I was browsing around today, reading what a few people had to say on genetically engineered crops, as I usually do from time to time. I eventually found myself on the website of the Organic Consumers Association, and besides several questionable unreferences articles here and there, I found a hum-dinger. Give Bees a Chance - Ban Genetically Engineered Crops. It was reproduced from TheSimon.com. Care to see how dumb it is?

DICERTime to whip out my enzyme. It slices, it dices!
The article starts out with a bold claim, not one that I’m ready to disagree with, but without knowing the cause of CCD, we can’t say we know it.

The disappearance of bee colonies around the world could ravage agriculture — and it’s all our fault.

Still, I’m ready to see what evidence they have to support their claim, aren’t you?

Rumor has it Albert Einstein once declared humanity could only outlive the bee by about four years. His reasoning was simple: “no more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”

Nothing like entomological doomsday scenarios from a classical physicist, right?

Rumor has it that people who repeat unsourced false quotations of classical physicists are too lazy to call up entomologists to find out what effect this entomological “doomsday” will have on the world. Not the best way to start out an article.

Nonetheless, it looks like we’re poised to find out if the godfather of relativity is right. Bees are disappearing at an alarming rate, particularly in the United States and Germany. And while it’s normal for hive populations to fall during colder winter months, the recent exodus is puzzling beekeepers and researchers around the world. Are we witnessing the death throes of the human race firsthand? Will the bee go the way of the dodo? Not likely, but I’ll tell you one thing ­ whatever’s driving the collapse of the bee population, it’s man-made.

Are you sure women aren’t involved? The article then goes into a brief summary of the discovery of the CCD phenomenon. Next, we find a survey of the likeliest causes,

So what’s the cause of colony collapse? Suspicions are pointed in several different directions, including cell phone transmissions and agricultural pesticides, some of which are known to be poisonous to bees. But if these two factors are responsible, why are the deaths not a global phenomenon? The bee collapse began in isolated pockets before progressing rapidly around the nation. If cell phones are to blame, shouldn’t the effect have been simultaneous, and witnessed years ago? And if pesticides are strictly to blame, shouldn’t beekeepers near major farm systems be able to track those pollutants and narrow the field of possible suspects?

Perhaps they have ­ and the culprit is bigger than we imagine.

Yes, once you’ve ruled out cell phones and pesticides, then is can only be one thing - GMOs! Let’s forget the fact that some of the crops that CCD is associated with, such as pumpkins, have no genetically-engineered varieties being grown. Perhaps they have, and the laziness is bigger than we imagine.

Several scientists have come forward with the startling claim that genetically modified food ­ you know, that blessing from above that would solve famine and put food in the belly of every undernourished, Third World child ­ is destroying bees. How could something so wondrous as pest-resistant corn kill millions upon millions of bees? Simple ­ by producing so much natural pesticide that bees are either driven mad or away.

Yes, the infamous un-named scientists that have come forward in such huge numbers that we couldn’t name them all here. We see the same kind of un-sourced statement coming from creationists as they talk about the scientists that “question” darwinism. Give us some names, because I’ve only heard of a few, and their evidence hasn’t held up to convince any of their peers.

Most genetically-modified seeds have a transplanted segment of DNA that creates a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), in its cells. Normally Bt is not a problem ­ it’s a naturally-occurring pesticide that’s been used as a spray for years by farmers looking to control crop damage from butterflies. And it’s effective at helping beekeepers keep bees alive, too ­ Bt is sprayed under hive lids to keep those pesky wax moths from attacking.

They repeat an old falsehood promoted by many outspoken critics of GE crops - that the DNA inserted into the crops creates a bacterium in the plant’s cells. Bzzzz! thank you for playing! What is inserted is a segment of DNA that makes a protein called Bt, or “Cry(letters and numbers for the many different variants of Bt)”. It does not put a living bacterial cell inside the plant, it puts in a protein that starves the guts of very specific insects.

I hadn’t heard of Bt being used inside of beehives to control wax moths before, turns out that it is true. (reference)

“The planting of transgenic corn and soybean has increased exponentially, according to statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to move off crop fields.”

And in the same time period we’ve seen a rise in reality-TV shows and Atkins-type diet programs. Because nothing establishes that A causes B than that A exists.

“The amount of Bt in these plants is enough to trigger allergies in some people, and irritate the skin and eyes of farmers who handle the crops,” writes Patrick Wiebe. “In India, when sheep were used to clear a field of leftover Bt cotton, several sheep died after eating it.” If it can kill a sheep, it can certainly kill a bee.

What can be done? Precious little if gene-modified plants are the genesis of colony collapse. “There is no way to keep genetically modified genes from escaping into the wild,” says Mike Rivero. “Wild varieties of corn in Mexico have been found to contain artificial genes carried by the wind and bees. Indeed it is probable that the gene that makes the plant cells manufacture a pesticide has already escaped, which means this problem will only spread.

Who is Patrick Wiebe? There are repetitions of the sheep-killed-by-Bt-cotton claim all over the internet, but few seem to point out that the sheep only seem to have been killed in one place, by causes not attributable to Bt cotton. It seems that if anything dies while a GE crop is around, there’s a certain group of people that jump to the conclusion that the transgene did it. By the way, Bt does not affect mammals, we have a different digestion system! I have read some of the claims about elevated allergies to Bt in corn pollen - but they have consistently left out an analysis of IgE antibodies that would back up the claims of allergic reactions. By the way, I just finished working out in a field of normal corn - and corn pollen is allergenic by itself! (Don’t take my anecdote too seriously - it is just an anecdote.)
About the mexican corn, they seem to be promoting the long-since-discredited (the first retraction by the journal Nature in its history) research of Ignacio Chapela. Just a couple years ago a followup study found that the landraces of corn in mexico do not contain transgenes. (more specifically, no transgenes were detected, meaning the level was below a tiny percentage, if present at all) By the way, landraces are not “wild.” Corn does not grow without humans involved.

“This is far more dangerous than a toxic spill, which confines itself to the original spill and the downwind/downstream plumes. A mistake in a gene, once allowed into the wild, can spread across the entire planet.”

I’m sorry, but it will only spread if it gives the plant an adaptive advantage. Interestingly enough, there have been several mistakes in traditional breeding, decades ago. How come these mistakes haven’t poisoned the planet with toxic potatoes and burning celery? I have noticed that anti-GE folks will often overlook the same issues if they are “naturally-caused,” which makes no sense. Now let’s get a sense of perspective - we’re talking about a protein that requires certain receptors in insect guts and thus only acts on those target insects - contrast that to the pesticide plume that the Bt protein replaces and then get back to me.

Genetically-modified food is produced by companies such as Monsanto (how many of its scientists do you think drive a hybrid?). Despite a number of tests, the food created by these gene-spliced crops are considered a failure. It consistently makes animals ill, increases liver toxicity, and damages kidneys. What’s the incentive to grow this food? What’s the incentive to eat it?

Yes - we assume that Monsanto scientists don’t drive hybrids, therefore GMOs kill bees. Would Monsanto scientists driving hybrids mean that GE crops don’t cause CCD? Where’s the logical connection? The author implies that we can expect that whether or not you drive a hybrid can be a reliable test for how environmentally-minded they are. It’s just a short illogical jump from there to concluding that therefore GE crops are bad for the environment because you can easily make an assumption
Given the fact that a large proportion of soybeans, corn, canola, etc, grown have had transgenes inserted into them - and that we don’t have people dying in the streets or in front of their TVs while eating their processed TV dinners, you’d think that would clue you into the falsity of the claim that gene spliced crops “consistently make animals ill.” I think they may be referring to a botched study on a handful of juvenile rats fed nothing but raw potatoes - I wish that the author would provide references for these claims. I don’t seem to see anything about liver toxicity in the above article, so stating it in the conclusion as a given seems, I don’t know, like bad journalism.

Let me make a suggestion as to what incentive there is to grow the GE crops that are currently in the market. Pesticide reduction when using Bt (Cotton normally uses a huge amount of pesticides, BTW). Abandoning the herbicide atrazine for the safer glyphosate. No-till or conservation tillage methods made possible by using herbicide-tolerant crops. (Also reduces greenhouse gases - so much for the hybrid car argument.) As for the reasons for growing the GE crops that are coming out in the near future, benefits will range from reducing the amount of nitrogen necessary to grow crops, to bio-fortified tomatoes (more nutritious), RNAi-decaffeinated coffee (with no flavor loss from the decaffeination process), and my personal favorite, the Javamochalattevanillachino bean. Ah, if only…

They have touched upon something very important for the acceptance of GE crops among consumers - what’s the incentive to eat it? The GE crops that are currently grown do not give direct benefits to the consumer - the benefits are currently only for the farmer, and in some cases the environment. The GE varieties that have been commercialized are in very few crops that are grown on a wide scale, such as corn, soy, canola, cotton, and I think wheat. There’s no difference on the food-end of things, so people often think, Why should I eat it if there’s no direct benefit for me? But because there’s no difference on the food end of things, the question can also become, Why should I avoid eating it?

In our dash to trademark the very building blocks of our food supply, companies experimenting with “upgrading” crops may have irreparably damaged one of nature’s most important contributors. Instead of approaching famine from a balanced perspective, corporations have patented the right to subsist. If Einstein’s lesser-known theory is right, they have unwittingly become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds.

Wait ­ that was Oppenheimer. I need to stop quoting dead German physicists.

That would be a good start. I suggest for your second step, you try consulting the wikipedia page on CCD which thoroughly debunks the GE crop claim, and thirdly, consult the researchers actually working on CCD - they have stated that the symptoms of CCD are inconsistent with BT affecting them. Then reference your claims in a scholarly fashion rather than unwittingly repeating cultural mythology without checking it.

Give bees a chance. Roll back the Frankenfood and pray the bee colonies return to pollinate our way to a full stomach.

Wait, I thought that you couldn’t eliminate them once introduced, how do you roll them back? Seriously now, they haven’t provided one scrap of evidence that GE crops have had anything to do with Colony Collapse Disorder, they are just reaching their pre-determined conclusion with a mound of falsehoods, and a handful of anecdotes and quotes about GE crops that have nothing to do with honeybees. The author, Matt Hutaff, approached the issue with the conclusion in mind, and conveniently put it at the beginning of his article as well. Also note that they called for the banning of all GE crops, not just the ones with Bt. Another clue to their predisposition. If Bt was actually a problem, there would be no cause to recall herbicide-tolerant crops, for example.
They’ve contradicted themselves several times, but here’s one I would like to point out again. I learned something today - that Bt sprays are used INSIDE beehives to treat them for wax moths. Inside the hive, it will get all over the honey and pollen, and get eaten by the bees. Why aren’t they dying off as a result? Because Bt does not kill bees. From wikipedia:

“a field study… (soon to be published in the bee journal Apidologie) there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt proteins on honey bees”, and, specifically regarding the possible causal connections between Bt pollen and CCD, stated “While this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence reported here argues strongly that the current use of Bt crops is not associated with CCD.”

No bees were harmed in the planting of these crops, and no entomologists were interviewed for this “article” on honeybee biology and toxicity. Think about that.