**Prepared Testimony of Maryann Frazier**

**Senior Extension Associate**

**Department of Entomology**

**The Pennsylvania State University**

**before the**

**U.S. House of Representatives**

**Committee on Agriculture**

**Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture**

**on**

**Update on Colony Collapse Disorder in Honey Bee Colonies in the United
States**

**June 26, 2008**

**Introduction**

Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and
Organic Agriculture,

I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to be here
today and bring you up to date on CCD, pollinator health, and our
land-grant universities' efforts to address these critical issues.

As the senior extension associate at Penn State, specializing in
apiculture for the past 20 years, I have had the opportunity to work
closely with beekeepers as well as university and USDA researchers
involved in honey bee research. I am also a beekeeper and am intimately
involved in scientific research dealing with the health and productivity
of honey bees and other pollinators. I believe this gives me a unique
perspective and understanding of the challenges faced by both groups. I
am also a founding member of the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and
Extension Consortium (MAAREC). This group, established in 1997, is
focused on addressing the pest management crisis facing the beekeeping
industry in the Mid-Atlantic Region. I have worked in the regulatory
arena as the assistant state apiary inspector in Maryland and as a
beekeeping specialist in Africa and Central America. In addition I am
one of the members of the CCD working team that formed in response to
the latest threat to honey bee health.

I want to thank this committee for the critical research funding
allocated to work on honey bee health and CCD since this committee first
met in March, 2007. This includes \$321,932 in CSREES critical issues
funding awarded to Penn State and the University of Georgia and the
pending \$4.1 million CAP grant that will fund work on pollinator health
at several collaborating universities. However I believe the magnitude
and timeliness of the response has not matched the scale and the urgency
needed to save an industry valued at more than \$14 billion. A quote by
one of our CCD working team colleagues helps put the situation into
perspective, "How would our government respond if one out of every three
cows was dying?" While this committee held it first timely hearing in
March of 2007, the funding that has been allocated to date falls far
short of the time sensitive and potentially catastrophic nature of this
problem.

After facing almost two years of CCD ravaging the beekeeping and
pollination industries, we would like to propose five additional "action
items" that if taken, could immediately move critical research forward
and help our beekeepers survive this difficult time. These actions
would, in turn, help ensure on-going pollination services to the fruit,
nut, seed and vegetable industries across the US and thus provide
reasonably priced fresh fruits and vegetables to consumers with minimal
interruption.

These actions include:

1\) Reducing the cost of pesticide analytical services provided by USDA
Ag Marketing Services to USDA and University researchers working on
pollinator health.

2\) Creating a new USDA critical issues program to develop alternative
control methods for Varroa mites

3\) Providing additional funding aimed at understanding pollinator
decline and improving pollinator health that includes native species of
pollinators

4\) Providing direct financial assistance to beekeepers suffering from
high losses

5\) Directing APHIS to immediately implement a national survey for honey
bee diseases

**Justification**

Due to our current agricultural methods, including the establishment of
large monocultures and the use of insecticides and herbicides, wild
pollinators are largely absent from cropping systems that require insect
pollination. For this reason, growers depend on beekeepers to move their
honey bee colonies in and out of crops during bloom. The contribution of
honey bees to agriculture production in the US is valued at \$14 billion
annually. However, according to the latest Apiary Inspectors of America
and USDA/ARS survey, losses of managed colonies nationwide topped 36
percent in 2008, compared to a 31 percent loss during the same period
last year. Despite significant efforts over the past year and a half on
the part of USDA, state departments of agriculture, and land-grant
university researchers to understand the most recent manifestations of
pollinator die-offs, Colony Collapse Disorder, its cause and cure remain
unknown.

*Status and Progress to date*

Government, industry and the private sector have mobilized to address
this problem. Important timely funding to address this problem has been
received from the beekeeping industry, in particular the National Honey
Board and beekeeping organizations, the Pennsylvania and Florida
Departments of Agriculture, The Pennsylvania State University (HATCH
funds), USDA; CSRESS, Häagen-Dazs, and many concerned public groups and
individuals. Two grants totaling \$250,000 from Häagen-Dazs were made to
Penn State and UC Davis. At Penn State, an additional 252 gifts from
individuals, foundations and small businesses have been made totaling
\$52,884. Of these, 150 gifts totaling \$7,300 were made as a direct
result of the Häagen-Dazs web site. This creative effort to support
research into pollinator decline and public education on the importance
of pollinators is relatively new and additional funding is expected as a
result of this unique effort initiated by Häagen-Dazs. However many of
the research and education activities to date have relied on short-term
and somewhat uncertain funding sources.

