You are here

Home > Exchange groups > Beekeeping Exchange Group >

Impact of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) on the beekeeping sector

Coralie Mouret

Wed, 08/02/2012 - 15:43

Good morning everyone. My name is Coralie Mouret. I am a veterinarian, specialized in beekeeping and bee pathology. I am currently working for the European Beekeeping Coordination (http://www.beelife.eu) which gathers several beekeepers’ associations in Europe to study and to provide expertise on various dossiers such as dossiers on pesticides and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

Purpose of the discussion

Following the request of members of the forum, it was decided by the TECA Beekeeping team to launch a discussion on the impact of GMOs on the beekeeping sector provided a competent moderator can be identified, and I have been proposed by APIMONDIA to moderate the discussion. My role will be to facilitate the exchange on the topic and based on my technical expertise to also address your questions and to help you to better understand the current situation in terms of GMOs and beekeeping. I will open this discussion by giving you an overview of the European legislation on GMOs, as many countries export honey to the EU, and the recent decision of the European Court of Justice affect many honey producing countries.

The discussion will last for 20 days (from Wednesday 8th February to Tuesday 28th February) and will be divided into two modules of 10 days each, in which a particular theme will be addressed: during the first 10 days we will talk about coexistence of GM crops and beekeeping, and during the 10 following days we will talk about the consequences of the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union for honey trade (see below).

At the end of the discussion, I will provide an overview of the main points discussed, the findings and conclusions, as well as the remaining questions to be addressed.

When writing a comment on this discussion, I kindly ask you to first introduce yourself by stating your names, profession, area of expertise, country and specify your expectations from this discussion. If you are a beekeeper, please specify if you are a hobbyist or a professional beekeeper.

I invite you to follow the schedule proposed above and to limit your contributions to the topics proposed.

General background information

Let us start by explaining what a genetically modified organism (GMO) is. According to the European Commission (Directive 2001/18/EC), an “organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination”. The technique used offers the possibility of introducing a new character in an organism, for example a character of agronomic interest, such as herbicide-tolerance or insect resistance. Herbicide-tolerant crops are tolerant to a herbicide and allows the farmer to spray this herbicide without killing the crop; for example Roundup Ready crops are tolerant to glyphosate, the main active ingredient of Roundup®. Insect-resistant crops are given the capacity to produce molecules that, once ingested by the target insects, inevitably disturb their digestive system; for example MON810 corn produces a toxin called Cry1Ab which is supposed to be specific of Lepideptora. Until now, herbicide tolerance has consistently been the dominant trait with 61% in 2010, but insect-resistance (17%) and the combination of both (22%) (which is called stacked genes) are more and more developed (James, 2010). The use of agronomic traits is likely to be further expanded in the near future and might include even more characters (Dunwell, 1999) such as disease resistance, resistance to abiotic stresses (drought, salt and water), tolerance to stress, elevated or reduced levels of certain nutrients, production of pharmaceutical products, etc.

Since 1996, the global area of approved genetically modified (GM) crops has increased steadily, covering in 2010 an estimated area of 148 million ha (James, 2010). These 148 million hectares were grown by 15.4 millions farmers in 29 countries, the biggest GM cultivators being the USA, followed by Brazil and Argentina (James, 2010).

In the European Union (EU), only eight countries cultivated 82.254 ha of GM crops in 2010 (James, 2010) and the area dedicated to GM crop cultivation has been steeply falling over the last two years. Only two GM crops are permitted for cultivation in Europe: Mon810 maize (insect resistant Bt maize) from Monsanto and a GM potato “Amflora” (non-producing amylose potato) from BASF. In 2010, over 80% of the total area of land dedicated to growing GM crops was in Spain which cultivates GM maize MON 810. The other main “GM countries” are Portugal, Czech Republic and Poland (James, 2010).

For more information on the global status of GMOs, please refer to James C., 2010 - Global status of Commercialized biotech/GM Crops: 2010. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Brief 42. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/42/executivesummary/default.asp

 (Reference: Dunwell J.M., 1999. Transgenic Crops: The Next Generation, or an Example of 2020 Vision. Annals of Botany, 84: 269-277).

