Actually, you'll die earlier, be fatter, and be worse at your job.
How many times have you told yourself (especially when you're up at 2 A.M. on a Sunday night): "Eh, it's just sleep." Is it just sleep, though? What happens to your health when you're not sleeping enough?
This infographic designed by FFunction for Zeo, a company that makes an electronic "sleep coach" is less of a real data visualization that a set of illustrated facts. But the facts are pretty gobsmacking. For example, we, as a nation, seem pretty tired all the time: Only 7% of people get eight hours of sleep a night. But the effects of this might be calamitous: Getting less sleep is associated with a 200% rise in cancer, a 100% rise in heart disease, and a 20% rise in the likelihood you'll be dead in 20 years. Not only will you be less healthy, you'll be fatter. People who sleep an hour more each day lose 14.3 pounds per year. (?!!). And 1 in 3 women find themselves too sleepy for sex:
Scientists are inching closer to an explanation of how all this might be the case. (It really does seem that he lack of sleep itself is the problem, rather than lack of sleep being merely correlated with some other thing, such as alcohol consumption, which is causing all the problems.) Studies have shown that sleeping too little effectively puts the body on "high alert," creating increased stress hormones and chemicals associated with inflammation.
That said, what the infographic doesn't tell is that sleeping too much can be almost as a dangerous as not sleeping enough. If you sleep over nine hours a day, you're more likely to be fat, diabetic, depressed, and have heart disease. So get eight hours, but no more.
COMMENTARY: zzzzzzzz
Courtesy of an article dated January 31, 2011 appearing in Fast Company Design
Avalon Ventures prides itself on making successful bets in diverse areas that other investors overlook.
Avalon’s tech team made an early-stage investment in Zynga Game Network Inc. two years before the social-gaming Gold Rush of 2010 began.
And several years ago, the firm’s biotechnology and life sciences team backed companies working on treatments for “orphan diseases,” an area that received little attention at the time but which is now a high priority for companies like GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Pfizer Inc.
Now Avalon is gearing up for another move into uncharted waters: investing in the business of keeping dogs and cats healthy.
Managing Director Jay Lichter calls it “a new paradigm,” and one that will pay off.
“I recently asked a room full of people, ‘How many of you have spent a thousand dollars or more on your pet’s health in the past year?’ At least half the people raised their hands,” Lichter said. “Currently, there’s no one else in this space doing investing. There is quite a large number of opportunities out there.”
The following table offers a breakdown of the sales of the U.S. pet industry for 2009 and the estimated breakdown for 201
Category
2009 Actual
2010 EST
Food
$17.56
$18.28
SupplOTC Meds
$10.41
$11.01
Vet Care
$12.04
$12.79
Live Animal Purch
$2.21
$2.21
Grooming & Boarding
$3.36
$3.45
Totals: $45.5 $47.7
U.S. Pet Industry Expenditure since 19949
Estimated Expenditure U.S. Pet Industry Next Five Years
Consumer Spending on Veterinary Services (In Billions)
Avalon has already found one. The firm earlier this month backed Aratana Inc. - which is working on pharmaceuticals for dogs and cats – alongside MPM Capital in a $20 million funding round.
Aratana, which has not yet disclosed what types of diseases it will target, aims to license human medicines for use in pets, a less daunting project than taking a drug company from the idea stage to Phase II trials. Lichter said the approval process for such therapeutics is shorter, as the medicines in question will have already passed certain regulatory hurdles. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration has less stringent standards for pet medications than it does for human treatments.
“I don’t start from the ‘Eureka!’ idea,” Lichter said. “I’m going to start from a human product that’s late in development. I license it. It makes economic sense. I’m looking for compounds that are currently in human development, and have shown efficacy in at least two species.”
In biotech investing, VCs are used to spending eight years and tens of millions of dollars to get from an idea to Phase II testing. By contrast, an animal health product should take three years and about $5 million, Lichter said.
For later-stage biotech companies, the landscape is approximately 20 large, public pharma and device companies circling around 2,000 start-ups, Lichter said. Animal health is more like 12 large companies being served by five or six start-ups, he said.
Risky? Probably. “But if I don’t take big chances, as a venture capitalist how am I any different than a large corporation?” Lichter said.
“As a fund, we’ve always been in areas before other people. That’s what makes us money. We’ve always been one step ahead.”
COMMENTARY: I have considerable experience in the U.S. pet industry, and the numbers are very impressive. U.S. pet veterinary and OTC medicines are a $22 billion to $23 billion industry. I can understand Avalon Ventures interest in the pet health care. Here are some interesting U.S. pet ownership and demographics:
In 2006, nearly half of pet owners, or 49.7%, considered their pets to be family members.
There are more than 72 million pet dogs in the U.S. and nearly 82 million pet cats.
The average veterinary expenditure per household for all pets was $366 in 2006.
Among horse-owning households, 61.1% had at least one visit to the veterinarian in 2006, an increase of 11.9% from 2001.
U.S. Pet Market
According to market researcher Packaged Facts, the U.S. pet market grew to $53 billion in 2009 (this is higher than Pet Franchise Industry) and overall sales are expected to continue to increase over the next few years.
“U.S. Pet Market Outlook 2010-2011: Tapping into Post-Recession Pet Parent Spending” projects U.S. pet market retail sales and trends overall and for four core categories: veterinary services, pet food, nonfood pet supplies and nonmedical pet services. The report found that sales of all pet products and services rose 5 percent in 2009 to $53 billion, with sales of veterinary services increasing the most to $18.40 billion. Moreover, pent-up pet owner demand for products and services that both enhance pet health and pamper animalcompanions will begin to kick in during 2010, according to the report.
“The pet market has fared well overall despite the recession, and Packaged Facts attributes this performance to a number of factors that will also be integral to its even better performance in 2010 and 2011,” said Don Montuori, publisher of Packaged Facts. “Chief among these factors is the human-animal bond, which is an excellent insulator against recessionary cutbacks, and the ‘pet parent’ sentiment has never been higher.”
Packaged Facts projects total retail sales to increase to $55.78 billion in 2010 and to $59.28 billion in 2011, and to continue to rise to $72 billion by 2014. Still, the report noted that most economists predict a slow recovery.
“As a consequence, no pet market participant can afford to sit back during 2010 or to ignorerecessionary effects on consumer shopping patterns that could linger for years,” the report stated.
According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63% of U.S. households own a pet, which equates to 71.1 millions homes
As of 2006, 77% of dog owners and 52% of cat owners gave their pets medications or drugs, up from 50% and 32% in 2000, respectively
Estimated 2008 Sales within the U.S. Market. For 2008, it estimated that $43.4 billion will be spent on our pets in the U.S. (see breakdown below):
Food
$16.9 billion
Vet Care
$10.9 billion
Supplies/OTC Medicine
$10.3 billion
Live animal purchases
$2.1 billion
Pet Services: grooming & boarding
$3.2 billion
Actual Sales within the U.S. Market in 2007. In 2007, $41.2 billion was spent on our pets in the U.S. (see breakdown below):
Food
$16.2 billion
Vet Care
$10.1 billion
Supplies/OTC Medicine
$9.8 billion
Live animal purchases
$2.1 billion
Pet Services: grooming & boarding
$3.0 billion
Pet Insurance Snapshot
In the U.S. alone, over 10.0 billion dollars were spent on pet medications in 2007. – NPR, Morning Edition.
Total worldwide sales of animal medicines was $19.2 billion in 2008, up 7.2 percent over sales the previous year – British research firm Vetnosis Ltd.
Avalon Venture's experience in bioscience certainly qualifies them to pursue a strategy of acquiring therapeutic medicines in stage II trials, that could be adapted for use in pets, is a good strategy.
Courte4sy of an article dated January 24, 2011 appearing in The Wall Street Journal's Venture Capital Dispatch
The English House of Commons is to debate the impact on bees and other insects of the new generation of pesticides that has been linked to bee mortality in several countries.
The Government will be called on to suspend all neonicotinoid pesticides approved in Britain, pending more exhaustive tests of their long-term effects on bees and other invertebrates. The subject will be raised in an adjournment debate in the Commons next Tuesday on a motion tabled by Martin Caton, the Labour MP for Gower.
Although the chemicals have been banned in several countries, including France, Germany and Italy, and the Co-op has prohibited their use in farms in Britain from which it sources fruit and vegetables, the British Government has refused calls for them to be suspended as a precaution. The food and farming minister, Jim Paice, will respond for the Government.
Mr Caton, himself a former agricultural scientist, said yesterday that the evidence was growing that they were a problem, and that the testing regime for the compounds in Britain and Europe was not rigorous enough. "I think they should be suspended on the precautionary principle while we improve it," he said.
As detailed in The Independent yesterday, the compounds, which imitate the action of nicotine, the natural insecticide substance found in tobacco, are arousing increasing concern among environmentalists and beekeepers because they are "systemic" – they enter every part of a treated plant, including the pollen and nectar. There, bees and other pollinating insects can pick them up, even if they are not the "target" species for which the pesticide is intended.
A study by the US government's leading bee researcher, backed by research in France, indicates even microscopic doses of neonicotinoids may make bees more vulnerable to disease. The study by the US Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Laboratory has remained unpublished for nearly two years, but is now being prepared for publication.
Neonicotinoid pesticides, developed and mostly made by the German chemical giant Bayer, are increasingly used around the world. In Britain, the area of cropland treated with them has gone from nothing in 1993 to more than 2.5m acres in 2008, the last year for which figures are available.
A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said yesterday: "The UK has a robust system for assessing risks from pesticides, and all the evidence shows neonicotinoids do not pose an unacceptable risk when products are used correctly. However, we will not hesitate to act if presented with any new evidence."
Mr Caton has also put down an Early Day Motion in the Commons referring to a recent controversy in the US concerning one of Bayer's latest neonicotinoids, clothianidin. The motion says that the House is "gravely concerned by the contents of a recently leaked memo from the the US Environment Protection Agency, whose scientists warn that bees and other non-target invertebrates are at risk from a new neonicotinoid pesticide, and that tests in the US approval process are insufficient to detect the environmental damage caused."
It goes on: "[This house] acknowledges that these findings reflect the conclusions of a 2009 Buglife report that identified similar inadequacies in the European approval regime with regard to neonicotinoids; notes reports that bee populations have soared in four European countries that have banned these chemicals; and therefore calls on the Government to act urgently to suspend all existing approvals for products containing neonicotinoids... pending more exhaustive tests and the development of international methodologies for properly assessing the long-term effects of systemic pesticides on invertebrate populations."
Mr Caton said: "We're talking about a threat to our whole ecosystem, when invertebrates are being lost at the sort of rate that has happened in recent years."
COMMENTARY: It's no secret that I have been campaigning in several previous blog posts to have the neonicotinoid pesticide Chlothianidin banned from U.S. here in the U.S. Chlotianidin has already been been banned in Italy, France and Germany, where it nearly whipped out the bee population. I have contacted and asked Bayer CropScience, the manufacturer of Chlothianidin, to discontinue its use here in the U.S. until more extensive and thorough thorough research has been conducted on that insecticides affect on the environment, flora, wildlife and insects. I have also filed a formal complaint with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary Bayer, the German chemicals giant which developed the insecticides and makes most of them, insists that they are safe for bees if used properly, but they have already been widely linked to bee mortality. The US findings raise questions about the substance used in the bee lab's experiment, imidacloprid, which was Bayer's top-selling insecticide in 2009, earning the company £510m. The worry is that neonicotinoids, which are neurotoxins – that is, they attack the central nervous system – are also "systemic", meaning they are taken up into every part of the plant which is treated with them, including the pollen and nectar. This means that bees and other pollinating insects can absorb them and carry them back to their hives or nests – even if they are not the insecticide's target species.
