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

50–679 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF 

POLLINATOR HEALTH INCLUDING 

COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 26, 2008

Serial No. 110–39

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

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 SANDLIN, 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 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC 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 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

KEITH JONES, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from California, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from North Carolina, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 5

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

WITNESSES

Knipling, Edward, Ph.D., Administrator, Agriculture Research Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .................................................. 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Delaplane, Keith S., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Entomology, University 

of Georgia, Athens, GA ........................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Frazier, Maryann, Senior Extension Associate, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA ............................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Submitted material .......................................................................................... 101

Godlin, Steve, Beekeeper, Visalia, CA ................................................................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32

Mendes, David, Vice President, American Beekeeping Federation, North Fort 

Myers, FL .............................................................................................................. 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Edwards, Robert D., Cotton, Corn, Soybeans, Peanuts, and Other Specialty 

Crops Producer, Halifax, Nash, and Edgecomb Counties, North Carolina, 

Whitakers, NC ...................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Flanagan, Edward R., President & CEO, Jasper Wyman and Son, Milbridge, 

ME ......................................................................................................................... 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Pien, Katty, Brand Director, Ha ̈agen–Dazs Ice Cream, Oakland, CA ................ 46

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Replogle, John, President and CEO, Burt’s Bees, Durham, NC .......................... 48

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Davies Adams, Laurie, Executive Director, Pollinator Partnership, San Francisco, CA ................................................................................................................ 52

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF 

POLLINATOR HEALTH INCLUDING 

COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER 

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC

AGRICULTURE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis Cardoza 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Cardoza, Etheridge, Barrow, 

Gillibrand, Peterson (ex officio), Neugebauer, Foxx, and Latta. 

Staff present: Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Keith Jones, Scott 

Kuschmider, Sharon Rusnak, John Goldberg, and Jamie Weyer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to review the status of pollinator 

health including Colony Collapse Disorder will now come to order. 

I would like to welcome you all here today. We will have opening 

statements as our first order of business. During that time I would 

like to ask all the panelists that will be appearing in our first panel 

to come forward. Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte may arrive throughout the hearing at some point and I would 

just like to recognize my Ranking Member and good friend, Mr. 

Neugebauer of Texas, who will be here in the hearing today representing the Republican side of the aisle. We will have opening 

statements by myself and Mr. Neugebauer and then we will request that other Members submit their opening statements for the 

record as well as witnesses will do so with their testimony. 

Nearly 2 years ago now, a number of farmers in my district 

brought to my attention the difficulty they were having when they 

were procuring honey bees for their annual pollination of crops. At 

first many people, myself included, assumed that the rapid decline 

in the pollinator population was an aberration, just a fluke perhaps. However, in some regions across the country, beekeepers 

were reporting 30 to 90 percent losses in their honey bee colonies. 

Perhaps even more intriguing, the bees seemed to simply disappear, which is extremely uncharacteristic for these insects. In 

February of last year, top agriculture researchers in conjunction 

2

with USDA termed this massive decline in honey bees as Colony 

Collapse Disorder and set out to pinpoint the cause of this problem. 

Unfortunately, it turns out that bees are extremely complex and 

highly sensitive insects. Their behavior patterns can be radically 

affected by slight changes in climate or weather and when exposed 

to small amounts of certain pathogens, including pesticides, making it enormously difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of their decline. 

In March of 2007, I along with my Ranking Member, Mr. 

Neugebauer, convened the first ever hearing on bees and Colony 

Collapse Disorder. We heard from a number of experts in the field 

ranging from researchers to beekeepers to farmers about the possible causes of this decline and potentially devastating effects on 

American agriculture. Not much was known a year ago other than 

there were a number of potential causes including pathogens, 

parasites, environmental and management stress issues, as well as 

potential nutrition problems. But the hearing did highlight the intense need for a dedicated Federal funding stream to further study 

and investigate CCD and to support the continued longevity of domestic pollinators. 

We have made notable progress towards this goal in the recent 

farm bill. USDA will now encourage pollinator habitat development 

in all conservation programs, thanks to the farm bill. Specifically 

within the EQIP program, the Secretary is now authorized to give 

greater priority to conservation practices that promote pollinator 

habitat. 

Additionally, millions of dollars were authorized to conduct research on the various factors that may be contributing to the 

health of honey bees and other pollinators including pathogens and 

pest surveillance. The farm bill will also provide for an increase in 

the capacity and infrastructure of USDA’s current colony collapse 

prevention efforts and requires annual reports to the House and 

Senate Agriculture Committees detailing the progress the Department has made in addressing colony losses. Finally, mandatory 

funding will now be made available under the Specialty Crop Research Initiative for Honey Bee Health as it pertains to the specialty crop industry. 

Many of these provisions are directed specifically at Colony Collapse Disorder but it is important to recognize the plight of America’s beekeepers and honey producers. Many beekeepers in my district have been financially and emotionally devastated by the rapid 

loss of their bee colonies. In the 2008 Farm Bill, it has also officially made honey and honey bee losses eligible for disaster assistance. But all these provisions are really stopgap measures. The industry really needs answers and solutions. Our last hearing 

prompted the USDA to develop an action plan for CCD. While I am 

impressed with the progress thus far, especially in identifying the 

recent occurrence of Israeli acute paralysis virus in damaged colonies, I remain very concerned of the lack of concrete findings and 

a final answer. 

I hope our panelists today can shed some light on what may be 

preventing swift action to stop the continuing decline of bee colonies. The importance of bees and other pollinators cannot be underestimated. Nearly 130 different crops totaling over $15 billion in 

3

farm gate value depend on pollinators to grow. In fact, in California, in my district particularly, our top agricultural products 

such as almonds, walnuts, cherries, melons and countless others 

are totally dependent on annual pollination efforts from local honey 

bees. Simply put, if there are no bees, there is no way for our nation’s farmers to continue to grow the high-quality nutritious food 

our country relies on. This is a crisis we cannot afford to ignore. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

Nearly two years ago now a number of farmers in my district brought to my attention the difficulty they were having when procuring honeybees for the annual 

pollination of their crops. At first, many people—myself included–assumed that the 

rapid decline in the pollinator population was an aberration–just a fluke perhaps. 

However, in some regions across the country beekeepers were reporting 30–90% 

losses in their honeybee colonies. But perhaps even more intriguing, the bees 

seemed to simply disappear. 

In February of last year, top Apiculture researchers, in conjunction with USDA, 

termed this massive decline in honeybees as ‘‘Colony Collapse Disorder’’ and set out 

to pinpoint the cause of this problem. Unfortunately, it turns out that bees are extremely complex and highly sensitive insects. Their behavior patterns can be radically affected by slight changes in the climate or weather and when exposed to small 

amounts of certain pathogens and pesticides. 

In March of 2007, I—along with my Ranking Member Mr. Neugebauer—convened 

the first ever hearing on bees and Colony Collapse Disorder. We heard from a number of experts in the field ranging from researchers to beekeepers to farmers about 

the possible causes and potential devastating effects on American agriculture. 

Not much was known a year ago, other than there were a number of potential 

causes including pathogens; parasites; environmental and management stresses; 

and nutrition problems. But the hearing did highlight the intense need for a dedicated Federal funding stream to further study and investigate CCD and to support 

the continued longevity of domestic pollinators. 

We made notable progress towards this goal in the recent farm bill. USDA will 

now encourage pollinator habitat development in all conservation programs. Specifically in the EQIP program, the Secretary is now authorized to give greater priority 

to conservation practices that promote pollinator habitat. Additionally, millions of 

dollars were authorized to conduct research on the various factors that may be contributing to the health of honey bees and other pollinators, including pathogen and 

pest surveillance. The farm bill also provided for an increase in the capacity and 

infrastructure of USDA’s current Colony Collapse prevention efforts and requires an 

annual report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees detailing the 

progress the Department has made in addressing colony losses. And finally, mandatory funding will now be made available under the Specialty Crop Research Initiative for honey bee health as it pertains to the specialty crop industry. 

Many of these provisions are directed specifically at Colony Collapse Disorder, but 

it is important to recognize the plight of America’s beekeepers and honey producers. 

Many beekeepers in my district have been financially and emotionally devastated 

by the rapid loss of their bee colonies. The 2008 Farm Bill has made honey and 

honey bee losses eligible for disaster assistance. 

But all of these provisions are really stop-gap measures. What the industry really 

needs are answers and solutions. Our last hearing prompted USDA to develop an 

action plan for Colony Collapse Disorder. While I am impressed with the progress 

thus far—especially in identifying the occurrence of the Israeli acute paralysis virus 

in damaged colonies, I remain very concerned about the lack of concrete findings. 

I hope our panelists today can shed some light on what may be preventing swift 

action to stop the continuing decline of bee colonies. 

The importance of bees and other pollinators can NOT be underestimated. Nearly 

130 different crops—totally over $15 billion in farm gate value—depend on pollination to grow. In fact, in California, and in my district particularly, our top agricultural products such as almonds, walnut, cherries, melons and countless others are 

totally dependent on annual pollination efforts from local honey bees. Simply put, 

if there are no bees, there is no way for our nation’s farmers to continue to grow 

the high quality, nutritious foods our country relies on.

4

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I would like to turn this opening 

statement over to my Ranking Member, Mr. Neugebauer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

hearing today to provide the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture 

Subcommittee with an update on pollinator health and any 

progress being made to find the cause of the solution to the Colony 

Collapse Disorder. 

When this Subcommittee met about this issue last March, we 

heard about new research and initiatives aimed at solving the mystery behind the cause and solution of CCD. I look forward to hearing an update about these programs and any development or advancements in this issue and about any new research projects that 

have begun since that hearing. 

I was honored to serve on the conference committee for the recently passed farm bill and am proud we were able to include several provisions that address pollination, especially CCD. The new 

Specialty Crop Research Initiative provides $230 million in mandatory funding for research and extension, which includes research 

threads to pollinators. As we speak, USDA is working to write the 

rules to implement these programs, and I hope that the steps taken 

in the farm bill will serve the needs of the pollinators and help protect this very important aspect of agriculture. 

While USDA is a very important component in combating CCD, 

it is also critical that the private sector stakeholders become active 

on this issue. I am encouraged to learn that some proactive groups 

have already taken an active role in finding a solution to CCD, and 

I look forward to learning more about how the private sector and 

the government entities can work together to find cause and treatment for CCD and in doing so ensure the longevity of bees that pollinate crops for food, fiber, beverage, condiments, species and medicines that we consume and use on a daily basis. I appreciate the 

efforts of the several agencies of the Department of Agriculture 

that have taken a lead in research and dissemination of information regarding Colony Collapse Disorder, and I encourage USDA 

and its university and state partners to work closely with the bee 

industry in an effort to work together to coordinate research and 

disseminate the findings. 

I look forward to learning more from researchers, beekeepers, 

farmers and industry leaders here today. While you may not yet 

understand the cause of the colony losses, you do understand the 

importance of honey bee pollination in agriculture and the Subcommittee benefits from your expertise. 

With that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you for 

your work with us on the farm bill. You did a fabulous job and it 

is my pleasure to work with you on a regular basis on this Committee. 

I want to welcome our first panel today, and as such, we have 

one of our Members who has a constituent on this panel, and I am 

going to turn it over to Mr. Barrow to introduce his constituent and 

5

then I will recognize the rest of the panel. So Mr. Barrow, the floor 

is yours to recognize your constituent. 

Mr. BARROW. Well, I thank the chair, and it is a point of personal 

privilege to introduce Dr. Keith Delaplane, Professor of Entomology 

at the University of Georgia. A technicality, Mr. Chairman, he is 

no longer a constituent. My district no longer includes the physical 

territory that houses the home offices and campus of the University 

of Georgia, but coming from the State of Georgia, I think it is fair 

to say that all of us represent the University of Georgia to some 

extent or another. In fact, I wish Brother Costa was here today so 

I could congratulate him on his Bulldogs beating our Bulldogs yesterday in the College Championship World Series. 

It is a point of personal pride to me to introduce this national 

champion in his field, Dr. Delaplane, who is here basically to 

present the model that the University of Georgia has developed in 

response to the USDA’s RFP, which is the most complex and robust 

proposal to me. It is why he has been selected totally on the merits 

and without regard to this Member. Dr. Delaplane, you can no 

longer vote for me, but I want you to know, I can vote for you and 

I want to thank you very much for what you do and thank you for 

your leadership in this endeavor, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

the privilege. I have to leave now to go to a hearing of my Committee on Energy and Air Quality, so please accept my apologies 

for not being able to stay but, Dr. Delaplane, thank you for being 

here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Barrow, and we all represent the 

University of Georgia. They are a fine institution. I am particularly 

proud that our Bulldogs beat your Bulldogs yesterday because—

Mr. BARROW. I am going to have to teach you all how to say 

‘‘dogs.’’ It is a two syllable word with a little more emphasis, but 

you are coming along pretty good. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will probably have to do that since my son just 

enrolled this week in Southern High football in Maryland, where 

they also are the Bulldogs, and so I will try and get that down and 

I will keep practicing with you. Thank you, Mr. Barrow, and we 

will make sure that we get you the testimony of your witness and 

all the rest of them. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Foxx, I will be happy to yield to you for an 

opening statement at this time, a short opening statement. It is 

outside the parameters of what we laid out, but I would be happy 

to accommodate you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIRGINIA FOXX, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Ms. FOXX. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. The thing I want to say 

is that I think I am probably the only former beekeeper on the 

panel. My husband and I have been farmers all of our lives, and 

we lost our bees. Actually I know why people are losing their bees. 

We lost ours, too. We had nine hives and so I have experience as 

a beekeeper, and I have just extraordinarily strong feelings about 

this issue. I have made several speeches on the floor about it, in 

fact, when I first came to the Congress alerting people, so I want 

to thank all of you for this. I have votes at 10:30 in the Education 

6

Committee and so I am going to have to leave, but I just want the 

members of the panel and the Members of the Committee to know 

of my strong interest in this issue, both from my knowledge of the 

problem as well as my personal experience. 

I thank you very much for that indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Foxx, you are very welcome, and I didn’t realize that you had had this experience but certainly it is very valuable to the Committee, and we will make sure we consult you as 

we go forward on this. Thank you. 

At this time I would like to introduce the other members of our 

panel, and we are very delighted today to have Dr. Edward 

Knipling, Ph.D. and administrator with the ARS, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture here in Washington, D.C. Thank you, Doctor, for 

being here with us today. Mr. Delaplane has already been introduced by Mr. Barrow. We have Ms. Maryann Frazier, senior extension associate with the Pennsylvania State University at University Park, Pennsylvania. I would like to welcome all three of our 

first panelists. 

Dr. Knipling, please begin when you are ready, and let me just 

read this following statement before you do begin. The Chair would 

like to remind all Members that they are recognized for questioning 

in order of seniority. Members who are here at the start of the 

hearing will be recognized first. After that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival, and I appreciate the Members’ understanding. Dr. Knipling. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. KNIPLING, PH.D.,

ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. I am Edward Knipling, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, which is the intramural research agency of 

the Department of Agriculture, and thank you for this opportunity 

to appear before the Subcommittee today to present testimony on 

USDA’s efforts to improve pollinator health and address the problem of Colony Collapse Disorder. 

Mr. Chairman, you and others have already characterized the 

CCD problem very well and the importance of honey bees and 

other pollinators. Thus, I will only add at this point that the 2008 

spring survey results following last winter indicate that bee colony 

losses across the United States were an average of about 36 percent compared to about 31 percent the year before in 2007. These 

levels are about twice what were experienced by beekeepers previously in so-called normal or typical years and winters, and the 

additional losses of about 15 to 20 percent over normal are being 

attributed to the CCD malady. 

Numerous factors have been suggested as possible causes of this 

problem. These include increased pressure from viruses and other 

pathogens, parasites, environmental stresses, poor nutrition, transport stresses and pesticides, among other possible causes. 

My comments today will focus principally on the progress of research and planned activities by ARS and our sister agency, the 

Cooperative, State, Research, Education and Extension Service. 

7

Although scientists have not yet identified definitively the cause 

of CCD or a solution to the problem, they have greatly increased 

our understanding of the nature of the disorder and its potential 

contributing factors. For example, research suggests that CCD follows the weakening of a colony due to various stresses to the point 

that the colony cannot rear a replacement brood in the spring. 

Studies on the immune system response of bees support the hypothesis that CCD is caused by an interaction of multiple factors 

stressing the colony rather than any one single cause. 