Legal framework in the EU

In terms of regulation, in the EU, GMOs fall under the scope of a specific legal framework.

  • Directive 2001/18/EC (see above) outlines the principles for, and regulates, experimental releases and the placing on the market of GMOs in the EU.
  • Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 (Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed) provides the general framework for regulating genetically modified food and feed in the EU. This framework aims at ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health and welfare, environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring that the internal market works effectively.
  • Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 is supplemented with Regulation (EC) 1830/2003 (Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC) which deals with traceability and labelling of GMOs placed on the market.

In the EU, the scope of a GMO application can finally cover one or more of the following categories (under Regulation (EC) 1829/2003):

  • Food: GM plants for food use, food containing or consisting of GM plants, food produced from GM plants or containing ingredients produced from GM plants
  • Feed: GM plants for feed use, feed containing or consisting of GM plants, feed produced from GM plants
  • GM plants for environmental release (under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC): import and processing of GM plants, seeds and plant propagating material for cultivation in Europe.

For more general information on GMOs in the EU, please refer to the website of the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm.

NB: The website of EUR-Lex (database with European laws) is currently meeting a few technical difficulties, if you are unable to open the law documents directly by clicking on the link, you need to go to the search page of EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/RECH_naturel.do?ihmlang=en) and enter the corresponding data to find the documents.

 

Comments

Coralie Mouret

Wed, 08/02/2012 - 15:54

Coexistence measures

In addition to the European regulation on authorization and labelling of GMOs, the European Commission has drawn up guidelines on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops (for more information, see the list of documents below) in order to help preventing contamination of conventional and organic crops by GM crops. Coexistence measures can then be taken and put in place at national level (Member State level) in order to achieve a sufficient segregation between GM and non-GM production and avoid such contamination. As a consequence, each Member State can apply its own coexistence measures, based on European guidelines. However, the main responsibility for avoiding contamination ultimately lies with operators, such as farmers.

In order to coordinate and manage the different coexistence systems applied in different countries of the EU, the European Commission is helped by the Network Group for the Exchange and Coordination of Information (COEX-NET) and the European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm). The COEX-NET involves representatives from Member States' administrations in charge of co-existence, and fosters the exchange of information on results of scientific studies as well as on best practices developed within national strategies for coexistence among the Member States and the Commission. The ECoB develops technical reference, providing Member States with non-binding guidelines documents for best practices to achieve coexistence.

For more information on coexistence:

Website of the European Commission on Coexistence: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm

Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/coexistence2/guide_en.pdf

Devos Y., Demont M., Dillen K., Reheul D., Kaiser M., Sanvido O., 2008 - Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. http://www.salmone.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/devos-et-al-2008.pdf

 

Since agriculture (and even more beekeeping) is an open process, perfect segregation of the different agricultural production types (GM, conventional and organic crops) is known to be difficult in practice. And even more for beekeeping as bees are known to fly up to 10 Km, depending on the weather conditions and the available resources (Beekman & Ratnieks, 2000). The surface bees can forage on is thus high, and it is sometimes difficult to estimate if they will harvest on GM crops because their harvesting behaviour depends on uncontrollable factors such as weather.

Moreover, a phenomenon called transgene flow appears to be a huge problem where GM crops contaminate conventional crops and wild plants through cross-pollination (Ellstrand, 2003). This happens through the wind but also through pollinators foraging indiscriminatorily on GM and non-GM crops (Pasquet et al., 2008).

Beekman M. & Ratnieks F.L.W., 2000. Long-range foraging by the honey-bee, Apis mellifera L. Functional Ecology, 14: 490–496.

Ellstrand N.C., 2003. Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for transgene flow. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 358: 1163–1170.

Pasquet R.S., Peltier A., Hufford M.B., Oudin E., Saulnier J., Lénaic P., Knudsen J.T., Herren H.R., Gepts P., 2008. Long-distance pollen flow assessment through evaluation of pollinator foraging range suggests transgene escape distances. PNAS, 105(36): 13456–13461.

