Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ocba - Re: [ocba] Re; honey vs syrup

ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Orange County, NC Beekeepers

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Thomas Grizzle" <griz AT mindspring.com>
  • To: "'Leslie DiLorenzo'" <time_wise AT hotmail.com>, <chuckcunn AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [ocba] Re; honey vs syrup
  • Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:51:44 -0500

Ok, Leslie.  My intent was to not clutter the listserv and inboxes.  There’s been no further discussion yet.  Most of what I have to say does not pertain to bees anyway…I’m a newbee.

 

From: Leslie DiLorenzo [mailto:time_wise AT hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:05 AM
To: griz AT mindspring.com; chuckcunn AT gmail.com
Cc: ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: RE: [ocba] Re; honey vs syrup

 

Oh, please, keep it online. I'd like to remain privy to the dialogue. Thanks.


From: griz AT mindspring.com
To: chuckcunn AT gmail.com
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:11:58 -0500
CC: ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [ocba] Re; honey vs syrup

Chuck,


As stated in the original message, the work was for the US-NTP on contract at RTI International in the Research Triangle Park.  There were multiple contracts that RTI held with the NTP, the two pertaining to my statements were a teratology (developmental toxicity) contract and an RACB (reproductive assessment by continuous breeding) contract.  I was not a US government employee, but an employee of a non-profit, RTI.


This has nothing to do with the bees themselves.  The studies were reproductive safety assessments that would apply to both human and non-human animals.  The connection is that humans eat honey that bees sometimes make using sugar that may contain trace amounts of pesticides.  The statement was made that “no research exists…” when indeed it does. 

 

Any further discussion is welcomed off-line…


Tom

 

From: chuck cunningham [mailto:chuckcunn AT gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:41 AM
To: Thomas Grizzle
Cc: annallys Goodwin-Landher; OCBA
Subject: Re: [ocba] Re; honey vs syrup

 

Clarify as to how this applies to bees.  Also, "on contract" with who?

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thomas Grizzle <griz AT mindspring.com> wrote:

Annallys,

 

Your rather definitive sounding statement that “no research exists that addresses the synergistic effect of small doses of human manufactured chemicals…” is just flat out incorrect.  I am a toxicologist who has sat through numerous boring presentations with no noteworthy effects from these sorts of investigations.  I have personally worked for the US Government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) on contract at RTI (in the RTP) for 10 years of my career, from 1987 – 1997.  Just at RTI there were many studies that investigated the potential for reproductive effects caused by low concentrations of (from memory, may be off a bit but basically..) a mixture fertilizer and a half-dozen or so pesticides.  This work was conducted in mice and rats that I am aware of, but the NTP contracts with multiple labs (our tax dollars at work) and there were probably others.  There were two mixtures, one we called IOWA and the other called CAL because they were designed to mimic actual conditions in these two states.   Here’s the reference if you want to know more…

 

JJ Heindel, RE Chapin, DK Gulati, JD George, CJ Price, MC Marr, CB Myers, LH Barnes, PA Fail, TB Grizzle, BA Schwetz, and RSH Yang.  Assessment of the reproductive and developmental toxicity of pesticide/fertilizer mixtures based on confirmed pesticide contamination in California and Iowa groundwater.  Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 22, 605-621 (1994).

 

Tom

 

 

From: annallys Goodwin-Landher [mailto:annallys AT hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:13 PM
To: griz AT mindspring.com; OCBA
Subject: RE: [ocba] Re; honey vs syrup

 

Tom,

I appreciate the time, effort and dedication it takes to assess risk.  However, no research exists that addresses the synergistic effect of small doses of human manufactured chemicals on humans, bees, animals, and other life on this planet. 

There was a long period in the history of beekeeping where the assessed risk of using human manufactured chemicals on bees was considered negligible.  The bee school I attended did teach about how the human manufactured chemicals are used and every single presenter related that it might be a good idea to use them as little as possible.  This might just apply to our food sources and bee food sources. 

Regards,

Annallys Goodwin-Landher
PO Box 2744
Chapel Hill, NC 27515
919 933-9109
annallys AT hotmail.com
 


From: griz AT mindspring.com
To: ocba AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:13:16 -0500
Subject: [ocba] Re; honey vs syrup

One of the things I do in my work is risk assessment.  Right or wrong, I look at the honey vs. syrup question a little differently than I’ve seen expressed thus far. 

 

1)      The actual risk you take by consuming honey with trace amounts of human manufactured chemicals (from sugar) is minuscule, vanishingly small, even if you sat down to a huge portion of honey.

2)      The actual risk you take by consuming honey with naturally occurring botulinum spores (often present in honey) is high enough that if you are a child (<1 year), due to differences in digestion that I don’t have a clue about, you can develop a serious toxicity eating honey (botulism poisoning).

3)      The actual risk you take by consuming honey that was made from naturally occurring blooming azaleas, rhododendrons, laurels, and probably many other plants is case by case, but can cause a type of intoxication and I hear even death on rare occasions.  If you are a healthy person, this is probably not a concern, but if you are old and/or have health issues, it could happen.  Moreover, these sorts of potential problems with “toxic honey” are much more likely to occur with hobby beekeepers than commercial honey.

4)      If you drive or ride in a car, there is something like a 100% chance that in your lifetime you will suffer a life threatening event, and yet many of us happily motor around, texting, radio on high, steering with our pinky finger, oblivious. 

5)      About the riskiest thing us men can do is to be unmarried! (shaves about 10 years off your life expectancy)

 

People are willing to assume huge risk if they feel they are the one in control, but even a tiny risk and no control = HUGE worry.  Worry first about things with actual high risk, and things way down the list (“tainted” sugar) are largely a waste of time and energy (and money).  If you use tobacco products or alcohol (both known human carcinogens), are a rock climber or a farmer and worry about honey contamination from sugar, well, you get the picture. 

 

My personal objective with beekeeping is the enhancement/maximization of pollination in my backyard nano-farm.  If you think about how much energy goes into growing sugar cane, then processing the sugar and shipping it NC, there is a lot of embodied energy (oil) in 5 pounds, many times more than the food value contained in the sugar itself.  I am new to beekeeping and am going to try to use as little sugar as possible, and if that means the bees get most of the honey, so be it.  I get the fruits and vegetables.

 

Anyway, just sayin’…

 

Tom Grizzle

Chapel Hill native


_________________________________________ ocba mailing list | North Carolina Beekeeping| http://www.theocba.org/ Manage Your Subscription: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ocba/


_________________________________________
ocba mailing list | North Carolina Beekeeping| http://www.theocba.org/
Manage Your Subscription: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ocba/

 


_________________________________________ ocba mailing list | North Carolina Beekeeping| http://www.theocba.org/ Manage Your Subscription: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ocba/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page