Along these lines in 2007, researchers identified a virus known 

as the Israeli acute paralysis virus, which appears to have a high 

degree of association with CCD, and further studies suggest that 

a parasite, the Varroa mite, may be spreading the virus to other 

bees. Researchers later observed high levels of a different but potentially related virus in CCD samples. 

Other studies have shown that affected colonies tend to have elevated levels of other pathogens not commonly found in bee colonies. 

Specifically, investigations have identified a pathogen known as 

Nosema ceranae that infects bees in significantly different ways 

than does Nosema apis, a species long present in the United States. 

Research has also focused on determining whether pesticides, 

which remain a top concern among beekeepers, are associated with 

CCD. This research has yet to confirm such as association but 

these studies are continuing. 

Research has also been directed to beekeeping management practices, and progress in this area has been significant. A new protein 

supplement diet has been developed and shown to improve colony 

strength and protect against colony decline. This research has also 

shown that supplemental diets significantly improve the strength 

of colonies infected with Varroa mites. Other research has provided 

the first documented evidence of stress effects of long-distance 

transport of bee colonies for pollination services. 

In 2006, the honey bee genome was sequenced prior to recognition of the CCD problem, and this genetic information is now proving very timely and valuable to researchers to detect and interpret 

immune response disorders in CCD-affected bees. Additional 

genomic sequencing research is underway on the suspected viruses 

and Nosema pathogens I mentioned earlier, and comparative analysis of these genomes will be important to understand the potential 

role in CCD and may lead to control measures. 

I will now comment on the USDA research capacity and funding 

resources. ARS honey bee research is principally carried out at four 

laboratories located in Louisiana, Maryland, Arizona and Texas. 

This collective national honey bee program is supported by an annual base budget of $7.7 million of which 80 percent has been oriented since 2006 toward the CCD problem and its probable causes. 

In addition to this base funded research, $200,000 was provided to 

ARS scientists last year to sequence the genomes of the major microbial pathogens suspected of having a role in CCD. 

Beginning this year in 2008, ARS has initiated what we are calling the Areawide Project on Honey Bee Health. The objectives of 

this 5-year project are to investigate the effects of migratory beekeeping including nutrition and the use of supplemental protein 

diets on honey bee health as well as developing more resistant bee 

8

lines and better control methods for honey bee pests. This project 

is being carried out by all four ARS laboratories in cooperation 

with commercial beekeepers and university partners and with base 

funding that is available for ARS pest management research. This 

first year support is $670,000, and funding for the subsequent 4 

years will be about $1 million per year. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposals for ARS re- quests $780,000 in new funding to enhance base program support 

for honey bee health and CCD research. 

CSREES, as the USDA extramural funding agency, is supporting 

university research at significant levels. Already, funds have been 

committed for five independent research and extension projects related to honey bee genetics and diseases and pesticide effects. Additionally, CSREES has recently completed panel review of proposals 

for a sizable competitive grant for multi-institutional honey bee 

health research and expects to make a $4.1 million, 4-year award 

next month in July. Overall, CSREES funding for CCD and bee 

health-related research has risen from about $500,000 in Fiscal 

Year 2006 to over $1 million in 2007, and funding this year is expected to exceed $2.5 million. The President’s Fiscal Year 2009 

budget also proposes to include an increase in the line item for critical issues and plant and animal diseases of about $1.7 million, 

which will be expected to provide additional resources for honey 

bee health. 

As the Chairman has already noted, the newly enacted 2008 Farm Bill provides $30 million in mandatory funding this fiscal 

year to be awarded competitively by CSREES for specialty crop research, and the formal request for applications is expected to be 

issued next month in July. A considerable number of proposals related to honey bee health for specialty crops are expected. 

Subject to future appropriations, the new farm bill also author- izes up to $20 million per year for the Fiscal Years 2008 through 

2012 for honey bee and other pollinator research extension and surveillance. 

Before closing, I will now briefly comment on the capabilities and 

activities of other USDA agencies relative to CCD. The Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service proposes to initiate the authorized 

national honey bee health and pest survey to obtain data and determine trends on the extent and possible causes of CCD. The Agricultural Marketing Service provides a capability on a user-fee basis 

for pesticide testing of agricultural samples, and AMS has already 

tested a number of honey bee samples, but the data obtained to 

date do not appear to associate pesticides conclusively in any way 

with CCD. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides 

leadership and assistance in establishing conservation areas and 

other pollinator protection habitats which will be important for 

CCD mitigation. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, even though research to date has 

not produced a definitive finding on the cause or a solution to the 

CCD problem, the research is making important progress toward 

our understanding of the disorder, and these efforts are continuing 

at an accelerating pace. USDA very much appreciates Congress’ interest in this issue, and I thank you once again for the opportunity 

to appear before you. We very much value also all of the cooperaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
9

tion and partnerships we have with universities, the beekeeping industry, non-government organizations and the like. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to address any 

questions that you have at a later time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Knipling follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. KNIPLING, PH.D., ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASH- INGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Edward Knipling, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which is the intramural scientific 

research agency of the Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to 

present testimony on USDA’s efforts to improve pollinator health and address the 

problem of colony collapse disorder, known as CCD. 

Background on CCD 

As the members of the Subcommittee know, CCD is characterized by the sudden 

decline of a honey bee colony and absence of dead bees. Typically, all but a few bees 

disappear from a given colony’s population for no apparent reason. These unexplained losses were first reported in the fall of 2006, with further investigations indicating that the problem may have been occurring since at least 2005. Given the 

critical role played by honey bees and other pollinators in plant reproduction, resulting in $15 billion in added crop value to at least 30 percent of our Nation’s crops, 

CCD poses a significant threat to the U.S. beekeeping industry, food and honey production, and ecosystem health. 

In 2007, bee colony losses to CCD and other stressors were reported to be 31 percent. Surveys to date in the 2008 season indicate losses of about 36 percent, which 

is about twice the percentage of losses sustained during a typical winter. Although 

beekeepers are still meeting their pollination service contracts, the costs for pollination of some crops such as almonds have more than doubled over the past few 

years. Fortunately, the cost increases for other crops during off-peak pollination periods have not been as dramatic. 

Numerous factors have been suggested as possible causes of the CCD malady. 

These include viruses and other pathogens, parasites, environmental stresses, poor 

nutrition, transport stresses, and pesticides among others. 

USDA Leadership Efforts 

Upon hearing reports of CCD in the fall of 2006, USDA began to mobilize resources and bring university partners, honey and pollination industry leaders, and 

other stakeholders together to approach the problem. Working teams were formed 

to begin preliminary investigations into CCD. These groups also met formally in 

February and April 2007 to develop a comprehensive CCD Action Plan, which resulted in a framework approach to solve the problem and identify available resources to address research needs. The goals and objectives of the plan are centered 

around four main components: survey and data collection; sample analysis; hypothesis-driven research; and mitigation and preventative measures. 

Research 

My comments today will focus principally on the progress of research to date and 

ongoing and planned activities by ARS and our sister agency the Cooperative State 

Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). CSREES is the primary extramural research funding agency of USDA for universities, agricultural experiment 

stations, and cooperative extension services across the Nation. 

Although ARS and university scientists have not yet identified the cause of CCD 

or a solution to the problem, they have greatly increased our understanding of the 

nature of the disorder and its potential contributing factors. 

For example, research suggests that CCD follows the weakening of a colony due 

to various stresses to the point that the colony cannot rear replacement brood in 

the spring. Studies on the immune system response of bees support the hypothesis 

that CCD is caused by an interaction of multiple factors stressing the colony rather 

than by any one single cause. 

Along these lines, in 2007 researchers identified a virus, known as the Israeli 

acute paralysis virus (IAPV), which appears to have a high degree of association 

with CCD. Further studies suggest that a parasite, the varroa mite, may be spreading the virus to other bees. Researchers later observed high levels of a different, but 

10

potentially related virus in CCD samples that is associated with IAPV. Although additional work is needed to confirm a link between these viruses and CCD, this research provides a basis for identifying important markers for the disorder. 

Additional studies have shown that CCD-affected colonies tend to have elevated 

levels of other pathogens not commonly found in bee colonies. Specifically, investigations have identified a pathogen known as Nosema ceranae that infects bees in significantly different ways than does Nosema apis, a species long present in the 

United States. 

Research has also focused on determining whether pesticides, which remain a top 

concern among beekeepers, are associated with CCD. This research has yet to confirm such an association, but research will continue to analyze bee samples for pesticide exposure to definitively confirm or refute an alleged correlation. 

In addition to pathogens, parasites, and pesticides, research has also been directed to beekeeping management practices, which are critical to honey bee health. 

Progress in this area has been significant. A new protein supplement diet has been 

developed and shown to improve colony strength and protect against colony decline. 

This research has also shown that supplemental diets significantly improve colony 

strength in colonies infested with varroa mites. Other research has provided the 

first documented evidence of stress effects of long distance transport of bee colonies 

for pollination services. These studies will help establish critically-needed management strategies and guidelines for beekeepers to improve the health and strength 

of their bees as a protection against CCD. 

In early 2006, the entire honey bee genome was sequenced prior to recognition 

of the CCD problem. This genetic information is now proving timely and invaluable 

to researchers to detect and interpret immune response disorders in CCD affected 

bees. Additional genomic sequencing research is underway on the suspected viruses 

and Nosema pathogens previously mentioned. Bioinformatic analyses and comparisons of these genomes will be important to understand their role in CCD and may 

lead to control measures. 

Research Capacity 

ARS honey bee research is principally carried out at four bee laboratories located 

in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Beltsville, Maryland; Tucson, Arizona; and Weslaco, 

Texas. We also conduct alternative pollinator research at Logan, Utah. The collective national honey bee research by ARS is supported by an annual base budget of 

$7.7 million, of which 80 percent has been oriented since 2006 toward the CCD 

problem and its probable causes. This research also includes breeding efforts to improve honey bee resistance to varroa mites and other pests. 

In addition to this base funded research, $200,000 was provided to ARS scientists 

in 2007 to sequence the genomes of the major microbial pathogens suspected of having a role in CCD. 

Beginning this year in 2008, ARS has initiated what we are calling the Areawide 

Project on Honey Bee Health. The objectives of this 5-year project are to investigate 

the effects of migratory beekeeping, including nutrition and use of supplemental 

protein diets, on honey bee health, as well as developing more resistant bee lines 

and better control methods for honey bee pests. This project is being carried out by 

all four ARS bee laboratories in cooperation with commercial beekeepers and university partners. Base funding is available from ARS pest management research. First 

year support is $670,000. Funding for subsequent years will be based upon available 

appropriations. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal for ARS requests $780,000 in 

new funding to enhance base program support for honey bee health and CCD research. ARS also proposes to consolidate some of its existing base program activity 

on honey bee research in order to achieve a stronger critical mass of scientific effort 

and focus on the CCD problem. 

CSREES, as the USDA extramural funding agency, is also supporting CCD research at significant levels. Already funds have been committed for five independent 

research and extension projects relating to honey bee genetics and diseases, and 

pesticides effects. Additionally, CSREES has completed panel reviews of proposals 

for a sizeable competitive grant for multi-institutional honey bee health research 

and expects to make a $4.1 million, 4-year award in July 2008. Approximately 

$1.025 million will be provided each year. Overall, CSREES funding for CCD and 

bee health related research has risen from $538,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2006 to over 

$1,000,000 in FY 2007, and funding will exceed $2.5 million in FY 2008. The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal for CSREES also includes an increase of 

$1,743,000 for the Critical Issues in Plant and Animal Diseases line item which was 

used extensively to mount the agency’s initial response to the CCD crisis. 

11

As this Subcommittee knows, the newly enacted 2008 Farm Bill provides $30 million in mandatory funding this fiscal year, to be awarded competitively by CSREES, 

for specialty crop research. CSREES plans to issue the formal Request for Applications in July 2008. Because honey bee pollination is important for many fruit, nut, 

and vegetable crops, some proposals for honey bee health research related to the 

CCD problem are anticipated to be received. 

Subject to future appropriations, the new Farm Bill also authorizes up to $20 million per year for the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for honey bee and other pollinator research, extension, and surveillance. 

Other USDA Agencies 

I would now like to briefly comment on the capabilities and activities of other 

USDA agencies relevant to CCD. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) proposes to initiate the authorized national honey bee health and pest survey to obtain data and determine trends on the extent and possible causes of CCD. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides a capability on a user fee basis 

for pesticide testing of agricultural samples. AMS has already tested a limited number of dead honey bee samples, but the data obtained to date do not appear to associate pesticides with CCD. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) facilitates the USDA Pollinator Protection Committee, an 11-agency committee that 

provides leadership in pollinator protection endeavors, including CCD mitigation. 

Among other activities, in 2007 NRCS entered agreements with several national pollinator protection efforts to assist at the national, regional, state, and local levels 

to build awareness of and better address the nesting and foraging needs of wild and 

managed pollinators, which may serve as alternatives to honey bees. 

Closing 

Even though research to date has not produced a definitive finding on the cause 

of or solution to the CCD problem, the research is making important progress toward our understanding of the disorder. These efforts are continuing across the Nation. USDA appreciates Congress’ recognition of the significance of colony collapse 

disorder and thanks you for your support and the opportunity to testify before you 

today. USDA also values our partnerships with universities, industry, and other 

stakeholders in the collective efforts to safeguard honey bees, the beekeeping industry, and U.S. agriculture. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Knipling. We will indeed have 

the panel ask you a series of questions after our other witnesses 

have had their opportunity to testify. 

I wanted to inform the audience and the panel and the Members 

of the Committee that we just got word from the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee that their Fiscal Year 2009 appropriation that will be coming out of that Subcommittee will be $780,000 

for specific work on the items that you mentioned in your testimony and $10 million to your Department in order to conduct general bee research. So that is what the Subcommittee is working on, 

as we speak, and their hearing is still ongoing, and as further updates become known, we will pass that on too. 

I wanted to also take a moment to digress from our testimony 

and just recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Peterson, who is here with us and has joined us briefly. He is working 

on some other very important matters today with regard to gas 

prices and he is going to have to excuse himself, but while I have 

him here, this is the first hearing that we have had post farm bill 

and I just wanted to thank the Chairman for the unbelievably outstanding work that you did getting that bill passed to completion. 

You have had unbelievable burdens getting that bill passed but the 

country is better off for its passage, and thank you on behalf of everybody on the Committee for the work you did. Mr. Peterson, if 

you have any statements, I would like to recognize you now. 

12

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. I thank the Chairman for the work he did and 

the Ranking Member and all the Members of this Subcommittee 

and our Committee. It wasn’t just me, it was a team effort, and in 

the end I think the bill isn’t perfect but we were able to accommodate concerns from all parts of the country, from all aspects of agriculture, and as it relates to honey bees, which I have some history 

with too. I used to have clients back when I was in the CPA business that were in the honey bee business and witnessed firsthand 

the trials and tribulations that those people went through from 

year to year, and so we were pleased to be able to raise the loan 

rates for honey to do some of the research aspects, to make changes 

in conservation, which will further support honey bees and a lot of 

those efforts and credit goes to Mr. Cardoza and the Subcommittee 

for focusing on this and to continue on this. 

So I have a statement. I ask that it be made part of the record, 

and thank you all for your leadership and we will keep our eye on 

this situation and hopefully we will come up with the right outcome. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, for calling this hearing today and for the great 

leadership you have shown as Chairman of the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Subcommittee, and for highlighting a health issue that is crucial not just 

to beekeepers and producers, but to every American who enjoys a balanced diet. 

In March of last year, this Subcommittee held the first ever Congressional hearing that focused exclusively on the honey bee industry and their vital role as pollinators to the nation’s food supply. 

The hearing focused on Colony Collapse Disorder, an epidemic that is killing 

honey bees at a rapid rate nationwide. Despite a host of theories, some credible and 

some not, the cause of CCD has yet to be determined. It continues to be of great 

concern for beekeepers and farmers who rely on bees to pollinate their crops. 

I’m proud of the work that this Committee did in writing and passing the farm 

bill to recognize the threat of CCD and how important pollinators are to agriculture. 

The farm bill that was passed and signed into law over the President’s veto ensures 

that all Americans have access to a safe, secure and inexpensive food supply. 

That supply depends in large part to the presence and health of honey bees, who 

are the most economically valuable pollinators of farm crops in the world, with an 

estimated value in the tens of billions of dollars. They contribute to the production 

of fruits, vegetables, nuts, forage crops, and, of course, honey, accounting for almost 

one third of all crop cash receipts in the United States. 