It is too simple to say that these pesticides are the root cause of the near disappearance of honey bees, butterflies and bumble bees, but the link is being made. In his book "The Systemic Insecticides – A Disaster In The Making", the Dutch toxicologist Henk Tennekes argues that neonicotinoids are now present in much of Holland's surface water, killing off aquatic insects and leading to a decline in insect-eating birds across the country. I hope the Dutch take strong action and ban all neonicotinoids.
When I came across the above article, it hit home once again, simply reinforcing everything that has been said by critics of neonicotinoids, especially the pesticide Chlothianidin. The implications go beyond agriculture, but our very existence. If the honey bees go, so does everything else.
Albert Einstein said if the honey bees were suddenly gone mankind would have about 4 years left to live. Well, the honey bees are going extinct now and at the present rate in another year or so there will be no more honey bees left on earth. One year from now plus another 4 years gives us the year... 2012.
I urge you to contact Bayer CropScience and the EPA as soon as possible. The more people that we can get behind this movement, the more likely that we can save the honey bees and other insects.
Courtesy of an article dated January 21, 2011 appearing in The Independent and an article dated January 20, 2011 appearing in The Independent and an article dated January 20, 2011 appearing in The Independent
Actually, you should, because dozens of industries depend on them.
In recent times, maybe no other mass extinction has caught mainstream attention quite like the plight of the honeybees. And all that activism seemed to culminate in a great sigh of relief, when, in 2010, the New York Times declared that a cause had finally been found for Colony Collapse Disorder. But the fact is that bees are still dying in shocking numbers. And pesticides thought to contribute to the mass die-offs are still in use.
But let's back up a bit. Why should we care about the survival of honeybees? Quite simply, because their pollinating powers sustain a sprawling web of crops, as this infographic by FFunction shows. Pay attention in particular to two areas: The ones that show how few bees are surviving each winter, and the last panel, which shows that $15-20 billion worth of crops depend on the work of honeybees:
Bracing stuff. Let's hope that we can solve this thing soon.
COMMENTARY: For several years now, America's honey bees have been disappearing. The condition is called colony collapse disorder (CCD). It has been estimated that up to 40% of the U.S. honey bee population has been eradicated, and many beekeepers believe that Bayer Cropscience, the producer of Clothianidin, a corn insecticide, is the culprit. Clothianidin has also been used in Europe, and their honey bee population was nearly eradicated. Today, Italy, France, Germany and Estonia have banned Clothianidin.
The U.S. Agriculture Department is at the front of the battle line to determine what is causing CCD. Research so far suggests that the honey bees are not in poor health, with honey bees from CCD afflicted colonies found to contain a common virus. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture believes that CCD is due to a combination of different factors. The honey beekeepers and their researchers believe that the insecticide Clotianidin is has gradually broken down the honey bee's immune system, making them susceptible to parasites and viruses.
CCD is a huge problem because two-third's of the U.S. agriculture industry depends on honey bee pollination. If the honey bee's disappear, the entire U.S. agriculture industry could be irreparably damaged.
A leaked memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency to Bayer CropScience was highly critical of Bayer CropScience for insufficient research and tests to determine the longterm effects of Clothianidin on the environment, insects and wild life. The EPA's memo clearly stayed that Clothianidin is toxic to bees. Unfortunately, the EPA approved sale of Clothianidin conditional on further research, but either the research has not been conducted, or the EPA has been lax in following up.
I filed a complaint with the EPA, but have yet to receive a response, and also wrote to Bayer CropScience to obtain their side of the story and requesting that they pull Clothianidin from the market until a more thorough and complete research study was conducted. My original query and subsequent response to their email are contained in a previous blog entry dated December 22, 2010.
I am glad that Fast Company has continued to keep the honey bee CCD problem front and center, and appreciate their infographic very much. It definitely gives you the big picture and general overview of just how dangerous CCD is to the U.S. agriculture industry.
I urge all Americans to file a formal compalint with the Environmental Protection Agency and Bayer CropScience.
Courtesy of an article dated January 12, 2011 appearing in Fast Company Design
The rise in diabetes is, of course, linked to the rising rates of obesity across America. But what's truly stunning is just how prevalent the disease has become, and how meteoric the growth rates are. Here's what the country looks like on a county-by-county basis in 2004. The darker the color, the higher the incidence of diabetes:
Over at the interactive version, you can see that a few pockets of the U.S. have some astoundingly high incidence rates -- well over 10% in several counties in Mississippi, for example. Though it seems like the hardest hit areas are rural, you can also see alarmingly high rates in the suburbs around big cities such as Atlanta and Dallas. But it gets worse. Here's the data in 2006:
And the incidences of diabetes in the U.S. continue to increase. Here's what it looks like in 2008:
There are huge patches where diabetes runs above 12.5% across multiple counties, and even in cities such as Houston, rates are above 10%. By now, a clear pattern is emerging: Diabetes is spreading like a virus across the south and Appalachia, across regions known for weak economies. The map is perhaps the most bracing confirmation possible that low incomes and diabetes develop in lockstep.
COMMENTARY: Research for the treatment and an eventual cure for diabetes continues throughout the world. In the U.S., the Diabetes Research Institute stands at the forefront of diabetes research. Dr. Camillo Ricordo, DRI Science Director says, "We will cure diabetes. This is not a prediction; it is a promise.".
The DRI is a bevy of information on the latest diabetes research, not only through the DRI, but throughout the world. I was able to obtain the following eye-opening diabetes fact sheet through the DRI:
Diabetes Fact Sheet
Almost 24 million Americans have diabetes, including as many as six million individuals who have diabetes and don’t know it.
Diabetes kills more people than AIDS and breast cancer combined.
In 2007, diabetes claimed more than 284,000 American lives.
Diabetes costs the American people an estimated $218 billion each year.
Diabetes impacts all social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds.
