein K, Chen YP, Hetru C, Imler JL, Jiang H, Kanost M,
Thompson GJ, Zou Z and Hultmark D. Immune pathways and defence mechanisms in honey bees Apis mellifera. Insect Mol Biol. 2006, 15(5), 645-56.

15. Desneux N, Decourtye A and Delpuech JM. The sublethal effects of
pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007, 52, 81-106.

16. Thompson H. Behavior effects of pesticides in bees - their potential
for use in risk assessmernt. Ecotoxicology 2003,12, 317-30.

17. El Hassani AK, Dacher M, Gauthier M and Armengaud C. Effects of
sublethal doses of fipronil on the behavior of the honeybee (Apis mellifera).
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2005, 82, 30-9.

18. Morandin L, Winston M, Franklin M and Abbott VA. Lethal and
sub-lethal effects of spinosad on bumble bees (Bombus impatiens Cresson). Pest Management Science, 2005, 61,619-26,

> 19. Cummins J. Requiem for the honeybee. Science in Society 34 (in
press).

20. Ramirez-Romero R, Chaufaux J and Pham-Delègue M. Effects of Cry1Ab protoxin, deltamethrin and imidacloprid on the foraging activity and the
learning performances of the honeybee Apis mellifera, a comparative approach
Apidologie 2005, 36, 601-11.

21. Hilbeck A and Schmid J. Another view of Bt proteins= How specific are
they and what else might they do Biopestic. Int. 2006, 2,1-50.

22. Malone L and Pham-Delègue M. Effects of transgene products on honey
> bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus sp.) Apidologie 2001, 32, 287-304.

23. The effects of Bt maize pollen on the honeybee, 2001-2004 Jena
University, GMO Safety, Federal Minstry of Education and Research,
_http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/oilseed_rape/honey_bees/339.docu.html_
(http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/oilseed_rape/honey_bees/339.docu.html)

24. Huang ZY, Hanley AV, Pett WL, Langenberger M. and Duan JJ. Field and
semifield evaluation of impacts of transgenic canola pollen on survival and
development of worker honey bees. J. Econ Entomol. 2004, 97(5), 1517-23.

25. Morandin L and Winston M. Wild bee abundance and seed production in
conventional, organic and genetically modified canola. Ecological Applications
2004,15, 871-81.

26. Allen-Wardell G, Bernhardt P, Bitner R, et al, The potential
consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and
stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology 1998, 12, 8-17.

27. “Are mobile phones killing our bees?” Michael Leapman, Daily Mail 16
April 2007, _http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article...
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article...)

28. Stever H and Khun J. How electromagnetic exposure can influence
learning processes – modelling effects of electromagnetic exposure on learning
processes. Unpublished ms.

29. Stever H and Kuhn J. Electromagentic exposition as an influencing
factor of learning processes – a model of effect in educational informatics.
IIAS-Transactions on Systems Research and Cybernetics. International Journal of the International Institute for Advanced Studies in systems Research and Cybernetics 2003, 3, 27-31.

30. Frier HJ, Edwards Em, Smith C, Neale s and Collett TS. Magnetic
> compass cues and visual pateern learning in honeybees. J Expt Biol 1996, 199, 1353-61.

31. Korall H, leucht T and Martin H. Bursts of magnetic fields induce
jumps of misdirection in bees by a mechanism of magnetic resonance. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 1988, 162, 279-84.

32. Kirschvink JL, Padmanabha S, Boyce CK and Oglesy J. Measurement of
the threshold sensitivity of honeybees to weak, extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. J Exptl Biol 1997, 200, 1363-8.