Questions for the debate:

- Are GM crops cultivated in your country and if yes, are there any coexistence measures protecting beekeepers?

- What are, according to you, the possible measures that could/should be applied to protect beekeeping products from GMO contamination? (for example distances between apiaries and GM fields)

- According to you, who has to move to respect the distances, the producers of GM crops or the beekeeper?

- In your country, are there analyses of hive-products to control the contamination around fields with GM crops (post-market monitoring)?

JORGE TOMAS VER...

Fri, 10/02/2012 - 01:11

En Mérida, Yucatán, los apicultores, empresas cooperativas y empresas privadas que comercializan el 100% de la miel producida en la península de Yucatán, se encuentran muy precupados por los efectos de la decisión de la Corte Europea de etiquetar las mieles que contengan polen de organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM ), así como las recientes autorizaciones de SAGARPA, CIBIOGEN y SENASICA (instituciones del Gobierno Mexicanao) para liberación de siembras de OGMs en el territorio peninsular.
Los términos de la discusión se presentan del siguiente modo;
Considerando:
1. Que la agroindustria apícola se ha desarrollado y posicionado a la Península de Yucatán en los mercados mundiales de la miel durante los últimos 100 años. Hoy día esta actividad genera ingresos para más de 16000 apicultores del área peninsular, en su mayor parte campesinos mayas de bajos ingresos, y más de 1000 trabajadores que participan en la cadena productiva miel.

2. Que la Península de Yucatán ha sido una región libre de cultivos transgénicos, lo que nos ha permitido ofrecer una miel limpia e inocua a nuestros consumidores a nivel mundial

3. Eu es importante que la Sociedad Mexicana y gobierno deben hacer conciencia de esto y cuidar que se preserven las condiciones ambientales que han permitido su desarrollo

Se viene demandando al gobierno federal:
1. Solicitar, en conjunto con los productores, que aquellos municipios y regiones donde la apicultura ha tenido presencia desde hace ya décadas, sean declarados zonas "LIBRES DE ORGANISMOS GENETICAMENTE MODIFICADOS", de conformidad con el art. 90 de la Ley de LEY DE BIOSEGURIDAD DE ORGANISMOS GENÉTICAMENTE MODIFICADOS, misma que requiere el apoyo decidido de los presidentes municipales de los 128 municipios que conforman la península, así como a los Gobiernos Estatales. Contar con su apoyo decidido será fundamental para mantener vigente el mercado que sostiene a más de 40,000 familias de la zonas rurales de nuestra Península.
2. Analizar las autorizaciones que se otorgaron en el pasado ciclo agrícola para la siembra de OGMs, en los 3 estados de la Península, a fin de que sean revocadas,
3. Revisar si las autorizaciones cumplieron los procedimientos establecidos en la ley, como son la expedición de un Reglamento para la Delimitación con Areas, así como los estudios de impacto socioeconómico.
ME GUSTARIA ENVIARLE UN ARTÍCULO SOBRE EL IMPACTO DE LA SIEMBRA DE TRANSGÉNICOS EN LA PENÍNSULA DE YUCATAN, PERO NO ENCUENTRO COMO INCORPORARLO DENTRO DE ESTE FORO.

Coralie Mouret

Fri, 10/02/2012 - 13:40

In Mérida, Yucatán, beekeepers, cooperative enterprises and private companies that commercialize 100% of honey produced in the Yucatán peninsula are very worried about the consequences of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union to label honeys containing pollen from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as well as about the recent authorizations of SAGARPA, CIBIOGEN and SENASICA (institutions of the Mexican government) for release of GMO sowings in the Iberian Peninsula.

The terms of the discussion are presented in the following way:
Considering:

1. That beekeeping agribusiness has developed and positioned in the Yucatan Peninsula and in the global honey market during the past 100 years. Today this activity generates income for more than 16,000 beekeepers of the peninsular area, for the most part Maya peasants of low income, and for more than 1,000 workers involved in the honey chain production.