Diabetes is caused by the body’s inability to create or effectively use its own insulin, which is produced by islet cells found in the pancreas.
Insulin helps regulate blood sugar (glucose) levels – providing energy to body cells and tissues.
Without insulin, the body’s cells would be starved, causing dehydration and destruction of body tissue.
Injecting insulin is not a cure for diabetes. It is a critical life-saving component of a daily treatment program.
Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death by disease among adults and reduces life expectancy by one-third.
Approximately 4,110 new cases of diabetes are diagnosed each day.
Almost three million Americans are hospitalized each year due to diabetes.
Diabetes is the leading cause of new blindness in adults ages 20-74.
Sixty-five percent of deaths among people with diabetes are due to heart disease and stroke.
Persons with diabetes are two to four times more likely to develop heart disease than people without diabetes.
More than 60 percent of all nontraumatic amputations occur among people with diabetes.
Nearly 44 percent of all kidney failure is caused by diabetes. Diabetic patients are 17 times more prone to kidney disease than people who do not have the disease.
Diabetes is also the leading cause of end stage renal disease.
Women with diabetes face high-risk pregnancies, which can result in babies born with many health problems.
Courtesy of the Diabetes Research Institute and an article dated December 21, 2010 appearing in Fast Company Design
As we have detailed in a numberofstories, a pesticide (clothianidin) produced by Bayer may be responsible, at least in part, for the precipitous decline of the bee population in the last few years. The pesticide was approved on the basis of a study that the EPA knew to be faulty. There is little evidence supporting Bayer's claim that clothianidin is safe (and a growing stack of evidence that it isn't).
Bayer's response to all the negative press surrounding clothianidin: go into spin mode. But the company's recent blog post on clothianidin's safety is itself full of holes.
Take this sentence, for example: "Bayer CropScience was recently made aware of an unauthorized release from within the Environmental Protection Association (EPA) of a document regarding the seed treatment product, clothianidin, which is sold in the United States corn market." The document's release was not "unauthorized"; it was available through the Freedom of Information Act. It was forwarded to Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald by an EPA employee, who first made Theobald aware of it. But that's almost beside the point.
Bayer also notes that its flawed study "was peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Economic Entomology, and that the EPA initially called it "scientifically sound" and said it "satisfies the guideline requirements for a field toxicity test with honey bees."
Indeed, that was what the Agency said at first blush. But the recently unearthed document reveals the EPA's concern with the study. "Another field study is needed to evaluate the effects of clothianidin on bees through contaminated pollen and nectar," it says. In other words, the study doesn't satisfy guideline requirements for a core study on honey bee safety.
Bayer's response? "This was an incomplete document, something that they were working on," says Jack Boyne, Director of Communications at Bayer CropScience. "The study in question was a peer-reviewed, scientifically valid study."
Then there's this statement in the release: "Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over six years without incident to honey bees." That's disingenuous at best. Bayer has already admitted that the misapplication of clothianidin was responsible for killing two-thirds of beekeepers' bees in the Baden-Württemberg region of Germany.
A Bayer press release from 2008 explains that "The bee die-offs which occurred in spring 2008 in Southwest Germany as the result of faulty application of the active ingredient clothianidin set off a controversial discussion on the use of pesticides for seed treatments." Bayer won't accept fault for the incident. Nevertheless, its own 2008 press release goes against its 2010 statement that clothianidin has been used without incident to honey bees. (Bayer responds that the statement was only meant to refer to clothianidin use in the U.S.)
A number of factors contributed to the disaster in Germany--a combination of strong winds, dryness in the area, and faulty seed coatings from a local seed treatment company are all responsible. "I don't think it will happen again. This is one of the leading products in corn as a seed treatment, and we have not seen this type of incident since," says Boyne.
But even if clothianidin is entirely safe if applied correctly--and we don't believe it is--Bayer can't guarantee that the pesticide will be used properly by growers. Should the fate of our bees--and a third of American agriculture--really rest in the hands of seed treatment companies and changeable weather conditions?
COMMENTARY: If you have regularly followed my blog posts, you are aware that I posted a previous blog post (click to view) about Clothianidin on December 15, 2010.
Based on that article, I wrote to Bayer CropScience on December 20, 2010, and this is the response from Jack Boyne, Director of Communications:
Dear Mr. Toy,
Thank you for your email and your questions about Clothianidin.
Bayer CropScience recognizes the importance of honey bees and has an inherent interest in promoting their role as pollinators. We share your concern for honey bee health and support efforts in finding remedies to bee maladies.
Recent research has shown that multiple factors, including a combination of viral and fungal pathogens, are closely correlated with the recent declines seen in honey bee populations, known as Colony Collapse Disorder (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181). Despite some claims to the contrary you may have seen in the popular press, there are no studies that show that pesticides are responsible for this bee decline.
Clothianidin is a member of the neonicotinoid class of chemistry and has been widely adopted as a pest management tool for agricultural uses, because of its low-dose performance against destructive insect pests and its favorable environmental profile. Like many insecticides, clothianidin is toxic to honey bees, but may be used without impacting bee colonies when used according to label directions. Moreover, clothianidin has been extensively studied in terms of bee safety assessment, including numerous laboratory and field research trials. . A long-term field study conducted by independent researchers and published in a major peer-reviewed scientific journal using clothianidin-treated seed showed that there was no effect on bee mortality, weight gain, worker longevity, brood development, honey yield and over-winter survival when compared to bees observed in untreated controls. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the EPA prior to its initiation and was later published in a major peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Clothianidin is the leading seed treatment on corn in the United States and has been used extensively for over 6 years without incident to honey bees.
Innovative seed treatment technology represents an environmentally sound approach to crop protection. Treating the seed provides a targeted and effective means of application that helps increase yields, safeguard our environment and ensure a sustainable means of crop production.