Bee pollination roughly accounts for one third of the American diet. And pollinators are crucial to the growing value-added market for fruits and vegetables like 

organic products and local food networks, which are also prioritized in the farm bill. 

Recognizing the valuable role that pollinators play in our farm economy, the farm 

bill has provisions across several of the bill’s fifteen titles to support beekeepers and 

Colony Collapse Disorder research. Language in the farm bill research title 

prioritizes the identification of causes and solutions for CCD, while expanding 

USDA’s infrastructure to be able to address CCD research for the long term. It extends the honey marketing loan, which helps keep market prices stable. 

Conservation provisions in the bill will encourage habitat development and protection for native and managed pollinators, ensuring that technical assistance includes 

applicable standards. And provisions affecting bees and pollinators were also added 

to the farm bill’s crop insurance and disaster assistance sections. 

Despite some good signs, there are still vital concerns about CCD and the future 

of pollinators. We are here to learn from researchers in the field, beekeepers, and 

the producers who depend on pollinators for the health of their crops, about the 

13

challenges they still face after that March 2007 hearing. I welcome today’s witnesses, I look forward to their testimony, and I yield back my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for 

your hard work. 

Now I would like to recognize Mr. Keith Delaplane, Professor of 

the Department of Entomology at the University of Georgia in Athens. Sir, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH S. DELAPLANE, PH.D., PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, 

ATHENS, GA 

Dr. DELAPLANE. Thank you. Chairman Cardoza and Members of 

the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure and an honor to present to you 

a summary of some of the research being planned in response to 

pollinator decline. I am project director of a $4.1 million proposal 

to the USDA CSREES NRI competitive grants program targeted 

for managed pollinators. The proposal falls under the category of 

a Coordinated Agricultural Project, or CAP, and CAP proposals 

must address problems of national concern in a coordinated program of research and knowledge delivery. By inviting CAP proposals in managed pollinators in 2008, CSREES has rightly 

prioritized pollinator decline as a matter of public interest, and we 

are pleased to be informed that our proposal has been recommended for funding by the review panel. 

The team comprising our CAP project represents 17 institutions 

including 14 land-grant universities, one 1980 school, one ARS lab 

and one state lab, and the following are specific objectives. First, 

to determine and mitigate causes of CCD. This will include studying the interactive effects of disease agents and environmental factors on honey bee health. Second, to incorporate genetic traits that 

help honeybees resist pathogens and parasitic mites and to increase genetic diversity of commercial stocks. Third, to improve 

conservation and management of non-Apis pollinators by identifying new or emerging pathogens and parasites, abiotic stresses 

and practices that optimize their pollinating efficiency. Fourth, to 

deliver research knowledge to client groups by developing a technology transfer program for queen breeders and literature on best 

management and conservation practice for managed pollinators 

and queen breeders. 

In forming these objectives, we placed priority on identifying 

causes of pollinator decline. At this time, CCD cannot be assigned 

rigorously to any one definitive cause. However, pollinator decline 

has been the focus of worldwide research for decades, and we do 

have good starting points in our search for a definitive cause. There 

is evidence, for instance, that new or emerging bee viruses and 

pathogenic microsporidia contribute to honey bee morbidity, and in 

our proposal we have chosen to focus on four: Israeli acute paralysis virus, deformed wing virus, Nosema ceranae and Nosema apis. 

It is likely that these viruses and microsporidia interact negatively 

with other more familiar honey bee problems such as Varroa mites, 

tracheal mites, pesticides, both in hive and out, and stresses associated with migratory beekeeping. Similar to experiments on honey 

bees, another set of studies will tease apart the risks to non-honey 

bees from pathogens and field-exposed pesticides. 

14

A similar priority has been placed on mitigating pollinator decline and optimizing bee management. For instance, one of our native pollinators, the bumble bee, Bombus impatiens, will be the 

focus of experiments to identify management practices that optimize its pollinator performance in the field. We have also placed 

high priority on advancing the powerful advantages of genetic host 

resistance. There is rich literature on classical bee genetics augmented with new advances in genomics that place within our reach 

the prospect of identifying genes responsible for honey bee resistance, genetically marking individuals that carry those genes and 

selectively propagating them. 

The knowledge delivery mandate will be met in large part by the 

extension activities of our team. However, it will also be addressed 

more deliberately by creating a new literature on best management 

practices for honey bee managers and non-honey bee managers and 

queen breeders. The vehicle for delivering these publications will 

be the web-based platform extension. We will share this platform 

with our sister group, the ARS Areawide Project, which has been 

already alluded to this morning. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, it is my wish to affirm this Subcommittee and CSREES for their vision in prioritizing pollinator 

decline as a fundable problem in 2008. I have showcased the NRI 

CAP program as a model for addressing problems of national concern. In developing our CAP project, we have emphasized candidate 

disorders for which there is strong evidence that they contribute 

significantly to bee decline. It remains to test these candidate factors alone and in combination to discover the chief causes of bee 

decline. Our mitigation efforts will focus on genetic host resistance 

and developing best management practices based on research flowing from our CAP and from the ARS Areawide Project. 

Rarely has the opportunity been better for American bee scientists to work together across university and Federal boundaries 

on a problem of such magnitude and national significance. It is to 

be hoped that Federal assistance will be sustained in a strategic 

and long-term manner, permitting bee science to mature and engender healthier bee populations across the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Delaplane follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH S. DELAPLANE, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF ENTOMOLOGY, 

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, ATHENS, GA 

Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure and honor 

to present to you a summary of some of the research being planned in response to 

pollinator decline. I am a professor of entomology at the University of Georgia, and 

my research specialty is pollination and honey bee management. I am also Project 

Director of a $4.1 million proposal to the USDA CSREES NRI competitive grants 

program targeted for Managed Pollinators. This proposal falls under the category 

of a Coordinated Agricultural Project, or CAP. CAP proposals must address assigned 

problems of national concern in a coordinated program of research and knowledge 

delivery. CAP proposals must address the problem with linkages that are multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary and relatively lengthy, in our case 4 years. CAP 

proposals must identify and eliminate redundancies and design research that builds 

naturally and progressively upon earlier discoveries. The knowledge delivery component is integral, designed, deliberate, and outcome-oriented. The CAP model has 

proven an effective means of addressing national-scale problems such as Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome and Avian Influenza. By inviting CAP proposals in Managed Pollinators in 2008, the CSREES NRI competitive grants proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
15

gram has rightly prioritized pollinator decline as a matter of public interest. We’re 

pleased to be informed that our proposal was recommended for funding by the review panel. 

The team comprising our CAP project represents 17 institutions including 14 

land-grant universities, one 1890 school, one ARS lab, and one state lab. Eleven of 

the 19 team members have whole or partial appointments in agricultural extension. 

Thus, the CAP knowledge delivery component is integral to the makeup of the team. 

Here are the objectives of our project:

1. Determine and mitigate causes of CCD: study the interactive effects of disease agents (pathogens, parasites) and environmental factors (pesticides, nutrition) on honey bee health.

2. Incorporate traits that help honey bees resist pathogens and parasitic mites 

and increase genetic diversity of commercially available stocks.

3. Improve conservation and management of non-Apis pollinators by identifying 

new or emerging pathogens and parasites, abiotic stresses, and practices that 

optimize their pollinating efficacy.

4. Deliver research knowledge to client groups by developing a technology transfer program for queen breeders and a literature on Best Management and Conservation Practices for managed pollinators and queen breeders as an eXtension 

Community of Practice.

In forming our objectives, priority was placed on identifying causes of pollinator 

decline. At this time, honey bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) cannot be rigorously assigned to any definitive causes. However, bee morbidity and pollinator decline have been the focus of worldwide research for decades, and we have good starting points in our search for definitive causes. There is strong evidence that new or 

emerging bee viruses contribute significantly to honey bee morbidity. In our proposal we have chosen to focus on two: Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus and Deformed 

Wing Virus. Similarly, there is strong and recent evidence for bee morbidity from 

Nosema ceranae, a single-celled microsporidian pathogen recently introduced into 

Europe and North America, presumably from southeast Asia. It is likely that viruses and microsporidia, whether new to our continent or latent, interact negatively 

with more familiar honey bee problems such as parasitic Varroa mites and tracheal 

mites, pesticides both in-hive and out-, and stresses associated with intense migratory commercial beekeeping practices. Similar to these experiments on honey bees, 

another set of studies will tease apart the risks to non-honey bees from pathogens 

and field-exposed pesticides. At this stage in our understanding of bee decline, it is 

necessary to include numerous interaction experiments to discover the major contributors of bee morbidity and the extent to which they act singly or in synergy. 

In forming our objectives, a similar priority was placed on mitigating causes of 

pollinator decline and optimizing bee management. These objectives include research, but also represent our heaviest investments in knowledge delivery. In the 

interest of minimizing our reliance on chemical remedies, we have placed a high priority on advancing the powerful advantages of genetic host resistance. There is a 

rich literature on classical bee genetics, augmented with new advances in genomics 

that place within our reach the prospect of identifying genes responsible for honey 

bee resistance to disorders, genetically marking individuals that carry those genes, 

and selectively propagating them. Our proposal includes research that moves us in 

this direction as well as initiatives for delivering improved stock to bee breeders and 

for training them in classical selection techniques. One of our native pollinators, the 

bumble bee Bombus impatiens, will be the focus of experiments to identify management practices that optimize its pollinator performance in the field. 

The knowledge delivery mandate will be met in large part by the extension activities of our team members, most of whom have at least a partial extension appointment. However, the mandate will be addressed more deliberately by creating a new 

literature on Best Management Practices for honey bee managers, non-honey bee 

managers, and queen breeders. The primary vehicle for delivering these publications 

will be the web-based eXtension platform http://about.extension.org/, which on its 

homepage is described as ‘‘. . . an Internet-based collaborative environment where 

Land Grant University content providers exchange objective, research-based knowledge to solve real challenges in real time.’’ The ‘‘content providers,’’ or Communities 

of Practice, are each a delimited group of content specialists who use the eXtension 

platform to jointly write, edit, peer-review, and publish knowledge-based extension 

literature. Our CAP team has agreed to join forces with our sister group, the ARS 

Areawide Project, to form one Managed Pollinator Community of Practice. This combined website will be the chief conduit through which new knowledge from our reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
16

search flows to beekeepers and crop growers who need real answers to the problem 

of pollinator decline. 

In summary, it is my wish to affirm this Subcommittee and CSREES for their 

vision in prioritizing pollinator decline as a fundable problem in 2008. I have showcased the NRI CAP program as a model for addressing problems of national concern 

through a synthesis of multi-disciplinary research and outcome-oriented knowledge 

delivery. In developing our CAP project, we have emphasized candidate disorders 

for which there is strong evidence that they contribute significantly to bee decline. 

It remains to test these candidate factors, alone and in interaction, to discover the 

chief causes of bee decline. Our mitigation efforts focus on genetic host resistance 

and developing Best Management Practices based on research flowing from our CAP 

and from the ARS Areawide Project. 

Rarely has the opportunity been better for American bee scientists to work together across university and federal boundaries on a problem of such magnitude and 

national significance. It is to be hoped that federal assistance will be sustained in 

a strategic and long-term manner, permitting bee science to mature and engender 

healthier bee populations across the United States.

Key Personnel, Their Institutions, and Roles in the Managed Pollinator CAP 

Co-Investigator Role 

Keith S. Delaplane, 

Univ GA, All years 

Project Director; Exercise general oversight of the project and do Objectives 1.9 (Varroa IPM) and 4.3 (queen market). 

Kate Aronstein, ARS, 

Weslaco, TX, All 

years 

Objectives 1.1 (Nosema), 1.3 (stationary apiary), and 2.1 (ID genes). 

Dr. Aronstein will manage the Texas replicate of the stationary apiaries, collaborate with T. Webster and L. Solter on Nosema ceranae

infection and analyze bee samples with qRT-PCR to estimate differences in immune response between infected and healthy bees. 

Microarrays will be done by C. Grozinger. 

Anne Averill, Univ MA, 

All years 

Executive Committee; Objectives 1.3 (non-Apis pathogens in stationary apiaries), 3.1 (non-Apis pathogens), 3.2 and 3.3 (non-Apis

toxicology). Dr. Averill will study insecticide effects on non-Apis

bees and coordinate flow of non-Apis deliverables to eXtension. 

Nick Calderone, Cornell Univ, Years 1–3Objective 2.2 (Genetic diversity). Dr. Calderone will study genetic variability of northern bee populations. Desirable germplasm will be 

sent to G. Hunt and to S. Sheppard for use in their research. Dr. 

Calderone will develop eXtension protocols for stock selection and 

conduct bee breeding workshops. 

Diana Cox-Foster, PA 

State, All years 

Objectives 1.2 (IAPV, DWV), 1.3 (Apis pathogens in stationary apiaries), 1.4 (diagnostics) and 1.5 (pathogen voucher collection). Dr. 

Cox-Foster will have lead roles in the diagnostic, curatorial, and diagnostic development aspects of these Objectives. 

Robert Danka, ARS, 

Baton Rouge (nonfunded) 

Dr. Danka’s lab will phenotype bees for Varroa-Sensitive Hygiene and 

conduct gene expression assays in collaboration with Hunt and 

Spivak in association with Objective 2.1 (ID genes). 

Frank Drummond, 

Univ ME, All years 

Objectives 1.3 (stationary apiary), 3.4 (Bombus management), and 3.5 

(economics of non-Apis). Dr. Drummond will manage the Maine replicate of the stationary apiaries and do original studies on pollinating efficacy of Bombus impatiens and local-scale habitat restoration. 

Brian Eitzer, CT Ag 

Exp Sta, All years 

Conduct toxicology in Objectives 1.3 (Apis stationary apiaries) and 3.3 

(non-Apis). 

Marion Ellis, Univ NE, 

Years 1–2

Objective 1.6 (pesticide synergies and sub-lethals). Dr. Ellis will recruit and mentor the post-doc assigned to this work, supervise its 

execution, analyze data, complete reports, and channel relevant 

deliverables to eXtension. His budget will support the services of 

his colleague Dr. Blair Siegfried, Professor, Univ Nebraska. 

Christina Grozinger, 

NC State Univ, Year 

3

Objective 2.1 (ID genes). Dr. Grozinger will be responsible for 

microarray analyses of Nosema-infected bees collected by K. 

Aronstein and the Nosema-infected resistant and sensitive bees 

used in the QTL analysis by G. Hunt (Purdue). 

Zachary Huang, MI 

State Univ, All years 

Objective 1 (Nosema). Dr. Huang will cooperate with T. Webster, L. 

Solter, and K. Aronstein on aspects of Nosema-induced morbidity of 

honey bees. 

17

Key Personnel, Their Institutions, and Roles in the Managed Pollinator CAP—Continued

Co-Investigator Role 

Greg Hunt, Purdue 

Univ, All years 

Executive Committee; Objectives 1.4 (diagnostics) and 2.1 (ID genes). 

Dr. Hunt will develop probes for single-nucleotide polymorphisms 

(SNPs), determine SNP genotypes throughout the genome, map 

quantitative trait loci (QTL), and identify genes for resistance. In 

addition, Dr. Hunt will coordinate with M. Spivak and T. Webster 

to develop crosses for QTL mapping and with C. Grozinger to analyze gene expression. Dr. Hunt will direct deliverables from the genetics goal to eXtension. 

Chris Mullin, PA State, 

Years 3–4

Objective 1.7 (pesticide metabolites). Dr. Mullin will provide project 

leadership for the sublethal behavioral bioassays. He will be assisted (non-funded) by M. Frazier who will supervise extension communications and by J.L. Frazier who will provide leadership on 

measures of chemosensory cells. 

Nancy Ostiguy, PA 

State, All years 

Executive Committee; Objectives 1.2 (IAPV, DWV) and 1.3 (stationary 

apiary). Dr. Ostiguy will manage the PA replicate of the stationary 

apiaries and be responsible for descriptive epidemiology of IAPV 

and DWV, provide overall guidance on the stationary colony project, 

and assist D. Cox-Foster with pathogen molecular biology. She will 

direct deliverables from the CCD goal to eXtension. 

Steve Sheppard, WA 

State Univ, All years 

Executive Committee; Objectives 1.3 (stationary apiary) and 2.2 (Genetic diversity). Dr. Sheppard will manage the WA replicate of the 

stationary apiaries, characterize genetic diversity in U.S. honey bee 

populations with emphasis on the western and southern U.S. and 

Australia. Comparisons will be made with previous U.S. collections 

of commercial stocks and a concurrent database from northern producers (N. Calderone). 

