There Is NO Bee Crisis – Glyphosate Will Not Harm Bees – 2018 09 26 & 2015 10 13










Glyphosate Will Not Harm Bees



Glyphosate has a low bee toxicity ranking. 


Bee conspiracy fanatжcs, not widely known for their truthfulness, have made ridiculous allegations about Glyphosate    including the disruption of the biome in the gut of bees.  [ ?!?! ] 


The study behind these allegations are FLAWED with QUESTIONABLE DATA. 


Tests have PROVEN that Glyphosate has harmed practically NO bees. 












September 26th, 2018


Dr Josh Bloom


American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH )


Selected And Adapted Excerpts


Original Reference 


Reference — PCP & Bees — 2018 09 26 — Glyphosate — Bee Death Story Is Bee-S — Bloom — ACSH










Also explore another BEE-S link 


Fewer Bees Or Just More BEE-S ?!?!













Glyphosate, presently the world’s most hated chemical, has been blamed for just about every ailment in humans and animals. 


EcoWatch, a group [ i.e. environmental-terrжrist organization ] not widely known for accurate reporting, has made ridiculous claims about Glyphosate. 


Reference — PCP & Bees — 2015 01 23 — 15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup — EcoWatch — Lunatжc Report  


Now we have another one    disruption of the biome in the gut of bees.  [ ?!?! ] 


Erick Motta and colleagues at The University of Texas in Austin published a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ( PNAS ). 


It was entitled « Glyphosate Perturbs The Gut Micro-Biota Of Honey Bees » in which they claim that the herbicide is harming bees    [ ?!?! ] 


Understanding how Glyphosate impacts bee gut symbionts and bee health will help elucidate a possible role of this chemical in colony decline.  [ ?!?! ] 


Reference — PCP & Bees — 2018 10 09 — Glyphosate Perturbs The Gut Micro-Biota Of Honey Bees — Lunatжc Report — PNAS


The paper is long, detailed, and contains five rather complex figures. 


It is not easy to follow. 


Rather than evaluate the biology, I picked out some QUESTIONABLE DATA, explanations, and conclusions. 


If the study behind the paper is FLAWED, then it DOES NOT matter how complex or sophisticated the biology is. 


Here are some fairly obvious problems    see next segments. 








Glyphosate Bee Death Story Is BEE-S


1.  Glyphosate Dose



Here is a fairly obvious problem. 


According to paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ( PNAS )   


Hundreds of adult worker bees were collected from a single hive, treated with either 5 mg/L Glyphosate ( G-5 ), 10 mg/L Glyphosate ( G-10 ) or [ control ] for 5 d, and returned to their original hive. 


[ … ]


Glyphosate concentrations were chosen to mimic environmental levels, which typically range between 1.4 and 7.6 mg/L, and may be encountered by bees foraging at flowering weeds. 


Whoa ! 


Here is an ASSUMPTION that puzzles me. 


What does a dose of 5-10 mg have to do with the amount of Glyphosate that would be found in, or consumed by, a bee foraging in weeds that contain a similar concentration ?!?! 


What is the relevance of this dose to real life ?!?! 


How much Glyphosate is found in a bee that has not been fed Glyphosate ?!?!








Glyphosate Bee Death Story Is BEE-S


2.  Lack Of Dose Response



Here is a fairly obvious problem. 


According to paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ( PNAS )   


The effects of Glyphosate exposure on the bee gut micro-biome were more prominent at day 3, after treated bees were returned to the hive. 


The total number of gut bacteria decreased for both treatment groups, relative to control, but this drop was significant only for the G-5 group, which also exhibited more severe compositional shifts. 


When lower doses of a chemical or drug produce more of an effect than higher doses, this is a SCREAMING RED FLAG. 


While the authors speculate that « the relative lack of effects of the G-10 treatment on the micro-biota composition at day 3 post-treatment is unexplained, but may reflect other effects of Glyphosate on bees, »   










Glyphosate Bee Death Story Is BEE-S


3.  Confounders



Here is a fairly obvious problem. 


According to paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ( PNAS )   


Since fewer than 20 per cent of bees re-introduced to the hive were recovered, recovered bees may not represent the total effect of Glyphosate on treatment groups.


Anytime you see a study where data is collected on less than 20 per cent of the participants, the chance of that study being VALID is MUCH LOWER. 


The authors state that « HUNDREDS of adult worker bees were collected from a single hive ». 


Let’s call it THREE-HUNDRED. 


These were divided into one control and two Glyphosate-treated group, which would then contain ONE-HUNDRED bees each, so we can estimate that about TWENTY bees from each group returned. 


When n = 20 any conclusions from data are usually SUSPECT. 


Not only are the data points cut by 80 per cent, leading to LESS RELIABLE STATISTICS, but the possibility of reporting bias shoots up. 


Is there something going on in the 80 per cent of the bees that DID NOT return that is leading to SPURIOUS CONCLUSIONS about the 20 per cent that did ?!?! 