A robust agricultural system depends on pollinators and crop protection products to meet the challenge of feeding a hungry world. I hope you find the comments above to be helpful and if you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jack Boyne, Ph.D. Director of Communications
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY _______________________ Bayer CropScience LP Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: +1 919-549-2231 Fax: 919-549-2545 Email: jack.boyne@bayer.com
Dear Ms Machamer and Mr. Coffey,
I filled out your informational questionnaire, and it came back as undeliverable, so that needs to be fixed. Here is the information that I provided. I believe this is self-explanatory
Sincerely,
Tommy Toy
From: imaginativepro@hotmail.com First Name: Tommy Last Name: Toy Phone: 925-768-1805 Zip Code: 94520 Contact Preference: Email Subscribe to Email: No Question:
I have taken this action, because I am concerned that Bayer CropScience is acting recklessly by allowing Clothianidin to be used as a pesticide in the U.S. and other countries. There is now mounting evidence that Clothianidian, and other insecticides similar to it, is responsible for the mass extinction of America's and world's bee population, and possibly other insects as well. The entire U.S. agricultural food industry is jeopardy. Once the bees go, how can pollination take place. The farmer's and beekeepers beg you to take Clotianidian off the market NOW. I have also filed a formal complaint with the Environmental Protection Agency with regards to Clothianidian. I would like a confirmation of this complaint at your earliest convenience informing of the type of actions you are taking with regard to Clothianidian.
The information contained in this e-mail is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) and may be confidential, proprietary, and/or legally privileged. Inadvertent disclosure of this message does not constitute a waiver of any privilege. If you receive this message in error, please do not directly or indirectly use, print, copy, forward, or disclose any part of this message. Please also delete this e-mail and all copies and notify the sender. Thank you.
Here is a copy of my response to Mr. Boyne, sent out today:
Dear Mr. Boyne,
Thank you for your quick response.
Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that Bayer CropScience has not done sufficient research into the longterm effects of Clothianidin on the environment, insects like the honey bee and other wild life.
Germany, Italy and France were sufficiently concerned about the harmful effects of Clothianidin on their honey bee population that they took steps to have it banned.
You state in your email response that, "Like many insecticides, Clothianidin is toxic to honey bees, but may be used without impacting bee colonies when used according to label directions." If this is the official opinion and position of Bayer CropScience, then Clothianidin presents a real danger to the U.S. honey bee, whether it is applied in accordance with label directions or not, and should be pulled from the market immediately.
It is inexcusable and reckless for Bayer CropScience to stretch the truth and justify the use of Clothianidin, by saying, "
Recent research has shown that multiple factors, including a combination of viral and fungal pathogens, are closely correlated with the recent declines seen in honey bee populations, known as Colony Collapse Disorder." If this is the case, then Bayer CropScience should pull Clothianidin from the market, to determine if the honey bee population continues to decline or improves.
Please understand that my comments are not directed at you personally. You are doing your job as V.P. of Corporate Communications, but the key executives of Bayer CropScience have both the legal and moral obligation to pull any product from the market if it is even slightly suspected of being harmful to the environment, wildlife or valuable insects like the honey bee.
If your corporate executives knowingly knew or had inside knowledge or information that Clothianidin was causing harm to the environment, wildlife and valuable insects like the honey bee, not only will Bayer CropSciences by held accountable, but the company's executives may be personally liable to pay substantial penalties or fines and financial restitutions to all parties harmed by Clothianidin.
Again, thank you for your quick response. My only hope is that you will bring this matter to the attention of all concerned.
Sincerely,
Tommy Toy
As you can see I did not mince words with Bayer CropScience, and this is just the beginning of my campaign to see that Clothianidin is taken off the market
Courtesy of an article dated December 17, 2010 appearing in Fast Company
Beekeepers across the U.S. are reporting record low honey crops as their bees fail to make it through the winter. One-third of American agriculture, which relies on bee pollination, is at stake. And the problem may be at least partially attributable to clothianidin, a Bayer-branded pesticide used on corn and other crops.
But as we revealed last week, the EPA knew that clothianidin could be toxic when the product came on the market in 2003. So why is it still on the market?
The bee-toxic pesticide problem can be traced back to 1994, when the first neonicotinoid pesticide (Imidacloprid) was released. Neonicotinoids like imidacloprid and clothianidin disrupt the central nervous system of pest insects, and are supposed to be relatively non-toxic to other animals. But there's a problem: The neonicotinoids coat plant seeds, releasing insecticides permanently into the plant. The toxins are then released in pollen and nectar--where they may cause bees to become disoriented and die.
After imidacloprid was released in France (under the name Gaucho) the number of bees in the country dropped rapidly, from 75 kg per hive down to 30 kg per hive between 1995 and 2001. France conducted an official study on the pesticide in 1998, but found no solid evidence that imidacloprid played a part in bee deaths. Nevertheless, Imidacloprid was banned for use on sunflowers and, later, sweet corn.
Enter clothianidin, a next-generation neonicotinoid released by Bayer in 2003. "In terms of the neonicotonoid family, clothianidin is one of the most toxic members," explains Dr. James Frazier, a professor of entomology at Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences.
The EPA first brought up the link between clothianidin and bees before the pesticide's release in February 2003. The agency originally planned to withhold registration of the pesticide because of concerns about toxicity in bees, going so far as to suggest that the product come with a warning label (PDF): "This compound is toxic to honey bees. The persistance of residues and the expression clothianidin in nectar and pollen suggest the possibility of chronic toxic risk to honey bee larvae and the eventual stability of the hive."
But in April 2003, the EPA decided to give Bayer conditional registration. Bayer could sell the product and seed processors could freely use it, with the proviso that Bayer complete a life cycle study of clothianidin on corn by December 2004. Bayer was granted an extension until May 2005 (and permission to use canola instead of corn in its tests), but didn't complete the study until August 2007. The EPA continued to allow the sale of clothianidin, and once the Bayer study finally came out, it was flawed.
