Honeybees and colony collapse disorder: much of our food at risk

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/silence-of-the-bees/introduction/38/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572

Maybe you guys have been following this colony collapse disorder (CCD) crisis. But since 2006, as much as 90% of honeybee hives in US communities have suddenly died in a matter of months (this has been observed in EU nations too). Bees are some of the most evolved, beautiful, and efficient creatures in natural history, and the species is 100M years old (humans have been using them for honey for 6K years). Their mass deaths are likely attributed to human actions. Analysis of dead bees reveals symptoms similar to human AIDS - their immune systems were compromised, which hampers digestion, cognition, and makes it easier for fungi, mites, or other pathogens to attack them. Also, forager bees (that usually have excellent navigation and communication) fly out in search of food, but then don't communicate normally and don't find their way back, so the hive starves.

Weakly-supported culprits include wireless radiation, pesticides, global warming/pollution, and GM crops with anti-pest properties. Concentrated pesticides and pollution can definitely kill bees, but CCD also occurs in areas without high incidences of these phenomena. It's most likely a confluence of several of these factors, and maybe others that we haven't identified yet. The presence of a virus in CCD-affected bees seems to be the most prevalent stressor, but the virus alone can't account for all the deaths. Some research is now directed towards cross-breeding virus-resistant African bees with domestic honeybees, but that is no guarantee of eliminating CCD (and new GM species carry their own concerns). 

Bees pollinate over 100 key flowering crops (including some plants that our livestock eats), contribute to 30% of our food supply (pretty much all ag. products besides staple grains that self-fertilize), and their low-cost services are worth at least $15B in economic output to the US. 3/4 of all current plant species depend on animal pollinators to reproduce. There is no insect substitute but the less effective and more fragile butterfly, and as far as I know only one province in China is trying out another species. They use human workers to spread pollen in their lucrative pear orchards, after industrial pollution wiped out local bees. Already in the US, habitat loss from urbanization and air pollution have wiped out most indigenous bees prior to this CCD crisis. Now there is a need for commercial beekeepers to truck mobile domesticated hives around the nation to pollinate various crops when in season (if local bears don't get to the honey-rich hives first). But among that population, about 1/3 of them (or 800K hives) have collapsed. Now we depend on costly Australian bee imports to make up the shortfall.

CCD should be a reminder of how fragile our civilization actually is without the help of very simple organisms that we take for granted. But their destruction will almost certainly lead to ours (or at least a more monotonous, unhealthy diet), so it behooves us to be much more aware and careful. Is it worth it to risk this much just to squeeze out some bucks of profit from another megawatt, strip mall, or bushel of corn? It's easy for industrialists to keep up their damaging practices while they hide behind the excuse of "where's the proof?", and nothing will change without new laws or massive public uproar.

Scientists think we're almost "lucky" to observe CCD, because it serves as a reminder and indicator of environmental stress likely due to human actions. Who knows about all the other harmful, toxic processes and problems that go unnoticed? Companies should be required to strongly demonstrate safety before being permitted to sell new products, like we do with drugs and foods. The absence of evidence of harm doesn't necessarily prove safety. And environmental impact assessments are clearly lacking if we approve so many projects that still end up causing damage down the road. But I forgot, regulations kill jobs. Well irresponsible companies kill living things, including people. What do we prefer?

Generosity only in good times?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20081017_Annan__Nations_not_paying_hunger_aid.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/219724/122417271741.htm

World Food Day was last week, and with the rising costs of basic staples and fuel, the number of malnourished humans on the planet has almost reached a billion. 10,000 children will die of hunger today. The global financial crisis will only make matters worse. Reduced economic activity from recession pushes down sales and prices for exports like coffee that poor nations rely on to survive. Regardless of what losses we took to our 401(k)'s and home values, the poor in the Third World (and their struggling governments) will be hurt much more. Those making less than $1/day are much more vulnerable to the global fallout from an economic downturn, so we should stop feeling sorry for ourselves and recognize the other innocent victims of our greed. We might have to cut back on our summer vacations; they might have to cut back half their caloric intake. When compared to that reality, even people in danger of foreclosure can't really complain.

It's easy to give when our cups are overfilled, and yet America was stingier than Japan or most of the EU per capita during the economic booms of the 1990's and mid-2000's. But now, when the Third World will unjustly suffer from the mistakes of the industrialized world, is when we really need to step up and show our humanity. Is it more important to keep bank deposits insured, to cut economic stimulus checks, or to keep children alive? So far the industrialized world has injected over $3T in loans and other aid into their banking systems, but renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs estimates that we could virtually wipe out hunger with an investment of just $3B a year (1/1,000 of what was given to banks). Over half a billion more people (mostly in Africa) would be able to live to see 2009 and maybe improve their situations. All they need is literally some high-yield seeds, fertilizer, agriculture education/equipment, and maybe some medicine. No more than what the Amish have; it's really that simple. Loosening some protectionist trade policies would help a lot too, though as our wallets are squeezed, I suspect that the opposite will happen.

G8 nations already have a reputation for promising way more than they actually deliver in terms of poverty aid, including the Tony Blair-promoted UN Millennium Project ($50B for Africa by 2010). Recently, big names like Kofi Annnan and Sachs came out with scathing criticisms of rich states. In response to the price hikes and food riots in June (gotta love ethanol), the G8 et al. pledged an additional $12B to stabilize world food markets/supplies, but so far have only ponied up 0.4% of that ($50M from AUS). Unfortunately, sometimes the money that rich nations "pledge" is money that they already promised in the past (but haven't yet delivered on), or pre-existing aid money that they just re-allocated for this purpose. That's like your boss giving you a raise, but the money comes from next month's salary (or your friend's salary).

We have to drive; but they have to eat

Maybe you guys have heard of the scary dialogue from IMF, World Food Program, and others about the rising costs of staple commodities across the globe. Like with hydrocarbons, it's not a matter of poor supply (there was no bad harvest or climate disaster to blame), but demand has gone up across the board. There have already been riots in Mexico, Haiti, Egypt, and other places, where basic necessities such as corn/rice/wheat have risen 30-130% over the last YEAR.

Due to geography, socioeconomics, and whatnot, of course some nations will be grain importers or exporters. Obviously the price changes are benefiting the exporters (usually prosperous Western nations with mechanized mega-agriculture) and severely hurting the importers (besides Japan and parts of Europe, mostly Third World nations). The US is an interesting case where federal subsidies have kept our major agribusinesses competitive during periods of cheap pricing. To be fair, most rich nations subsidize their farmers too, even wealthy farmers who would turn a nice profit without any assistance. I would hope subsidies will decrease as global prices rise, but I'm not sure how Congress has structured the laws. Actually producers may prefer to sell their corn/soy/etc. as biofuel raw materials to domestic distilleries, rather than exporting them overseas as foodstuffs. The amount of corn needed to produce 25 gallons of fuel ethanol is equal to an average person's yearly corn intake. So that means a million SUV fill-ups could feed a million people for a year. Kind of scary. I guess that's why the World Bank chief called biofuels a "significant contributor" to the food price crisis, and others said it was the "straw that broke the camel's back".

China, India, and other emerging Asian nations are another bizarre case study. Due to economic growth, all of a sudden we have half a billion Asians eating more meat and more raw mass of food per capita versus 20 years ago, when global food prices were quite low. We know that animal farming for meat production is highly grain-intensive. It's also very polluting and wasteful of water, as farmers require 7X more water to produce one kg of beef versus one kg of wheat, and we know that water shortages have been the cause of many conflicts too. Well, the average Chinese is eating 250% more meat than he/she did in 1980, so no wonder prices are on the rise.

But what can we do? Westerners have the money to pay top dollar for grains in order to produce (subsidized) ethanol for our vehicles. We have places to go and things to do/buy. More Asians have the money to buy more and better food. They deserve to enjoy a good diet, and we are trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as well as combat climate change (even though ethanol fuel is more environmentally harmful than oil by some measures). Yet all the while, the poorest two billion people, who were already hard-pressed to put food on the table, are now priced into starvation because of us. The World Food Program has had to recalculate its budget from $500M to $700M since last year, and still they don't come close to providing for everyone. 40-50% of that sum comes from US taxpayers – so their growing difficulty in feeding the needy is hurting us too. It's not like "evil, greedy people" are causing this problem, but market forces and whatnot are making the most vulnerable third of humanity suffer even more. I do find it despicable that a select few farmers/speculators are rolling in cash from this crisis, and in some cases taking advantage of the rest of us by manipulating an already panicky market.

All this makes me want to become a vegetarian, especially now that beef prices hit a record high (http://agresearch.tamu.edu/agnews/index.php?id=392).

-------

Side note: Actually the biofuel economy has opened the door for a lot of manipulation. The EU and US both passed mandates to increase biofuel availability, so subsidies exist that encourage import and production. Producers have found a way to exploit a loophole in the trading system, where some Europeans will ship biodiesel to the US, where it is blended with 1% fossil fuel diesel, and then shipped back to the EU for sale. This "B99.9" blend is heavily subsidized, which undercuts other European producers. But does that save the planet to waste energy shipping basically the same product back and forth across the Atlantic, just so a few jerks can make a buck? And all the while, global demand and cost for soy have risen dramatically, making many people go hungry.

http://www.fairhome.co.uk/2008/04/01/eu-is-urged-to-take-action-as-a-biofuel-trading-scam-is-exposed/

-------

A series from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89612926

A good breakdown from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7284196.stm

The cost of food: facts and figures

Explore the facts and figures behind the rising price of food across the globe. Rising oil prices and fears over climate change have seen a massive rise in the use of maize to make bio-fuels, pushing up food prices There will be billions more mouths to feed by 2050, making an increased demand for food a long-term trend Rising prices will improve the trade balance of major food exporters, but major importers stand to see a greater deficit