Article about toxic pollen

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Greg V

unread,
Nov 5, 2025, 11:07:29 AMNov 5
to madbees

Betsy True

unread,
Nov 5, 2025, 11:37:43 AMNov 5
to mad...@googlegroups.com, madbees

Greg V

unread,
Nov 5, 2025, 11:40:19 AMNov 5
to mad...@googlegroups.com
Copy/pasting the text.
----------------------------------

Bees are disappearing; does anyone care?

FLORENCE — When Allen Clark was a young beekeeper 50 years ago, there were more than 100,000 hives in Pinal County.

Since then, the numbers here and elsewhere have dwindled from habitat loss, pesticides, drought and other climate changes.

Today, there are probably fewer than 4,000 hives left in Pinal County. About 3,000 of those are Clark’s. The public is interested in helping the bees, but Clark said it’s an uphill battle.

“I’ve had 20 people come in the store since we’ve opened it and want me to give a class on keeping bees. I tell them it sounds lovely, but you people cannot keep a beehive alive in Cactus Forest all year.”

Clark Bees opened a honey store on Adamsville Road just north of the highway late last year. But their main business is pollinating crops in Arizona, California and New Mexico. Bees are a critical part of the food supply including fruits, vegetables, nuts and coffee. Without bees, the world would have much less of these foods.

Bees have suffered in the Sonoran Desert’s long-running drought. Mesquite trees and catclaw bushes are among bees’ natural food sources. With falling water tables, “how much pollen and nectar are these plants producing when they’re dying of thirst themselves?” Clark asked.

Pinal County has certainly seen many agricultural acres lost to housing development, and some of the new residents aren’t interested in living harmoniously with bees. Neither are a lot of the people who continue to practice agriculture, Clark said.

“When you let the crop dusters and the cotton growers run things, and they don’t need the bees, they create an imbalance in the circle of agriculture. … That gap is 66% of the U.S. food supply,” Clark said. “That’s 94% of all the bees in this county destroyed in order to protect cotton.”

Local ordinances restricting bees include a lot of farm acreage that needs them. “You have created ordinances to stop the next generation of beekeepers. … You have taken away people’s rights to live. You don’t realize the consequences.” According to a sign in Clark’s store, 80% of food is pollinated by managed honeybees.

But housing developers get priority over the cost of food in this state, Clark said.

“We used to grow lettuce, broccoli and cauliflower right here in Chandler, Queen Creek and Tempe. You used to get fresh produce — cut today, in your store tomorrow. Now I guarantee you that 99% of all the produce you grow is over a week old before it gets to the store.”

In the agricultural land that remains, bees face hazards from genetically modified crops and insecticides, Clark said. A beekeeper near the city of Maricopa lost thousands of bees, 25% of his operation, after some feed corn for livestock was sprayed. “Do you think anybody cares?” Clark asked.

Until people go hungry there won’t be any changes made at any level, and “all this is a waste of conversation and time.”

Cotton pollen was clean until about 25 years ago, Clark said, but all cotton grown today is genetically modified. At one time bees had clean cotton pollen in the hive to live on during the winter. “Now we don’t. And what little pollen we have, I believe, is toxic. … I try to stay as far away from cotton as I can possibly get.

“... The reason I say the pollen is dirty now, is because when the bees start eating it in December, that’s when they start dying. When there’s no other pollen available to the bees to dilute it, when they get down to eating the pollen they’ve retained over the summer … they die. As long as the bees have other pollen to eat daily, they’re fine.

“As soon as they dig into their stash (of cotton pollen) … all of a sudden they start dying.”

Bees in the Midwest are dying off with the rise of genetically modified corn and soybeans. “The graph is almost identical. … I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that’s just coincidental, and I don’t understand progress.

“... We have a vicious agricultural circle here, and we have no politicians truly standing up for the people themselves to protect the food supply,” Clark said. While environmentalists tout clean water and air, “have you ever heard one say clean food?”

Bees are dying while the need for food continues to grow. “The beekeepers that are pollinating food crops, I think — with our population as high as it is — need to be watched over and protected,” Clark said.

Beekeepers like him pollinate multiple crops in the same year. “If there’s an insecticide creating a problem for them, it’s got to be controlled or banned. If there are growers who are collecting government money but aren’t supporting the bees, then these growers need to lose their government money. … You can’t continue to get a free ride while you are destroying other people.