In a statement to the Pesticide Action Network, beekeeper Jeff Anderson explains:
"The Bayer study is fatally flawed. It was an open field study with control and test plots of about 2 acres each. Bees typically forage at least 2 miles out from the hive, so it is likely they didn’t ingest much of the treated crops. And corn, not canola, is the major pollen-producing crop that bees rely on for winter nutrition.
"This is a critical point because we see hive losses mainly after over-wintering, so there is something going on in these winter cycles. It’s as if they designed the study to avoid seeing clothianidin’s effects on hive health." [Emphasis ours]
The U.S. bee population didn't start dying off until 2005, says David Hackenberg, the beekeeper who first discovered Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). "We started seeing problems where bees were disappearing in the fall. We blamed it on mites, viruses and a lot of other stuff because we didn't know what to blame it on."
But soon Hackenberg made the connection: bee die-off seemed to follow corn crop plantings so much that "you can follow the trail of this stuff to where bees are collapsing," says Hackenberg.
Frazier first started paying attention to the problem in 2007. "Ever since we started this work, the sheer magnitude of the use of neonicotonoids in the environment has always made them suspect for us," he explains.
Frazier and Hackenberg weren't alone in their concern. Germany suspended the use of neonicotinoids in 2008 after the misapplication of clothiandin by beekeepers in the Baden-Württemberg area caused the pesticide to get into the air. Two-third of the beekeepers' bees in the region died as a result (tests on dead bees showed that 99% had clothiandin build-up).
Italy also suspended the use of neonicotinoids in 2008. The country has evidence that the ban is saving bees. In 2009, Italy saw zero cases of bee mortality in apiaries surrounding neonicotinoid-free corn crops. Bee mortality had been an issue around corn crops in the country since 1999.
The EPA's response to these suspensions: "Several European countries have suspended the use of certain pesticides in response to incidents involving acute poisoning of honey bees. To EPA's knowledge, none of the incidents that led to suspensions have been associated withColony Collapse Disorder."
And then came last week's news that the EPA recently conducted another study on clothiandin (PDF) in response to Bayer's request to use the pesticide on cotton and mustard (the chemical can currently be used on corn, canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat).
The new study, unearthed by Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald, invalidates Bayer's previous study, claiming that "after another review of this field study in light of additional information, deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental. It does not satisfy the guideline 850.3040, and another field study is needed to evaluate the effects of clothianidin on bees through contaminated pollen and nectar." The study also warns that clothiandin is highly toxic to bees on both a contact and oral basis.
And yet, the EPA is continuing to allow the sale of clothiandin, even though the study that the agency based its decision on proved to be invalid. "It's a matter of perspective," says Frazier. "If the core study to judge registration is no longer considered a valid core study, do you allow continued use of something without good scientific data behind it? That's the choice that's been left to be made by the EPA."
Hackenberg doesn't think that the EPA will take action unless it's sued by a major environmental organization (note: in 2008, the NRDC sued the EPA to release Bayer's studies on neonicotinoid safety). Indeed, Hackenberg tells Fast Company that an EPA official recently told him that clothiandin is still on the market in part because of fears that Bayer would sue the agency if it is removed.
"I was at the EPA yesterday," Hackenberg says. "They keep telling us that bee scientists have to prove to the EPA that there's a problem. The problem is that the EPA is supposed to protect the environment, it's their responsibility to make sure that the chemical companies are doing their job."
No one can say for sure that neonicotinoids alone are causing bees to die off--many more studies have to be done. But the EPA would do well to err on the side of caution for the beekeepers who are rapidly losing their bees. Tom Theobald, for example, saw his smallest honey crop in 35 years of beekeeping, and Hackenberg claims that he has talked to beekeepers across the country who have lost up to 90% of their output this year.
Is it really worth waiting to find out what happens if the EPA doesn't take neonicotinoids off the market? There isn't time to waste. Clothiandin has a half-life of 19 years in heavy soils favored by farmers.
The EPA has not responded to our requests for comment.
COMMENTARY: I thought it was the job of the EPA to protect us and the environment, so I am shocked that it would gravel under pressure of a potential lawsuit by Bayer, if Clothianidin was taken off the market.
I reviewed the original EPA pesticide fact sheet dated May 30, 2003 for Clothianidin and it approved the issuance for its use, but this was a "conditional registration". I carefully reviewed the EPA registration and the comments pertaining to bees:
Page 2, Section 3 - Science Findings, Summary of Science Findings, it says: "Clothianidin has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen."
Page 15, Section 3, Science Findings, Ecological Characteristics, Terrestrial, it says:"Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439 µg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In honey bees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen."
Page 16, Section 3, Science Findings, Endangered Species, it says: "To address ecological concerns, labeling will be required that mandates treated seed bags be printed with advisory language regarding hazards to wildlife and will include specific instructions to cover or collect clothianidin treated seeds that are spilled during loading. In order to fully evaluate the possibility of chronic exposure to honey bees, a complete worker bee life cycle study will be required, as well as an evaluation of exposure and effects to the queen. Sediment toxicity testing will be required to address the uncertainty of possible risk to communities of invertebrates and fish that inhabit or come into contact with sediment from fields planted with treated seed."
This whole thing stinks to high heaven and Bayer must be held accountable for all damages, and the EPA should take Clothianidin off the market until further testing has been completed as per the original EPA registration.
Bees pollinate about one-third of the human diet, $15 billion worth of U.S. crops, including almonds in California, blueberries in Maine, cucumbers in North Carolina and 85 other commercial crops, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Not finding a cause of the collapse could prove costly, scientists warn.
Honey bees, which pollinate everything from almonds to apples to avocados, began abandoning their colonies in 2006, destroying about a third of their hives. Since then, their numbers have not improved. A survey of beekeepers in the fall and winter 2007 by the Bee Research Lab and the Apiary Inspectors of America showed that beekeepers lost about 35 percent of their hives compared with 31 percent in 2006.
Neonicotinoids like Imidacloprid and Clothianidin have been banned for use in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia.
The two substances are produced by the German company Bayer CropScience and generated €800 million in 2007 or $1 billion in today's dollars.
