U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–465 PDF 2007

REVIEW COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER IN HONEY 

BEE COLONIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE 

AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Serial No. 110–07 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Ranking Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, Jr., Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURE

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California, Chairman 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, Ranking 

Minority Member 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

KEITH JONES, Subcommittee Staff Director 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

(iii) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota, Prepared statement .......................................................................... 45 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, Prepared statement .................................................................................. 47 

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 48 

WITNESSES 

Rexroad, Caird E., PhD, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Oral Statement ....................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 50 

Cox-Foster, Diana, PhD, Professor, Pennsylvania State University, University 

Park, Pennsylvania, Oral Statement .................................................................. 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 57 

Berenbaum, May R., Professor and Head, Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, Oral Statement ........ 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 63 

Wenger, Paul, First Vice President, California Farm Bureau Federation, Modesto, California, Oral Statement ....................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 74 

Ellingson, David, Commercial Beekeeper, Ortonville, Minnesota, Oral Statement ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 77 

Doan, Jim, Commercial Bee Keeper, Hamlin, California, Oral Statement ........ 24 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 86 

Brandi, Gene, Legislative Chairman, California State Beekeepers Association, 

Los Banos, California, Oral Statement .............................................................. 26 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 82 

Adee, Richard, Legislative Committee Chairman, American Honey Producers 

Association, Bruce South Dakota, Oral Statement ........................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 120 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL 

Davies Adams, Laurie, Executive Director of Coevolution Institute, San Francisco, California, Submitted Statement .............................................................. 131 

Hackenberg, David, Hackenberg Apiaries, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, Submitted Statement ................................................................................................. 138 

Hoffman Black, Scott, Executive Director, Ecologist/Economist, The Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon, Submitted Statement ...................................................................................................................... 149 

Cameron, Sydney, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, Urbana, Illinois, Submitted 

Statement .............................................................................................................

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., Submitted Material .......... 152 

Bayer CropScience, Washington, D.C., Submitted Statement ............................. 165 

National Honey Board, Longmont, Colorado, Submitted Statement .................. 157 

Vroom, Jay, CropLife America, Washington, D.C., Submitted Statement ......... 171 

Riviere-Wekstein, Gil, Manager of the publication ‘‘Agriculture & Environment’’, Submitted Material .................................................................................. 167 

Brandi, Gene, Legislative Chairman, California State Beekeepers Association, 

Los Banos, California, Submitted Additional Statement .................................. 184 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

Page

iv 

Fore, Troy H., Jr., The American Beekeeping Federation, Inc., Jesup, Georgia, 

Submitted Statement ........................................................................................... 175 

National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Submitted Report ...................... 179 

Starrh, Larry, Starrh and Starrh Farms, Kern County, California, Submitted 

Statement ............................................................................................................. 183 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

(1) 

HEARING TO REVIEW COLONY COLLAPSE 

DISORDER IN HONEY BEE COLONIES 

ACROSS THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE

AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

1302 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis A. 

Cardoza (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Cardoza, Etheridge, Davis, 

Gillibrand, and Neugebauer. 

Staff present: Keith Jones, Subcommittee Staff Director; Scott 

Kuschmider, Professional Staff; John Riley, Deputy Chief of Staff; 

April Slayton, Communications Director; Debbie Smith, Legislative 

Clerk; Kristin Sosanie, Staff Assistant; John Goldberg, Minority 

Senior Professional Staff; Kevin Kramp, Minority Deputy Chief of 

Staff and Chief Counsel; Pam Miller, Minority Senior Professional 

Staff; and Jamie Weyer, Hearing Clerk. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CARDOZA. Good morning again. We are going to call this 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to review colony collapse disorder in honey bee colonies 

across the United States. The order will be that we will start with 

opening statements. As I mentioned earlier, there is a number of 

our Republican colleagues at the White House in another meeting, 

so they may be trickling in later. A number of my Democratic colleagues are at different committee hearings and should be dropping 

in as we go forward. 

I want to thank all of you for taking the time from your busy 

schedules to attend this important hearing to testify about the 

honey bee colony collapse disorder. I want to mention that there 

was one of the witnesses from my colleague Kevin McCarthy’s district, who is unable to make it here today, Mr. Larry Starrh from 

Starrh and Starrh Farms. He had to stay home and work the farm 

and all of you who aren’t farmers understand that we can’t blame 

him for wanting to take care of business at home. His testimony 

will be submitted for the record without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

2 

Mr. CARDOZA. We are here today to hopefully shed some light on 

a very troubling phenomenon. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the potential impact of possible causes of colony collapse disorder affecting honey bee colonies across the United States. 

Throughout the country honey bee colonies are used for large-scale 

pollination of many crops. The unprecedented disappearance has 

alarmed farmers and scientists and could cost American agriculture millions of dollars. 

The sudden and unexpected drop-off of honey bee pollinators was 

first brought to my attention last year, when a number of almond 

growers in my home district of California’s Central Valley began to 

complain about rapidly increasing cost of beehives. For those of you 

who are unfamiliar with the almond business, it is a billion dollar 

crop in California, whose survival hinges on pollination from honey 

bees during the crop’s bloom cycle. Growers were telling me that 

honey bee hives were going for double and sometimes triple the 

cost that they had sold for just a year earlier. 

These farmers were concerned for a number of reasons. First, as 

you would expect, this price spike created a significant and unanticipated financial strain. Secondly, and perhaps more relevant to 

today’s assessment, my constituents were very concerned that this 

situation represented more than just a blip on the radar screen. 

They were concerned that it was a harbinger of a bigger problem 

to come. Unfortunately, as we now know, their concerns were not 

unfounded. The 2006 honey bee population decline was not a blip 

on the screen; it was, in fact, a precursor to a larger national epidemic. 

Only recently have leading pollinator researchers assigned a terminology for this phenomenon. Researchers and industry have now 

termed this dramatic and unprecedented decline colony collapse 

disorder. Much of the current research into this massive decline is 

being conducted by the Pennsylvania State University and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. I am pleased that we will 

be hearing from distinguished researchers from both of these institutions today. We are very glad to have you because it has become 

clear that we must focus more attention on this emerging crisis. 

Colony losses occur when bees fail to return to their hives, which 

is a very abnormal phenomenon for honey bees. While some level 

of honey bee losses are not unusual, the sudden and widespread 

nature of colony collapse disorder is truly unprecedented. Perhaps 

the most disconcerting, no one seems to know exactly what is causing this phenomenon. Some theories include parasites, mites or 

other pathogens, poor nutrition and high stress levels among adult 

bees, or a combination of these, or other unknown factors. 

I am deeply committed to raising the awareness of colony collapse disorder and its possible affects on American agriculture. 

Thousands of California farmers and beekeepers are dependent on 

honey bees for their livelihood. If we do not move swiftly to get to 

the bottom of this, I fear we will be having an even more dramatic 

problem next year. We must also be smart—could I ask everyone 

who has cell phones to please turn them off at this time? We must 

also be smart in how we address this problem. I read somewhere 

that some in the industry are looking for upwards of $300 million 

to combat colony collapse disorder. Ladies and gentlemen, that is 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

3 

just not a realistic number. It is important to avoid the temptation 

to identify a potential problem and simply throw millions of dollars 

at it. Instead, through hearings like this one and future congressional scrutiny, I am hopeful that we can identify exactly where 

our limited research dollars will be most helpful in advancing our 

goal of preventing of the further decline in the honey bee population. 

To begin this closer examination of potential causes and solutions 

to colony collapse disorder, we have assembled two very distinguished panels today. I want you to take special note of the fact 

that we have not one but two representatives from California’s 

18th Congressional District with us, a good friend of mine, Paul 

Wenger, who grows almonds in Modesto, California and is the First 

Vice President of the California Farm Bureau, and he will share 

his insight on the impact of colony collapse disorder on California’s 

almond industry. And we also have with us today Gene Brandi, 

who is the Legislative Chairman of the California State Beekeepers 

Association and he will speak from a beekeeper’s perspective. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. With that, Mr. Etheridge, do you have any opening 

statement that you would like to put forward? 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I will submit mine for the record 

so we get straight to the witnesses. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Very good. What I would like to do now is introduce our first panel, if I can find my sheet here. We have with us 

today Associate Administrator Caird Rexroad, who has a Ph.D., 

with the Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. 

Thank you. Sir, did I butcher your name very badly? 

Mr. REXROAD. No worse than I do. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Okay. We have Dr. Diana Cox-Foster, Ph.D., and 

professor at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Welcome. We also have Dr. May Berenbaum, professor 

and head of the Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in Illinois. Thank you very much. Dr. 

Rexroad, please start your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR CAIRD E. 

REXROAD, PH.D., AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, USDA 

Mr. REXROAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a former beekeeper 

myself, I am pleased to be here today, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Caird Rexroad, the Associate Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service. I am 

speaking today on behalf of the Agricultural Research Service and 

the Cooperative State Research Education Extension Service in the 

Department. ARS is the Department’s primary intramural research 

agency, and CSREES is the primary extramural funding agency of 

the Department. Before I begin, I would ask that my written statement be made part of the record and I will summarize my remarks. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. REXROAD. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the subcommittee to present testimony about USDA efforts to 

address the problem of colony collapse disorder, known as CCD. I 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

4 

will provide you with a brief overview of the disorder as a well a 

summary of our research and our efforts addressing the problem. 

Beginning in October of 2006, beekeepers became alarmed that 

honey bee colonies were dying across the continental United States. 

Reporting unexplained losses of 30 to 90 percent, these outbreaks 

of unexplained colony collapse pose a threat to the pollination industry for production of commercial honey, and the production of 

at least 30 percent of the Nation’s crops. Furthermore, with pests 

and diseases of bees increasing over the last two decades, we have 

reached a critical point for the bee industries. ARS and CSREES 

are both conducting and funding research to determine the cause 

of the sudden collapse of bee colonies. 

We have a number of theories we will talk about briefly. One important thing, as you mentioned, is immunosuppression and stress 

on bees. Based on research by the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group, a collaboration of researchers from government, universities and other partners, we believe that some form of stress may 

be suppressing immune systems of bees, ultimately contributing to 

CCD. I will discuss what we consider four causes of bee stress, 

Varroa mites, pathogens, migratory stress, and pesticides, as well 

as what we are doing to counter these stresses. 

Varroa mites invaded the United States in the 1980s and have 

been linked to a serious colony decline. If you will notice when you 

walk through the clover in your barefoot, you will no longer be 

stung by a honey bee; it is very unfortunate. During this time, 

USDA has put considerable effort in finding solutions to the varroa 

crisis. ARS labs have developed several control methods and researchers are conducting genetic research to breed bees that are resistant to mites. Work funded by CSREES through the National 

Research Initiative is addressing suppression of varroa mite reproduction. 

Pathogens also may be contributing, either by killing bees directly or compromising their immune system. Bee viruses, of which 

we know not nearly enough, can cause brain pathologies and contribute also to immunosuppression. We need better tests and research on bee viruses. We need to know the role of varroa mites, 

also, in transmitting viruses or enhancing viral diseases of bees. A 

new species of Nosema, microsporidian, may be relatively new to 

this country. We are trying to determine that and to correlate its 

appearance and distribution with CCD. If we understand these 

things better, we will try to replicate CCD and we will develop 

interventions to reduce the impacts of these stresses on bees. 

CSREES is funding grant investigations on genetic and cultural 

methods in controlling Nosema apis disease, as well as study mechanisms of disease virulence, transmission and epidemiology in 

honey bees. 

Migratory stress may also contribute to CCD. It is common for 

as many as 10 percent of the colonies to die after transportation, 

with losses of 30 percent possible after the pollination of some 

crops. ARS has recently begun investigating the effects of migratory stress and will continue to do so. 

Many pesticides are toxic to bees. Some may cause bee colonies 

to be susceptible to stress and disease, and others may impair neurological function and we know that the loss of bees from the colcprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

5 

ony is a sure sign of CCD. Stress and impairment of bee brain 

function may be then linked to this disappearance. We plan to 

study the effects of pesticides on bee brains and to test the effects 

of pesticides on bees in the apiary. Those studies will also determine if pesticides are harming bees in the field. 

While we continue to look for the causes of CCD, ARS will initiate a multi-year project to improve bee health by improving nutrition of the colonies to increase their ability to handle stressful situations. Mr. Chairman, ARS and CSREES, in collaboration with our 

other agencies, private institutions, and with the universities, conduct and fund research that addresses the paradigm surrounding 

CCD. We are pleased to be a part of this effort to improve bee 

health and prevent colony collapse syndrome, and to support the 

pollination industry, beekeepers and agricultural producers across 

the Nation. We thank you for the opportunity to share our work 

with you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my remarks. I would be 

pleased to answer questions that you make. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rexroad appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DIANA COX-FOSTER, PH.D., PROFESSOR, 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. Chairman Cardoza and members of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, thank you for 

this opportunity to appear before you today representing members 

of the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group. I am Diana CoxFoster, a professor at Penn State and having over 25 years experience in insect physiology and pathology. For the last 10 years, I 

have been extensively researching the interactions of honey bees 

with varroa mites and viruses and other diseases, asking how the 

colonies are collapsing. 

My expertise is one of the reasons that beekeepers first approached me in November 2006, with colonies having unique symptoms and deaths. These were the first recognized instances of colony collapse disorder. The Colony Collapse Disorder Working 

Group is a collaboration among researchers having diverse 

expertises and coming from land grant universities, state departments of agriculture, and USDA–ARS. In addition, experts from 

Bee Alert are performing research. The goals of the CCD Working 

Group are to identify potential causal factors in the collapses, identify these factors that underlie the collapses and reproduce the 

CCD symptoms, and finally, devise preventative measures to disrupt CCD and ensure strong colonies for pollination. As you know 

and have heard and read in the written testimonies presented by 

others and myself, I will summarize what we have been doing. 

Honey bees are essential for the pollination of many crops, as 

you know. Through surveys and field confirmation and unique 

symptoms found in colony collapse disorder, we have found that 

CCD is a problem facing all beekeepers and will have a major impact. With the recognition that we had a unique problem, many of 

our researchers used their own monies to begin attacking this problem. We also gained emergency funding that has allowed us to 

quickly expand our research. This funding has come from the 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

6 

Foundation for Preservation of Honey Bees, several beekeeper organizations and the National Honey Board. We greatly appreciate 

this funding. We are also actively seeking additional federal and 

state funds to allow us to perform the necessary studies in a timely 

fashion. 

We have used these funds to begin describing the symptoms of 

CCD and defining the problem. This has been done through examining bees for known pathogens, parasites, and documenting hive 

conditions. Multiple case studies and surveys have been performed 

to try to determine the extent of the problem. As a top priority, we 

have made extensive collections of samples of bees, wax, honey and 

pollen stores from both CCD and non-CCD beekeeping operations 

across the country. We have agreed to share the samples amongst 

the researchers and also the data. Nearly all our multiple analyses 

are being coordinated and will correlate multiple parameters. 

We have been actively determining the causes of CCD and have 

considered all possible factors. Based upon our preliminary data, 

we have focused on three hypotheses. First, we have asked, are 

new and reemerging pathogens responsible for CCD? Recently, we 

know that many pathogens have the ability to knock out the immune defenses of their host. Among those that we found in CCD 

bees, none have been recognized to have these abilities to impair 

the immune system, and we don’t think that any of the normal bee 

pathogens are the direct causes. We have identified several routes 

of entry in the United States that may have permitted inadvertent 

introduction of new pathogens. 

In collaboration with Dr. Ian Lipkin at Columbia, we are identifying the microbes and viruses associated with the CCD bee colonies. We predict that any pathogens that may be linked to the collapses will be common in operations having CCD and will not be 

found in operations lacking CCD. In this analysis, we expect to isolate many new organisms that we didn’t know where there in bees. 

We will need to do extensive studies to try to figure out which of 

these important and find new methods to control these pathogens. 

With samples from these same colonies, we are combining these 

studies with others, using the newly developed knowledge of honey 

bee genomics and molecular physiology. We are letting the bees 

themselves tell us how they are being affected and what are the 

most likely causal factors underlying CCD by asking what genes 

are being turned on and off in the bees. We expect these analyses 

will reveal how the bees are responding to potential pathogens, environmental toxins or other stressors. 

The second hypothesis is that we are asking, are environmental 

chemicals impacting bees and triggering CCD? It is known that environmental toxins can impair the immune systems of animals. In 

insects, sub-lethal effects of insecticides are increasingly being recognized as stressors that may be impacting immune defenses and 

other physiology. We are asking, what chemicals are present in the 

hives, wax, honey and pollen stores? Given our surveys, we have 

failed to identify any common chemicals being used at colonies that 

are experiencing CCD, and we expected environmental contaminants. Of particular concern are pesticides being widely used to 

control insect pests in agriculture, urban environments and animal 

systems. Among these are the neonicotinoids, a class of pesticides 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

7 

that have been extensively adopted for pest management. This 

class of pesticides has extremely low toxicity in humans and other 

vertebrates and is highly effective in controlling insect pests. However, these chemicals are known to be highly toxic to bees and 

other pollinators. Research has suggested that these pesticides can 

move through the plants to become localized in pollen nectar at 

concentrations that can affect bees. Research is warranted to determine how these pesticides affect bees and other pollinators at the 

concentrations found in the honey and the pollen. It is essential to 

determine whether pesticides are a causal factor in CCD symptoms. 

The third hypothesis is the combination of stressors weakening 

bee colonies and allowing stress-related pathogens to cause final 

collapse. Several members of the working group are asking what 

stressors are part of the migratory operations. Recently, migratory 

beekeepers have told us they experience regular significant losses 

of the honey bee colonies. By following the migratory colonies and 

their bees and correlating the healthy performance to operational 

practice from stresses, we will gain baseline information. We expect 

to develop ways to overcome these stresses to ensure adequate pollination of crops. 

Finally, the CCD Working Group recognizes the importance of 

trying to breed bees that are more resistant to diseases and the impacts of parasites such as Varroa Mites. We are asking how genetic 

diversity in bee populations correlates with CCD and resistance 

traits. Developing new genetic strains of bees may be essential to 

the future of beekeeping. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I 

thank you again for inviting me to review the colony collapse disorder affecting honey bees and to highlight some of the ongoing activities and research of the CCD group. As you have heard, we 

have formed extensive collaboration among researchers of diverse 

expertises and affiliations, who bring together federal, state and 

land grant university research to target real-world problems with 

cooperative extension providing a bridge between the beekeepers 

and those dependent on pollination and the research community. It 

is clear that we are facing several challenges in unraveling the 

causes of CCD and developing preventative measures to ensure the 

health of bees and the pollination industry. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox-Foster appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Please proceed, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF MAY R. BERENBAUM, PROFESSOR AND HEAD, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Ms. BERENBAUM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thanks for inviting me to talk to you about colony collapse disorder and related issues affecting American agriculture. I am May Berenbaum, the Swanlund Professor and head 

of the Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign, and I have been a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences since 1994. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

8 

The principal focus of this hearing is colony collapse disorder, the 

sudden inexplicable disappearance of millions of honey bees across 

the U.S. But to understand the magnitude and impact of this problem, it must be placed in the broader context of pollinator decline 

in general. Approximately 3/4ths of the world’s 250,000 flowering 

plants require mobile animal partners, or pollinators, to reproduce. 

Over the past two decades, concern has grown around the world 

about declining abundance of pollinators of all descriptions. During 

this period in the United States, the honey bee, the world’s premier 

managed pollinator, experienced dramatic declines. Between 1947 

and 2005, colony numbers declined by over 40 percent, from almost 

six million to less than 21⁄2 million. Thus, the National Research 

Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, 

convened an ad hoc committee funded by the USDA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Academy of Sciences itself, to document the status of pollinators in North America. I served as chair 

of that committee. 

Our committee of 15 experts quickly established that there is an 

extraordinary paucity of reliable data on pollinator populations. 

This dearth applies even to honey bees, which is surprising given 

that they are essential six legged livestock that manufacture agriculture commodities, honey and wax, more importantly, contribute 

to agricultural services. Pollination of nearly 100 crop species in 

the United States could collectively make up 1/3 of the U.S. diet, 

including the most high-value healthy foods. Although economists 

differ in calculating the exact dollar value of honey bee pollination, 

virtually all estimates range in the billions of dollars. It is difficult 

to think of any other multi-billion dollar agricultural enterprise 

that is so casually monitored. Methods for estimating honey bee 

availability for pollination are outdated and inadequate. 

Since 1947, the National Agricultural Statistics Service has conducted an annual survey of honey bees and conducts a census every 

five years, but the focus of data collection has been honey production and not pollination. This was appropriate 60 years ago, but 

today the value of pollination greatly exceeds the volume of honey 

production. Nor do these surveys consider colony health. The magnitude of decline in honey bee abundance and efficacy, despite six 

decades of data collection, cannot be definitively evaluated. Bee 

health is utterly critical here. CCD is just the most recent of an 

unrelenting series of devastating problems affecting American 

honey bees. Introduced pests and parasites, microbial diseases, pesticide drifts and competition with Africanized bees have all contributed to the decline since assessments began. 

Shortages were sufficiently acute that in 2005, for the first time 

in 85 years, since passage of the Honey Bee Act of 1922, bees were 

imported from outside the United States to meet pollination demand. Importing bees is risky and it increases the chances of introducing new pests and parasites. Even before CCD, we estimated, 

if honey bee numbers continued to decline at the rates documented 

from 1989 to 1996, managed honey bees in the United States will 

cease to exist by 2035. Historically, wild honey bees have provided 

pollination for both natural and managed plant communities. Parasite infestations have eliminated wild colonies in many areas, but 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

9 

without any systematic monitoring, there is no way to know how 

many are left. 

Committee recommendations include the changing data collection 

practices to account for pollination service and colony health. Increased investment is also needed to encourage innovative approaches to keeping bees healthy and improving genetic stocks. 

Many aspects of contemporary apiculture remain largely unchanged since the 19th Century, in part, due to low priority accorded to honey bee research in the agricultural sector. These are 

living in 19th Century housing comparable to dairy barns without 

electricity and running water. 

The committee concluded its deliberations before CCD appeared, 

but enormous losses incurred were predictable. Over-reliance on 

one managed non-native species is inherently unstable. CCD has 

accelerated the rate of colony loss and beekeepers as well as growers need immediate relief. Many investigators, as Dr. Cox-Foster 

mentioned in the CCD Working Group, are donating their own 

time and money to solve this problem, and altruism is not a sustainable long-term strategy. Completion of the honey bee genome 

in October 2006 provides extraordinarily powerful new tools for diagnosed and development of management strategies, but new federal competitive funding to support multi-disciplinary research is 

necessary to enable and expand this limited pool of investigators. 

The proposed 2007 Farm Bill identifies specialty crops as a high 

priority for research. Most of these depend on insect pollination. 

Pollination sustainability should be a conspicuous component of 

this legislation. As well, a permanent surveillance program for 

parasites and diseases of honey bees is urgently needed to prevent 

the introduction of new pests. 

A consequence of relying overwhelmingly on a single species is 

that few alternative actively managed species exist. Wild pollinators are not exploited to any significant extent, either. Efforts to 

monitor honey bees may be inadequate, but efforts to monitor wild 

pollinators in North America are essentially nonexistent, despite 

the fact that wild pollinator contributions to crop pollination are 

worth $3 billion annually. Evidence indicates that some North 

American pollinator species have declined or even gone extinct. For 

many species, there is no evidence of decline because their populations have never been monitored. Systematic monitoring programs of wild pollinators in Europe have revealed dramatic declines in abundance and diversity. Monitoring is needed here to 

document changes in pollinator status. Wild pollinators maintain 

plant diversity and hence ecosystem diversity in every state in the 

country. Conserving America’s pollinators will require economic incentives. The farm bill provides an opportunity to address this need 

by encouraging state-level natural resources conservation service 

offices to promote pollinator-friendly practices for all farmers participating in the USDA cost share programs, land retirement programs, and production and stewardship programs. 

Ensuring the security of our food supply is an explicit national 

priority. Although it is generally discussed in the context of vulnerability to attack from beyond our borders, food security faces a 

greater threat from within our borders; the overly optimistic deepseated conviction that pollination resources will always be availcprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

10 

able. Armies of economists devote hours to calculate our energy 

need reserves, but there has never been a comparable effort to calculate our pollination reserves. Human technological innovation 

has not, in most cases, replaced or even improved upon animal pollinators and is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. As long 

as plants depend on pollinators, America depends on pollinators 

and right now they need your help. Thank you and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Berenbaum appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you very much. Your testimony was quite 

enlightening. I will start off the questioning and for this first question, I will submit it to all three panelists. Some groups have speculated that pollen from genetically modified crops could be a contributing factor to the development and spread of CCD. What is 

your belief with regard to that question? 

Mr. REXROAD. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the literature related to the availability of GMO pollen and its use by bees and we 

do not find any significant findings that would suggest that GMO 

crops contribute to CCD. 

Ms. BERENBAUM. That was also a finding of our committee, NRC 

committee, on size of pollinators. The review of the available literature didn’t, not in the context of CCD, but in the context of 

honey bee decline. 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. We have also been looking at that in our studies and what we have seen is that the reported toxins that are in 

these plants are very species specific, that they impact moths and 

butterflies and beetles, but there is no evidence that the impact 

bees and we have no evidence to suggest that the symptoms we 

have would be like those that you would expect to see with a BT 

toxin. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. Dr. Rexroad, in your testimony, you 

state that the Varroa mite is becoming resistant to many miticides. 

Can you discuss the alternative miticides under development and 

how your research is working to minimize the long-term resistance? 

Mr. REXROAD. We think that, in the long term, that the real approach is to develop genetic resistance in the bees. One of our main 

strategies right now is to breed bees and introduce gene lines 

where they will have resistance to Varroa Mites so that the bee 

itself can overcome the resistance, can overcome the Varroa Mites, 

as opposed to having to treat them with miticides. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Okay. As well as a follow-up question, in your 

written testimony, you indicate that, in the future, ARS will involve researchers from all ARS labs with the CCD Working Group. 

Can you comment on that? 

Mr. REXROAD. Yes, it is our intention to be a full participant in 

the working group. We appreciate the leadership that we have had 

from working with the universities on this, and all of the labs have 

a different contribution to make. For instance, work on genetic resistance to Varroa mites done in our lab in Baton Rouge. Our laboratory in Beltsville has a lot of expertise in diseases of bees. So 

each one brings a different aspect or contribution to working on 

CCD. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

11 

Mr. CARDOZA. What is your timeframe for making this happen? 

It seems to me that this is an urgent question, so it is imperative 

that we get to work on this right away. 

Mr. REXROAD. It is an ongoing process. We had a very early response to the challenge of CCD, where a number of our investigators have already worked with, the consortium, and have already 

gone out to assess what the problems might be associated with 

CCD, and are working closely with the universities on that. They 

are continuing the work they do in a very focused way on CCD, on 

Varroa Mites and on others. And in addition, we have put together 

a long-term project related to feeding of bee colonies, where we 

hope that improved or enhanced nutrition will increase the bee colony resistance to whatever the CCD factors are. So it is an ongoing 

process, in addition to the strategic plan that we are looking for 

from the consortium group, which will help us focus our research 

in the future. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I want to go a little deeper into this, Dr. Rexroad, 

because it seems to be that this is an urgent crisis that demands 

urgent attention. I understand there is a long-term plan to get 

there, but it seems to me that there needs to be short-term urgency 

within the Department about this. Could you speak more specifically to the timelines with which you are planning to proceed? 

Mr. REXROAD. Yes, we do plan to proceed immediately with the 

nutrition studies, putting those in place, the long-term feeding 

studies. It is a five year study that will begin as the funds are 

available. Within the Department, our state funding agency, 

CSREES, is also looking at what they can do in the short term on 

critical issues and then planning in the fall to have the ability to 

submit grants related to those issues, to be able to recognize what 

kind of requests or proposals might be best suited to serving this 

particular issue. So we are focusing the funds that we already have 

within labs. We are changing the projects that are currently ongoing to focus more specifically on CCD. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I think we are going to hear in just a few moments 

from some of the beekeepers, that they believe that there is an urgent crisis impending, the CCD situation is bad and getting worse 

rapidly. I think one of my folks from my district is going to testify 

to the fact that just this year, when you normally see the beehives 

increase in size while they are in the orchard, they are decreasing. 

That indicates to me that Congress is going to be incredibly interested in how we can accelerate the research into this problem in 

a much more rapid fashion that what I am hearing. It doesn’t 

mean you are not trying to do a good job. I appreciate that. But 

I think we are going to need to have a lot more examination of how 

we can put some gas to the fire on this one and get it moving. 

The next question I have is best management practices are widely used in agriculture to address farm-level environmental protection issues while providing for economic returns. Are there recommended best management practices at a state or federal level 

for the management of bees currently in place? 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. I know, within the State of Pennsylvania, that 

we have developed the best management practices and recommended those and I think that those extend outwards to the 

Federal areas here. Part of the problem with that best managecprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

12 

ment practice is that Varroa, which has been the major killer in 

the last 20 years, that we are running out of controls or ways to 

keep that parasite in check and we don’t fully understand what it 

is doing with the bee diseases. So there is a lack of effective controls for that various mite out there. But there are best management practices in place and I know that they are getting completely renovated all the time. 

Ms. BERENBAUM. I don’t know how much background you need, 

but there is a real challenge in managing honey bee problems, at 

least in part because they produce, well, honey production is for 

human consumption and therefore the use of pesticides has to take 

into consideration the fact that ultimately the product might end 

up in the human diet. Another problem is specificity. The varroa 

mite is an arthropod just like an insect. It is really challenging to 

develop an agent that will kill one arthropod that doesn’t kill another arthropod. They are very closely related. And what makes 

this even more challenging is that honey bees don’t appear to be 

very well equipped to deal with pesticides themselves. So this has 

been a thorny problem for a long time and we now have more problems to factor in. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. I have several other questions, but at 

this time, I am going to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. 

Etheridge, from North Carolina. Chairman Etheridge. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank 

you for being here today. You know, in my home State of North 

Carolina, we have always grown some fruits and vegetables, but in 

the last few years that has grown rapidly with our proximity with 

the country. So this issue is not only important, but it is alarming 

to us, too, because we are having some of the same problems. One 

of the themes I have heard to today, or an observation I have, I 

guess, from listening to the testimony is that we don’t really know 

what is causing CCD, or at least there is no certainty about one 

thing that is causing it and I guess this problem has arisen relatively quickly. Is it a possibility that it could be something similar 

to the 1980s, when we had the mite problem that we have identified but never really figured out what we were going to do? So 

what can be done to maximize, I guess, federally-supported universities in the base research that we do? And I think question I 

would like to pose to Dr. Rexroad. We spend a lot of money with 

federal universities. Why can’t we link those up in some of the 

things we are doing and utilize the dollars we now have out there? 

Mr. REXROAD. I think that is an excellent question and to some 

degree, I think that is happening right now with this working 

group, this consortium, that was mentioned a few moments ago by 

Dr. Cox-Foster, where a number of universities, plus our federal 

labs, are working together to answer the very question that you indicated—trying to discover, first, what is the primary cause of colony collapse disorder? So they have pulled their resources, their intellectual resources, and I think there will be opportunities over 

the next few months to pull some other resources, but part of that 

will be through applications for grants to the funding agencies. And 

in addition, we will focus ourselves on this issue and put out some 

resources in terms of nutrition and those kinds of interventions for 

the bee colonies. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

13 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, let me follow that up because the chairman touched on it. Is there a short-term strategy and a long-term 

strategy or is it just a strategy? 

Mr. REXROAD. Do you want to answer that? 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. So we have obtained some emergency funding 

and it is rather limited in scope. We greatly appreciate everything 

that we have gained. It is through the beekeeper organizations and 

the National Honey Board, to tackle this problem directly. So we 

have a gap that we foresee here in proceeding and going beyond 

our initial studies that we are looking at that causes this directly 

and fully resolving the issue here, and that is part of the problem. 

So as you may be well aware of, for the granting process, it usually 

takes a full year, at least, before you submit the grant and you actually get the monies to do the work. And at the national level 

here, there is a limited amount of monies out there to explore all 

insect-related problems, both at the field, the applied levels, and at 

the basic research, and the competition for those dollars has greatly increased. So the number of grants that are being funded, it is 

down below, I think, 10 percent with USDA and we are competing 

and trying hard to compete with other federal agencies, like National Science Foundation, and even some researchers are finding 

a way to tailor their research to fit into National Institutes of 

Health. But there is this lack of where we can figure out how to 

get monies. We are, for some of us, figuring out how to gain state 

emergency funds, some of which are part of Homeland Security. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, let me ask you a question. Who is the 

clearinghouse on this? 

Mr. REXROAD. Yes, if I may? Our federal funding agency, 

CSREES, they do have some short-term funds available under 

something called critical issues, which they will apply to looking at 

some of the issues of CCD and help the universities prepare for the 

granting cycle, which is a longer-term issue. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. The reason I asked that question is that, you 

know, we are reaching out to a number of places. 

Mr. REXROAD. Yes. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. And it seems to me that the USDA will be the 

ideal place to have a clearinghouse, because we are working together for one goal. 

Mr. REXROAD. That is certainly true. There are also multi-state 

projects that already exist on bees, where the states do have some 

discretion in the use of those funds, so they can turn those immediately to CCD. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. And we are gathering that data at USDA, so we 

aren’t repeating? 

Mr. REXROAD. Yes. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Okay. My time is about out. Dr. Berenbaum, you 

mentioned something that I thought was probably a good idea, a 

best practice management plan for people who put their land in 

conservation programs like CRP. I always say this: it is a little bit 

easier to solve a problem if everyone pitches in. And there are a 

lot of people using these programs right now. What kind of things 

could these individual landowners do to help solve the problem or 

deal with this problem? 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

14 

Ms. BERENBAUM. Well, there are a number of programs that provide opportunities for pollinator sustainability, for managing wild 

populations. One reason we may be so utterly dependent on this 

one species for partial pollination is that, through habitat loss, 

through urbanization and industrialization, we have lost native 

pollinators that used to provide this service for free, essentially. 

Among the possible programs, there are cost share programs at 

USDA include the Wildlife and Habitat Incentives Program, the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The land retirement 

programs include the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and Conservation Security Program. CRP can explicitly incorporate pollinator habitat into 

the environmental benefits index that is used to evaluate land parcel proposals, and CSP can incorporate the value of that pollinator 

habitat development into its determination of the stewardship tiers 

that are the basis for federal payments. USDA cost share and land 

retirement and product stewardship programs should be available 

to producers of all commodities that depend on pollinators. There 

is an organization called Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and I am at the moment president of this society. It has as 

its mission promoting conservation of some of the world’s least 

charismatic animals and it has been working with the Natural Resource Conservation Service to incorporate native pollinators into 

farm bill programs at the national and state level. And I know the 

Xerces Society is happy to offer its time and expertise to congressional staffers for language for the farm bill and its programs to 

help achieve this goal. But again, pollinator management sustainability programs are a long-term solution to this pressing problem. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I am going to turn this over in just a second to 

my colleague, Mr. Davis, from Tennessee, but I want to make this 

observation now so that you might possibly integrate it into your 

testimony as we go forward. A few years back when I was in the 

state legislature in California, we discovered the glassy-winged 

sharpshooter problem in Temecula, California. We went down there 

and did a hearing on it. The standardized method by which we 

were doing university research for that particular pest wasn’t adequate for dealing with the crisis, so we had to come up with, very 

quickly, increased emergency methods to deal with that problem. 

We did that through state funding, through industry funding and 

finally the federal government caught up. This time we are finding 

this problem more on the federal level first, but we need to bring— 

it is sort of like ringing a fire bell and having all hands come to 

fight the fire together. It is time to call up the bucket brigade to 

get everybody pitching in and so that is why I am making this observation. I am going to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Davis, 

for his question period. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, for having the hearing today on what I think is an important issue for many different 

reasons. I will describe my childhood somewhat as I grew up. Most 

of us certainly treasure those days when we were back on the farm. 

In the area that I lived in, the neighbors up the stream and down 

the stream from us were about a half a mile apart, and my brother 

and sisters and I, at the first sign that the ground started cracking, 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

15 

would go barefoot, and to me the pesky things called honey bees 

that loved to get on the clover tops that were blooming in the 

spring, would often remember me that I had no shoes on by stinging the bottom of my foot. So as far as I was concerned, had there 

appeared a time when we were losing bees, I probably would have 

been delighted at that, because it would have meant that I 

wouldn’t have been irritated by the swollen foot that I would later 

have. 

But then I went to school and I was amazed to realize how important those honey bees were to fruits and vegetables, to pollination. I then started watching those bees as they would bury up 

into honeysuckle vines and lilac bushes that my grandmother 

would raise, the snowball trees that had big white blooms on them, 

and I was fascinated that they were doing part of nature’s work 

and that without those bees, that a lot of the creation that we enjoy 

would probably cease to exist. And so I became aware of how everything works together in this world that we live in and that these 

certainly are a major part of that, as far as pollination. So I started 

looking somewhat with a little disdain almost 30 years ago, when 

we started losing colonies of bees and then just recently started 

again hearing that we are losing bees, maybe at a more rapid pace. 

Actually, colony collapse disorder may be occurring more rapidly 

now than it did some 30 years ago. Certainly I hope that this is 

not a phenomena that will destroy our bee population in America, 

that will, I think, be a major negative impact on agriculture in 

America and certainly our environment. 

But I guess the question I wanted to ask, after defining my childhood that all of us probably can remember, as we look at existing 

USDA pollinator research programs and see basically just this outof-the-blue problem that we have today, do you think that we have 

adequate researchers able to handle this or other phenomena that 

may happen, Mr. Rexroad? 

Mr. REXROAD. I think it is always a challenge to have those resources immediately available to switch gears and to take this on. 

We believe that we do have significant resources to apply to this 

problem. Over the last several years, we have had about $9 million 

in bee research in ARS. The amount of funds provided by the Cooperative State Research Service, CSREES, rather, has been between 

$1 and $3 million, depending on the years and kinds of grants that 

have been applied. We are taking a look at this and seeing what 

kind of new resources might be needed and looking to future budgets as a way of strengthening our own program. 

Mr. DAVIS. I think one of the best bargains that the American 

consumer has, taxpayer has provided for the American consumer 

and it has been the farm programs that we have had to supply the 

good, safe, abundant source of food, pretty much everlasting like an 

everlasting spring at an affordable price. I notice that as we look 

at the generic term that we use, mad cow disease, certainly in beef 

cattle production, we jump very quickly to try to shut down any 

fear among the American public consumer and to the beef cattle 

producer that if there is a problem, that we, with the USDA, have 

resolved that and again, obtained the confidence of the American 

and the world consumers of American beef. I certainly hope that 

we have adequate researchers in USDA that would look at all of 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

16 

the problems that we may face in the future, and especially as we 

have, the last 30 years, increased dramatically our pesticide and 

herbicides that we use in agriculture production. I thank you all for 

being here and thanks for allowing me to be a part of the discussion on this important issue today. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I’d like to now ask a question of Dr. Berenbaum and Dr. Cox-Foster. Both of you have raised 

the need for better data collection and pollination activities and colony health, particularly the need for having accurate annual surveys of bee colonies. Both of you assert data collection to be a critical component to monitoring the health of pollinators. Can you tell 

the committee what the cost of such a survey might be? And Dr. 

Rexroad, you are free to chime in, as well. 

Ms. BERENBAUM. Interestingly, that is not one of the issues we 

discussed in our committees, what the cost of implementation 

would be. But just to put this in context, you know, there is no free 

lunch, essentially, and the U.S. Ag economy has been benefiting 

from, I guess, the altruism of honeybees in a sense that for decades, pollination services were not paid for. They were assumed to 

be available for free. 

There is controversy as to putting a dollar value on pollination services and the number that is frequently quoted is $14 billion. 

That is from a study that is already 10 years old. I don’t know 

what that would be in 2007 dollars, but averaged over the years, 

this is billions and billions of dollars. $9 million may sound like a 

lot, but this is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. It just is diffuse 

and basically is intriculated throughout the entire ag enterprise in 

the United States. 

One reason it is difficult to rally those most directly affected, I 

mean, most directly affected are beekeepers, but in reality, bees 

and other pollinators are an essential component of over 90 crops 

in North America. 

Mr. CARDOZA. All right. We are going to have to keep our answers just a little bit short because we have an impending vote. No 

problem. Thank you very much for your answer, though. Dr. CoxFoster. 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. So at a recent meeting with the Colony Collapse Disorder down in Florida, we did discuss a survey on what 

the costs would be. We came up with the estimated value of at 

least a million dollars. And part of the problem that we face is that 

within different states, we no longer have state apiaries in place 

who would help to facilitate this and we have many obvious beekeepers, sideliner beekeepers out there that we need to also monitor and learn what they are doing. So it will be an extensive issue 

and also one in which we need to respect and maintain the confidentiality of some beekeepers for security reasons. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Very good. Thank you. Dr. Rexroad, do you agree 

with this? And I am going to ask my last question at the same 

time, so you can answer both in time expediency. In your testimony 

you noted that a request to USDA/APHIS for national honeybee 

pest surveys was declined last year. Do you know why that request 

was denied? 

Mr. REXROAD. I will answer the second question first and we can 

find that information for you, but I don’t know right now why it 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

17 

is, but I do think there are two different approaches to answering 

the question of how we should do surveys. One is the question of 

within NASS, the statistical service of whether or not we should 

change that and we don’t know what the cost would be of changing 

that from focusing on honey as the commodity as opposed to the 

pollination services. 

I think an alternative way to look at that, though, is to look at 

this and we look forward to some more information from a consortium that Dr. Cox-Foster is part of, looking at this scientifically to 

discover, in a survey system, what the problems are, the direct 

problems are with the bee colonies. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. I now want to recognize my colleagues. 

As you have noted, they have gotten back from the White House. 

They have had a very busy morning and I appreciate their attendance. I turn it over to my Ranking Member, Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the Chairman and I will submit my 

opening statement for the record, so we will get into questions. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Dr. Rexroad, does the USDA regulate the 

interstate movement of honeybees and honeybee pests and if not, 

why not? 

Mr. REXROAD. APHIS has the authority to regulate the movement of honeybee pests and of the colonies if they are contaminated 

with a pest. In particular, I might mention that they, at one point, 

when Varroa mites were discovered in the United States in Wisconsin apiary, did for a short time restrict the movement of colonies. However, what they discovered subsequent to that was that 

this pest was widely spread throughout the United States and that 

there was no benefit to restricting the movement of those colonies, 

but they do have the authority. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Okay. My second question is along the same 

line. From where are we allowing the importation of adult honeybees and how do we justify allowing these importations? 

Mr. REXROAD. Currently, we allow the importation of honeybees 

from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. In each case, there has 

been a risk assessment done by APHIS, looking at the types of 

pests that are prevalent in those countries, determine whether or 

not they are free of pests and, in addition, if they do have pests, 

whether or not those are the same pests that are present in the 

United States already, so that they wouldn’t add an additional burden to the bee population. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And have you determined any problems? I 

mean, do you think we are doing a good job of inspecting these and 

that we are not bringing a problem from somewhere else into our 

country? 

Mr. REXROAD. I think the risk assessments would suggest that 

we are doing a good job. In a very specific way, though, what the 

specific inspections are, I couldn’t speak to right now. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. This is to the entire panel. This phenomenon 

of CCD, is that a problem just in the U.S. or is this a problem that 

is going on in other parts of the world? And just go down the panel 

there. 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. So if the CCD, of the surveys that we have 

been doing, we have been asking if these unique symptoms that we 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

18 

find in these colonies that collapsed are present. We find that they 

are occurring across the continental United States. Recently, we 

have reports out of Canada that they have the exact same symptoms and collapses ongoing there. There are other collapses ongoing in other parts of the world. As we can determine right now, 

they don’t match these exact same symptoms. But I think we need 

to further define that and get their researchers on board with what 

we are seeing. 

Ms. BERENBAUM. I know there has been some concern in Germany over inexplicable bee mortality, but again, whether it is the 

same phenomenon or not, it is difficult to ascertain if we don’t 

know what is causing this phenomenon. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Do you think there is collaboration going on 

with these other countries to talk about some of these issues and 

to put the sides together? 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. I know that I have been personally contacted 

by people from other countries, researchers, to ask whether we are 

seeing the same thing and I know that Dr. Jeff Pettis, who is 

USDA/ARS, has also been contacted and involved in these discussions. Likewise, other members of the CCD working group are actively involved, but I think it is a growing problem. There are people involved in the CCD working group that we have been deluged 

with media attention, including media and questions from outside 

the United States, that this is a global issue and being recognized 

as a problem. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Dr. Rexroad, I guess a question I would have 

is, is USDA collaborating with the agricultural entities and ministries in some of the other countries? Is there some ongoing dialog 

at that level? 

Mr. REXROAD. On the research agency level, most of the dialog 

is scientist to scientist. These folks are very involved. They know 

each other. The worldwide community of people that do this kind 

of science is not large, so they are very aware. At a higher level, 

at the ministry level, probably less. We rely very much on the scientists keeping those lines of communication open and providing us 

information on what the issues are and what approaches others are 

doing, using. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I believe my time is about to expire. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. I appreciate your 

questions. I have one final question for the panel. That would be 

we have documented pretty well today the decline in organized 

hives and the business of beekeeping. You also testified, however, 

that there has been precipitous declines of wild beehive activity. 

Could you all speak to that? And as you hear, we have votes coming up, so we will take this as our last question. We will take a 

recess at the end of your answers and then we will come back after 

votes and reconvene the hearing to hear the second panel. 

With regard to the wild bee question, please. 

Ms. BERENBAUM. Again, the results of the NRC study of mostly 

documented the scarcity of data, but those few examples, the most 

charismatic species are known to have experienced decline, including some in your home State, actually. There is one bumble bee 

species that hasn’t been seen; it is thought to have gone extinct, 

which actually happens to be a crop pollinator, as well. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

19 

So there is a taxonomic impediment and an unfortunate situation 

where we don’t even have an ability to assess the diversity of wild 

pollinators. But there are a number of surveys that have been 

done, long-term monitoring surveys that have been done in England and in Belgium and elsewhere in Europe, cooperatively, 

among the European Union that clearly demonstrate that there are 

many different groups of pollinators that are experiencing declines. 

Mr. CARDOZA. As you discuss this, could you also discuss the potential impact, whether there is or is not any impact that you know 

of from the Africanized bees that came north a few years ago and 

I assume are still with us? 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. So I could address that. With the Africanized 

bees, it is interesting that they seem to be much more resistant or 

refractory to the Varroa Mites, themselves. And in those areas 

where the Africanized bees are, namely, in Arizona, they are not 

seeing this collapse ongoing in those colonies. So there is a chance 

there that there are genes present in that particular strain of Apis 

Mellifera, the honeybee that could be utilized or directed towards 

breeding a more resistant bee strain. So the Africanized bee, by 

itself, doesn’t appear to be impacted by the Colony Collapse Disorder right now. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Can Africanized bees be used to pollinate and are 

they a threat to the general population? 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. So the researchers I know at the Tucson BEE 

Lab, Gloria DiGrandi-Hoffman, swears by Africanized bees and 

that they are great pollinators and wonderful. You do have to 

maintain certain size limitations on the colonies in order to have 

them be effective pollinators and not present extreme defensiveness 

that they can exhibit, so there is potential there to manipulate 

them, but there is also potential there to get genetic stock away 

from the defensive traits to be incorporated in our more gentle European strains. 

Mr. REXROAD. The evidence that we have currently on the Colony 

Collapse Disorder and its association and non-association with wild 

bee colonies is pretty much anecdotal. We think it is an important 

question. It is a proper one to grab a hold of because we don’t have 

somebody overseeing those bees on a daily basis to see the bees disappear and not be present. But we do think it is an important 

question. We are hoping it is one that the consortium will spend 

some time on, also. 

Ms. COX-FOSTER. We do have the reports from recognized researchers at Harvard who have made observations and relayed 

them to us that they have seen collapses or deaths of bees from 

probably feral colonies, that there are no managed hives around. So 

it is an issue that we need to address. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Clearly, there has been a compelling case for more 

research to be made this morning on this first panel. Thank you 

very much for your testimony. We will reconvene the hearing directly after the last vote on the floor in the House. Thank you very 

much. This hearing is temporarily recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Neugebauer just reminded me that things are 

buzzing around here today. The Chair would like to remind members that they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniorcprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

20 

ity and those who were here at the start of the hearing, as they 

come back and trickle back in. After that, members will be recognized in order of arrival and I appreciate the members that are 

standing on this question. 

We would now like to invite our second panel to the table. We 

have with us today, as I introduced earlier in the hearing, Mr. Paul 

Wenger, First Vice President of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Modesto, California; Mr. David Ellingson, Commercial Bee 

Keeper, Ortonville, Minnesota; Mr. Gene Brandi, Legislative Chairman of the California State Beekeepers Association from Los 

Banos, California; Mr. Jim Doan, Commercial Bee Keeper, Hamlin, 

New York; and Mr. Richard Adee, Legislative Committee Chairman 

of the American Honey Producers Association, Bruce, South Dakota. 

Mr. Wenger, please begin when you are ready and welcome to 

the panel. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL WENGER, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, 

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. WENGER. Thank you. My name is Paul Wenger. I am a third 

generation farmer growing almonds and walnuts in Stanislaus 

County, which is west of Modesto in California. My sons are actively involved with me in the family operation, so I look forward 

to a long future of our family working the land. I am also, as you 

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the first vice president of the California 

Farm Bureau Federation, a position that keeps me in close contact 

with farmers and ranchers throughout the State. 

The California Farm Bureau is the State’s largest general farm 

organization, representing more than 90,000 member families. We 

represent producers of all commodities and of all sizes of operations. Most are family farms. This forces us to take a broad view 

of what is important and how what might affect one commodity 

will impact another. That is certainly the case with the topic of today’s hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee. I commend you, Chairman Cardoza, and the committee, for 

taking time to review an issue that is very critical to us. 

I have to admit that in addition to my Farm Bureau duties, I 

have a personal interest, as well. As an almond grower and someone who pays $130 a hive to pollinate my crop, I am personally 

concerned about the health of the bee industry. Bees are the unsung heroes of our State’s vibrant almond industry that has an annual farm revenue of more than $2.5 billion. Each year, in February and early March, our almond trees require honeybees, more 

than a million colonies statewide, to produce a crop. The bees come 

from California from all over the United States. This demand for 

bee colonies feeds into what is a national network of beekeepers. 

Each year, as growers, we worry about the supply of bees and 

what the weather will be during the critical pollination period. Our 

crop fortunes rise and fall on that outcome. The size of our State’s 

almond industry has been steadily rising from 400,000 acres in 

1985 to nearly 600,000 bearing acres today. At least 100,000 additional acres will be coming into production in the next few years. 

Almonds are almost unique to California. We are the dominant 

producer of almonds in the United States and around the world. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

21 

Our State combines a special climate and infrastructure to maintain this dominance in an important, value-added product. I am 

sure that countries such as China, Spain or parts of South America 

would very much like to share in this market. So far we have been 

able to maintain our dominance, but a healthy and productive bee 

industry will be key to our continued success. 

While almonds may be the single largest commodity to benefit 

from bees, it is not the only one. There are scores of other crops 

that also have a crucial or strongly beneficial reliance on bees. The 

list includes melons, cherries, avocados, Bartlett pears, 

bushberries, kiwi, many apple varieties, cucumbers, plums, prunes, 

pumpkin, squash, ornamental plants and dozens of vegetable and 

flower seeds. Bees are critical to our alfalfa and Ladino clover seed 

industries. Alfalfa seeds drives the hay industry that supports a 

$4.5 billion dairy industry. 

We rely on bees foremost as pollinators, but California also has 

a thriving queen bee industry that supplies nearly a million queen 

bee packages to beekeepers around the country to revitalize their 

colonies. We produce more than 20 million pounds of honey annually. In 2005 the California honeybee industry generated $176 million in direct revenue, while the value of crops pollinated exceeded 

$6 billion and many associated jobs. 

While the role of bees grows in importance, the research and 

technical support side of beekeeping has declined. I know you can’t 

always make a direct correlation between loss of research dollars 

and growing disease and pest problems, but it has to be more than 

coincidence that both are occurring today. We need answers to the 

parasitic mites and colony collapse problems, but the health issue 

and the state of the industry is of an even broader concern. 

Through attrition, we are losing apiculture expertise at the professional, research and extension levels through the United States. 

We are losing this infrastructure at a time when it is vital to the 

ability to respond to major bee health concerns. 

Let me provide some examples. Attrition has severely impacted 

the bee research program at the University of California Davis, 

with the loss of key researchers. Mr. Brandi will describe this in 

greater detail, but I want to at least point out that California Farm 

Bureau has urged UC Davis to appoint faculty in apiculture in the 

Department of Entomology and to ensure that a specialist position 

is filled upon the retirement of the current statewide apiculture 

specialist. 

When it comes to research there is a growing concern in the farm 

community over the dwindling support for production agriculture 

by the land grant universities. This is a trend that seems to exist 

across the board, including apiculture research. Stepped up efforts 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS, on current health 

problems and other issues are vital. 

We have continually expressed to Congress our support for the 

four USDA–ARS bee labs. We join the American Farm Bureau Federation in supporting research at these regionally located bee research centers to find solutions. Just this past September we urged 

USDA to expedite its research effort to produce effective treatments controlling honeybee mites. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

22 

Research will be the key to overcoming the current problems. I 

would urge this committee to spearhead the Congressional action 

to help restore the honeybee industry to full health. I want to 

thank you for taking the time on what some would think is a very 

minor issue, but has extremely large concerns in our agricultural 

industry, not only in California, but throughout the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenger appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ELLINGSON, COMMERCIAL 

BEEKEEPER 

Mr. ELLINGSON. Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Ellingson. I live in Ortonville, Minnesota, where I operate 3,700 colonies of honey bees for pollination 

and honey production. I ship my bees to both California and Texas 

for parts of the year. I also operate a business that processes beeswax for beekeepers. 

First, I want to express the thanks of our entire industry for the 

concern you are showing for our problems by holding this hearing 

and my personal appreciation for being invited to tell you my story. 

I have been in beekeeping all my life, having followed my father 

in the business. Over those years, like any other farmers, we have 

seen our shares of ups and downs, but now I am experiencing the 

lowest point of my beekeeping life. 

For many years we have wintered a portion of our bees in Texas, 

where the milder climates and earlier springs allow us to get a 

jump-start in spring, compared to Minnesota. Looking back over 

the years, I see we have had to increase the number of hives 

brought down each year to make up our numbers for the summer. 

30-plus years ago we could depend on having a five to one split, 

that is we could haul 800 hives to Texas and able to split these into 

making 4,000 colonies. Today we are hauling around 2,000 colonies 

to Texas just to make up those same numbers for those 3,700. 

Now comes the winter of 2006–2007. We hauled 2,000 hives to 

Texas in the fall. We went through the colonies and fed them corn 

syrup and pollen substitute. The queens were starting to lay some 

eggs for new young bees. My observation at this time was the colonies were strong, the mite counts were very low. There were good 

amounts of food storage for the bees. I felt that following a good 

honey crop last summer and a good fall in Minnesota, that my bees 

were looking as good as I had ever seen in a long time. I even felt 

that we would have some surplus bees to sell to others. 

Now, we came back to Texas on January 5 to sort out the best 

colonies to ship to California to rent out for almond pollination. I 

found more hives than normal without bees. These hives still had 

food stores; honey, pollen. The colonies didn’t starve to death. The 

percentage of small clusters was higher than expected. I know now 

that many of these colonies also were dying. 

We selected 808 hives and shipped them to California. By January 25, our beekeeper-partner in California reported that one-third 

of these colonies were gone and another third were too weak to 

rent. We then went and shipped out another 400 hives to fill the 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

23 

contract. Within two weeks of delivery, 50 of these colonies had disappeared. These also had plenty of honey and pollen. 

My loss on the bees not going into the almonds is in excess of 

$60,000 plus freight, which is $9800 per load, that had to be paid 

without regard to the condition of the bees, once they arrived in 

California. The second load, which should have been worth more 

because there were more bees and they were in two-story hives, 

should have netted me at least $26,250. So overall, I should expect 

to have a net profit of $6,600. Now, when I deduct my time and 

expenses of two trips to Texas to prepare the bees plus the wear 

and tear and loss of being in shipment, the final question becomes 

what will I have to work with when these bees come back to Texas? 

So far, instead of having surplus bees to sell, I have been buying 

bees, spending approximately $10,000 for bees to fill some of my 

equipment. Even so, I believe we will be running 1,000 to 1,500 

fewer colonies this year. That is 1500 hives with a possible 100 

pound honey crop at 85 cents a pound, gives me another net loss 

of $127,500. I truly felt that we had done everything right this 

year. When you wake up at 2:00 in the morning and lie there wondering what did I do wrong? And then you talk to another beekeeper who has done the same thing and is not having the problems that we are, it will just about drive you nuts. 

There are things that we need. We need more beekeeping research. We need money today to analyze the samples that have 

been taken for these USDA and these university labs, today we 

need that money. We don’t need it next year. Next year we might 

not have any bees. We don’t know. We need more research. We 

need more scientists. We need an effective and efficient technology 

transfer of what the scientists find out and how we can get it into 

our bees. 

You know, a farmer has all the tools that we don’t see. He has 

an agronomist, he has a soil sampler, he has all these things. Do 

you think that farmer can make the crop that he makes today if 

he didn’t have those tools? We don’t have those tools. We need 

those tools. 

I would like to conclude with a personal comment. This is a 

tough business. It is one that takes you away from home a lot, just 

like you here in D.C. We are a small industry, scattered across the 

country. If we are going to have a viable honey bee industry, we 

must have dedicated people who are willing to go the distance. But 

even dedicated people need assistance from time to time. I have 

been deep in debt from when my dad died. I will not put myself 

in that position again. Other facts are the banks have forever been 

cutting our lending because of defaults on other beekeeping practices. 

The median age of a beekeeper is over 50. A lot of them are on 

the brink of hanging it up. There is a glimmer of hope that we 

could, in some manner, improve the lot of beekeepers, the atmosphere in this industry would and could be greatly improved and we 

would see new, younger beekeepers moving in. I certainly would 

have chosen a better way to celebrate our company’s 60th anniversary in the honey bee business. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

24 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to give my views of the 

Colony Collapse Disorder and what effect it is having on my business and those of my fellow beekeepers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellingson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Ellingson. Compelling testimony. 

Appreciate it very much. I am going to ask the committee’s indulgence at this point and ask Mr. Doan to speak next. Ms. Gillibrand 

needs to leave for another engagement and so I am going to have 

you testify next so she can hear your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JIM DOAN, COMMERCIAL BEEKEEPER 

Mr. DOAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman Cardoza and also 

Congresswoman Gillibrand. It is a real honor to be here today. 

My name is James Doan. I live in western New York with my 

wife and two children. I own and operated 4,300 hives of honeybees 

in the fall of 2006; that is what we started out with. Currently, I 

have 1,900 hives of bees left of the original 4,300. Those same hives 

we normally will rent out for pollination in western New York to 

do fruit and vegetable pollination. The hives are then transported 

down to Florida for the winter, where we do honey and also pollination down there. 

I consider this testimony a privilege and an honor to speak with 

you today concerning the seriousness and devastating loss of our 

honeybees here in the United States, but more importantly how I 

feel it is going to affect the infrastructure of agriculture here in the 

United States. 

In my business hive management is everything. My overall system has changed very little in the last 20 years, with the exception 

of treating hive pest management. However, the overall health of 

the bees has always been considered good and profitable. Starting 

in the spring of 2006, we began to see a change in our hive health. 

Not only was I seeing this, but many other beekeepers in western 

New York were seeing the same things. 

Typical scenario was the honeybees were not expanding in number and not making any honey. And finally, an empty hive or even 

in some cases, honey left behind. Yes, we had weather conditions 

in the Northeast in the fall of 2006 that were wet and cold, and 

many counties in New York were declared disasters. However, in 

the Northeast we have had wet falls before and still made honey. 

Honeybee losses across New York State this winter, right now, 

are being reported at 50 percent or more, with some operations reporting as high a loss as 80 percent. Because of the current cold 

weather, many beekeepers have yet to fully inspect their bees in 

New York, so the number of hive losses could escalate. To recoup 

these losses, a purchase of new hives or honeybee packages will 

have to be made. 

However, the breeders who sell these items have little or none 

which to sell. One breeder I spoke to could not deliver a package 

to me until May 15. That is late for apple pollination. I believe the 

availability of honeybees for pollination services this spring in New 

York will be very close, due to the reports still coming in from 

many area beekeepers. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

25 

New York State inspection officials, when they inspected my bees 

for mites, found zero to little mites, both in New York and in Florida in 2005 and 2006, so I do not consider the Colony Collapse Disorder due totally to mites or other pests living within the hives. 

So what is it, then? Hot, cold, water, drought? We have had all 

these conditions in the past, but never with all these consequences, 

and not every beekeeper throughout the country had the same type 

of conditions, yet everyone is still losing honeybees. This problem 

does seem not to be in one region and we have to include Canada 

in our discussion. So what is different? I don’t know, but pesticides 

at sublethal doses need to be looked at. 

We have chemicals being used today that are different than materials in the past. In France, in May of 2004, the seed treatment 

GAUCHO was removed for use because number one, and I quote, 

from the report from Duquesne and Pastor University report, ‘‘The 

results of the examination on the risks of seed treatment GAUCHO 

was alarming. The treatment of seeds by GAUCHO is a significant 

risk to honeybees in several stages of life. The consumption of contaminated pollen can lead to an increased mortality in care-taking 

bees.’’ 

GAUCHO contains the active ingredient Imiclacloprid. Materials 

with Imiclacloprid in them, in the last couple years, are labeled for 

use in just about every fruit and vegetable that I pollinate. Could 

this be the problem? I don’t know. However, in France, the year before GAUCHO was taken off the market one-third of the bees in 

their country died. They have not reported any significant losses 

since the removal of that product from the market. 

I firmly believe we need extensive additional research that confirms what this Colony Collapse Disorder is and any further repercussions that may come from this. We need this now. I know that 

Penn State University is working hard on this problem, as other 

honeybee labs across the country are also doing. However, the 

equipment being used is antiquated. Our industry needs government research dollars now. 

The economic impact on my operation alone will cost me over 

$200,000 just to replace the honeybees that I have currently lost. 

I do not know if I even will have enough bees to cover my pollination contracts in New York. This also has impacted my income 

from honey production and my pollination service for the reduction 

from this lack of bees. 

The United States is looking at the potential loss of the pillar in 

agriculture. Agriculture in the whole United States is dependent on 

honeybees. If we cannot survive as a beekeeping industry in this 

country, then there will be no agriculture community here in this 

country. If this Colony Collapse Disorder is allowed to continue, we 

could be looking at 100 percent dependency on foreign countries for 

feeding the American public. In my opinion, this real possibility is 

unacceptable. 

In conclusion, I strongly urge that my government officials, by 

funding for honeybee research, that we also look at getting made 

public the crop insurance for beekeepers and finally, I ask for help 

in recouping our losses from this problem, since we do not have 

crop insurance. I thank you for your time and support for our industry. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

26 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doan appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Doan. Mr. Brandi. By the way, I 

am going to ask the witnesses to make sure that your microphones 

are directly in front of you so that the transcriptionist can receive 

your testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF GENE BRANDI, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, 

CALIFORNIA STATE BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BRANDI. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Gene 

Brandi and I have owned and operated a commercial beekeeping 

business headquartered in Los Banos, California, for the past 30 

years. I serve as the Legislative Chairman of the California State 

Beekeepers Association and appreciate this opportunity to inform 

the subcommittee of some severe difficulties facing the beekeeping 

industry and the effect these problems have on the ability of honey 

bees to adequately pollinate the Nation’s crops. 

Honey bees are a critical component of the Nation’s agricultural 

economy. The pollination work of honey bees increases the yield 

and quality of U.S. crops by approximately $15 billion annually, including over $6 billion in California. When I started working with 

bees in the 1970s, it was not uncommon for winter colony losses 

to be five percent or less. Since the mid to late 1980s, our Nation’s 

bee industry has been experiencing an increase in winter colony 

mortality and in recent years the problem has become severe. This 

winter, beekeepers throughout much of the country are experiencing from 25 to more than 75 percent colony mortality. 

Approximately 40 percent of my 2,000 colonies are currently 

dead and this is the greatest winter colony mortality I have ever 

experienced in my 30 years of beekeeping. I have already lost nearly $60,000 in almond pollination income compared to last year, 

when I had a more tolerable but still costly 20 percent winter loss. 

I will also lose at least $20,000 in income from the sale of bulk bees 

this spring, in addition to an unknown quantity in lost honey production. 

The cost to restock my 800 dead colonies this year will be approximately $48,000. We are just beginning to restock our dead 

hives with bees from our surviving colonies and this weakens the 

surviving colonies for a few weeks until they can rebuild their populations. I will purchase new queen bees and it should take about 

two months for the newly restocked colonies to build up adequate 

bee populations to be considered commercially viable. 

Even though my loss is substantial, other beekeepers throughout 

the country have suffered much greater losses. Beekeepers who lost 

over 50 percent of their colonies will have difficulty making up 

their losses from their own operations, as I plan to do. 

What is causing colony collapse disorder? There are many problems facing the bee industry today that make it difficult to keep 

honey bees healthy and CCD may very well be caused by a combination of these and perhaps other factors. Poor nutrition, mites, 

diseases and exposure to certain pesticides are serious issues that 

affect the ability of honey bees to survive and thrive. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

27 

Good nutrition is critical to overall colony health. An adequate 

supply of nutritious natural pollen and nectar for as much of the 

year as possible is the best way to keep bees nutritionally healthy. 

California, in particular, is a difficult place to find good locations 

where bees can safely and successfully be placed when they are not 

needed for crop pollination, given the shrinking availability of bee 

pasture due to urbanization and other issues. This year the lack of 

rainfall in California will make it especially difficult, since the 

available sources of natural food will be greatly reduced. Bees that 

are nutritionally stressed are more susceptible to diseases, 

parasites and other problems. 

It has been known for many years that exposure to certain pesticides can kill adult bees. Lesser known is the fact that some pesticides can also kill or deform immature bees, the brood, adversely 

affect queen and drone viability or may cause bees to lose their 

member, which prevents them from flying back to the hive. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency currently requires that pesticides be assessed only for adult bee toxicity. 

It would be very beneficial in trying to resolve the CCD problem 

if pesticides were also assessed for their ability to cause additional 

adverse affects on bees. Additionally, it is also important that EPA 

require enforceable label language on those products that are 

known to be harmful to honey bees so that they are not applied to 

blooming plants that are visited by bees. 

It would be very beneficial for USDA–ARS to have a honey bee 

toxicologist who could independently test pesticides for acute and 

residual bee toxicity, the ability to damage brood, effect on queen 

and drone viability and the potential for causing memory disorders 

or other sub-lethal adverse effects on bees. 

The University of California, Davis campus used to be home to 

one of the premier honey bee research facilities in the Nation, with 

three Professor of Apiculture conducting studies in honey bee behavior, honey bee physiology and honey bee genetics. The UC Extension Apiculturist, based in Davis, continues to serve the industry well, but he is the only bee person remaining on the campus. 

Other than that, the UC Davis facility is not currently being used 

for honey bee research, as there are no longer any active professors 

of apiculture on the campus. 

This facility is strategically located in the heart of California’s 

Central Valley, the area of our Nation that uses the most bees for 

crop pollination. It is also located at the southern end of the Nation’s largest bee breeding area which produces nearly one million 

queen bees annually. If a USDA–ARS honey bee research scientist 

or scientists could be stationed at UC Davis to establish a research 

partnership at this facility, it would be a great asset to the beekeeping industry and to the growers who need strong, healthy bee 

colonies to pollinate their crops. 

The need for additional bee research is obvious. There are just 

too many unanswered questions that need to be addressed if the 

bee industry is to survive and perhaps thrive again. USDA–ARS 

honey bee research facilities in Beltsville, Baton Rouge, Weslaco 

and Tucson are conducting some good research at this point, but 

they need to do much more. These labs could all use additional 

funding in order to find solutions to our industry’s many problems. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

28 

I appreciate the opportunity to present the information to you 

today on behalf of the bee industry and thank you for your concern 

about our industry and for those who depend upon a healthy bee 

industry to pollinate their crops. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brandi appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Brandi. Compelling testimony, as 

well. Thank you, as well, for providing the committee with samples 

that you grow. Mr. Adee. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ADEE, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE 

CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN HONEY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ADEE. Chairman Cardoza, Members of the Subcommittee, on 

behalf of the American Honey Producers Association, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today about Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD. There is much we do not know about CCD. 

It is clear, however, that CCD is causing widespread damage to our 

industry. Beekeepers across the country are reporting collapsing 

colonies and staggering bee losses. Some are losing 90 percent of 

their bees. A few examples illustrate the terrible impact that CCD 

is having on America’s beekeepers and our bees. 

One migratory beekeeper, based in Mississippi, has only 220 of 

1200 colonies remaining. A sixth generation Colorado beekeeper 

has lost 2800 of his 4,000 colonies. A Texas beekeeper, who normally sends 3,000 colonies to pollinate in Stanislaus County, California, could send only 1,000 this season and some of those were 

too weak to pollinate. 

CCD also appears to be spreading. Just a few weeks ago, my own 

bees in California seemed to be strong and healthy. Since then, 

however, we are finding that these colonies have not been maintaining their populations. Our bees usually produce about 2.7 new 

bee colonies, called nucs, per colony. This season, the yield is only 

two nucs per colony. This is unprecedented in our 15 years in California and very disturbing. 

As you know, CCD affects more than honey production. Over 90 

crops depend on bees for pollination, including California almonds, 

New York apples, Florida oranges, Georgia peaches, North Carolina melons, Tennessee soy beans and Texas cotton. Bee pollination 

directly adds about $20 billion to U.S. farm output each year and 

supports about one-third of the human diet. 

CCD should also be a loud wake-up call to all of us about other 

serious problems facing American beekeepers. Since the 1960s, the 

number of U.S. bee colonies has fallen by almost 50 percent. At the 

same time, the demand for pollination is increasing sharply. It is 

unclear where we will get the additional bees we need. U.S. bees 

are also a continued attack for a variety of serious mites and pests, 

including the Varroa, the Vampire Mite; Tracheal Mites and bacterial and fungal diseases. 

Pests are also building resistance to the new treatments more 

quickly than in the past. Beekeepers worry about bee kills caused 

by the misuse of pesticides and about the affects of new GMO crops 

and agricultural treatments. Bees and beekeepers face other 

stresses caused by the almost constant movement of bees for pollicprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

29 

nation by the need for much more intensive colony management 

and by unfairly traded imports. 

We urge Congress to work closely with beekeepers, producers 

and research on an urgent basis to find the causes of CCD and to 

develop effective measures to stop it. We must also work together 

over the long-term to assure the survival and continued health of 

our vital beekeeping industry. Without these efforts, we worry that 

our industry will face an even bigger crisis, a problem some are 

calling ICD, or Industry Collapse Disorder. 

We have a number of recommendations to address these serious 

issues. Strong federal support for new honey bee research is essential. Congress should provide at least $1 million in dedicated funding for CCD, which could be allocated to the ARS laboratories in 

Beltsville and Tucson, and to consider other funding for CCD research at the academic and private sectors. Funding must also be 

maintained and appropriately increased for the four current ARS 

honey bee labs. These labs do research that is critical for our industry survival. 

The central role of bees must also be recognized in applying for 

environmental laws. Potential harm should be of paramount concern in regulating existing crop chemicals and new ones. At the 

same time, new treatments for CCD and other disorders need to be 

approved as quickly as possible, consistent with the protection of 

the environment and the public health. 

To help U.S. beekeepers survive recent losses, Congress may 

want to consider one time loss payments for injured beekeepers. 

For the longer term, beekeepers should be able to protect themselves against losses of various kinds through Federal crop insurance. Congress has authorized crop insurance and it should strongly urge the USDA to implement such a program for beekeepers on 

an expedited basis. 

Finally, in the 2007 Farm Bill, Congress will have other opportunities to help American beekeepers, including continuing and improving the current marketing program for honey. Mr. Chairman, 

we look forward to working with Congress to end CCD and to assure that our Nation’s bee industry is strong. Thank you very much 

for holding this important hearing. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that the members of the subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adee appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Adee. I want to begin the questioning by thanking you for your testimony. In particular, your testimony indicated that USDA’s risk management agency had been 

contacted or contracted for development of a pilot program on 

honey bee insurance and that that has not happened yet. That was 

in 2005; it is now 2007. I would encourage USDA to get with the 

program here and move this program, because clearly it is needed 

for this industry now, not later. 

I had a question for you, but we are very short of time because 

the votes have interceded and a number of the members of the 

committee have other functions that we have to deal with, other 

events that we have to be at, meetings we have to intend. So my 

next question is for the entire panel and please keep your answer 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

30 

as short as possible, but as concise and to the point of the exact 

problem as you can possibly do. 

Several of you have indicated and raised concerns over the impact of agricultural pesticides on honey bee populations and that 

was raised in almost every member’s testimony. My experience is 

that farmers and ranchers are generally very wise users of pesticides, that they follow the labels, that they comply with the 

standards and still it seems that you think or you suspect that this 

is having an impact on bee populations. I would like for you each 

to discuss in greater detail your perspective on pesticide use and 

the potential impact that this might be having on this problem. 

Mr. WENGER. Real quickly, I am also a licensed pest control operator, as well as an almond grower and I need to say that whenever 

we apply anything in the springtime, you are not applying any 

kind of pesticides that are killing agents, they are just fungicides 

in the almonds. The only time that we do come up in California 

against some problems is when we have an Alfalfa Weevil. But 

through the ag commissioners, we have to notify all beekeepers 

within a two-mile radius, as long as they register with the county 

ag commissioner, they have to register with the county ag commissioner, let them know where they are at. 

We can go in and we can notify all the beekeepers through a 

phone call that we are going to be applying and tell them when we 

are going to do that, and we have to do that 48 hours in advance 

so that they can do something to protect those hives, if there is 

something to be done there. But also, from what I have been hearing talking to folks, it could be things that are happening during 

the growing season, especially a lot of the bees that we have in 

California come from out of state, so it might not be something that 

is happening while the bees are in the field. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Wenger. 

Mr. ADEE. My experience in South Dakota is it basically follows 

your assessment of the aerial applicators, pesticide applicators. We 

have a great bunch of people working good with us, the same way 

in California, but part of the problem probably is and could be is 

that some of these pesticides working in combination, by themselves are not harmful to bees, but in combination are lethal and 

we have seen this with some of the treatments we have had in hive 

use, and some of the fungicides that they are putting on the trees. 

Neither one by themselves are not harmful, but in combination we 

have a lethal product, and so we just need more research. And I 

think the applicators are doing their best, the beekeepers are doing 

their best, but we are just having some problems in there. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Doan, did you have a perspective? 

Mr. DOAN. Yes, sir. Our concern is, at least on my part and when 

you read the evidence out of France, and I don’t think my growers 

do it on purpose, but there are systemic pesticides that are being 

used and so they are coming through the plants, the bees are collecting it as pollen, bringing it back to the hive and then it is fed 

to the young and to the nurse bees. And if you read through what 

I have presented, you will find that the evidence indicates that 

there are disrupters of their orientation of all insects and that 

would lead me to believe that these bees are flying off and just are 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

31 

not able to come back to those hives to find where they belong, and 

bees are social insects and they die on their own. 

Mr. CARDOZA. You suspect this? We don’t have empirical evidence to point to that? 

Mr. DOAN. We don’t have here. So far, there have not been any 

tests done to check for the pesticides in the pollen. The samples 

have been drawn, but as far as I know, there is no labs to run 

these tests at currently, or machinery. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Brandi. 

Mr. BRANDI. Certainly, in the San Joaquin Valley of California, 

we do have a lot of experience with pesticides and where bees are 

exposed to pesticides routinely throughout the year, depending 

upon the crops we happen to be on. But over the past 30 years, the 

applicators have become much more educated and aware of the 

value of bees and certainly are cognizant of that. I think it is more 

of a situation of the fact that we just don’t know what certain 

chemicals will do to bees, sub-lethal or acutely or residually toxic. 

We used to have a person at UC Riverside that would independently test pesticides for bee toxicity. He retired in the early 1980s 

and has not been replaced. The fellow from Washington State University was the next independent tester of pesticides as they relate 

to bees and he retired back in the 1990s. So really, we have been 

kind of blind here for about the last 10 years and that is why I 

thought if the USDA had a bee toxicologist that could be hired on, 

it would be good, because we just don’t know about, not only the 

residual effects of some of these chemicals, but the other sub-lethal 

effects that have been referred to here today as well. We just don’t 

know. We are guinea pigs in the field. 

Mr. CARDOZA. In my Healthy America Act, a number of members 

of this committee and a number of congressional members have 

been very concerned about the lack of research dollars that have 

been going into agriculture in the last few years. Thank you for 

highlighting that problem. Clearly, Mr. Wenger, in your testimony, 

you raised anecdotal correlation to declining research dollars and 

raising disease and pest problems, and so if you have any further 

comment, we are almost at the end of our time here, but I will give 

you the opportunity to comment on that. 

Mr. WENGER. Well, I just think a lot of the times these problems 

just creep up on us slowly and we have noticed, even through the 

land grant universities, as we go into more and more areas of research, it seems like a lot of the basic ag research is where we are 

losing and today it is not so much that we need the research to how 

to produce a better almond or how to produce more almonds per 

acre, but it is these things like this with the bee research. How do 

we help with the air and the water issues? And so I think anything 

the Congress can do with the land grant universities especially, to 

encourage the continuation of support of agricultural research and 

applied research and the extension agents and how they get that 

out in the field, it would be very beneficial, not only to agriculture, 

but all those in America that depend upon American agriculture. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Paul. Mr. Etheridge. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brandi, let me 

ask you first. How long has CCD been an issue, that we have noticed it? 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

32 

Mr. BRANDI. CCD was only named such just within the past few 

months, but we have noticed an increase in winter colony die-off 

for several years, but it has never been as severe as this year. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Let me tell you why I am asking the question, 

because I am trying to get, and I don’t expect you to give me a definitive answer when I ask you. So hopefully, we have got a few 

scholars in the audience and some of the USDA is still here, because we talked about pesticides a few minutes ago and we have 

been using pesticides for years, you know, to expand our crops and 

do other things, so you know, I want to be careful how we go there. 

I really wonder if it is a combination and I really wish I would 

have this chance to ask the USDA representative earlier. I wonder 

if it started regionally as we had droughts. You know, we have had 

severe droughts in some areas over the last number of years now, 

and in North Carolina it has been several years since we have had 

one, fortunately. The Midwest has really been in tough times, and 

the far west have had some severe droughts and even in some 

parts of the Southeast. You really wonder if this stress adds to 

those issues. I know we need to do some research on this, so let 

me move to another question and raise that. 

You are a representative of industry and you have been at it a 

long time, as you have indicated, and as the industry comes together, is there a working relationship across the industry? I know 

we have beekeepers, but across the industry, of things they are 

doing to gather data so that we can share that data with our university representatives, as I raised the issue, if you remember, with 

the first panel, because they have got a lot people out there. We 

provide a lot of research dollars in a lot of areas, and if the industry is gathering data to share, it would be very helpful to have that 

data to be available. Or are we gathering data, or was it all anecdotal? 

Mr. ADEE. At the present time, Dr. Bromenshank, up in Montana, has been doing a survey of the industry, just to see the depth 

of the problem and he has put together some very, very good information and I think it is going to be very useful information. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Do you know when that might be completed? 

Mr. ADEE. I think it is ongoing right now. Parts of it have been 

completed already. I have seen some of it, yes. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful to 

this committee if once that survey is completed and the information 

has been consolidated, it would be very helpful to us to have that 

information. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I will certainly make sure we get that. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. So we can at least share that. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Yes, we will be certain to get that. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. As we make our decision, that would be very 

helpful. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Yes. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. Mr. Ellingson, you have been in 

business, as you have indicated earlier, a long time. 

Mr. ELLINGSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. You have a seen a lot of ups and downs and a 

lot of changes. Having grown up on a farm, I have some understanding of that. But I guess my question is, is we went through 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

33 

the mites and other things and I think there is probably not a real 

good understanding on the part of the general public of how important bees are to productivity. Farmers know. Those people that are 

actually engaged in the specific commodities know. So hopefully 

this hearing, Mr. Chairman, will help start that process. I think 

my bigger question is, compared to the problems that we have 

faced in the industry, with beekeeping over the years, and you indicated in your earlier testimony the severity of this. How would you 

classify the current situation as it relates to previous challenges 

that have been faced by the industry? 

Mr. ELLINGSON. I would say we are on the coast of catastrophic, 

to give a one-word answer. I would also say that, you know, we 

have gone through this using, you know, Dr. Marla Spivak’s hygienic queen selection. You know, can we put in new frames? We 

have done all the things you are supposed to do right and we are 

still seeing this problem. Usually, if you have a problem, you know, 

if your combs are old, you replace them and you get new combs and 

things work well and hives turn around. If you have got Nosema, 

you feed Fumidil, those types of things. I have been doing all of 

these things; we are still having a problem. I asked a fellow beekeeper the other day when I went and bought some—I said, Darryl, 

what did you do last year when you had this big collapse compared 

to this year? He said nothing. I did everything. The same way I did 

it last year, I did it this year. And he has no answer, either, why 

his bees are okay this year. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I think that is a good one for me to end on, unless someone else disagrees with that. Thank you, sir. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. I want to make two 

points before we close here today. First of all, we have had a discussion on a number of things. We are going to follow this question, 

this mystery that we have in the bee industry and back to nature 

to completion. We are going to try and figure out what that is. We 

are going to advocate for more resources. Government’s wheels 

turn oftentimes too slow. We are going to need private sector and 

the State departments of agriculture to work with USDA to try and 

help Congress get to the point where we can help you all deal with 

this situation. But you have the commitment from this committee 

that we are going to do everything within our power and follow the 

leads, like detectives, wherever they may go. It may be, as Mr. 

Doan indicates, that it could be a pesticide issue; it may not. We 

don’t know that yet and I don’t want to implicate anything before 

we know for certain what the true culprit is. But I think it is imperative that we do find out who that culprit is and what the culprit is, because this industry is too important to the country and 

to food production for us not to follow the leads and find out what 

is causing this problem. 

I thank you all. I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

I thank the members of the committee for their interest. Under the 

rules of the committee, the record of today’s hearing will remain 

open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplementary 

written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by 

members of the panel. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture is hereby adjourned. 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

34 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

35 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 096 36465A.001
36 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 097 36465A.002
37 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 098 36465A.003
38 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 099 36465A.004
39 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 100 36465A.005
40 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 101 36465A.006
41 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 102 36465A.007
42 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 103 36465A.008
43 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 104 36465A.009
44 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 105 36465A.010
45 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 106 36465A.011
46 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 107 36465A.012
47 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 108 36465A.013
48 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 109 36465A.014
49 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 110 36465A.015
50 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 111 36465A.016
51 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 112 36465A.017
52 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 113 36465A.018
53 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 114 36465A.019
54 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 115 36465A.020
55 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 116 36465A.021
56 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 117 36465A.022
57 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 118 36465A.023
58 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 119 36465A.024
59 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 120 36465A.025
60 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 121 36465A.026
61 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 122 36465A.027
62 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 123 36465A.028
63 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 124 36465A.029
64 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 125 36465A.030
65 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 126 36465A.031
66 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 127 36465A.032
67 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 128 36465A.033
68 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 129 36465A.034
69 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 130 36465A.035
70 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 131 36465A.036
71 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 132 36465A.037
72 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 133 36465A.038
73 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 134 36465A.039
74 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 135 36465A.040
75 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 136 36465A.041
76 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 137 36465A.042
77 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 138 36465A.043
78 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 139 36465A.044
79 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 140 36465A.045
80 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 141 36465A.046
81 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 142 36465A.047
82 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 143 36465A.048
83 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 144 36465A.049
84 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 145 36465A.050
85 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 146 36465A.051
86 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 147 36465A.052
87 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 148 36465A.053
88 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 149 36465A.054
89 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 150 36465A.055
90 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 151 36465A.056
91 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 152 36465A.057
92 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 153 36465A.058
93 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 154 36465A.059
94 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 155 36465A.060
95 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 156 36465A.061
96 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 157 36465A.062
97 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 158 36465A.063
98 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 159 36465A.064
99 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 160 36465A.065
100 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 161 36465A.066
101 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 162 36465A.067
102 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 163 36465A.068
103 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 164 36465A.069
104 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 165 36465A.070
105 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 166 36465A.071
106 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 167 36465A.072
107 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 168 36465A.073
108 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 169 36465A.074
109 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 170 36465A.075
110 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 171 36465A.076
111 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 172 36465A.077
112 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 173 36465A.078
113 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 174 36465A.079
114 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 175 36465A.080
115 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 176 36465A.081
116 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 177 36465A.082
117 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 178 36465A.083
118 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 179 36465A.084
119 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 180 36465A.085
120 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 181 36465A.086
121 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 182 36465A.087
122 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 183 36465A.088
123 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 184 36465A.089
124 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 185 36465A.090
125 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 186 36465A.091
126 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 187 36465A.092
127 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 188 36465A.093
128 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 189 36465A.094
129 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 190 36465A.095
130 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 191 36465A.096
131 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 192 36465A.097
132 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 193 36465A.098
133 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 194 36465A.099
134 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 195 36465A.100
135 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 196 36465A.101
136 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 197 36465A.102
137 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 198 36465A.103
138 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 199 36465A.104
139 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 200 36465A.105
140 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 201 36465A.106
141 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 202 36465A.107
142 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 203 36465A.108
143 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 204 36465A.109
144 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 205 36465A.110
145 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 206 36465A.111
146 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 207 36465A.112
147 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 208 36465A.113
148 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 209 36465A.114
149 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 210 36465A.115
150 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 211 36465A.116
151 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 212 36465A.117
152 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 213 36465A.118
153 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 214 36465A.119
154 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 215 36465A.120
155 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 216 36465A.121
156 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 217 36465A.122
157 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 218 36465A.123
158 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 219 36465A.124
159 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 220 36465A.125
160 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 221 36465A.126
161 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 222 36465A.127
162 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 223 36465A.128
163 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 224 36465A.129
164 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 225 36465A.130
165 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 226 36465A.131
166 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 227 36465A.132
167 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 228 36465A.133
168 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 229 36465A.134
169 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 230 36465A.135
170 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 231 36465A.136
171 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 232 36465A.137
172 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 233 36465A.138
173 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 234 36465A.139
174 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 235 36465A.140
175 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 236 36465A.141
176 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 237 36465A.142
177 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 238 36465A.143
178 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 239 36465A.144
179 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 240 36465A.145
180 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 241 36465A.146
181 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 242 36465A.147
182 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 243 36465A.148
183 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 244/500 36465A.149
184 

ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF GENE BRANDI OF THE CALIFORNIA

STATE BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION

I appreciate this opportunity to submit additional testimony on 

colony collapse disorder to the Subcommittee on Horticulture and 

Organic Agriculture. 

Certain pesticides have adversely affected bee health throughout 

the United States for many years. Additional scientific knowledge 

about the acute, residual, and sub lethal adverse affects of particular pesticides to honey bees is critical to understanding whether 

or not these compounds are responsible for any degree of colony 

collapse disorder. 

Beginning in 1996, as Chairman of the American Beekeeping 

Federation’s Research and Technical Committee, I served as a 

member of the EPA State Labeling Issues Panel. The panel consisted primarily of EPA and state pesticide regulators, and was assembled in an effort to improve the bee hazard warning on pesticide labels. It became apparent to me early in these discussions 

that there was a severe lack of appreciation by EPA with regard 

to the severity of pesticide problems encountered by honey bees 

and other pollinators in the United States. After several years and 

many attempts, in my opinion the bee hazard warnings on pesticide labels were not improved. 

Pesticide toxicity to honey bees from spray, dust, and certain bait 

formulations has been apparent for years, but there is also concern 

that systemic pesticides may be adversely affecting honey bees as 

well. Independent research by a honey bee toxicologist can determine the effects of topically applied and systemic pesticides to 

honey bees on various crops. 

My experience leads me to believe that the effects of pesticides 

on honey bees are not a high priority with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Given that approximately $15 billion of the U.S. 

farm economy would not exist without the pollination work of 

honey bees, and it is clear that the nation’s honey bees are at risk 

from colony collapse disorder, it is vital that EPA increase its ‘‘level 

of concern’’ with regard to pesticides that adversely impact honey 

bees. 

I very much appreciate the concern of the House Subcommittee 

on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture and its attempt to help 

the bee industry and the scientific community find solutions to the 

colony collapse disorder problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the hearing and for 

allowing this additional testimony to be added to the record as 

well. 

Æ 

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING