You think your honey is safe....NOT!!!

Discussion in 'Bee News' started by roadkillbobb, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
  2. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris Member

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    A bit alarmist of a title (and news paper article). Neonics have very low toxicity to humans; for example, imidacloprid has an LD50 of 450mg/kg; about 5x as toxic as table salt, and half as toxic as cola. And dose makes the poison - the highest level of neonic found in any of the honeys was ~10000-fold below the level reported as intoxicating for bees.

    Not saying that neonics are not an issue for bees, but this paper doesn't show anything alarming.

    B
     

  3. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If you add up all the poisons found in our food supply no one may be a big issue, but collectivey they do add up and do we really know the long term damage they will do to us? Monsanto has done a great job squashing as much negative info against them that gets printed... and keeps down playing that any of the pesticides and GMOs have on the bee population... I like to take the read between the lines approach when reading these type articles...
     
    ccjersey likes this.
  4. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris Member

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Toxicology isn't typically additive; compounds with unrelated mechanisms of toxicity do not have additive effects. In the case of neonics, we simply lack the genes targeted by them, so to us they are nothing more to us than a slightly bitter compounds that are on-par (toxicity wise) with common things in our diet like salt and pepsi. Neonics are simply a derivative of natural plant alkaloid compounds that we consume in massive amounts every day - including things like caffeine and aspirin. They just happen to target insect neuronal receptors, which is why they are toxic to bugs but not people/animals.

    In terms of "do we know what the effects are", the answer is "generally yes". The first thing is that most pesticides are used at lower doses today that historically - pesticide use peaked in 1980 and has dropped since, so we have a good feeling for what higher-than today exposure looks like. Moreover, most modern pesticides have lower toxicity and environmental impact than those used historically (ironically, the major exception to this is the pesticides used by the organics industry). Most of the pesticides used today have been in use since the 80's, which means that we have ~30 years of data on the effect of (decreasing) continual exposure over trillions of consumed meals. And that is in addition to animal and biochemical data collected in laboratories, and from data stemming from veterinarian researchers monitoring their effect on livestock. There are scientists who have made their lifes-work the tracking of these exposures and analyses of potential effects, and we know their risks very well.

    When it comes to new compounds, we also typically know up-front what the risks are. Toxicology is not magic; chemicals are absorbed, partition into tissues, bioaccumulate, metabolized and excreted in very predictable ways. There are very good assays for determining toxicity in the lab prior to field trials/etc. Prior to being legally sold, a full assessment must be conducted which includes all of these properties, along with a pretty extensive environmental analysis.

    In terms of monsanto, sorry but that is nothing more than BS sold by people with a motivation to ignore science. Reality is that the world is full of scientists such as myself (and Dr. Lu, who published the paper in question) who are completely independent of monsanto/merck/etc. We're funded independently of any company input, publications go through peer review without company involvement, and papers are usually published without the company even being aware they are coming out. The whole "monsanto suppresses everything negative/publishes false supportive studies" is nothing more than a strawman, used as an excuse to ignore inconvenient data and the absence of data supporting their personal beliefs.

    Bryan
     
  5. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ok, first I will say I respect the info you supplied and your opinion on the subject, I also dont know where your loyalties belong to,but I also have to weigh in the hundreds or thousands of web sights, organizations and other scientists that say otherwise, also the amount of food allergies that have become issue since GMO has been introduced in both human and animals and the introduction of new pesticides and herbicides on the market my many chemical companies that have adversely affected many species that never had issues before..before GMO I would buy tomatoes that would last a week in the fridge and have taste and nutrients, now the tomato will last for a month or so, has no taste and reduced nutrients( as other scientists have tested and proven)..this tampering with nature has produced many un wanted side effects that are constantly down played, but if you look at the environment and issues we have now that didnt exist decades ago, its hard to believe all the messing around and new chemical agents didnt have some effect on this.. can you answer me this? if pest resistant corn kills off pests, how does it know good insect from bad? again this is my opinion from what I researched and dont ask anyone to take it as pure fact, but to do their own research and come to their own conclusions...:)
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017
  6. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris Member

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    My loyalties are to science...I am an academic researcher, and other than the odd contract for developing infection control & QC procedures for fermentation companies (yoghurt, beer, cheese, etc), I have no commercial links. My one interaction with pharma has been to show that a drug under trial didn't work as advertised. I also grew up a farmer, and am moving back into that world as we 'speak'. As part of my academic duties I have taught courses on pharmacology/toxicology, so I know a fair bit about that field, although it isn't my expertise...which is immunology (i.e. allergies, responses to pathogens, etc).

    Just to tackle a few things you brought up:
    1. There are no GMO tomatoes, so whatever is going on with your tomatoes is not due to GMO. Tomatoes last longer for the unsexiest of reasons - conventional breeding for slow-ripening strains. This is also why tomatoes suck today; the traits selected for slow-ripening also killed a lot of the flavour. Ironically, the only GMO tomato ever made (and withdrawn from the market prior to commercial release) was developed to prevent this loss of flavour. A quick search of the scientific literature did not find a single article claiming the nutritional value of tomatos has decreased.
    2. Food allergies were increasing decades prior to the first introduction of any GMO foods. The cause of increases in food allergy are well-known; a loss of helmithic infections, resulting in Th1 skewing of the immune system (fancy way of saying we're too clean, so our immune system starts attaching things it shouldn't). There is some evidence that antibiotic use may also be a factor, due to altered gut biota, although that is somewhat controversial. Their is also an acknowledged survival bias (e.g. kids no longer die when they have their first exposure, so more survive to then have allergies requiring management), and a reporting bias (there are central databases tracking these now; and the timing of the deployment of these databases corresponded to large 'spikes' in incidence). Also, most food allergies are against crops which have not been GMO'd.
    3. The environmental issues relating to pesticide and fertiliser use are less now than historically (in developed nations), largely due to the use of better-designed products and stricter laws regulating their use. One example, showing the trend in nitrate contamination of water. That's not to say that there isn't environmental issues - there are - but the ones which are worsening (in the developed world) are mostly those related to climate change and habitat loss.
    4. Anyone can put anything on the web; I'd suggest you look to publications by reputable scientific organisations for info on science. The vast majority of stuff on the web is wrong.
    Bryan
     
  7. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ok, you have given me some items to research, I appreciate the detailed response to each concern, I have a grasp of what your saying about living in a too clean of an environment as we killed our own immune build up...sorta like the movie war of the worlds...we over time developed immunity to the commonest germs and the aliens dint and died..lol
     
  8. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    ok I looked around and thought about it for a while...and I still dont trust the gov or anyone telling me ingesting pesticide or herbicide is safe for the long term..and here is why..lead, asbestos, tobacco, the air at 911 trade center and the list goes on of items in the past the people have been told are safe to use and be around and 30 to 40 years later its proven different and plenty of people are dying from..how can you tell long term effects on a human if a product is only a decade or so old..you cant..you can go with your best guess, but thats all you have..so again no disrespect to your opinion on the matter , but this too is the internet...;)
     
  9. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris Member

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Actually, our ability to tell if something has long-term toxicity is pretty good; we have assays and knowledge today not available in the 1960's. For most molecules, the risk of acute and chronic exposure can be reasonably determined from the chemical structure alone; the risk of acute and chronic exposure (as well as carcinogenic and tetranogenic effect) can then be directly tested with well established models that have a good history of accuracy. Moreover, glyphosate has also been on the market since 1974, long enough for any chronic exposure risk to be apparent; likewise, neonics have been on the market since 1985; again, more than enough time to directly observe risk.

    ...its also worth pointing out that your "sources" are lying to you; at no time did the US gov claim smoking was safe. In fact, the very first time a US federal gov agency released an official report on smoking was the January 11, 1964 surgeon generals report...which concluded that "cigarette smoking is - A cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men, A probable cause of lung cancer in women, The most important cause of chronic bronchitis". Much of the data for that came from the CDC, which as early as 1948 was funding research into the link between smoking and bronchitis. Prior to 1942 the US gov had zero agencies tasked with regulating health hazards, but even so, acknowledged lead as toxin in the early 1900's and engaged in nearly 30 years of litigation with the lead industry in order to try and regulate its use.

    As I said, anyone can put anything on the 'net. Its unfortunate that you've chosen to use unreliable and factually incorrect sources for your "information".
     