Bayer CropScience did $1.4 billion in gross revenues for the fiscal year ending 2009. If their Neonicotinoids (Imidacioprid and Clothianidin) products represent $1 billion in today's dollars, then they have a lot to lose.Although Bayer AG, the parent did $44 billion in 2009, a loss of $1 billion in revenues is substantial on a consolidated basis.
The entire U.S. agriculture industry is at risk, not just our fruits and vegetables, but all commercial and natural flora that requires the transmission of pollen seeds in order to grow and bear fruit.
This finding transforms the previous scientific understanding of our immunity to viral diseases like the common cold and gastroenteritis. It also gives scientists a different set of rules that pave the way to the next generation of antiviral drugs.
Viruses are mankind’s biggest killer, responsible for twice as many deaths each year as cancer, yet they are among the hardest of all diseases to treat. Previously scientists believed that antibodies could only reduce infection by attacking viruses outside cells and also by blocking their entry into cells.
LMB scientists have now shown that antibodies remain attached when viruses enter healthy cells. Once inside, the antibodies trigger a response, led by a protein called TRIM21, which pulls the virus into a disposal system used by the cell to get rid of unwanted material. This process happens quickly, before the virus has a chance to harm the cell. The research team has further shown that increasing the amount of TRIM21 protein in cells makes this process even more effective, suggesting new ways of making better antiviral drugs.
Leo, who led the study said: “Doctors have plenty of antibiotics to fight bacterial infections but few antiviral drugs. Although these are early days, and we don’t yet know the range of viruses that are cleared by this mechanism, we are excited that our discoveries may open multiple avenues for developing new antiviral drugs.”
Sir Greg Winter, LMB’s Deputy Director, said: “Antibodies are formidable molecular war machines; it now appears that they can continue to attack viruses within cells. This research is not only a leap in our understanding of how and where antibodies work, but more generally in our understanding of immunity and infection.”
Leo’s team is now working with MRC Technology to bring this exciting finding from laboratory bench to doctor’s cabinet as quickly as possible.
COMMENTARY: Despite extracellular adaptive and innate immunity, viral and bacterial pathogens are still able to infect cells. Because of this there must be a way to neutralise pathogens once they are inside the cell. Historically, infected cells have been seen as largely helpless and only able to signal for help. However, there is increasing evidence that cells have their own mechanisms for directly restricting pathogen replication.
The above animation visually explains how MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology's anti-bodies can kills viral pathogens from within the infected cells. The ability for these new anti-bodies to enter an infected cell, goes against established viral research which works by blocking the entry points where a virus can enter and infect a cell.
It's cool to see how the anti-bodies suck the viral pathogens into a cylinder-shaped "vacuum cleaner" that destroys the virus. MRC has yet to determine how many harmful viruses the anti-bodies can destroy. What wasn't too clear is how quickly the living organism can recover once the viruses are destroyed.
MRC's new method for killing viruses has to be exciting if you are a medical research scientist. However, a lot of additional research and development still needs to be done, and this takes funding, which explains their affiliation with MRC Technology, which was hired to license their technology. MRC Technology is a good company to know for licensing and monetization of medical discoveries.
I am very impressed with MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), Cambridge University (UK). Since 1958, 13 LMB scientists have been awarded Nobel Prizes for primary scientific research and pioneering techniques for molecular biology.
Courtesy of an article dated November 10, 2010 appearing in Kurzweil News and an article dated November 10, 2010 appearing in The Independent
After many years of increasingly erratic behavior, Alan Marks, of Lafayette, suddenly experienced a severe seizure in the middle of the night. His wife, Ellie, called 911 and Marks was rushed to the hospital, where tests revealed a golf-ball-size brain tumor that apparently was the cause of his personality changes.
The Markses had no doubt about what caused the tumor: It was located exactly where he had been pressing a cell phone to his head for almost two decades.
In the two years since that diagnosis, the Markses have joined an international debate over the potential health risks surrounding the low levels of radiation emitted by cell phones. The couple have testified before the U.S. Congress, been interviewed on national television, and they were instrumental in persuading San Francisco to adopt a controversial ordinance that requires mobile phone retailers to display information about the radiation levels of each model.
"I wanted to share my story because I don't want others to suffer like we have," Ellie Marks said.
But how can they be sure the cell phone is to blame? I've had a growing interest in this subject in recent months for personal and professional reasons. But what I've found is that nobody knows for sure whether cell phones are a health hazard. And that has surprised me and made me nervous.
Several players at the heart of this debate converged on San Francisco last week. CTIA-The Wireless Association had its annual trade show, which it promised would be the last in the city because of the new disclosure law. Marks organized several protests outside the event. And noted epidemiologist Devra Davis, a visiting professor at Harvard University, arrived for several speaking engagements about her recently published book, "Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How To Protect Your Family."
"When I first heard that there could be problems with cell phones, I didn't believe it," Davis said. "I wrote the book because I was stunned to find out I was wrong to assume that these things had to be safe."
For many years it was believed the low levels of radiation generated by cell phones and towers had no effect on human biology. Now a small but growing number of scientists and health activists are challenging those findings.
Davis' book cites studies that point to possible links between cell phones and brain tumors and lower sperm counts. Much of this evidence has been attacked from other scientific corners as "junk science" from a lunatic fringe. Having read the book and listened to arguments on both sides, I found myself wondering how the average consumer, who doesn't have the science background to sort through the details of studies, is supposed to come to an informed conclusion.
My interest in this topic began earlier this year when the owner of a building across the street from our kids' school in North Oakland signed a contract with Verizon Wireless to install a handful of cell phone towers on his roof. The prospect of these radiation-emitting devices so close to the school alarmed a number of parents at the school, including my wife, who organized an effort to stop them.
It turns out the 1996 Telecommunications Act contains a provision that bars local governments from considering health effects when deciding whether to grant permits for cell towers. They can only consider aesthetic issues -- that is, whether the towers are too ugly for the neighborhood.