2. That the Yucatán peninsula has been a region free of GM crops, which has enabled us to offer a clean and safe honey to our consumers worldwide.

3. That it is important that the Mexican Society and the Government raise awareness on this and pay attention to the preservation of the environmental conditions that have allowed its development.

It is demanded to the federal government:

1. To request, together with the producers, that municipalities and regions where beekeeping is present for decades, are declared areas "Free of organisms genetically modified", in accordance with article 90 of Act of Law of BIOSAFETY of genetically modified organisms, same law that requires strong support from the municipal presidents of the 128 municipalities constituting the peninsula, as well as the State Governments. Its support will be essential to maintain the market that holds more than 40,000 families in the rural areas of our Peninsula.

2. To study the authorisations granted in the last agricultural cycle for the planting of GMOs, in the 3 States of the peninsula, and to repeal them,

3. To examine if authorisations meet the procedures laid down in the law, such as the issuance of a Regulation for the Delimitation in areas, as well as studies on socio-economic impact.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEND YOU AN ARTICLE ON THE IMPACT OF THE PLANTING OF TRANSGENIC PLANTS IN THE PENINSULA OF YUCATAN, BUT I CANNOT ADD IT TO THE FORUM.

Coralie Mouret

Fri, 10/02/2012 - 18:47

Thanks Jorge for this information on the situation in Yucatán. The creation of protected areas for beekeepers is also highly regarded in Europe (http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/, http://www.gmofree-euregions.net:8080/servlet/ae5Ogm?&cms=null&id_cms_doc=8), but also in other parts of the world (for example in Africa: http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/auc/departments/hrst/biosafety/DOC/l..., in USA: http://www.gene.ch/genet/2011/Jan/msg00036.html).
For more information, please read this paper, reviewing the concepts of GMO-free environmentally sensitive areas: http://www.iatp.org/files/Concepts_of_GMO-Free_Environmentally_Sensitive....

These areas would indeed enable beekeepers to produce honey and other hive-products free from GMOs, provided that their bees do not forage beyond these protected areas (if the limit is clearly defined from an administrative point of view, it is not clear for the bees who will not make the difference between areas protected or not and will forage where they can).

If these areas protect beekeepers for a while, the question arises whether if, in the long term, the spread of GMOs in the environment will or will not make these preserved areas gradually disappear … Indeed, escape phenomena such as crossing of GM crops with non GM relatives (Conner et al., 2003) or pollen flow (dispersion of pollen from GM crops: Walklate et al., 2003; Warwick et al., 2009) have shown to allow the spread of GM material to potential long distances…

Conner A.J., Glare T.R., Nap J.P., 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment - Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. The Plant Journal, 33: 19–46.

Walklate P.J., Hunt J.C.R., Higson H.L., Sweet J.B., 2003. A model of pollen-mediated gene flow for oilseed rape. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271: 441–449.

Warwick S.I., Beckie H.J., Hall L.M., 2009. Gene Flow, Invasiveness, and Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Crops. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1168: 72–99.

Coralie Mouret

Fri, 10/02/2012 - 11:17

In order to facilitate the understanding of the discussion by all participants, please write your comments in English (if possible). Otherwise, I will do the translation of your comments in English and will post them after your own comments.

In addition, if you want to add articles or other documents to your comments, several solutions:
1 / use hyperlinks,
2 / attach files directly to your comment: see « Attached files » window (only available for files of less than 5 MB and only in format pdf),
3 / send your documents to Charlotte Lietaer (Charlotte.Lietaer@fao.org) who will add them to your comment.

Thank you for your participation.

Ulrich Bröker

Fri, 10/02/2012 - 11:28

Please follow the link

http://www.abejas.hypernet.com.mx/

for details about the 2nd conference on organic apiculture in San Cristobal, Chiapas, Mexico, from March 17.-25. GMO will be one of the core subjects.