  10. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I try not to rely on any 1 or 2 sources of info, and like I said before, I dont trust any governing body on what they say, the amount of scandals and corruption for big business has been going on from the 1800s ... the amount of man made chemicals that are now present in our environment are not good for us and anyone saying they are im sorry but are lying for corporate greed...there are just too many people dying from all kinds of stuff..heres another..BPA..so now its all BPA free plastics and the plastic is still toxic..you say everyone else is lying..how do I know you arent?? and again im not attacking you just giving an example, I dont know you from Adam, maybe if we were close friends for years and I could trust your info as the truth it would be different, but I dont know you, im sure you are very well educated and have great knowledge..but so do many of the scientists with conflicting info on many subjects..so we can agree to disagree at this point...I posted the article just to have people be aware of there environment around them and to open their eyes and see for themselves what may be going on around them and have people come to their own conclusions, not base what my opinion is as fact...:)
     
  11. Royalcoachman

    Royalcoachman New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi, Interesting conversation. Hope you do not mind an additional comment for SuiGeneris.

    I have a close friend 50 years old that has farmed his whole life. He is now suffering from several neurological disorders. If all these chemicals that farmers have been associated with are so safe, why are farmers at such a high risk of cancer and other disorders? Check out the percentage. I can not quote all the numbers.

    If the chemical industry is so up front with the public and so trustworthy, why are they selling the chemicals that we deem unsafe to ignorant people in third world countries? People that can hardly read. Again, check the percentage of those people with chemical caused maladies.

    I have nephew with a MS in chemical engineering, he has a high post in a large US industry. He is a global warming denier. What's with chemistry majors?
    Just had to add that jab.

    The industry you are dealing with is a INDUSTRY! The bottom line is the most important thing. They will say and do anything to increase their value. There are decent companies that try not to screw the public but it is not the chemical industry. What is the possibility that you have been brain washed by your "sources"?

    Foreign chemicals in our bodies are just that FOREIGN. No matter how small the dose they are still foreign. No matter how many analysis's are performed they can not take into account the differences in each individuals genes. I and my wife may be in contact with the same flu bug, one of us may get it and the other will not. Same with chemicals in our bodies. We are all individuals, you can not "analyze" for all the differences.
    Some thing is wrong and to deny that the foreign chemicals have nothing to do with some of the problems goes against probability. The bees are trying to show us something is wrong.

    I may get kicked off this site for that but I just can not let it go. Sorry if I offended you I didn't want to.
     
  12. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Royal, this is an open dialog and all input is welcome if not encouraged.....:)
    ps, your not gona get kicked off for any polite difference of opinion and dont get me started on the now its called " climate change " scam...they changed it from global warming because that didnt work out for them, so now climate change can cover anything that happens..lol
     
  13. ccjersey

    ccjersey Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    The point that I think most people miss about doing good science is you cannot trust it if the investigator "has an ax to grind". Even the most intelligent people can unintentionally bias their results and certainly their conclusions when they have a preconceived idea about how the results "should" turn out.

    For example when someone has a child with autism, it would be very hard to distance ones self from the personal emotional connection to design, carry out and interpret investigational science about autism. I do not doubt that it can be done, but the track record of folks in that situation is not good. There is an old saying that applies here......"a doctor that treats himself has a fool for a patient".

    Then you have the constant lure of fame (or even notoriety) that leads us down paths that are unimaginable to others not so bitten by that particular bug. The end result is junk "science" that gets by a reviewer that assumes the investigator honestly designed, carried out and interpreted the results of the study. It gets published and these days splashed across the internet even before publication and critique by other scientists knowledgible enough to critique it. Such a study may not hold up to scrutiny and eventually be discredited by the scientific community but still become the basis for a conspiracy theory that XYZ multinational corporation/the government etc has suppressed the "truth".

    A case in point is the claim that childhood vaccinations cause autism. I am sure most folks considered that a reasonable hypothesis in need of investigation but the one unethical scientist that "cooked up" a study to "prove" it became famous and did a lot of damage to humanity. Once his study was published and began to be critiqued by knowledgeable scientists it eventually was discredited and retracted by the journal that published it, but the damage was done and now we have a strong anti-vax movement and outbreaks of preventable childhood diseases that had become rare and have not diminished the incidence of autism.

    I encourage everyone to look up some of Randy Oliver's blog posts on pesticides and neonicatinoids in particular. His website is Scientific Beekeeping.
     
  14. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I reference that sight, scientific bee keeping often, it is a great resource and have read some of his articles on this issue..and there is alot of info to digest and it comes down to what you want to believe as not alot is proven beyond 100% doubt..( not from his web site, but all the info he has collected on the subject of pesticide, herbicide in the environment). I will continue to believe all these chemicals are not safe to the human race long term, that is my right to believe and your right not to believe, when billions and trillions of $$ are at stake and the corruption that follows are hard to ignore on many levels..just look at the now named climate change scam, again my belief and opinion...lots of smart scientists and people on opposite sides..anything not in our bodies at birth chemical wise seems to hurt us in the long run....again my belief and opinion...if this gets people to start looking around and questioning whats going on in our world..then that is a positive result..:)
     
  15. Gypsi

    Gypsi Super Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,691
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think that the interaction of chemicals is a very complex topic, and I read somewhere, and have forgotten where, that the combination of Roundup with I think it was a fungicide, is toxic to bees. The neonics cause problems with navigation if excessive powder from the seed is carried into ditches along side the fields and the bees try to gather the dust as pollen. Lose a lot of bees that way.

    No system is perfect, not organics, not chemical laden. I think that we are playing with fire with a lot of things environmentally, and that we need to learn how things interact. My garden is about 90% organic, but away from the garden and where beneficial nematodes won't perform well I will use ant block, I just have to keep my chickens out of it.

    And yes the anti-vax scam does a lot of harm. It is quite possible that exposure to mercury and other environmental toxins by the parents are causing autism, and it has always been true that if the father is older, the likelihood of autism was higher, back when the stats were much lower than they are today.

    I wish I had the education, and particularly the time, to conduct studies but I do well to manage to treat my bees.

    I've run down diseases in aquatics, and treatments, but even that I'm running out of time for and having to depend on others experiences, recommendations by medicine vendors, etc.

    I've been kicked off a couple of places for not always nodding my head and sagely agreeing with whoever runs the site. I would like this site to allow open discussions as long as they don't become personal attacks on people.. If we are all mature I think we will do fine.

    (and I know some immature 70 year olds but they aren't on here.)
     
  16. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I do think all the anti bacterial soaps and quick use of antibiotics on people have caused a lot of issues of knocking down peoples own immune systems. when I was setting up my koi pond everyone wanted to sell me all these expensive UV lights to sterilize the water and my question was they dont do that in the big koi ponds over seas and what if a bird craps in the pond, the fish will have no natural immunity against germs, and the response was , then you medicate them..I have my koi pond for over 20 years and never used any of the UV lights or antibiotics on them and never had any issue with disease ...another issue is all the pharmaceuticals are ending up in our water supply and the treatment plants dont have the ability to filter them out and plenty of animals and insects drink that same water..that has to have an effect on them as it does on humans....there are so many factors that intertwine for end results, too many to fully study to get real answers..but there are way more chemical to human contact now than many years in the past , almost every food we buy now is wrapped in some sort of plastic that has to leech chemicals, then all the building materials and furniture in our houses and cars are full of nasty chemicals that leech into the air we breath..no way is that doing us any good and the rise in all the medical issues in developed countries far out way the countries still living simple lives in simple houses or huts without all this man made stuff...
     
  17. Gypsi

    Gypsi Super Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,691
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I also don't use UV lights, and my number one best ich prevention for fish is a dip in noniodized salt water for a couple of minutes (for freshwater fish). The antibacterial everything has actually been taken back a step, except for toothpaste the chemical triclosan is out of most of our personal care products. But yes, kids exposed to more germs, are healthier. So my grandkids come out here and help collect chicken eggs and clean out the coop. Can't get much germier than that
     
  18. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have been adding salt to the pond water to also build up the slim on the fish that helps protect them..If I get a very sick fish with growths( once in the last 10 years) ill pull that fish into a quarantine tank and treat with potassium permanginate...and see how the fish does for a few weeks then reintroduce into he main pond..
    I truly believe what doesnt kill you makes you stronger, as one of the hats Ive worn in my life as a plumber dealing with sewage and all the yuck in drain pipes, I rarely get sick and will contribute it to that and all the other dirt and crap Ive been exposed to over the years...
     
  19. Gypsi

    Gypsi Super Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,691
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Our water has enough salt in it here, I don't tend to add it.. Don't see a lot of growths on fish as long as algaecides aren't used, big plus on that non chemical system.
     
  20. roadkillbobb

    roadkillbobb Member

    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Im stuck using city water and all the junk in it, I use a chlorine killer as I fill the pond so the fish dont belly up and test for salt content for just a few % in the water...upstate I have well water without all the junk they put in and it looks and tastes so much better...