Glyphosate Bee Death Story Is BEE-S


4.  Did Anything Really Happen ?!?!



Here is a fairly obvious problem. 


According to paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ( PNAS )   


Assessment of gut micro-biomes, as described in the previous section, identified all eight core gut taxa in both control and treatment groups ( Fig.  2A ), showing that Glyphosate does not eliminate colonization by any core member. 


Average total bacterial abundance was slightly lower in Glyphosate-treated bees, but this was not statistically significant ( Fig.  2B ). 


Although the relative composition of the bee gut biome may have changed, NONE of the eight bacteria measured was eliminated. 


And there was NO difference in the total number of bacteria in either the high-dose, low-dose, or placebo groups. 


So, Glyphosate supposedly altered the bacterial composition found in the gut of bees, but DID NOT affect the total number of bacteria, nor did it kill any of the eight strains that were measured. 








Glyphosate Bee Death Story Is BEE-S


5.  Bottom Line



There are so many FLAWS in this study that it DOES NOT even begin to address whether changes in the biome are playing any part in bee health, or that Glyphosate is responsible for anything at all. 


This study should be returned to the hive. 








The Wisdom Of A REAL Expert


Dr Josh Bloom’s Biography



Dr Josh Bloom is among several LEADING EXPERTS who have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products. 


He is among several LEADING EXPERTS who have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products.




He has 27 years of experience in the field of toxicology and metabolism, as well as safety concerning these products. 


Dr Josh Bloom is a Doctorate-Level Expert, Organic Chemist, and Leading Scientific Expert on pest control products.


Dr Bloom is the Associate Director of the American Council on Science and Health ( ACSH ).  


ACSH is a non-profit organization, co-founded in 1978 by Dr Elizabeth M Whelan, that produces peer-reviewed reports on issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, life-style, the environment, and health.  


He is an Organic Chemist, and has worked in the Pharmaceutical Industry.


Dr Bloom is a 27-year veteran of Biomedical Research with expertise in toxicology and metabolism.


He is also one of the nation’s MOST PROMINENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE SPOKESMEN on the subject of pest control products. 


Throughout North America, Dr Bloom has effectively and consistently spoken out against environmental and pesticide-hating fanatics on a regular basis.











Explore more links about Bloom & ACSH 



Chemophobia Threatens Public Health



Exposure To Pesticides A Risk For Parkinson’s ?



The Library Of ACSH References



The Library Of ACSH Reports & Blogs



REAL Experts Against Reckless & Arbitrary Prohibition



The Era Of Trump & The End Of EPA Reign Of Terrжr
























October 13th, 2015


Mr Andrew Porterfield


Entomology Today


Selected And Adapted Excerpts


Original Reference 


Reference — PCP & Bees — 2015 10 13 — Glyphosate & Acetamiprid — Relatively Low Toxicity For Honey Bees — Porterfield 










Also explore the following links 



The Entire Media History Of The Bee Conspiracy



Bees Are Growing & Thriving









Glyphosate Has Low Bee Toxicity


Testing In A Realistic Field Setting



Tests Have Proven Glyphosate

Has Harmed Practically No Bees



Honeybees are crucial for pollination and crop production world-wide.


But since episodes of Colony Collapse Disorder began arising in the mid-2000s ( and have subsided somewhat ), the causes of costly deaths of adult bees have focused on mites, viruses, and a number of pesticides. 


One group of pesticides, the neonicotinoids, has been singled out for regulatory action in several European countries, and regulation is under consideration in the United States. 


Most of the studies that were conducted previously gathered their data from topical applications of the test chemicals, by testing only the active ingredients, or by using artificial feeders with the pesticide in a sugar solution, none of which provide appropriate measures of the amounts of pesticide exposure in the field. 


In September [ 2015 ], however, researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and Mississippi State University reported that they tested 42 commonly-used pesticides in a more realistic field setting on cotton row crops. 


They essentially mimicked a situation where an adult bee in a cotton field accidentally gets sprayed. 


Furthermore, the researchers used pesticides that were in the actual commercial formulations that would be used by farmers in their fields. 


This is an important distinction because most previous research tested the active ingredients only, which did not include other chemicals that influence the distribution, absorption, and overall exposure of the pesticides to plants and bees. 


Their work appears in the Journal of Economic Entomology.


Using a modified spray tower to simulate field spray conditions, the researchers found that 26 pesticides, including many ( but not all ) neonicotinoids, organo-phosphates, and pyrethroids killed nearly all of the bees that came into contact with the test pesticide sprays. 


However, seven pesticides, including GLYPHOSATE and one neonicotinoid ( acetamiprid ), killed practically NO bees in the tests.


The pesticides tested included 40 insecticides and miticides, one herbicide ( GLYPHOSATE, better known by its trade name Roundup ), and one fungicide ( tetraconazole ). 


What made this study more realistic was not only the field spray application of each pesticide, but also the interpretation of data. 