Lady Spirit Moon Cerelli's picture

Lady Spirit Moo...

Fri, 10/02/2012 - 16:38

I have 2 apiaries totaling over 20 hives about 3 miles apart in the Mountains of North Carolina, USA. A farmer grows several acres of GMO corn between the 2 apiaries. Thus far, we have not been impacted by the GMO corn. I think that is perhaps there are organic farmers in our area as well and a lot of wild plant and tree growths. We do raise our resistant bees by their perspective - we don't treat them with anything and don't put anything in the hive such as sugar shakes for mites, beetle traps, oils, etc. Our premise is to raise healthy bees by raising them from their perspective and keeping them out of stress so they can deal with adverse conditions for themselves. We have low mite count because we begin with small cell foundations. I concentrate on obtaining feral hives more than a few years old, confirmed.

We will be putting in another apiary on farmer's acreage several miles in the opposite direction of our main apiary. This farmer uses chemicals on his vegetables if things are attacking them. I was at first alarmed at by this until he showed me the Langstroth beehive in his yard he had abandoned several years ago because he didn't have the time to deal with them. They have survived without his intervention and with his spraying. I will be looking into this more in the spring when we start setting up an apiary there. There are also feral hives in the trees surrounding the farm.

My point is this, I keep our bees healthy by keeping an image of how they keep themselves in the wild. I also watch them and listen to them. They do communicate. For example, if they are in, I stay out of the hive. If they are out, I go in. And I always allow them to keep their honey in one full super and I take what is left above the queen excluder.

BEe loved,
Lady Spirit Moon, NC, MH,
Certified Beekeeper
www.BEeHealing.Org
and Amabassador for the Center for
Honeybee Research www.chbr.org

Coralie Mouret

Tue, 14/02/2012 - 08:22

The direct impacts of GM crops on bees are for the moment poorly known. The main direct effects suspected are sub-lethal effects, especially due to the chronic exposure of bees to these plants (Ramirez-Romero et al., 2008). The main problem we now face with GMOs is dealing with the contamination of hive-products that consumers want GMO-free (at least the European consumers : European Commission (2010), Eurobarometer: Biotechnology Report, October 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf).

Ramirez-Romero R., Desneux N., Decourtye A., Chaffiol A., Pham-Delègue M.H., 2008. Does Cry1Ab protein affect learning performances of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)? Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 70: 327–333.

I am glad to see that some bees still appear to be strong enough to survive even when exposed to various disturbing factors such as pesticides, etc., and even without chemical treatments against biological agents such as Varroa.
In Europe, many beekeepers dream of going back to a more « natural » beekeeping practice but it is not easy to chose not to treat and to take the risk to maybe see your colonies collapsing because of a too high pressure in biological or chemical harmful agents. And this is even harder to decide when you already lost some of your hives...

I hope your bees will keep on going so good!

Antonio Gomez P...

Tue, 14/02/2012 - 09:40

La coexistencia de los cultivos de OGM con la Apicultura es España actualmente es problemática. Por un lado hay cultivos OGM (80% de la superficie cultivada con OGM en la UE), casi exclusivamente maíz MON810 (14% de la superficie total de maíz cultivada en España en 2010). Por otro lado no hay registros de las zonas de cultivo, solo de las ventas declaradas. Es imposible para los apicultores saber si en las proximidades de sus apiarios hay cultivos GM, y, por tanto, si pueden mantenerlos a una distancia segura de esos cultivos.

Coralie Mouret

Wed, 15/02/2012 - 22:14

The coexistence of GMO cultivation with beekeeping is currently problematic in Spain. On the one hand, there are GM crops (Spain accounts for 80% of the GMOs cultivated area in the EU), and almost exclusively corn MON810 (this GM crop represents 14% of the total surface of maize grown in Spain in 2010). On the other hand, there is no register of areas where GM crosp are cultivated, only the sales records are declared. It is impossible for beekeepers to know if there are GM crops in the vicinity of their apiaries, and, therefore, if they can keep them at a safe distance from GM crops.

Pages