J. Skinner, Univ TN, 

All years 

Executive Committee; Objective 4.1 (establish eXtension Community 

of Practice). Dr. Skinner will set up a Managed Pollinator Community of Practice on eXtension, coordinate receipt of deliverables from 

co-investigators, and facilitate its delivery on the eXtension website. 

Leellen Solter, IL Natural History Survey, 

Years 1–2

Objectives 1.1 (Nosema-induced bee morbidity), 1.2 (Nosema interactions with biotics and other stressors). Dr. Solter will take the 

lead on Nosema with experiments in collaboration with Drs. Huang, 

Ostiguy, Cox-Foster, Webster, and Aronstein. 

Marla Spivak, Univ 

MN, All years 

Executive Committee; Objectives 1.3 (stationary apiary), 2.1 (ID 

genes), and 4.2 (queen market). Dr. Spivak will manage the MN 

replicate of the stationary apiaries, assist G. Hunt and B. Danka in 

phenotyping VSH bees, and lead CA queen breeding workshops. 

Kirk Visscher, Univ 

CA, All years 

Objective 1.3 (stationary apiary). Dr. Visscher will manage the CA 

replicate of the stationary apiaries. 

Tom Webster, KY State 

Univ, All years 

Objectives 1.1 (Nosema), 1.4 (diagnostics), and 2.1 (ID genes). Dr. 

Webster will conduct comparative bioassays on the virulence of 

Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae and interactions with other 

stressors. Bees infected with N. apis, infected with N. ceranae, or 

not infected will be sent to K. Aronstein for immune assays. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony. 

I would now like to recognize Ms. Maryann Frazier, Senior Extension Associate with the University of Pennsylvania at University Park, Pennsylvania. Welcome, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MARYANN T. FRAZIER, SENIOR EXTENSION 

ASSOCIATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, THE

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 

Ms. FRAZIER. Good morning. Chairman Cardoza and Members of 

the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, thank 

you for the opportunity to be here today and to bring you up to 

date on CCD, pollinator health and our land-grant universities’ efforts to address this critical issue. 

18

I want to thank this Committee for the critical research funding 

that has been allocated to the land-grant system to work on pollinator health and CCD to date. This includes over $300,000 in 

CSREES critical issues funding and the pending $4.1 million CAP 

grant. In addition, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary level 

of cooperation between several land-grant universities, state departments of agriculture and the USDA to address this critical 

problem. 

However, I do believe the magnitude and timeliness of this response has not matched the scale and urgency needed to save an 

industry valued at $15 billion. A quote by one of our CCD working 

team colleagues helps put this situation into perspective: ‘‘How 

would our government respond if one out of every three cows was 

dying.’’

After facing almost 2 years of CCD ravaging the beekeeping pollinator industry, we would like to propose five additional action 

items that, if taken, could immediately move critical research forward and help our beekeepers survive this difficult time. These actions in turn would ensure ongoing pollination services to the fruit, 

nut, seed and vegetable industry, and thus provide an uninterrupted supply of reasonably priced fresh fruits and vegetables to 

consumers. These action items include reducing the cost of pesticide analytical services provided by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service to both USDA and university researchers working 

on pollinator health, particularly the pesticide angle, creating a 

new USDA critical issues program to develop alternative control 

methods for Varroa mites, provide additional authorized funding 

aimed at understanding pollinator decline and improving pollinator 

health, providing direct financial assistance to beekeepers suffering 

from hive losses, and directing APHIS to immediately implement 

a national survey for honey bee diseases, and increased screening 

for diseases on imported bees. 

Despite significant efforts over the past 18 months on the part 

of the USDA, state departments of agriculture and land-grant universities, we have yet to understand this most recent manifestation 

of pollinator die-off, CCD. Its cure and its cause remain unknown. 

Important funding to address this problem has been received from 

the beekeeping industry, in particular, the National Honey Board 

and beekeeping organizations, the Pennsylvania and Florida departments of agriculture, the Pennsylvania State University 

HATCH funds, USDA CSREES, Ha ̈agen-Dazs and many concerned 

public groups and individuals. 

While the CCD team has not been able to identify, as you already heard, a single factor responsible for CCD, we feel that factors likely working together include pathogens, pesticides, poor nutrition and Varroa mites. These are stressing the bees and the beekeepers beyond their ability to cope. This scenario makes the situation far more complex and difficult to understand and to fix. However, current studies are underway to evaluate the pathogenicity of 

IAPV with additional field studies planned through the CAP, two 

long-term studies following 260 colonies in different migratory operations that is being conducted by a multi-institutional effort including Penn State, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 

North Carolina State University and the USDA. 

19

Over the past 18 months, our research group at Penn State has 

worked on the question of whether or not pesticides are responsible 

for CCD specifically and pollinator decline in general. This work 

would not be possible without the assistance of chemist Roger 

Simonds and the services of the USDA analytical lab in Gastonia, 

North Carolina, and of course, our other CCD working group members. 

In 2007, we analyzed pollen, wax and bees for pesticide residues. 

In a total of 108 pollen samples analyzed, 46 different pesticides including 6 of their metabolites were identified. Up to 17 different 

pesticides were found in a single pollen sample. Samples contained 

on average five different pesticide residues. Only 3 of these 108 had 

no detectable pesticides. We fear this large number and multiple 

kinds of pesticides could result in potential toxic interactions for 

which there are no scientific data to date. Also, these chronic levels 

of pesticide need further investigation with regard to their potential interaction with other stressors like IAPV in order to determine their potential contribution to CCD. From February 2007 to 

the present, 60 percent of our available funds have gone to pay the 

USDA for pesticide analytical services. If this service could be provided at reduced cost, it would allow us to redirect our limited research dollars to understanding the impacts pesticides are having 

on bees and other pollinators. 

For most of the last 20 years, U.S. beekeepers have had only two 

registered chemical miticides to combat the most significant honey 

bee pest in the world, the Varroa mite. There has been significantly 

little effort put into biological control alternatives. For our beekeeping industry to survive, we must have safe, alternative Varroa 

mite controls. This will only happen if significant new resources are 

focused in this direction. In an effort to keep their bees and their 

businesses alive and to meet their pollination contracts, our beekeepers have pushed themselves and their bees to the limits financially, emotionally and physically. Direct financial assistance is 

overdue and is critical to their survival or next year’s agricultural 

pollination needs may not be met. 

I thank you for this opportunity to provide you this testimony, 

and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Frazier follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYANN T. FRAZIER, SENIOR EXTENSION ASSOCIATE,

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 

Introduction 

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

I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to be here today and 

bring you up to date on CCD, pollinator health, and our land-grant universities’ efforts to address these critical issues. 

As the Senior Extension Associate at Penn State, specializing in apiculture for the 

past 20 years, I have had the opportunity to work closely with beekeepers as well 

as university and USDA researchers involved in honey bee research. I am also a 

beekeeper and am intimately involved in scientific research dealing with the health 

and productivity of honey bees and other pollinators. I believe this gives me a 

unique perspective and understanding of the challenges faced by both groups. I am 

also a founding member of the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension 

Consortium (MAAREC). This group, established in 1997, is focused on addressing 

20

the pest management crisis facing the beekeeping industry in the Mid-Atlantic Region. I have worked in the regulatory arena as the assistant state apiary inspector 

in Maryland and as a beekeeping specialist in Africa and Central America. In addition I am one of the members of the CCD working team that formed in response 

to the latest threat to honey bee health. 

I want to thank this Committee for the critical research funding allocated to work 

on honey bee health and CCD since this Committee first met in March 2007. This 

includes $321,932 in CSREES critical issues funding awarded to Penn State and the 

University of Georgia and the pending $4.1 million CAP grant that will fund work 

on pollinator health at several collaborating universities. However I believe the 

magnitude and timeliness of the response has not matched the scale and the urgency needed to save an industry valued at more than $14 billion. A quote by one 

of our CCD working team colleagues helps put the situation into perspective, ‘‘How 

would our government respond if one out of every three cows was dying?’’ While this 

Committee held it first timely hearing in March of 2007, the funding that has been 

allocated to date falls far short of the time sensitive and potentially catastrophic nature of this problem. 

After facing almost two years of CCD ravaging the beekeeping and pollination industries, we would like to propose five additional ‘‘action items’’ that if taken, could 

immediately move critical research forward and help our beekeepers survive this 

difficult time. These actions would, in turn, help ensure on-going pollination services 

to the fruit, nut, seed and vegetable industries across the US and thus provide reasonably priced fresh fruits and vegetables to consumers with minimal interruption. 

These actions include:

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

health.

(2) Creating a new USDA critical issues program to develop alternative control 

methods for Varroa mites

(3) Providing additional funding aimed at understanding pollinator decline and 

improving pollinator health that includes native species of pollinators

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

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

diseases 

Justification 

Due to our current agricultural methods, including the establishment of large 

monocultures and the use of insecticides and herbicides, wild pollinators are largely 

absent from cropping systems that require insect pollination. For this reason, growers depend on beekeepers to move their honey bee colonies in and out of crops during bloom. The contribution of honey bees to agriculture production in the US is valued at $14 billion annually. However, according to the latest Apiary Inspectors of 

America and USDA/ARS survey, losses of managed colonies nationwide topped 36 

percent in 2008, compared to a 31 percent loss during the same period last year. 

Despite significant efforts over the past year and a half on the part of USDA, state 

departments of agriculture, and land-grant university researchers to understand the 

most recent manifestations of pollinator die-offs, Colony Collapse Disorder, its cause 

and cure remain unknown. 

Status and Progress to date 

Government, industry and the private sector have mobilized to address this problem. Important timely funding to address this problem has been received from the 

beekeeping industry, in particular the National Honey Board and beekeeping organizations, the Pennsylvania and Florida Departments of Agriculture, The Pennsylvania State University (HATCH funds), USDA; CSRESS, Ha ̈agen-Dazs, and many 

concerned public groups and individuals. Two grants totaling $250,000 from 

Ha ̈agen-Dazs were made to Penn State and UC Davis. At Penn State, an additional 

252 gifts from individuals, foundations and small businesses have been made totaling $52,884. Of these, 150 gifts totaling $7,300 were made as a direct result of the 

Ha ̈agen-Dazs web site. This creative effort to support research into pollinator decline and public education on the importance of pollinators is relatively new and additional funding is expected as a result of this unique effort initiated by Ha ̈agenDazs. However many of the research and education activities to date have relied on 

short-term and somewhat uncertain funding sources. 

Critical ongoing research projects by the CCD working team include the potential 

role of IAPV as a major contributing factor causing CCD. The initial work identifying IAPV would not have been possible without the assistance of Dr. Ian Lipkin 

21

and resources from a Northeast Biodefense grant from NIH awarded to Columbia 

University. Since this work is not directly related to human health, this significant 

contribution to CCD research has ended. Studies are underway to evaluate the 

pathogenicity of IAPV to honey bees in a controlled greenhouse; additional studies 

are planned for field studies through the CAP grant. A recent survey of bee colonies 

from 11 states has revealed that IAPV is more widely distributed than previously 

observed; however, it and other viruses are regarded as being major contributors to 

colony death. 

Two long-term studies following 260 colonies in different migratory operations 

was initiated and conducted by a multi-institutional team including PSU, PDA, NCS 

and the USDA. Over the course of this experiment 3,702 samples were collected 

while the health of these colonies was assessed over time. Some of these samples 

are now being tested for levels of parasites, viruses, and pesticide residues. These 

long-term studies have also highlighted several other previously undescribed conditions in honey bee colonies that appear to have a negative impact on colony health, 

such as ‘‘entombed’’ pollen. Theses samples will also be an invaluable resource when 

we begin to test the predictive value of diagnostic tests which are presently in the 

final stages of development. For instance, based on the autopsies of several thousand bees, we hope to develop a CCD diagnostic test based on gross symptoms. 

When this diagnostic key is finalized it can be tested against samples in storage to 

validate the tests ability to predict disease outbreak. The USDA/ARS, PDA and PSU 

have also initiated studies to develop practical and effective ways for beekeepers to 

control parasitic infections, such as Nosema and Varroa mites. 

Ongoing research into the role of pesticides in pollinator decline and CCD includes 

a study to track colonies heath and pesticide exposure in three Pennsylvania apple 

orchards, the use of gamma radiation to mitigate pesticide build-up in wax combs 

and foundation, lab bioassays on the synergistic effects of multiple pesticide residues 

and the potential impacts of pesticide adjuvants. 

At present, the CCD team has not been able to identify a single cause for CCD. 

We are now performing a multi-factorial analysis on the data set resulting from the 

initial CCD sample collection. Over 180 analyses were preformed on a common set 

of colonies by more than seven different laboratories. We are hopeful that the multifactorial analysis will highlight those factors, which, in combination, might explain 

CCD. Factors likely working together, including the recently identified IAPV plus 

the parasitic microsporidia and Kashmir Bee Virus, pesticides, poor nutrition, and 

varroa mites are stressing the bees (and the beekeepers) beyond their abilities to 

cope. This scenario makes the situation far more complex and difficult to understand and to ‘‘fix.’’ However, the potential ramifications of not understanding the 

collapse of our biological systems, in this case, pollinators are huge and potentially 

disastrous on many levels, including the sustainability of our food supply as we 

know it. 

The Potential Role of Pesticides 

As the original member of the CCD working team charged with investigating the 

potential role of pesticides in CCD, I have, over the past 18 months worked closely 

with chemist and toxicologist, Dr. Chris Mullin, and physiologist Dr. Jim Frazier on 

the question of whether or not pesticides are contributing to pollinator decline in 

general and CCD specifically. This work would not be possible without the assistance of chemist Roger Simonds and the services of the USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, National Science Laboratory in Gastonia NC and our CCD working 

team colleagues and their teams; especially Dennis vanEngelsdorp from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture/PSU and Dr. Jeff Pettis with the USDA/ARS in 

Beltsville MD. 

Honey bee exposure to chemical pesticides has long been a concern of beekeepers 

and growers alike. Over one half of our 2.4 million colonies is utilized for crop pollination and typically employed on several different crops per season. These colonies 

are at risk of exposure to the pesticides used by growers to control pest insects, diseases and weeds. Beekeeper use of miticides within the beehive to control varroa 

mites is cause for concern due to their potential impacts on developing bees (especially queens) and contamination of hive products. In the past, pesticide poisoning 

of honey bees has been associated with lethal exposure and the obvious symptom 

of a pile of dead bees in front of the hive. We are becoming increasingly concerned 

that pesticides may affect bees at sublethal levels, not killing them outright, but 

rather impairing their behaviors and their abilities to fight off infections. For example, pesticides at sublethal levels have been shown to impair the learning abilities 

of honey bees and to suppress their immune systems. For these reasons, we believe 

that pesticide exposure may be one of the factors contributing to pollinator decline 

and to CCD. 

22

In 2007 we analyzed pollen, wax and bees for pesticide residues. A significant 

number of samples analyzed were from operations impacted by CCD and control operations (not impacted by CCD) that were collected by members of the CCD working 

team as part of a larger CCD study. Additional samples were collected from honey 

bee colonies placed in specific Pennsylvania apple orchards (PSU field study) and 

a third source was pollen, wax or bees submitted by beekeepers who placed their 

bees in specific crops, or who were concerned about the declining health of their 

colonies. 

In a total of 108 pollen samples analyzed, 46 different pesticides including six of 

their metabolites were identified. Up to 17 different pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average of 5 different pesticide residues each. 

Only three of the 108 pollen samples had no detectable pesticides. In a total of 88 

wax samples analyzed, 20 different pesticides including two of their metabolites 

were identified. As was found in pollen, fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, and 

the fungicide chlorthalonil, were the most commonly detected pesticides with 

fluvalinate and coumaphos detected in 100% of the samples. 

Unprecedented amounts of fluvalinate (up to 204 ppm) at high frequencies have 

been detected in brood nest wax, and pollen (bee bread). Changes in the formulation 

of fluvalinate over time resulting in a significant increase in toxicity to honey bees, 

makes this a serious concern. The large numbers and multiple kinds of pesticides 

that have been found could result in potentially toxic interactions for which there 

are no scientific studies to date. European researchers have found similar pesticides 

and frequencies in hive matrices and express similar concerns. Also these chronic 

levels of pesticides in pollen and wax at potentially acute toxicity levels need further 

investigation with regard to their potential interactions with other stressors (e.g.,

IAPV) and their potential contribution to CCD. 