Critical ongoing research projects by the CCD working team include the
potential role of IAPV as a major contributing factor causing CCD. The
initial work identifying IAPV would not have been possible without the
assistance of Dr. Ian Lipkin and resources from a Northeast Biodefense
grant from NIH awarded to Columbia University. Since this work is not
directly related to human health, this significant contribution to CCD
research has ended. Studies are underway to evaluate the pathogenicity
of IAPV to honey bees in a controlled greenhouse; additional studies are
planned for field studies through the CAP grant. A recent survey of bee
colonies from 11 states has revealed that IAPV is more widely
distributed than previously observed; however, it and other viruses are
regarded as being major contributors to colony death.

Two long-term studies following 260 colonies in different migratory
operations was initiated and conducted by a multi-institutional team
including PSU, PDA, NCS and the USDA. Over the course of this experiment
3,702 samples were collected while the health of these colonies was
assessed over time. Some of these samples are now being tested for
levels of parasites, viruses, and pesticide residues. These long-term
studies have also highlighted several other previously undescribed
conditions in honey bee colonies that appear to have a negative impact
on colony health, such as "entombed" pollen. Theses samples will also be
an invaluable resource when we begin to test the predictive value of
diagnostic tests which are presently in the final stages of development.
For instance, based on the autopsies of several thousand bees, we hope
to develop a CCD diagnostic test based on gross symptoms. When this
diagnostic key is finalized it can be tested against samples in storage
to validate the tests ability to predict disease outbreak. The USDA/ARS,
PDA and PSU have also initiated studies to develop practical and
effective ways for beekeepers to control parasitic infections, such as
Nosema and Varroa mites.

Ongoing research into the role of pesticides in pollinator decline and
CCD includes a study to track colonies heath and pesticide exposure in
three Pennsylvania apple orchards, the use of gamma radiation to
mitigate pesticide build-up in wax combs and foundation, lab bioassays
on the synergistic effects of multiple pesticide residues and the
potential impacts of pesticide adjuvants.

At present, the CCD team has not been able to identify a single cause
for CCD. We are now performing a multi-factorial analysis on the data
set resulting from the initial CCD sample collection. Over 180 analyses
were preformed on a common set of colonies by more than seven different
laboratories. We are hopeful that the multi-factorial analysis will
highlight those factors, which, in combination, might explain CCD.
Factors likely working together, including the recently identified IAPV
plus the parasitic microsporidia and Kashmir Bee Virus, pesticides, poor
nutrition, and varroa mites are stressing the bees (and the beekeepers)
beyond their abilities to cope. This scenario makes the situation far
more complex and difficult to understand and to "fix." However, the
potential ramifications of not understanding the collapse of our
biological systems, in this case, pollinators are huge and potentially
disastrous on many levels, including the sustainability of our food
supply as we know it.

*The Potential Role of Pesticides*

As the original member of the CCD working team charged with
investigating the potential role of pesticides in CCD, I have, over the
past 18 months worked closely with chemist and toxicologist, Dr. Chris
Mullin, and physiologist Dr. Jim Frazier on the question of whether or
not pesticides are contributing to pollinator decline in general and CCD
specifically. This work would not be possible without the assistance of
chemist Roger Simonds and the services of the USDA, Agricultural
Marketing Service, National Science Laboratory in Gastonia NC and our
CCD working team colleagues and their teams; especially Dennis
vanEngelsdorp from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture/PSU and
Dr. Jeff Pettis with the USDA/ARS in Beltsville MD.

Honey bee exposure to chemical pesticides has long been a concern of
beekeepers and growers alike. Over one half of our 2.4 million colonies
is utilized for crop pollination and typically employed on several
different crops per season. These colonies are at risk of exposure to
the pesticides used by growers to control pest insects, diseases and
weeds. Beekeeper use of miticides within the beehive to control varroa
mites is cause for concern due to their potential impacts on developing
bees (especially queens) and contamination of hive products. In the
past, pesticide poisoning of honey bees has been associated with lethal
exposure and the obvious symptom of a pile of dead bees in front of the
hive. We are becoming increasingly concerned that pesticides may affect
bees at sublethal levels, not killing them outright, but rather
impairing their behaviors and their abilities to fight off infections.
For example, pesticides at sublethal levels have been shown to impair
the learning abilities of honey bees and to suppress their immune
systems. For these reasons, we believe that pesticide exposure may be
one of the factors contributing to pollinator decline and to CCD.

In 2007 we analyzed pollen, wax and bees for pesticide residues. A
significant number of samples analyzed were from operations impacted by
CCD and control operations (not impacted by CCD) that were collected by
members of the CCD working team as part of a larger CCD study.
Additional samples were collected from honey bee colonies placed in
specific Pennsylvania apple orchards (PSU field study) and a third
source was pollen, wax or bees submitted by beekeepers who placed their
bees in specific crops, or who were concerned about the declining health
of their colonies.

In a total of 108 pollen samples analyzed, 46 different pesticides
including six of their metabolites were identified. Up to 17 different
pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average
of 5 different pesticide residues each. Only three of the 108 pollen
samples had no detectable pesticides. In a total of 88 wax samples
analyzed, 20 different pesticides including two of their metabolites
were identified. As was found in pollen, fluvalinate, coumaphos,
chlorpyrifos, and the fungicide chlorthalonil, were the most commonly
detected pesticides with fluvalinate and coumaphos detected in 100% of
the samples.

Unprecedented amounts of fluvalinate (up to 204 ppm) at high frequencies
have been detected in brood nest wax, and pollen (bee bread). Changes in
the formulation of fluvalinate over time resulting in a significant
increase in toxicity to honey bees, makes this a serious concern. The
large numbers and multiple kinds of pesticides that have been found
could result in potentially toxic interactions for which there are no
scientific studies to date. European researchers have found similar
pesticides and frequencies in hive matrices and express similar
concerns. Also these chronic levels of pesticides in pollen and wax at
potentially acute toxicity levels need further investigation with regard
to their potential interactions with other stressors (e.g. IAPV) and
their potential contribution to CCD.

**Closing Remarks**

We know that pesticides are present in the food the bees are consuming,
in the wax combs where they develop and live, and in the bees
themselves. What we don't know is how these chemical residues are
affecting the bees. From February 2007 to the present, \$247,334 has
been committed to our work on pesticide research. Of the \$96,000 spent
to date, \$57,683 or 60% has been paid to the UDSA for pesticide residue
analysis. If this service could be provided at a reduced cost, it would
allow us to redirect our limited research dollars to understanding the
impact pesticides are having on honey bees and other pollinators.

For most of the last 20 years US beekeepers have had essentially only
two registered chemical miticides to combat the most significant honey
bee pest in the world, the varroa mite. Granted three "soft" materials
have been registered more recently, but these are of limited use for our
large commercial beekeepers. These materials require specific time and
temperatures to work and often give sporadic results not amenable to
migratory operations. There has been little effort invested in finding
biologically-based alternatives to pesticides, including the most
promising, the development of bees resistant to mites. Thus, the varroa
mite, known to transmit diseases, possibly including the newly
identified IAPV, and to impair the honey bee immune system has been
largely ignored by industry and researchers, thus beekeepers have been
left to their own devices to try to control it. Additionally, the
chemical miticides being used to control varroa mites, accumulate in the
wax combs and pollen reserves and are possibly contributing to the bee's
demise as much as they are controlling the mites. For the beekeeping
industry to survive we must have safe, effective varroa mite control
methods. This will only happen if significant new resources are focused
in this direction.

While in the long run honey bees will most likely survive, our
beekeepers may not. In an effort to keep their bees alive and their
businesses afloat, and to meet critical pollination contracts they have
pushed themselves to the limits financially, emotionally and physically
during the past 18 months. Direct financial assistance is overdue, and
is critical to their survival, or next years agricultural pollination
needs will not be met. One immediate small step would be to exempt
beekeepers from paying the sugar tariff on sugar used to feed their
bees. I urge the committee to consider these five suggestions for
improving our efforts to find the cause or causes for CCD and save our
pollination industry before it is too late.

I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and would be happy
to answer any questions.