Bee Mystery Unsolved? Lead Investigator Had Connections to Pesticide Maker

Paid researchers are off working on anything but the pesticide issue.

By Nitasha Tiku
New York Magazine

[On Oct. 7, the] New York Times featured a heartwarming ending to the years-long murder mystery of what was causing Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) among honeybees. Experts suspected pesticides or genetically modified foods, but the article reported that the University of Montana’s Bee Alert Team, working alongside the Army, found the cause: the combined effects of a virus and fungus. Data sharing! Chance discoveries! Honeybees live on to sting another day!

But according to Fortune, [reproduced in full below] there were a couple of details left out of the front-page story. The team’s lead investigator, Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, may have previously dropped out of testifying in a class-action lawsuit after he received a significant research grant from the pharmaceutical giant Bayer.

For years, beekeepers have tried to pursue legal action against Bayer Crop Science over their pesticides, in particular a type of neurotoxin that gets rids of insects by attacking their nervous systems. The beekeepers allege that the pesticides disoriented and killed their hives. One of the markers of CCD is a bee’s tendency to fly off in a random direction before it dies.

Fortune contributor Katherine Eban came across this information working on a story about the pesticides connection for Portfolio, but the magazine folded before she finished her reporting. Print media’s poison cup runneth over! Eban says that during the course of her research, Bromenshenk also acknowledged that his company, Bee Alert Technology, would benefit more if CCD was caused by a disease, not pesticides, since the company is developing handheld acoustic scanners to detect bee ailments. Eban cites Bayer’s funding for the grant as the reason Bromenshenk dropped out as an expert witness in the class-action lawsuit against Bayer. But Bromenshenk denies that Bayer was a factor in either dropping out or the current study….


What a scientist didn’t tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

By Katherine Eban
Fortune Magazine, Oct 8, 2010

Few ecological disasters have been as confounding as the massive and devastating die-off of the world’s honeybees. The phenomenon of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) — in which disoriented honeybees die far from their hives — has kept scientists, beekeepers, and regulators desperately seeking the cause. After all, the honeybee, nature’s ultimate utility player, pollinates a third of all the food we eat and contributes an estimated $15 billion in annual agriculture revenue to the U.S. economy.

The long list of possible suspects has included pests, viruses, fungi, and also pesticides, particularly so-called neonicotinoids, a class of neurotoxins that kills insects by attacking their nervous systems. For years, their leading manufacturer, Bayer Crop Science, a subsidiary of the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG (BAYRY), has tangled with regulators and fended off lawsuits from angry beekeepers who allege that the pesticides have disoriented and ultimately killed their bees. The company has countered that, when used correctly, the pesticides pose little risk.

A cheer must have gone up at Bayer on Thursday when a front-page New York Times article, under the headline “Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery,” described how a newly released study pinpoints a different cause for the die-off: “a fungus tag-teaming with a virus.” The study, written in collaboration with Army scientists at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center outside Baltimore, analyzed the proteins of afflicted bees using a new Army software system. The Bayer pesticides, however, go unmentioned.

What the Times article did not explore — nor did the study disclose — was the relationship between the study’s lead author, Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, and Bayer Crop Science. In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination. Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant.

Read the full post at Fortune Magazine

10 responses to “Bee Mystery Unsolved? Lead Investigator Had Connections to Pesticide Maker

  1. If these so called scientist’s and researchers keep messing around like this they are going to one day find that no one trusts their results and only Anecdotal Data will be accepted as factual. This particular fur-ball reminds me off the old Native American saying

    “How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right.”
    Black Hawk, Sauk (1767-1838) Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak.


  2. The Fortune article was a smear job and will be retracted when Fortune is presented with undeniable evidence that each and every accusation is false.

    The accusations are nonsense – how could one of researcher in a multi-institutional, multi-year, peer-reviewed study somehow sway the the data or the outcome of the study? Or are we to believe that a pesticide company also “paid off” the entire staff of Aberdeen Proving Ground’s US Army ECBC group, and other researchers too?

  3. Pingback: Bee Mystery Unsolved? Lead Investigator Had Connections to Pesticide Maker (via Food Freedom) « OntheWilderSide

  4. Pingback: Bee Mystery Unsolved? Lead Investigator Had Connections to Pesticide Maker (via Food Freedom) « LI

  5. WHy am I not surprised about this – another in a long string of nefarious pork-barrel “funding” to ferret out the truth? I had honeybees on my deck one season, wandering around exatcly like they were drunk. Totally disoriented, couldn’t even walk a straight line, wandered in circles. Now tell me that wasn’t CNS damage??!!

  6. Count me as one who finds Eban’s Fortune article to be an irresponsible piece of journalistic malpractice.

  7. Why is it jounralistic malpractice? Are you kidding me that y’all believe that they CAN’T pay off that many people to skew a study? What about the 9/11 fraud? C’mon guys, the money of the special interests is out there, and there are things they DON’T want people to know.

  8. That was interesting. I have always believed that what we SEE in the bees is secondary; I believe the same thing about White Nose Syndrome in Bats. I’ll bet my bottom (no dollars to bet) that they are related somehow.

What do YOU think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s