Such a restriction seemed heavy-handed and got me wondering: Why was anyone trying to eliminate debates over health effects? Surely if there was a possible health issue with cell phones or towers, someone would have told us, right?
In fact, they have told us. Every cell phone comes with a standard disclosure about the effects of radiation. Like most people, I had never read the safety and product booklet that came with my BlackBerry Curve 8310. But when I did this summer, I found a section where it talks about the amount of radiation the phone emits and then warns me to do the following:
"Keep the device at least 0.98 inches (25 mm) away from your body when the BlackBerry device is turned on and connected to a wireless network."
If cell phones are safe, why do I need to hold it away from my body?
"Cell phones are small microwave radios," Davis said. "And you don't want to hold a small microwave radio next to your head."
I asked John Walls, a CTIA spokesman, why phones include this warning when there is no government or industrywide mandate to do so.
"It's been the legal opinions of the various companies that they should supply that warning," he said.
Hardly reassuring. But what's really interesting is that the cell phone industry doesn't actually claim cell phones are safe. It claims that other people do. It points to third-party research by other groups such as the Federal Communications Commission, scientific standards bodies and organizations such as the World Health Organization.
"We don't have concerns because that is what science has told us about our products," Walls said. "If anyone knows any different they should let the agencies and public health organizations know. We are not scientists and we defer to their work. The overwhelming consensus is that there is no evidence that people should have cause for concern."
But that's not entirely true. In May, the World Health Organization released a 10-year study dubbed "Interphone" that examined the possibility of a link between brain tumors and cell phones. According to Joachim Schüz, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the principal scientist on the Interphone study, the results were inconclusive. But the study noted:
"There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma (brain tumors) for those who reported the highest 10 percent of cumulative hours of cell phone use."
"The results are really not as clear as we hoped when we started the study," Schüz said. "Further monitoring of the long-term use of mobile phones is certainly necessary."
The FCC also delivers mixed signals on the subject. An FCC representative pointed me to the portion of the agency's website that addresses the issue:
"No scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF (radio frequency) safety standards than is currently used."
Given the lack of clarity, what are we to do?
The FCC lists some precautions, though it wants to be clear that it "does not endorse the need for these practices" because there's no danger. Got it? But just in case, use a speakerphone or headset, increase the distance between the wireless device and your body, and consider texting rather than talking (unless you're driving!).
When I talked to Ellie Marks last week, she was on her cell phone getting ready to lead her first protest march to the CTIA convention. She said her husband has been doing well in recent months, but they expect the tumor to come back at some point. I noted that she hadn't ditched her own wireless phone in the wake of all she had learned.
"I don't believe in abandoning this technology," Marks said. "I want the industry to make the equipment safer and be honest about the risks."
COMMENTARY: Next time that you are using your cellphone, put it next to a radio or TV set, and see what happens. That "hisssss" sound is the radio waves generated by the signal generated by your cell phone.
There are two types of radio waves -- ionized and non-ionized. Ionized radio waves are the more dangerous of the two. Cell phone radio waves fall into the non-ionized spectrum. However, non-ionized radio waves include ultra-violet light from the Sun. The Sun's rays can still burn you pretty good, so even if you are using a cell phone, the radio waves it emits can pose a possible danger.
An excellent article discusses electro-magnetic radio waves generated by cell phones. Here's the LINK. Pong Research has developed a cell phone radiation guard and their site has a very alarming video of cell phone electro-magnetic radio waves before and after using the guard.
Embryonic stem cell research, once again in the political crosshairs following last month’s court ruling halting most federal funding, has an even bigger money problem.
Venture capital investors say they have been steering clear of the nascent technology, due to its high-profile legal and regulatory woes, as well as to uncertainty about stem cell business models. The current constraints on both public and private capital for stem cell research, analysts say, will likely result in a slowdown in innovation that could have long-term consequences for biotech clusters like Boston.
While there is a lot of federal money at stake, there is even more potential private capital funding that is potentially jeopardized by regulatory holdups. Companies that report that their work deals with stem cells have raised $970 million over the past five years, research from Dow Jones VentureSource shows. Venture capital funding for stem cell research peaked in 2008, according to the National Venture Capital Association, with 21 venture rounds, worth $199 million raised by 15 companies. The number of investment deals for the first half of 2010 could actually beat 2008 levels, with 11 deals struck by nine companies year to date. But investors say many of the companies receiving funding these days are pursuing adult stem cell research, which is not affected by the ruling.
STEM CELLS 101
What are stem cells, where do stem cells come from, how are stem cells harvested, which countries are conducting stem cell research, stem cell therapeutic applications and what do Americans think about stem cell research
“Biotechnology is already risky. Early stage is more risky. Then take a controversial technology, that’s the most risky,” said Michael Werner, executive director of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine and a Washington-based partner at Holland and Knight law firm.
The combination of the current injunction against federal funding for embryonic stem cells and wariness in the investor community, Werner said, amounts to a significant obstacle to commercialization of stem cell therapies. One consequence, Werner said, is that intellectual property, VC dollars, and eventually jobs may go to overseas.
“When one part of the pipeline is clogged—academic research and early-stage companies—it has an impact on the whole system," he added.
COMMENTARY: It is a dirty shame that stem cell startups and stem cell related research has been stopped in its tracks after showing so much potential following the election of President Barack Obama. The President liberalized stem cell research, but limited federal funding. Several VC firms jumped in, and are now in limbo, as the case stemming from a federal district judge who overturned Back Obama's executive orders, calling the President's action illegal and a violation of stem cell legislation.
Stem cell research is still very active outside the U.S. and the recent legal action, has created a migration of stem cell researchers to other countries, where they can practice their research. I am afraid that the legal actions prohibiting stem cell research, and resistance by various religious organizations, will result in the U.S. losing its competitive advantages in the area of stem cell research.
Courtesy of an article dated September 12, 2010 appearing in Portfolio.com
Recent Comments