Closing Remarks 

We know that pesticides are present in the food the bees are consuming, in the 

wax combs where they develop and live, and in the bees themselves. What we don’t 

know is how these chemical residues are affecting the bees. From February 2007 

to the present, $247,334 has been committed to our work on pesticide research. Of 

the $96,000 spent to date, $57,683 or 60% has been paid to the UDSA for pesticide 

residue analysis. If this service could be provided at a reduced cost, it would allow 

us to redirect our limited research dollars to understanding the impact pesticides 

are having on honey bees and other pollinators. 

For most of the last 20 years US beekeepers have had essentially only two registered chemical miticides to combat the most significant honey bee pest in the 

world, the varroa mite. Granted three ‘‘soft’’ materials have been registered more 

recently, but these are of limited use for our large commercial beekeepers. These 

materials require specific time and temperatures to work and often give sporadic 

results not amenable to migratory operations. There has been little effort invested 

in finding biologically-based alternatives to pesticides, including the most promising, 

the development of bees resistant to mites. Thus, the varroa mite, known to transmit diseases, possibly including the newly identified IAPV, and to impair the honey 

bee immune system has been largely ignored by industry and researchers, thus beekeepers have been left to their own devices to try to control it. Additionally, the 

chemical miticides being used to control varroa mites, accumulate in the wax combs 

and pollen reserves and are possibly contributing to the bee’s demise as much as 

they are controlling the mites. For the beekeeping industry to survive we must have 

safe, effective varroa mite control methods. This will only happen if significant new 

resources are focused in this direction. 

While in the long run honey bees will most likely survive, our beekeepers may 

not. In an effort to keep their bees alive and their businesses afloat, and to meet 

critical pollination contracts they have pushed themselves to the limits financially, 

emotionally and physically during the past 18 months. Direct financial assistance 

is overdue, and is critical to their survival, or next years agricultural pollination 

needs will not be met. One immediate small step would be to exempt beekeepers 

from paying the sugar tariff on sugar used to feed their bees. I urge the Committee 

to consider these five suggestions for improving our efforts to find the cause or 

causes for CCD and save our pollination industry before it is too late. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Frazier. Your testimony is compelling. I am sure that Members will have significant questions. 

I am going to open it up for questions at this time and I will 

begin the questioning with Dr. Knipling. In your testimony, you 

23

state that one area of research focus has been on determining 

whether pesticides are associated with CCD and that you continue 

to analyze bee samples for their pesticide exposure. Can you give 

the Committee a sense of the universe of these samples under consideration and how many of these samples have been examined to 

date? 

Dr. KNIPLING. Certainly, sample analysis is very critical to support of all of the efforts you have heard about and in fact much of 

the progress and our understanding of the directions that we need 

to take are based upon those sample analyses. There have been a 

considerable number of samples tested at considerable expense. 

They are expensive. I don’t know the precise number—we could 

provide that for the record—but I think it is on the order of 4,000 

to 5,000 samples and over $100,000 has been spent from various 

sources and from various projects. There are probably about that 

many remaining samples and these samples are bee samples, pollen samples, and wax samples. About 2⁄3 of the analyses that are 

required are for pathogens, the various pathogens we have heard 

about, and perhaps about 1⁄3 for pesticides. Certainly the additional 

resources that we now have and will be forthcoming will allow us 

to move forward on this. 

We do know, however, that based on the samples that have already been analyzed, they have given us a very good sense of direction and helped us to establish and define hypothesis-driven research. Certainly, the priorities for sample analyses will be given 

to those samples coming from those research projects, as opposed 

to samples that have come from various sources unrelated to research projects. But we are well on track of this issue and we have 

the increasing resources to address the problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to follow up on that. I understand 

from your testimony that these samples are being examined by 

AMS for pesticide residues. Can you describe the mechanism and/

or the relationship between ARS and AMS in conducting the analysis of these samples? It has been reported to the Committee and 

it comes up in witness testimony today that samples are not being 

examined on a timely basis. You mentioned that half of them have 

not been examined yet. And I understand that AMS involvement 

in this analysis is on a fee-for-service basis. You just heard from 

Ms. Frazier that it is very expensive and is using a great deal of 

their resources. Can you discuss this in some great detail? 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes. The Agricultural Marketing Service facility in 

North Carolina operates a pesticide testing capability on a user-fee 

basis. That capability has been in existence for some time unrelated to this issue. AMS is responsible for the so-called pesticide 

data inventory for agricultural samples which they do on a userfee basis. They do not have a mission responsibility with respect 

to this honey bee issue. The testing they have done has been based 

upon the resources that have been provided to them from the researchers, both the ARS researchers and the university researchers. There has been support from some of the other state-level organizations as well. The tests are expensive, depending on whether 

it is bees, pollen or wax, perhaps up to $200 per sample, and as 

the researchers can pay for those samples, they will be tested. With 

24

the new additional resources, we see that considerable additional 

progress will be made in that area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Knipling, the ARS CCD work plan coordinates the Federal strategy in response to this problem. In the 

March 2007 hearing, we heard from a number of witnesses who 

stress the need for increased data collection and accurate annual 

surveys of bee colonies and bee health. Can you describe for the 

Committee the activities that USDA has undertaken to increase 

the data associated with an accurate assessment of pollinator 

health? Your testimony seems to indicate that action on a national 

bee health survey is sometime in the future. Is USDA solely at the 

mercy of appropriators in paying these resources to conduct these 

surveys, and is there any other means that we can expedite this 

critical aspect of what we need to have happen in order to get to 

the bottom of this? 

Dr. KNIPLING. The data we have to date, and some of the loss 

numbers I quoted earlier in my testimony, are based upon surveys 

that have been conducted by some of the ARS researchers in cooperation with the Apiary Inspectors of America. Those are the 

state department of agriculture-level organizations. And we are 

using research dollars to do this and they are using state-level resources as well. APHIS is planning, as indicated and as authorized 

in the new farm bill, to conduct a more systematic national survey 

of honey bee health and pests, and that is in process at this point. 

The planning for that survey, I understand, is in process. 

The CHAIRMAN. When can we expect the results from that survey? 

Dr. KNIPLING. The planning, of course, is just being initiated, and 

then I imagine it would take months, perhaps a full season, to get 

the additional data. But this is, as you said at the outset, a very 

difficult and complex issue and we are continuing to address all 

avenues as resources permit. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the things that I am wanting to discuss 

with you today, certainly we all realize that this is a big problem, 

and I am not in any way holding this hearing in an effort to beat 

you all up, but we have to find out and we have to hear from you 

very directly what are the necessary resources needed to be 

brought to bear on this problem in order to find out the information 

that we need to get to the bottom of this question. I am a little concerned that we are a year from the last hearing and we still don’t 

know all of the requests that are needed to get to answers, and 

that is something that is of grave concern to me. Do you have a 

response that you would like to share? 

Dr. KNIPLING. I would just acknowledge that we are very conscious of the concern and we are addressing it as vigorously as we 

can with the resources available to us. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is my point, sir. We need to know if there 

are additional resources that need to be brought to bear. That is 

something that this Committee needs to be aware of, and we just 

heard from the appropriators today what the level of resources that 

they have allocated. Now, you have friends on this Committee who 

want to get to the bottom of this question. If you don’t tell us what 

we need to do, then we can’t be your advocates in making sure that 

the appropriators provide those dollars. Now, either the President 

25

hasn’t requested enough dollars or we have not provided them, but 

one way or another, we can’t let this problem go on for lack of funding. So I just reiterate my request that you need to tell us what 

the impediments are so that we can get to the bottom of this. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Well, we will certainly provide additional information for the record, and the new resources that were requested in 

the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget and, as you acknowledged 

earlier, the House Subcommittee action will help us move in that 

direction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Delaplane, both you and Dr. Knipling have raised the role of 

the Israeli acute paralysis virus as a marker for CCD. Your proposal has an IAPV component. What kind of research is needed to 

explore the possibility of a causal link? How long does research of 

this nature take? And Dr. Knipling, you are welcome to weigh in 

on this as well as Dr. Delaplane, if you could just comment on the 

resources issue if you see fit. 

Mr. DELAPLANE. The situation with IAPV, as well as any of the 

disorders, to rigorously assign cause and effect would have to go 

through a step called Cox postulates which is a standard epidemiological method of trying to reproduce symptoms when the pathogen 

is artificially inserted into the host, let the pathogen reproduce in 

the host and then reinfect another generation of the host. This is 

the most rigorous way to pin down cause and effect, and the studies that we are proposing—which, I should say, will be led primarily by Dr. Diana Cox Foster at Penn State—involve this type 

of design work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Frazier, you state in your written testimony that there has 

been little effort or investment in finding biologically based controls 

for bee parasites. Can you expand on your statement and your call 

for significant new resources as we were just discussing with regard to biological-based materials? 

Ms. FRAZIER. Sure, and I don’t want to say that there have been 

no resources or no effort. Certainly there has been by the USDA 

and by researchers as well, university researchers as well, but I 

think you have to understand that the bee research community unfortunately is quite small. So, the number of us trying to address 

this problem along with the resources that we have had to tackle 

this huge problem of Varroa mites, and particularly trying to find 

biological alternatives to its control, has been very minimal compared to the size of the problem. If you are asking me what would 

it take, that is a difficult question. But certainly what we need is 

more people, more manpower to address this problem of alternatives, and I think one of the ways to do that is through critical 

issues funding through USDA CSREES to develop a critical issues 

project that would be devoted specifically to Varroa mite control alternatives. And I think that the research community as a whole, 

like the group that came together to design the CAP, could do the 

same for an effort made specifically to finding alternative controls 

for Varroa mites. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have taken significant liberty about going over 

my time so far but I am going to take that liberty one more time. 

Ms. Frazier, you also advocate in your testimony the need for reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
26

duction in cost of the pesticide analysis service provided by USDA 

and AMS, which we discussed. You said in your testimony 108 pollen samples were analyzed. Do you know how many samples are 

waiting for analysis? 

Ms. FRAZIER. Well, there are several different efforts that are ongoing. Some are just at Penn State. Some are collaborations between Penn State and USDA. Some are including the Department 

of Agriculture in Pennsylvania and Florida. Our best recollection is 

that there are about 2,000 samples, our best estimate is that there 

are about 2,000 samples that need to be analyzed, which would be 

a cost of well over $200,000. Again, the idea of trying to reduce 

that cost would be very significant to our research effort. 

The CHAIRMAN. It seems like a significant problem. I just want 

to be sure, are those samples waiting solely due to the lack of 

funds? 

Ms. FRAZIER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Neugebauer had to go to a classified briefing that he was 

compelled to attend and has been excused from the hearing. In his 

place, Mr. Latta from Ohio has taken over the chores of Ranking 

Member here and we will now allow him to ask questions. Welcome, Mr. Latta, and please proceed with your questions. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that. I also would like to thank you for this hearing. Where I come 

from in northwest Ohio, this is a big issue, and I know firsthand 

from when my cousin had—I want to use the word ‘‘had’’—bees, 

and I would help him on many occasions when we would bring the 

honey in to get it extracted. I know of many, many cases across our 

area where we have lost bee hives and also in my old Senate district along Lake Erie, some of the people I used to represent had 

10,000 apple trees and it is very important up there along with apples and peaches and everything else to make sure that these hives 

remain active and we can get this problem solved. 

Dr. Knipling, if I could ask a couple questions, the first being, 

is there any collaboration between Canada, the United States and 

Mexico to establish pollinator monitoring projects for all of North 

America? 

Dr. KNIPLING. I am not aware of any specific collaboration of the 

type we have been talking about this morning. Certainly we do 

have collaborations generically with the research organizations in 

those countries, the national research organizations as well as 

many of the universities, but I could provide some additional information for the record. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Also, does the USDA regulate the interstate movement of honey bees and honey bee pests? 

Dr. KNIPLING. It is my understanding that there are no such regulations except perhaps in the case of Hawaii, which does not have 

the Varroa mite on all of its islands, but again, I would seek some 

assistance from our APHIS partners and USDA and provide that 

information. They would have the responsibilities for those quarantine-type activities. 

Mr. LATTA. Another question pretty much along the same lines 

is on the importation of honey bees into the United States and how 

do we justify allowing these importations? 

27

Dr. KNIPLING. Once again, that would be a question I would seek 

input from APHIS on. Moving the honey bees is quite common. 

Other countries do provide breeding stock for the commercial bee 

industry. Also, sources of genetic resistance for our research efforts 

are important. The honey bee we have now was introduced from 

Europe many years ago, so we are very highly dependent in the 

United States on germ plasm resources from other countries under 

proper regulation and insurance that they are not carrying pests. 

But once again, I could provide information on the regulations in 

place regarding imports from other countries. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Now I would like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. 

Bobby Etheridge from North Carolina, and I just want to congratulate him on the work that he did with regard to the farm bill and 

getting it to goal, and the work he continues to do on the energy 

front through the Agriculture Committee. The Agriculture Committee is responsible for commodity trading and so we have a significant role in dealing with this current oil crisis, and Mr. 

Etheridge is a leader in making sure that the American people 

aren’t shortchanged. So Mr. Etheridge, I recognize you and thank 

you for your work. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for 

calling this hearing and let me say to our folks who are testifying 

and others who may follow, if you see me slip out, we are going 

to have a bill on the floor today, so I may be back and forth over 

there speaking. But let me thank you for being here. 

My State of North Carolina has sort of changed its crop mix and 

we are putting a lot more fruits and vegetables out so this is an 

issue of importance to the people in North Carolina. I was telling 

the Chairman a little earlier, most of us who grew up on a farm, 

as I did, and just had a few fruits and vegetables, didn’t think 

about it or realize that honey bees were really all that important. 

We thought they were a nuisance from time to time, especially if 

you got out in your garden and one of them stung you. But today 

we have a much greater appreciation as we have larger and larger 

fields where we produce a lot of fruits and vegetables that supply 

the world. One of the common observations that I picked up in this 

hearing is that we don’t really know what is causing CCD, or at 

least we are not certain as to any one thing, and I guess since this 

problem has arisen relatively recently, is it possible there was some 

type of similar problem that we experienced back in the 1980s? As 

you remember, in the 1980s we had a mite problem. It took a 

while. We figured it out. And my question is, is it similar to that, 

or in your opinion, what can be done to maximize—I know we are 

working on it but it seems to me we ought to be able to maximize 

our Federal support at our university-based research to really focus 

on this problem. I know we took some action in the farm bill, as 

the Chairman indicated earlier, but it seems to me that that is 

where we can get the quickest return and the biggest bang for the 

buck to get this fixed. Whoever would like to answer, or all three 

of you. 

Dr. KNIPLING. I will start. As has been pointed out, the honey 

bee science community is actually very small relative to other disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
28

ciplines. We have at ARS approximately 15 scientists scattered 

among four different laboratories and university depth is often 

much more shallow than that———

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Do we know how many———

Dr. KNIPLING.—one or two persons. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Do we know how many universities have some 

expertise? 

Dr. KNIPLING. Perhaps my colleagues could help me on that. No, 

I don’t know offhand. But let me just say that these new resources 

that we have available will help us bring in other disciplines, 

maybe not honey bee scientists but microbiologists, genomic scientists and so forth. So, we see a great opportunity to bring more 

expertise to this problem, and sometimes those outsiders have 

some insights and abilities to suggest some promising areas that 

we may have overlooked. 

Dr. DELAPLANE. I might add that we have seen in this session 

a couple good examples, more industry involvement, some real innovative things with Ha ̈agen-Dazs and Burt’s Bees, for instance, 

and these types of linkages should only be encouraged and increased. Specific areas like the Critical Issues Initiative with 

CSREES is a logical place to pump more dollars into this, and the 

CAP program of which I have written a proposal is also a good 

model for targeted issues like bee decline. 

Ms. FRAZIER. Just in answer to your question about the number 

of researchers at universities, I don’t know the exact number, but 

over the last few years researchers and extension specialists focused on bee or apiculture has dramatically declined. It is a small 

industry and unfortunately resources and personnel have just not 

gone in that direction. I do totally agree that what we also need 

is not necessarily researchers who are trained, for instance, in 

apiculture, but we need toxicologists and pathologists and physiologists. We need to bring that kind of expertise to bear on this problem. It is a very big and a very complex problem and unfortunately, 

for better or worse, researchers go where the funding is. So if we 

had significant resources, I think we would get that kind of expertise, researchers working on this kind of problem. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank you. I think that is important. 

Dr. Delaplane, you mentioned the importance of increasing the 

funding and all of you touched on that to combat the CCD and I 

agree that is important. I think we all agree on that one. But tell 

me what are universities studying to see what kind of things they 

are doing, asking individual landowners how they can help, what 

kind of information they have. It seems to me, as has just been 

stated, they have a lot of information. I wonder if we are really getting that information then to use because it seems to me the person who is at the end of that food chain, so to speak, would have 

pretty good information as to be able to assist the researchers. 

Dr. DELAPLANE. We do, and we are certainly not starting at 

ground zero. Bee decline has been an interest for literally decades, 

and some aspects of this can be tracked back to the 1940s even 

with declining bee numbers. So this in some sense is not new so 

we do have a large information base to capitalize on with the current crisis. I guess that raises a question, what is the current crisis, and I think it is an acute expression of trends that we are alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
29

ready familiar with. We have been seeing declining bees and it is 

getting worse. So that is what is new. So I make that point just 

to emphasize that several university programs have been working 

on issues related to this. One thing that is really exciting about the 

present situation is the ability to coordinate all of this, and to sort 

of get all on one page and to avoid redundancies, and to use our 

resources more effectively, and I see that happening with some of 

these funding opportunities that we are seeing now. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Ms. Frazier, let me ask you, and others may 

want to comment on this because it seems when something appears 

relatively quickly and we don’t have a quick answer, I really wonder, is there any indication that this is regional, in regional parts 

of the country? 

Ms. FRAZIER. No. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Could it be affected by drought or change in 

weather patterns? Have you got enough research to indicate whether that could be an impact? I know in our part of the country we 

may be starting the third year of a drought, which———

Ms. FRAZIER. It certainly would be helpful if that was the case 

but unfortunately, it is not the case. This is very much nationwide. 

If you had to kind of characterize it in any one way, I would say 

unfortunately it does seem to be a problem mainly in our large 

commercial migratory operations. That is CCD. Overall pollinator 

decline, though, is across the board in terms of all beekeepers 

whether they be small, migratory or not. We have been seeing this 

decline of pollinators, as Keith just described, for years. But CCD 

does seem to be particularly a problem among our large commercial 

migratory beekeepers. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Just a follow-up on that last question. Does it continue to seem 

to be a worldwide problem or is there some improvement in other 

parts of the world? 

Ms. FRAZIER. Pollinator decline is most certainly a worldwide 

problem. Whether or not it is CCD is a hard thing to discern at 

this point. In many parts of the world, they don’t do a very good 

job at actually—I mean, certainly in Europe, they have a very good 

handle on declines, numbers of bees, numbers of bees that are 

dying for whatever reasons, but in many parts of the world like 

South America and Africa and so forth, this information is not collected and not documented. In Europe, certainly for a number of 

different reasons, they have had significant declines and not the 

least of which they blame—certainly their declines in the most recent one, for instance, in Germany—on pesticides. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Knipling, I want to thank this panel in general for their testimony and thank you, sir, specifically but also I am going to be 

wanting to follow up, this Committee is going to want to follow up 

with USDA and your agency with regard to adequate funding levels and that question. We are not going to let this just die with this 

hearing closing today. So I would encourage you to be in contact 

with my staff on the Committee because we are going to have a lot 

30

of further questions and follow-up, and I don’t want this to just sort 

of languish until next year. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and we will work with you 

and your staff and provide the requested information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. With that, I would like 

to dismiss this panel, thank you for your testimony, and call up our 

second panel. As you are coming forward, I would just like to mention that it is anticipated that we are going to have a series of 

votes coming up. We could have up to nine votes, which would take 

a significant amount of time if in fact they are called. So we are 

going to have to try and move the hearing along as best we can. 

With the next panel coming forward, I would ask you to submit 

your written testimony and please summarize and give us your 

best summation, in as brief a fashion as possible, the salient points 

that you want to convey in live testimony to the Committee. So 

with that, I will call and introduce the next panel. 

The staff has actually come up with a good suggestion, and what 

I would like to do is combine both panels two and three, so if we 

can all just shift over a bit, bring up some chairs. The staff is going 

to try and rearrange the name placards, and we will try and make 

one large panel of the next witnesses who are planning to testify. 

So staff, if you can take the other name placards down. Sorry for 

this rearranging, but this often happens in Congress. I have noted 

that you are not sitting in order, which I can’t blame you for after 

all the moving around. I will call you up individually in the correct 

order that we had laid you out on the panel, because there is some 

rhyme and reason to why we have done it this way. I would like 

to begin by introducing our witnesses. First of all, I will introduce 

you all and then I will introduce you one by one. 

We have with us today Mr. Steve Godlin, beekeeper from Visalia, 

California. Welcome. We have Dr. David Mendes, Vice President of 

the American Beekeeping Federation from North Fort Myers, Florida. We have Mr. Robert Edwards, producer from Whitakers, North 

Carolina, who is a constituent of Mr. Etheridge’s and I believe he 

will want to introduce you when he comes back. We have Mr. Edward Flanagan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Jasper 

Wyman and Sons, Millbridge, Maine. We have with us as well Ms. 

Katty Pien, Brand Director, Ha ̈agen-Dazs Ice Cream, Oakland, 

California. Welcome very much. We have Mr. John Replogle, President and CEO of Burt’s Bees, Durham, North Carolina. Welcome. 

And Ms. Laurie Davies Adams, Executive Director of the Pollinator 

Partnership in San Francisco, California. Welcome to you all. 

Mr. Etheridge, we have combined panels two and three so that 

we can hopefully expedite. We have asked our witnesses to summarize their testimony, to submit their written testimony and just 

give us their salient points in their oral testimony. 

We will now start out with Steve Godlin, beekeeper from Visalia. 

Steven, welcome. Thank you very much for being here with us 

today and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GODLIN, BEEKEEPER, S.P. GODLIN 

APIARIES, VISALIA, CA 

Mr. GODLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable Committee. 

My name is Steve Godlin. I am a commercial beekeeper from 

31

Tulare County in California’s Central Valley. I am here today to 

give you an update on the condition of our industry. 

Before I do, I would like to say my old mentor, Hood Littlefield, 

was here 40 years ago and he is the guy that got me in business, 

and he always said Steve, take care of your bees and the bees will 

take care of you, and he was a great man and I hope to honor him 

here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. It sounds like great advice, sir. 

Mr. GODLIN. Our bees look good today. We have over 5,000 hives 

alive and well, and this is about where we were last year at this 

time. Things started to unravel in the middle of July. By the time 

October mercifully arrived, we were down to 2,500 hives and not 

the strongest hives at that. But like all good farmers, we took what 

money we made and dumped it back into the bees. We took a 50 

percent hit and survived because we are fortunate to have our operation based in the best place in the world for bees, the heart of 

the almond industry. In case you haven’t heard, cotton is no longer 

king in San Joaquin. Currently there are 660,000 acres producing 

and would be more if not for the water crisis in our state. This requires about 1.3 million hives of bees. The number of managed 

hives in California has dropped despite beekeepers’ efforts to meet 

growers’ demand. Bees are now being shipped into California from 

everywhere in the United States. Even Australia is trying to get in 

the game. 

We have created the biggest experiment ever performed on the 

honey bee. Take bees from all over the continent and stick them 

in the valley to mingle and forage together with mites and diseases, an apparent list of viruses as long as your arm and see what 

happens. Or maybe this isn’t what is wrong. Haven’t we heard bees 

around the world are having a problem and beekeepers here in the 

United States who do not ship bees to California are losing hives 

as well. 

We began to notice these losses in recent years. We have had 

rough years from time to time with higher than usual losses, but 

nothing has been on the levels we are facing right now, and this 

is why there has been all this attention on us. People now realize 

that that $15 billion worth of food that requires pollination to exist 

is a lot of pretty delicious stuff. 

We appreciate this attention and have been encouraged by the 

legislative actions. At home, the bee lab at UC Davis is up and running again thanks to generous contributions by beekeepers, almond 

growers and companies like Ha ̈agen-Dazs Ice Cream, who donated 

$250,000 to honey bee research and is running a priceless ‘‘Save 

the Bee’’ ad campaign. We couldn’t buy this. 

Researchers across the country have been collaborating on 

projects in an attempt to find answers. Beekeepers themselves 

have put aside their differences and are working with the scientific 

and governmental communities, as well as each other, on an unprecedented level. I know the fact that our two national organizations had a shared conference this year speaks volumes to the importance of this issue. 

I am here today to ask that you continue to fund honey bee research. There are some very important projects just getting up and 

started and we really haven’t time to waste. I hope we are getting 

32

there. The middle of July is looming and I am more than a little 

worried. We are providing our bees all the supplemental nutrition 

and fresh queens we can. We are treating for Nosema ceranae aggressively and hope for a better fall than this last one. 

Of critical importance is bee pasture. Like any other animals, 

bees need forage. Recently there has been a lot of discussion about 

bee farms where forage is planted specifically for bees. CRP land 

in the Midwest is a perfect example of this but, as you all know, 

this is going away fast. Feedlot beekeeping is not working. I have 

seen areas in California where literally thousands of hives are 

gathered in a few square miles with disastrous results. It is a very 

unnatural situation for the bees when all they have to feed on is 

each other. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about pesticides. Thirty 

to 40 percent of our honey and pollen sources are wild from the Sierras, the Mojave Desert and the coast range, all based on rainfall. 

All the rest comes from irrigated crops where we are guests, and 

a good guest doesn’t complain about the smell on his food while he 

is eating at his host’s table. It has been a very delicate task to 

make what little headway we have, thanks in part to public awareness and everyone’s desire for a cleaner world. All farmers bear a 

tremendous burden to produce food safely and still make a profit. 

I am proud to be a part of the greatest agricultural powerhouse 

in the world. I know that the honey bee industry is an odd, hardto-fit gear in this machine and the average person needs to understand that food doesn’t magically appear at our grocery stores who, 

by the way, need to step up and help with this education. 

Thank you for your time. I am a producer. I believe hard work 

is a cure for everything and I know we all need to work smarter, 

not harder. Please be smart. Thank you and good luck to us all. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Godlin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE GODLIN, BEEKEEPER, S.P. GODLIN APIARIES, 

VISALIA, CA 

Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Steve Godlin; I am a commercial beekeeper from Tulare County in 

the middle of California’s central valley by the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada. I am here today to give an update on the condition of the honey bee industry 

right now. 

Our bees look good. We have over 5,000 hives alive and well in the field today. 

We are coming off a surprisingly good desert buckwheat honeyflow considering the 

dry spring we had. I am very encouraged by the honey prices and the pollination 

season ahead in 2009. 

This is about where we were last year at this time. Things started to unravel in 

the middle of July. By the time October mercifully arrived we were down to 2,500 

hives, and not the strongest hives at that. But like all good farmers, we took what 

money we made and dumped it back into bees. 

We traveled to South Dakota and bought $100,000 worth of bees from another 

beekeeper and put them into our empty equipment and shipped three semi loads 

of bees across the country. We arranged to buy another semi load of bees from a 

man in Minnesota. We arranged to lease another 5,000 hives from beekeepers in 

North and South Dakota, Minnesota and Texas. We were up and running. 

We took a fifty percent hit and survived because we are fortunate to have our operation based in the best place in the world for making money with bees, the heart 

of the almond industry. In case you haven’t heard, cotton is no longer king in the 

San Joaquin. Almond acreage is at an all time high and is an economic juggernaut 

for California agriculture. 

33

Currently there are 660,000 acres producing and would be more if not for the 

water crisis in our state. This requires about 1,300,000 hives of bees to pollinate 

them. The number of managed hives in California has dropped to around 400,000 

hives despite beekeepers’ efforts to meet growers’ demands. Bees are now being 

shipped into California from everywhere in the U.S.; even Australia is trying to get 

in the game. Now I have to go to national bee conventions and defend my state as 

beekeepers from New York or Montana disparage us and call us a gutter for bees. 

We have created the biggest experiment ever performed on the honey bee. Take 

bees from all over the continent and stick them in the valley to mingle and forage 

together with mites and diseases and apparently a list of viruses as long as your 

arm and see what happens. Or maybe this isn’t what is wrong—haven’t we been 

hearing that bees around the world are having a problem? And beekeepers here in 

the U.S., who do not ship bees to California are losing hives as well. 

We began to notice these losses in recent years. We have had rough years from 

time to time with higher than usual losses, and in history there have been a few 

epidemics in the bee world. But nothing has been on the levels we are facing now. 

This is why there has been all this attention on us. People now realize that the $15 

billion dollars worth of food that requires pollination to exist is a lot of pretty delicious stuff. 

We appreciate this attention and have been encouraged by the legislations actions. At home, the Bee Lab at U.C. Davis is up and running again thanks to generous contributions by beekeepers, almond growers, and companies like Ha ̈agen-Daz 

Ice Cream who donated $250,000 to honey bee research and is running a priceless 

‘‘save the bee’’ ad campaign. 

Researchers across the country have been collaborating on projects in an attempt 

to find answers. Beekeepers themselves have put aside their differences and are 

working with the scientific and governmental communities as well as each other on 

an unprecedented level. I know the fact that our two national organizations had a 

shared conference this year speaks volumes to the importance of this issue. 

I am here today to ask that you would vote to continue helping to fund honey 

bee research. There are some very important projects just getting up and started, 

and we really haven’t time to waste, or money. We need results. We need a united 

effort by all and shared knowledge from a variety of fields. 

I hope we are getting there; the middle of July is looming and I am more than 

a little worried. We are providing our bees all the supplemental nutrition and fresh 

queens we can. We are treating for Nosema ceranae aggressively and hope for a better fall than this last one. 

Beekeeping is more challenging now than it has ever been and you dare not walk 

very far away from them if you expect them to survive. My old mentor always told 

me to ‘‘take care of the bees and they will take care of you.’’ Well, Mr. Littlefield, 

I wish I knew what to do. 

Of critical importance is bee pasture. Like any other animals, bees need forage. 

No farmer grows crops just for bees; they grow crops to make money. Recently there 

has been a lot of discussion about bee farms where forage is planted specifically for 

bees. CRP land in the Midwest is a perfect example of this, but as you all know 

this is going away fast with the pressure to grow more corn and soybeans. Feedlot 

beekeeping is not working. I have seen areas in California where literally thousands 

of hives are gathered in a few square miles with disastrous results. It is a very unnatural situation for the bees when all they have to feed on is each other. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about pesticides. Thirty to forty percent 

of our honey and pollen sources are wild such as the Sierras, the Mojave and the 

coast range, all based on rainfall. All the rest comes from irrigated crops where we 

are guests, and a good guest doesn’t complain about the smell on his food while he 

is eating at his host’s table. It has been a very delicate task to make what little 

headway we have, and I would hope that progress is being made, thanks in part 

to public awareness and everyone’s desire for a cleaner world. All farmers bear a 

tremendous responsibility and burden to produce food that is safe and still make 

a profit. 

I am proud to be a part of the greatest agricultural powerhouse in the world and 

I know that the honey bee industry is a little, odd, hard-to-fit gear in the machine. 

We need help right now, and we need the average person to understand that food 

doesn’t magically appear at our grocery stores, which, by the way, need to step up 

and help with this education. 

Thank you for your time. I am a producer. I believe that hard work is the cure 

for everything, but I know we all need to work smarter not harder, please be smart. 

Thank you and good luck to us all.

STEVE GODLIN,

34

S.P. Godlin Apiaries.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Godlin. I will tell you that your 

testimony rings true to me. It is certainly the last part that you 

talked about, hard work. That was my daddy’s answer to everything as well. Maybe because we come from the same part of the 

country, we have the same views on that. 

I have just been informed that we are going to have a series of 

three votes between 11:30 and 11:45. We will continue taking testimony through that period of time. We will have to recess for those 

three votes and then I will come back and we will probably engage 

in questions at that time. 

Next up, I would like to call Mr. David Mendes, Vice President 

of the American Beekeeping Federation from North Fort Myers, 

Florida. Welcome, sir. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MENDES, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

BEEKEEPING FEDERATION, INC., NORTH FORT MYERS, FL 

Mr. MENDES. Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you and other 

Members of the Subcommittee who have continued to demonstrate 

your concern about honey bee Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD. 

My name is David Mendes. I am representing the American Beekeeping Federation, a national beekeepers’ association of about 

1,100 members in all 50 states. I hope to speak for this organization and also to share with you my own personal observations as 

a beekeeper in the field. I will try to keep my comments brief. 

I would like to be able to tell you that over the last 18 months 

we have figured out the cause of CCD, but that would not be an 

accurate statement. What I can tell you is that many beekeepers 

have a pretty good idea of what is hurting their bees. I hope to 

share with you my opinions on the problem and what we need to 

do about it. I need to emphasize the frustration and in many cases 

desperation felt by beekeepers that have watched large numbers of 

their bees die and felt helpless to do anything about it. Beekeepers 

are not very good at asking for help. We tend to be an independent 

and self-reliant bunch. But what is happening now is different than 

anything that we have seen before, and I am convinced that we 

will not solve this problem without a significant research effort. 

So far there has been tremendous media coverage of CCD and a 

lot of talk about efforts to solve this problem, but actual research 

money spent in the field has been very little. I would encourage 

you to add up the dollars invested so far. You would be amazed to 

know how little money has been made available for such a big 

problem. 

It is my opinion that CCD is more than just a beekeeping problem. There is something in the environment that is making our 

bees sick. It is generally accepted that honey bees can be used as 

indicators of environmental quality. The Defense Department has 

funded projects to use honey bees to locate land mines and biological agents that may be used in chemical warfare. I can direct you 

to people that are doing this research. It is amazing that a honey 

bee can detect such low levels of toxins even in the parts per billion 

range. 

35

I participated in a project coordinated through Penn State to collect samples of bees, comb, pollen and honey from my hives from 

March 2007 to January 2008. Two other East Coast beekeepers 

were also involved. For each of us, 18 to 24 hives were selected and 

marked. The goal was to take samples out of each hive each time 

they were moved to a new location. In my case, hives were sampled 

seven times, twice in Florida in the spring, once in Maine on blueberry pollination, once in Massachusetts on cranberry pollination, 

and three more times in Florida through the fall and winter. 

Samples were collected for analysis with the intent that some 

conclusions could be drawn to compare the conditions in the hive 

that result in survival or death of these hives. Varroa mite levels 

and Nosema spore counts were to be examined to either confirm or 

deny their role in hive mortality. One of the most interesting aspects of this study is the ability to do pollen analysis for pesticide, 

fungicide and herbicide levels inside the hive. Unfortunately, this 

type of testing is costly and only a few of the samples collected 

have been analyzed so far. The balance are in storage awaiting 

funding. 

The information from the samples that have been run so far is 

absolutely amazing and certainly the type of data that beekeepers 

need to direct where they can safely keep their bees. My first samples from Florida citrus showed levels of imidacloprid and aldicarb 

inside the pollen that are much higher than expected. The samples 

taken while my bees were in Massachusetts for cranberries show 

levels of fungicide in the pollen as high as 7,000 parts per billion. 

It may be interesting for you to know that of the 18 hives that 

began this study in March 2007, only 4 of these hives were still 

alive 10 months later. Of these four hives, only one was of sufficient strength to pollinate almonds in California in February. My 

calculations show this to be a 95 percent loss on these test hives 

in 10 months. 

I am here this morning to appeal to you that a first step in figuring out CCD is to develop a comprehensive program to look inside bee hives all across the nation to find out what types of substances our bees are exposed to. Beekeepers understand that something is making our bees sick, but in order to be taken seriously 

by regulatory officials who control the use of agricultural products, 

we need data to back up our opinions. 

I personally contacted the pesticide regulatory department in 

Florida to discuss the levels of imidacloprid and aldicarb that my 

bees were exposed to in Florida citrus, and was politely told that 

nothing could be done to protect my bees without proper data collection to show that these products were performing differently 

than show in their original EPA certification. In effect, I was educated on how the regulatory system works. It is data and not opinion that is needed. This makes sense to me and that is why we 

need to get to work collecting this data. 

I know that monitoring beehives and lab analysis of samples is 

expensive. The work that has been done so far has been paid for 

by the industry through our organizations and the National Honey 

Board with some supplemental funding by ARS. The institutions 

doing the CCD work, both government and universities, have had 

to divert money from other projects to cover these costs. Companies 

36

such as Ha ̈agen-Dazs and Burt’s Bees have been a tremendous 

help in providing some funding for some of this work. 

Who should be shouldering this cost? Right now the beekeepers 

are getting hit with all the expense in the form of dead beehives. 

It would likely be appropriate for the manufacturers of pesticides, 

fungicides and herbicides to share in the cost of monitoring the distribution of their products in the environment. This should be included as a normal cost of selling ag chemicals. Honey bees could 

be a valuable tool to monitor how these products travel in the 

plants, water and soil that they are applied to. 

I am sure that most of the people at this hearing are aware of 

recent actions in Germany to restrict the use of many systemic pesticides. This follows regulatory actions originally implemented in 

France to limit the use of these products until they can be clearly 

proven to be safe to honey bees and other beneficial insects. Our 

regulatory system in the United States is different than in Europe 

and it may require more data collection to challenge products that 

have already received EPA approval. I say that the effort to collect 

the data that either proves or disproves the safety of these products needs to be required now. 

Much of the frustration felt by beekeepers is directed at the lack 

of any concrete actions to address the causes of CCD. A comprehensive program to sample hives all over the country would be a visible first step to get the ball rolling. If a person is sick, the first 

thing a doctor does is take their vital signs and run lab tests. This 

is the place to begin with CCD. The answers to this problem will 

only be discovered if we take the time to look inside our hives. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I 

would be glad to offer much more detail or answer questions about 

any of our field observations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mendes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID MENDES, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BEEKEEPING

FEDERATION, INC., NORTH FORT MYERS, FL 

Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to address you and the other members of the Subcommittee who have continued to demonstrate your concern about honey bee Colony 

Collapse Disorder (CCD). My name is David Mendes. I am representing the American Beekeeping Federation, a national beekeepers association of about 1,100 members in all 50 states. I hope to speak for this organization and also to share with 

you my own personal observations as a beekeeper in the field. I will try to keep my 

comments brief and will be happy to answer any questions that you or the Subcommittee may have. 

I started keeping bees when I was in the seventh grade. By the time I was in 

high school, I was in the bee business with over 300 hives. Today I operate 7,000+ 

hives from a base in Florida, with annual migration up the East Coast to pollinate 

blueberries in Maine and cranberries in Massachusetts. This past February I sent 

15 tractor-trailer loads of bees to California to pollinate almonds. 

My experience with CCD started with a phone call from my good friend Dave 

Hackenberg in November 2006. I was attending the California State Beekeepers 

convention when Dave told me that something was very wrong with his bees. I flew 

back to Florida a few days later and met with Dave to look at the bees he was having problems with. Out of a load of over 400 hives he had brought to Florida from 

Pennsylvania in October, less than 40 were still alive a few weeks later. Hackenberg 

went on to discover that many of his other hives were also dying and by the end 

of the year almost 70% of his hives were dead. This episode was the opening chapter 

in the story of Colony Collapse Disorder. During that winter of 2006–2007 many 

other beekeepers experienced excessive hive mortality resulting in over 30% hive 

37

loss nationwide. The winter of 2007–2008 has been worse with some reports of over 

37% loss nationwide. 

I would like to be able to tell you that over the last 18 months we have figured 

out the cause of CCD, but that would not be an accurate statement. What I can 

tell you is that many beekeepers have a pretty good idea of what is hurting their 

bees. I hope to share with you my opinions on the problem and what we need to 

do about it. I need to emphasize the frustration and in many cases desperation felt 

by beekeepers that have watched large numbers of their bees die and felt helpless 

to do anything about it. Beekeepers are not very good at asking for help. We tend 

to be an independent and self-reliant bunch. But what is happening now is different 

than anything that we have seen before, and I am convinced that we will not solve 

this problem without a significant research effort. So far, there has been tremendous 

media coverage of CCD and a lot of talk about efforts to ‘‘solve’’ this problem, but 

actual research money spent in the field has been very little. I would encourage you 

to add up the dollars invested so far. You would be amazed to know how little 

money has been made available for such a ‘‘big’’ problem. 

It is my opinion that CCD is more than just a beekeeping problem. There is something in the environment that is making our bees ‘‘sick.’’ It is generally accepted 

that honey bees can be used as indicators of environmental quality. The Defense Department has funded projects to use honey bees to locate land mines and biological 

agents that may be used in chemical warfare. I can direct you to people that are 

doing this research. It is amazing that a honey bee can detect such low levels of 

toxins even in the parts per billion range. 

I participated in a project coordinated by Dennis VanEngelsdorp from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to collect samples of bees, comb, pollen, and 

honey from my hives from March 2007 to January 2008. The purpose of this study 

was to monitor as many variables as possible in a small sample of hives to see if 

any patterns emerge that can identify factors causing hive mortality. Two other 

East Coast beekeepers were also involved. For each of us 18 to 24 hives were selected and marked. The goal was to take samples out of each hive each time they 

were moved to a new location. Sampling began while the bees were in Florida citrus 

groves and followed each beekeeper as they migrated up to the northern crops they 

would pollinate. In my case, hives were sampled 7 times, twice in Florida in the 

spring of 2007, once in Maine on blueberry pollination, once in Massachusetts on 

cranberry pollination, and three more times in Florida through the following fall 

and winter. 

Samples were collected for analysis with the intent that some conclusions could 

be drawn to compare the conditions in the hive that result in survival or death of 

these hives. Varroa mite levels and Nosema spore counts were to be examined to 

either confirm or deny their role in hive mortality. One of the most interesting aspects of this study to me is the ability to do pollen analysis for pesticide, fungicide, 

and herbicide levels inside the hive. Unfortunately this type of testing is costly and 

only a few of the samples collected have been analyzed so far. The balance are in 

storage awaiting funding for the analyses. 

The information from the samples that have been run is absolutely amazing and 

certainly the type of data that beekeepers need to direct where they can safely keep 

their bees. My first samples from Florida citrus showed levels of imidacloprid and 

aldicarb inside the pollen that are much higher than expected. The samples taken 

while my bees were in Massachusetts cranberries show levels of fungicide in the pollen as high as 7000 ppb. It may be interesting for you to know that of the 18 hives 

that began this study in March 2007, only 4 of these hives were still alive 10 

months later in January 2008. Of these 4 hives only one was of sufficient strength 

to pollinate almonds in California in February. My calculations show this to be a 

95% loss on these test hives in ten months. 

I am here this morning to appeal to you that a first step in figuring out CCD is 

to develop a comprehensive program to look inside beehives all across the nation 

to find out what types of substances our bees are exposed to. Beekeepers understand 

that something is making our bees sick, but in order to be taken seriously by regulatory officials who control the use of agricultural products, we need data to back 

up our opinions. I personally contacted the pesticide regulatory department in Florida to discuss the levels of imidacloprid and aldicarb that my bees were exposed to 

in Florida citrus groves and was told that nothing could be done to protect my bees 

without proper data collection to show that these products were performing differently than shown in their original EPA certification. In effect, I was ‘‘educated’’ 

on how the regulatory system works. It is data and not opinion that is needed. This 

makes sense to me and that is why we need to ‘‘get to work’’ collecting this data. 

I know that monitoring beehives and lab analysis of samples is expensive. The 

work that has been done thus has been paid for by the industry through our organiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
38

zations and the National Honey Board, with some supplemental funding by Agricultural Research Service. The institutions doing the CCD work, both government and 

universities, have had to divert money from other projects to cover these costs. 

Who should be shouldering this cost? Right now the beekeepers are getting hit 

with all the expense in the form of dead beehives. It would likely be appropriate 

for the manufacturers of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides share in the cost of 

monitoring the distribution of their products in the environment. This should be included as a normal cost of selling agricultural chemicals. Honey bees could be a valuable tool to monitor how these products travel in the plants, water and soil that 

they are applied to. 

I am sure that most of the people at this hearing are aware of recent actions in 

Germany to restrict the use of many systemic pesticides. This follows regulatory actions originally implemented in France to limit the use of these products until they 

can be ‘‘clearly proven’’ to be safe to honey bees and other beneficial insects. Our 

regulatory system in the United States is different than in Europe, and it may require more data collection to challenge products that have already received EPA approval. I say that the effort to collect the data that either proves or disproves the 

safety of these products needs to be required now. 

Much of the frustration felt by beekeepers is directed at the lack of any concrete 

actions to address the causes of CCD. A comprehensive program to sample hives all 

over the country would be a visible first step to get the ball rolling. If a person is 

sick, the first thing a doctor does is take their vital signs and run lab tests. This 

is the place to begin with CCD. The answers to this problem will only be discovered 

if we take the time to look inside our hives. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I would be glad to offer 

much more detail or answer questions about any of our field observations. 

Thank you,

DAVID MENDES.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Next we have Mr. Etheridge’s guest witness, so I would like to 

ask him to introduce his constituent from North Carolina. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief because we want to get it in, but Mr. Edwards, glad to have you. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. He is a large producer of multiple crops, cucumbers being the one he has great need for bees on, and a lot of cucumbers and a lot of vegetables are grown in our part of the state 

that weren’t grown 10, 15 years ago. Welcome. We look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. EDWARDS, COTTON, CORN,

SOYBEANS, PEANUTS, AND OTHER SPECIALTY CROPS

PRODUCER, HALIFAX, NASH, AND EDGECOMB COUNTIES, 

NORTH CAROLINA, WHITAKERS, NC 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. Good morning. My 

name is Robert Edwards and I am a third-generation farmer from 

Whitakers, North Carolina. Along with my brother and father, we 

grow over 5,000 acres of cotton, corn, soybeans, peanuts, tobacco 

and cucumbers in Halifax, Nash and Edgecomb Counties, that is 

located in eastern North Carolina. Our farm is a family operation 

and I have grown up working on this land and look forward to continuing this operation for many years in the future. 

For over 10 years, a vital part of our firm has been the 100 acres 

of cucumbers that we plant each year. I am sorry to have to report 

to this Committee, however, that due to the severe and sudden rise 

in the price of fuel, the ongoing and worsening problem of a lack 

of labor to harvest, and the recent and increasing problem of a lack 

of honey bees needed to pollinate these crops, we have been forced 

to reduce our acreage of cucumbers by 50 percent. 

39

I am not alone in experiencing these problems. Not only do I 

grow cucumbers on my farm, I also work for a much larger cucumber operation, Carolina’s Best, managing cucumber production producing hundreds of acres of cucumbers that supply the $36.2 million cucumber industry in North Carolina. 

I emphasize again the economic pressures that all farmers are 

feeling with respect to labor availability and the rising cost of fuel, 

and I know that Congress is working to address these issues, but 

we are here today to discuss a problem that is just as harmful as 

those previously mentioned, that is, pollinator availability or honey 

bees. The simple fact is, no honey bees, no cucumbers. The cucumbers we grow today are highly pollinator intensive. There is a very 

short window for this fruit to be pollinated, which also requires a 

high number of bees to perform this task successfully, and I again 

emphasize if this pollination does not occur within that window of 

opportunity, there will be no cucumbers to harvest. 

We have always rented honey bees from beehive operations located within the State of North Carolina. Over the past 3 years, 

however, we have seen a notable decrease in the availability of the 

hives for rent in North Carolina. The reason for this is that the 

hives produced in the southeastern part of the United States are 

being shipped all over the nation due to shortages of bees in other 

areas, thus increasing the cost we pay to rent hives. These longer 

shipping distances have also increased the cost. Three years ago, 

I was paying approximately $45 per hive. Today I am paying $68 

for that same hive, and I don’t know what the cost will be tomorrow. 

In other states the story is even worse. In California, there is already concern about a shortage of bees to pollinate the almond 

crop. Growers are scrambling to reserve bees, and I have heard 

prices as high as $140 per hive. 

Honey bees are truly unsung heroes in feeding our nation and 

the world. I tell my non-farmer friends that these bees are out 

there pollinating more than my cucumbers. They are critical for the 

growth of virtually everything in our food chain, because everything in this chain eats something that has been pollinated or ate 

something else that was pollinated by a honey bee. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not a scientist, I am a farmer, and I know 

one thing for certain: no bees, no crops. As a farmer who relies on 

these bees, I am searching for solutions just like you. I think in the 

short term, possible solutions could be to give these beekeepers access to some of the same programs that we provide to the farmers. 

For example, my beekeeper that I use lost 40 percent of his bees 

last year. If I lost 40 percent of a crop without crop insurance, I 

wouldn’t be here today, I would be probably picking up tin cans on 

the side of the road. But Congress is working to fix the H2–A problem to correct our labor crisis in the specialty crop industry and I 

am hopeful that at some point fuel prices will go back down. But 

Congress needs to understand that the problem of the lack of bees 

to pollinate the very foods we consume every day is a real and 

growing problem that needs to be studied, addressed and corrected. 

Bees are as important to our crops as the water and the sunshine. 

I would like to thank you for your attention to this matter. If you 

have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. 