The researchers determined the lethal concentration and lethal dose of each pesticide ( to determine chemical toxicity ), and then matched those numbers with the amounts of pesticide actually used in agriculture. 


In this way, they could rank pesticides by individual chemical toxicity as well as by how much they are used in the field. 


Chemicals that were not used as much ranked lower despite toxicity, while chemicals that were used more tended to rank higher.


The majority of row crops in the United States, such as cotton, soybeans, and corn, are transgenic, which has reduced the harm from chewing insects, but has refocused pesticide applications to target sucking insects. 


These pests include the tarnished plant bug ( Lygus lineolaris ) and various species of stink bugs. 


This re-focus, together with an increase in resistance to insecticides by some targeted insects, led to more wide-spread use of leaf sprays of insecticides. 


That practice, in turn, has boosted the risk of honeybee exposure to these pesticides.


The new data show that a number of pesticides are available, including the neonicotinoid acetamiprid, that could be used to control tarnished plant bugs, stink bugs, aphids, and mites, without causing much ( if any ) harm to bees. 


It also calls into question some regulatory measures that focus only on neonicotinoids, since organo-phosphates, pyrethroids, and carbamates together comprise the 26 commercial pesticides that pose a significant threat to honeybees. 


Also significant was the low-toxicity ranking of GLYPHOSATE, the world’s most-used pesticide, which has been targeted for its use on fields with genetically-modified Roundup-Ready crops that can resist the herbicide. 


A number of surprises also appeared in the study. First, an insecticide called sulfoxaflor was found to be near the middle in terms of toxicity. 


This is important because the EPA’s approval of sulfoxaflor was recently overturned by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, it was found to be less toxic to bees than permethrin, a pyrethroid insecticide that is used in agriculture, household pesticide products, flea shampoos for pets, and in head lice products for people.


Also, four pesticides ( methoxyfenozide+spinetoram, carbaryl, indoxacarb, and 1-cyhalothrin+chlorantraniliprole ) that had been considered moderately toxic to bees were found to be higher risk when field-application concentrations were considered. 


Finally, one pesticide, gamma-cyhalothrin, which was considered to be a high-risk chemical, was found to be only an intermediate risk because its field use rate was relatively low. 


Field spraying of insecticides and other pesticides may effectively kill insects, including valuable honeybees, and the risk to honeybees can be reduced by selecting pesticides with lower toxicity in field applications. 


This study determined that a number of pesticides, including a neonicotinoid, showed little to no toxicity to bees, meaning they could be effective alternatives to organo-phosphates, carbamates, and other neonicotinoids. 


According to the authors 


Our data, particularly the ratios of field application rates to lethal concentrations of each pesticide, provide a quantifying scale to help extension specialists and farmers with pesticide selection to maintain effective control of target pests and minimize the risk to foraging honeybees as well. 








The Wisdom Of A REAL Expert


Mr Andrew Porterfield’s Biography



Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. 


He writes frequently about agriculture issues for the Genetic Literacy Project. 


He is based in Camarillo, California. 









Explore more links about Porterfield 



Glyphosate Wins Approval In The European Union



Sierra Club Uses Scare Tactics To Raise Money



Glyphosate Found Not Carcinogenic & Key
European Safety Agency Joins Consensus



Why Do Regulators Conclude Safe
While Only IARC Claims Cancer ?!?!





















Explore more links about the bee conspiracy 



Bees Are Growing & Thriving



No Proof Neonics Harm Honeybees — Solomon



Honeybees Are Thriving In Canada & America



Pollinator Management Practices On Golf Courses



Hazardous Exposures To Neonics Not Likely To Occur



It’s Official    Neonics Don’t Cause Bee Deaths



Bumble Bees Are Not Harmed By Neonics



TV Ontario ( TVO ) Is Gullible & Politicized



Neonics Do Not Cause Bee Deaths



The Entire Media History Of The Bee Conspiracy




















We Speak The Whole Truth About The Bee
From An Independent Perspective !



We are the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that conspire to destroy the Green space and other industries ( NORAHG ).  As a non-profit and independent organization, we are environmentalists who are dedicated to reporting about truth-challenged bee conspiracy fanatжcs ( HUJE ) who conspire to destroy businesses that are dependent on the use of safe and effective conventional pest control products.  We also report on the work of several highly-rated leading experts who have recognized expertise, training, and background in matters concerning pest control products, and who promote environmental realism and pesticide truths. 


Not surprisingly, bee conspiracy fanatжcs have demonstrated that they are incapable of processing overwhelming scientific evidence.  Should we trust these fanatжcs, who conveniently ignore scientific evidence, and attempt to impose their politicized-doctrines and twisted life-style choices against our society ?!?! 


NORAHG was the brain-child of Mr William H Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991.  Mr Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.  We dare to defy the bee conspiracy fanatжcs by exploring the whole truth from an independent perspective on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site   If you wish to receive free reports on issues that concern you, please contact us at   WILLIAM H GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G