“You get rid of the farms, you get rid of the bees; when you get rid of the farms you get rid of the food supply. I guess you don’t need me. Don’t worry about what I’m pollinating or not pollinating, ain’t no food here to pollinate.”



Koelsch

unread,
Nov 5, 2025, 12:53:47 PMNov 5
to mad...@googlegroups.com
I struggle to connect genetic modification of crops with toxicity to bees (although I’m a proponent of heirloom seeds, myself). Even something like Bt-protein expressing crops, which I’m assuming includes the referenced cotton crops in this article, should be inert to honey bees. 
Perhaps it’s more likely that farming practices enabled by genetically modified crops are harming the bees, some of which are actually mentioned in the article. The odds are stacked against honey bees within industrial agricultural lands, with lack of floral diversity, increased chemical exposure, and of course varroa. 

Interesting to consider, thanks for sharing Greg!

Greg V

unread,
Nov 5, 2025, 1:22:07 PMNov 5
to mad...@googlegroups.com
Personally, I don't really care for most of the write-up...
Except - it does confirm, IMO, the validity of the toxic pollen

Greg V

unread,
Nov 5, 2025, 1:51:46 PMNov 5
to mad...@googlegroups.com
A lot of toxic substances were supposed to be "inert" (we are always told so by the manufacturers) - where the GMO crops enable the producers to be more aggressive in the pesticide applications (with heavier side-effects).
The "inertness" claims are based on the testing on mice/rats and the humans ultimately - where there the undesirable results were unreported/underreported OR the tests were flawed OR the proper tests were not even done (by design or by oversight or due to lack of knowledge/understanding at the time).

But do they even test the new and old pesticide "inertness" on the insects e.g. the honey bees?
If the "inert" claims against humans obviously fail (being the best possibly tested subject) - hard to believe the side-impact on the insects are even that closely studied.

Later we find out that at "inertness" claims are not true with the accumulating damage - turned out the PFAS are toxic and now we already have them all over (likely much more widespread than we even know yet).
This is how we ended up with the PFAS pollution to the point that now we have alerts about NOT eating the wild turkey/deer - see the latest alerts from Maine.
Anyone ever measured PFAS impact on insects?

Impacts on even humans go under the radar, let alone all other organisms.
The damage impacts on the insects are not even possible to fully comprehend while they are already documented as massive - caused by the various toxicities in the insect foods (pollen being one of the most important insect foods).

I mentioned my own bee mortality issues over the summer - I was not ready for this and not capable of systemic testing of my own pollen present in my own hives, but the article passage rang true with me.

............. they get down to eating the pollen they’ve retained over the summer … they die ........................

Joseph Bessetti

unread,
Nov 7, 2025, 5:31:40 PMNov 7
to mad...@googlegroups.com
The Bt proteins that are introduced into cotton as genetic modifications are probably of least concern.  These target specific species of budworms and bollworm and toxicity to honeybees is reportedly low.  

There are other pests that the Bt is not effective on, like whiteflies and aphids, and neonicotinoids, salfoxaflor, and pyrethroids are commonly used.  Of these, the neonics are particularly toxic to honeybees and are used widely as see coatings on just about everything, including nearly all of the corn and soybeans planted in our area.  Corn and soybeans don't typically produce nectar, so I expect that exposure is more limited than with cotton, which can be a substantial source of nectar.  

A lot of us have large percentages of the area that our bees forage covered by corn and soybean, but the key genetic modification in these is glyphosate resistance. Being an herbicide, glyphosate is generally not toxic to honeybees. The neonics (applied to the seed) are probably our biggest risk, particularly from foraged pollen when there is little else blooming, as just about anything else is more nutritious than corn pollen.  I'm surprised there haven't been more incidents.

It's a rather scathing article with a lot of really bold claims.  A big issue in all of this is if beekeepers don't have access to test labs to get pollen, dead bees, etc. tested, or don't bother to do so, it's little more than speculation and conjecture without any proof.

Joe




From: mad...@googlegroups.com <mad...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Koelsch <kyko...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 11:53 AM
To: mad...@googlegroups.com <mad...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [madbees] Article about toxic pollen
 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages