09-26-2012, 04:10 AM
Hmm... All than most of us know about this sort of thing is what we read on the internet. Based on my own internet research, there is not yet a smoking gun, but there is a long history of theories being embraced prematurely and overzealously.
In this case the small company appears to be invested in the theory that CCD is caused by a virus, not chemicals. Monsanto should be happy. If it is the virus, it is not their chemicals.
I don't know the real answer. None of us do. In fact no one in the world does, or this controversy would not live on as it has. I fear that Monsanto's chemicals may play a part, but I don't know that they do. The opening salvo of this thread seems to present as known facts things which are only theories. Furthermore there is an undercurrent of anti-Monsanto zeal that carries the arguments over gaps in logic.
I think that the recent history of bees in Hawaii supports the theory that pests are to blame for most of the declines. We had a booming bee population in spite of monsanto, until bee mites and small hive beetles showed up. The declines of bees correlate strongly with the appearance of these pests, whereas on the mainland these pests go back decades and the overlap between them and GMOs and neonics clouds the issue.
Whenever this issue comes up people come out of the woodwork screaming "the end of humanity as we know it", seemingly ignorant of the fact that both Hawaii and the new world used to sustain high populations without european honeybees. My point is not that I want to start over without honeybees, but that as with so many other controversies there are so many unseen agendas that have to be filtered out and accounted for.
In this case the small company appears to be invested in the theory that CCD is caused by a virus, not chemicals. Monsanto should be happy. If it is the virus, it is not their chemicals.
I don't know the real answer. None of us do. In fact no one in the world does, or this controversy would not live on as it has. I fear that Monsanto's chemicals may play a part, but I don't know that they do. The opening salvo of this thread seems to present as known facts things which are only theories. Furthermore there is an undercurrent of anti-Monsanto zeal that carries the arguments over gaps in logic.
I think that the recent history of bees in Hawaii supports the theory that pests are to blame for most of the declines. We had a booming bee population in spite of monsanto, until bee mites and small hive beetles showed up. The declines of bees correlate strongly with the appearance of these pests, whereas on the mainland these pests go back decades and the overlap between them and GMOs and neonics clouds the issue.
Whenever this issue comes up people come out of the woodwork screaming "the end of humanity as we know it", seemingly ignorant of the fact that both Hawaii and the new world used to sustain high populations without european honeybees. My point is not that I want to start over without honeybees, but that as with so many other controversies there are so many unseen agendas that have to be filtered out and accounted for.