Bee Colony collapse disorder (CCD), Nosema and Varroa mite Infections (and other suspects - except GM crops). Klaus Ammann, ASK-FORCE, AF-1 revised Version 20160205 open-source, 105 pages. With 331 full text references, [email protected] 1. The Issue: ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.1. Alarmist press releases: The colony collapse disorder (CCD) is allegedly caused by GM crops ......... 2 1.2. False lobby reports of (organic) Bee Keeper Associations .................................................................. 3 1.3. More cheap propaganda blaming GM crops for CCD, without scientific evidence ............................ 4 2. Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3. General comments ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1. Recent scientific reviews on CCD ........................................................................................................ 6 3.2. Latest reports on general management of experimentation with bees in laboratories and field .... 19 3.3. GM crops ruled out as a possible cause of CCD ................................................................................ 21 3.4. Reports of CCD from times when GM crops did not exist yet ........................................................... 29 4. More recent scientific information on possible causes of CCD................................................................. 30 4.1. Recent Honeybee Colony Declines, Summary in Science and CSR Report for the US Congress ...... 30 4.2. Negative influence of landscape structure and biodiversity through modern agriculture? ............. 33 4.3. Possible protein deficiency as a follow up of a Picornia–like viral infection ..................................... 40 4.4. Imidacloprid (and neonicotinoids) or other pesticides and fungicides as possible cause of CCD? ... 42 4.5. A novel way of intoxication of Honeybees: Translocation through guttation drops ....................... 60 4.6. Another new possible cause of the Colony Collapse Disorder: Entombed Pollen?.......................... 62 4.7. Energetic stress: a possible cause of the Colony Collapse Disorder? ................................................ 62 4.8. A virus (IAPV, Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus) might be the cause of CCD ............................................ 63 4.9. Varroa mite infection, a major threat to honeybees ........................................................................ 65 4.10. Natural infection by Nosema ceranae (including Nosema apis) the cause of CCD? ......................... 69 4.11. Chalkbrood and stonebrood: two fungal diseases affecting Honeybees .......................................... 72 4.12. A new threat to the honeybees: the parasitic Phorid fly Apocephalus borealis ............................... 73 4.13. Could climate change contribute to the colony collapse of Honeybees? ......................................... 74 4.14. Inbreeding may cause bee populations more susceptible to infections? ......................................... 74 4.15. Could Electro-smog be the cause of the Colony Collapse Disorder? ................................................. 76 4.16. Hidden GMOs not substantiated in relation to bee mortality .......................................................... 76 4.17. Diesel exhaust rapidly degrades floral odours used by honeybees .................................................. 77 4.18. Monsanto proposes a solution .......................................................................................................... 77 2 4.19. The Issue of multiple factors ............................................................................................................. 78 4.20. Legal Aspects, EU Court of Justice Decisions, EU Labelling Rules, Misunderstandings among European Bee Keepers ..................................................................................................................................... 80 4.21. Summary: Colony Collapse Disorder: Many suspects, no smoking gun, except the Varroa mite, other parasites and the Deformed Viral Wing disease, systemic pesticides (imidacloprids) focus on regional differences ....................................................................................................................................................... 82 5. Bibliography Scientific Literature and Reports ............................................................................................. 85 6. Literature cited .......................................................................................................................................................... 85 1. The Issue: 1.1. Alarmist press releases: The colony collapse disorder (CCD) is allegedly caused by GM crops Read the article from the German weekly magazine DER SPIEGEL, the magazine maintains also a website in English: Der Spiegel Online International http://www.spiegel.de/ as a typical example of a sensational, unsubstantiated European press feature: In the headlines they ask: “Are GM Crops Killing Bees”? The German Contribution talks in the headline about “Aids in the Bee Hive”. And instead of making the allegation that GM crops are the real culprit themselves, they interview a well-known beekeeper and opponent of GM crops. Latsch, G. (2007) Aids im Bienenstock, Der Spiegel 12 pp 58-59 (Der Spiegel Article) English: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Bees/Latsch-CCD-Spiegel-2007.pdf Latsch, G. (2007) Electronic Source: Are GM Crops Killing Bees? , Der Spiegel Online International, published by: Der Spiegel Online March 22, 2007 Spiegel Online for free: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html “Walter Haefeker, the German beekeeping official, speculates that “besides a number of other factors,” the fact that genetically modified, insect-resistant plants are now used in 40 percent of cornfields in the United States could be playing a role. The figure is much lower in Germany—only 0.06 percent—and most of that occurs in the eastern states of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Brandenburg. Haefeker recently sent a researcher at the CCD Working Group some data from a bee study that he has long felt shows a possible connection between genetic engineering and diseases in bees. The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called “Bt corn” on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a “toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations.” But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a “significantly stronger decline in the number of bees” occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Ask-force.org/web-poison feed. According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have “altered the surface of the bee’s intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry—or perhaps it was the other way around. We don’t know.” Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt-corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period. Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. “Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research,” says the professor, “and those who are interested don’t have the money.” (Latsch, 2007) 3 The irony is, that Prof. Kaatz got an additional hefty sum of 300’000 Euro to finish up his studies, his report was not available for many years to the Monitor experts (the author of this report was a member of the expert group). Prof. Kaatz was very unhappy about this illegally broken embargo with the preliminary alarm despite clear promises by the Spiegel journalist. The author of this report tried to help him, but it was simply too late and Prof. Kaatz himself did not want to exacerbate the dispute further on – unfortunately. The final report (Kaatz, 2004) then stated without any doubt that negative impacts could be excluded completely. All details in the chapter 3.3 of this report, ruling out GMOs as a reason for the CCD. It is astonishing, that the report has never been published. Citations from the report in chapter 3.3. In such disputes, a new phenomenon appears to work with success: the denial and automatic rejection of scientific work and expertise, nowhere in this unfortunate Spiegel-triggered controversy there was mention of the well-known and well published expertise of Prof. Hand Hinrich Kaatz, here just two examples of his earlier scientific work on bees: (Kaatz et al., 1985; Kaatz et al., 1992). Nevertheless, bad news always finds the way into the journals, whether proven or not, is not important, a typical alarmist publication