40

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. EDWARDS, COTTON, CORN, SOYBEANS,

PEANUTS, AND OTHER SPECIALTY CROPS PRODUCER, HALIFAX, NASH, AND

EDGECOMB COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA, WHITAKERS, NC 

Good morning, my name is Robert Dowe Edwards, I am a third generation farmer 

from Whitakers, North Carolina. Along with my brother and father, we grow over 

5,000 acres of cotton, corn, soybeans, peanuts, and other specialty crops such as cucumbers in Halifax, Nash, and Edgecomb Counties in Eastern North Carolina. Our 

farm is a family operation, I have grown up working this land, and look forward 

to continuing this operation for many years in the future. 

For over ten years, a vital and profitable part of our farm, has been the 100 acres 

of cucumbers we plant each year. I am sorry to have to report to this Committee, 

however, that due to the severe and sudden rise in the price of fuel, the ongoing 

and worsening problem of a lack of labor to harvest these cucumbers, and the recent 

and increasing problem of a lack of honey bees needed to pollinate these crops, we 

have been forced to reduce our acreage of cucumbers by 50 percent. 

I am not alone in experiencing these problems. Not only do I grow cucumbers on 

my farm, I also work as a grower for a much larger cucumber operation, Carolina’s 

Best Farms, managing cucumber production operations in these counties, producing 

hundreds of acres of cucumbers that supply pickling cucumbers for the significant 

pickling and canning industry in the State of North Carolina. 

I emphasize again the economic pressures that all farmers are feeling with respect to labor availability and the rising cost of fuel, and I hope that Congress is 

working to address these issues. But we are here today to discuss a problem that 

is just as harmful as those previously mentioned: pollinator availability, honeybees. 

The simple fact is, no honeybees, no cucumbers. 

The hybrid Vlaspick pickle breed that I grow, specially bred and designed as a 

heavy fruit set variety designed for five to six pickings at harvest, is highly labor, 

irrigation, and time intensive. This breed is also highly pollinator intensive, there 

is a short window for this fruit to be pollinated, which also requires a high number 

of bees to perform this successfully. And again I emphasize, if this pollination does 

not occur within the window of opportunity, these will be no cucumbers to harvest. 

Our decision to reduce our acreage of cucumber production is as directly related 

to the declining availability of honey bees for pollination of these crops. Our farm 

and the surrounding cucumber farms that I work with have until recently always 

rented honey bees for pollinators from bee hive operations located within the State 

of North Carolina. Over the past three years, however, we have seen a notable decrease in the availability of these hives for rent. The reason for this is that the bee 

hives produced in the Southeastern part of the United States are being shipped all 

over the country due to shortages of bees in other areas, this increases in the cost 

we pay to rent these bees. These longer shipping distances have also increased the 

cost of the hives. Three years ago I paid $45 per hive, today I am paying $68 to 

rent that same hive. 

In other states the story is even worse. In California, there is already a concern 

about a shortage of bees to pollinate the almond crop, growers are scrambling to 

reserve bees, and the price their has risen to $140 per hive. 

The lower number of hives for rent has also decreased the time these bees are 

available to sit on the field to be pollinated, making the window for pollination even 

smaller. This increases my pressure to increase irrigation to make sure the crop is 

ready for the time I will have these bees, and this in turn further increases my fuel 

costs. 

For our purposes, our operation has always used one hive per acre to ensure adequate pollination. As I mentioned earlier, cucumbers are a difficult fruit to pollinate, 

this is a very sticky plant that requires a high number of bees due to the increased 

effort that is needed on the part of the bee. And as I tell my non-farmer friends, 

these bees are out there pollinating more than my cucumbers, they are critical for 

the growth of virtually everything in our food chain; because everything in this 

chain eats something that has been pollinated, or ate something else that was pollinated by a honey bee. 

My great concern is that we are witnessing a serious and unexplained reduction 

in the availability of these bees. This sudden reduction in the number of bees has 

been explained to me as Colony Collapse Disorder, but the cause of this is not so 

clear. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not a scientist, I am a farmer, and I know one thing for certain: no bees, no crops. As a farmer who relies on these bees I am searching for 

41

solutions just like you are. I think in the short term, possible solutions could be to 

give these farmers some of the access to the programs that we provide to the farmers who rely on them. My bee supplier lost 40 percent of his hive last year, if I lost 

40 percent of my crop and did not have crop insurance, I would go under. Congress 

should consider making crop insurance and low interest FSA loans available to 

these bee keepers, and to increase the amount of bees, possibly making them eligible for beginning farmer loans. 

I did not reduce my acreage of cucumbers because of the cost of fuel, I was forced 

to reduce my acreage because I could not ensure that I would be able to rent enough 

bees to pollinate my crop. Congress can work to fix the H–2A problem, to correct 

our labor crisis in the specialty crop industry, and I am hopeful that at some point 

fuel prices will have to go back down. But Congress needs to understand that the 

problem of a lack of bees needed to pollinate the very foods we consume every day 

is a real and growing problem that needs to be studied, addressed, and corrected. 

Bees are as important to our crops as the water and the sunshine. 

Again, I thank this Committee and Chairman Cardoza for his attention to this 

important matter. I would be happy to try to answer any questions the member of 

this Committee might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. As usual, Mr. 

Etheridge has brought up one of his constituents that has given us 

very salient testimony. We have some folks from the media here 

today, and in the next few weeks and next few months, people are 

going to be asking why food prices are so high, and today you gave 

the testimony in advance to answer that question. There is a lack 

of pollination. You have had to cut down the number of acres that 

you have under production. Energy costs and input costs to produce 

that food is costing you more and you are going to have to pass 

that on, and then the transportation costs and all the rest to get 

that food to market is all going to be higher, and unfortunately, 

like you indicated, the consumer is going to be paying higher prices 

and bearing the brunt of all these input costs, and so you gave 

some very salient testimony today to that question. 

Next up we are going to have Mr. Edward Flanagan, President 

and Chief Executive Officer of Jasper Wyman and Sons from 

Millbridge, Maine, and then as soon as you are done with your testimony, sir, we are going to recess for the duration of the votes. I 

would like to make the floor available to you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. FLANAGAN, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

JASPER WYMAN & SON, MILLBRIDGE, ME 

Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza. My name is Ed 

Flanagan. I am here today as the President and CEO of Jasper 

Wyman & Son, the largest U.S.-owned blueberry grower. We grow 

wild, or lowbush, blueberries in eastern Maine and we also have 

operations on Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in the Canadian Maritimes. In Maine, combining what we grow on our land 

and what we buy from other growers, we process and market between 35 and 40 percent of the U.S. wild blueberry crop. But besides Wyman’s, I am here to express the concern of all wild blueberry and cultivated blueberry growers who according to the USDA 

had farm gate value in 2007 of nearly $600 million. To echo my colleague here beside me, in our business too, it is simple: no bees, 

no blueberries. 

You may not know that there are three fruits that are native to 

North America: concord grapes, cranberries and wild blueberries. 

Early Native Americans used wild blueberries for food, coloring and 

for medicinal remedies. What they knew then, the American conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
42

sumer has come to know in the last several years, thanks to wellgrounded research from some of our best universities and laboratories, and that is that blueberries are one of the healthiest foods 

you can add to your diet. Wild blueberries can’t be planted, not 

here, not in Chile, not in China. It is a root system that is indigenous to Maine and the Maritimes and more like a mineral resource 

than a crop in that way. Thus, it has always has strong, enduring 

export market demand. It is a small but important crop for America and it is a very important crop to the economy of eastern 

Maine. 

That health news has led to some good years. In agriculture, it 

seems that supply and demand are almost never in balance. In the 

case of blueberries in recent years, demand has been ahead of supply. Farm gate earnings have been healthy and we have been able 

to absorb pollination costs that have more than doubled in the last 

3 years. We know that supply will catch up with demand, prices 

will go down and we will need sharp control of our costs. Agriculture is one tough and honest way to make a living and we face 

our challenges head on, but we are very scared at the prospect of 

no pollinating bees in our fields. There is no alternative. 

Wild blueberry fields, called barrens, are usually bordered by 

forestland and we have learned to live with nature and its perils 

and marvel at its complex interactions. For example, if we don’t 

string electrified wire around the hives in the fields, the bears have 

a feast at our expense. 

What scares us about Colony Collapse Disorder is what the beekeepers have observed, healthy bees refusing to go into the sick 

hives to rob the honey, the normal predators, hive beetles and 

moths, keeping their distance from an impacted hive, the practice 

of putting a healthy hive near a diseased one to repopulate the 

weak one but instead it is killing the healthy one. Something is 

very, very wrong. 

A good wild blueberry crop needs three basic things to happen: 

a snow cover over the low growing plants in the winter to protect 

the buds from cold temperatures, good pollination in May, and then 

from June to August, a good mix of sun and rain. The wild blueberry crop blooms in May and it takes 2 to 3 weeks to get good pollination. The bees won’t work if it is cold or windy, which it can 

be in Maine then, and we accept that neither the beekeepers nor 

Congress can do anything about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sir, I am going to need to interrupt. I have been 

informed I have less than 3 minutes to get to the vote and so I am 

going to have to call a recess. If you would just mark a place in 

your testimony, we will reconvene the hearing as soon as I can possibly get back from the votes. At this time the Committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. If the witnesses and the guests would please retake their seats, we will get this hearing reconstituted here in just 

about 2 minutes. 

If everyone is ready, we will continue the hearing. Mr. Flanagan, 

I want to apologize. I have never had to interrupt someone in the 

middle of their testimony before but the vote just crept up on us. 

I apologize for having to interrupt you and I would like if you can 

43

remember exactly where you were in your testimony, I would like 

to give you the floor to continue from that point. 

Mr. FLANAGAN. I can. Thank you very much. 

Where I left off was, the wild blueberry crop blooms in May and 

it takes 2 to 3 weeks to get good pollination. The bees won’t work 

if it is cold or windy, which it can be in Maine then, and we accept 

that neither the beekeepers nor Congress can do anything about 

that. We don’t ask for your help often because really there isn’t 

much you can do, but we do need it here. 

If you have my testimony in front of you, you can see what a 

good blueberry crop in August looks like. Every single one of those 

berries owes its existence to the crazy, neurotic dancing of a honey 

bee from flower to flower. If there were no beekeeping industry to 

come to Maine, the amount of fruit pollinated by natural pollinators would not amount to enough to keep farming the land. We 

would either be out of this business all together or charging a price 

fivefold or tenfold what it is now just to go out and get what was 

there. 

I don’t know who or why anyone would oppose budgeting research funds for this critical problem. I urge you not to use Washington inertia as an excuse. I firmly believe that if it was the pesticide family of neonicotonoids, it may have been an unintended 

consequence of the chemical industry trying to replace directly 

toxic organophosphates with a more benign alternative. We need to 

put the blame game aside and get to the endpoint, which is knowledge. 

Chairman Cardoza, I heard you inform us today that the labs were rebudgeted at $10 million and CCD research received an 

extra $800,000. The budget process here is a mystery to an out-oftowner like me but an extra 8 percent in funding is way short of 

what is needed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flanagan follows:]

44

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. FLANAGAN, PRESIDENT & CEO, JASPER

WYMAN & SON, MILBRIDGE, ME


11039001 11039002
45


11039003 11039004
46

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. I would like to make a point. 

During this last series of votes, I talked to Mr. Alcee Hastings from 

Florida, who has been a true champion on behalf of getting to the 

bottom of this crisis. I also talked to Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro 

of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and both of 

them agreed with me and my previous statement that funding 

should not be an issue here, that we need to know exactly what 

funds are needed to bring to bear on this program and we will 

work diligently to make sure that all the funds necessary are used, 

that they are provided and used to get to the bottom of this. Now, 

I am going to reiterate that in no way should anyone leave here 

thinking that they should not request the total amount necessary 

to get to the bottom of this question, and Ms. DeLauro stands 

ready to be of assistance to us. We will go to the Speaker. We will 

go to Mr. Reid. We will go and shout off the top of the Washington 

Monument if necessary. We will find the funds for this problem, 

but we have to know exactly how much we need, and funds should 

not be an excuse for why we can’t find the problem on this research. So I am just putting USDA on notice today that if next year 

or in 6 months we get back and we hear again that funds are a 

problem, there is going to be some hell to pay. So let us understand 

that all here together today. 

Next up we have Ms. Katty Pien. I am sorry———

Ms. PIEN. It is Katty. 

The CHAIRMAN. Brand Director from Ha ̈agen-Dazs Ice Cream, 

Oakland, California. My daddy used to butcher people’s names and 

I have taken up in his footsteps on this as well, so I apologize. 

Thank you for being with us today. 

STATEMENT OF KATTY PIEN, BRAND DIRECTOR, HA ̈ AGENDAZS ICE CREAM, OAKLAND, CA 

Ms. PIEN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza. My 

name is Katty Pien and I am the Brand Director for Ha ̈agen-Dazs 

Ice Cream, America’s leading super-premium all-natural ice cream. 

I will comment today on how pollinators are an essential part of 

our business. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about Colony Collapse 

Disorder and for the leadership you have shown in addressing it 

through the pollinator provisions of the farm bill. I would like to 

highlight some key points and ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

Ha ̈agen-Dazs has a major stake in the health of America’s honey 

bees. Pollination is essential for ingredients in more than 40 percent of Ha ̈agen-Dazs flavors. For example, to produce our vanilla 

Swiss almond and rocky road flavors, we use more than 1 million 

pounds of almonds every year. Should the CCD crisis continue, pollinated ingredients such as strawberries, cherries, blueberries, and 

almonds could all become scarce or too expensive to obtain, forcing 

us to evaluate whether we can continue to offer flavors that depend 

on pollinated ingredients because of higher production costs, which 

could lead to higher consumer prices. 

Ha ̈agen-Dazs recognized that to preserve our variety of flavors, 

to help consumers and to be a responsible steward of the resources 

we use, we needed to take corporate action. Earlier this year we 

47

introduced Ha ̈agen-Dazs Loves Honey Bees, a public education program. Among our efforts, we have launched a limited edition flavor, 

vanilla honey bee, to pay tribute to the hardworking honey bees. 

We pledged $250,000 to fund sustainable pollination and CCD research at Pennsylvania State University and the University of 

California Davis. We have developed print, television and in-store 

advertising campaigns drawing attention to this crisis. We have 

even launched a dedicated consumer education website, 

helpthehoneybees.com.

Despite these efforts, there is a long way to go. A recent survey 

commissioned by the Ha ̈agen-Dazs brand showed that more than 

half of Americans are not even aware of the honey bee crisis. 

Ha ̈agen-Dazs Ice Cream challenges other consumer products companies reliant on pollinators to join us in educating the public and 

helping efforts needed to save this essential natural resource. 

Nevertheless, robust Federal action is needed. We urge Congress 

to fully implement and fund the pollinator provisions of the farm 

bill. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time today. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pien folllows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATTY PIEN, BRAND DIRECTOR, HA ̈ AGEN-DAZS® ICE

CREAM, OAKLAND, CA 

Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Neugebauer, and members of the Subcommittee, good morning. 

My name is Katty Pien. I am the Brand Director for Ha ̈agen-Dazs® Ice Cream, 

America’s leading super-premium all-natural ice cream. The Ha ̈agen-Dazs brand 

sells more than 70 flavors of ice cream, sorbet and frozen yogurt around the world. 

As you will learn, pollinators are an essential part of our business. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the very important issue of Colony 

Collapse Disorder, and for the leadership you have shown in addressing it through 

the pollinator provisions of the Farm Bill. Full funding and implementation of those 

provisions would be an excellent step in ensuring the survival of America’s honey 

bees. 

I’m here today to highlight the importance of pollinators to Ha ̈agen-Dazs Ice 

Cream; to explain the dangers posed to consumer products such as ours by CCD; 

to highlight our corporate reaction to the crisis; and to suggest next steps the federal government and the private sector might take to reduce the impact of the crisis 

on producers and consumers. 

The Ha ̈agen-Dazs brand relies on the finest all-natural ingredients for its ice 

cream. Not surprisingly, pollination is essential for ingredients in more than 40 percent of Ha ̈agen-Dazs flavors. For example, to produce our popular Vanilla Swiss Almond and Rocky Road flavors, we use more than one million pounds of almonds 

every year. Almonds, as you know, Mr. Chairman, are 100 percent dependent on 

honey bees for pollination. 

As you can see, the Ha ̈agen-Dazs brand has a major stake in the health of America’s honeybees. Should the CCD crisis continue unchecked, pollinated ingredients 

such as strawberries, cherries and almonds could become scarce or too expensive to 

obtain, forcing us to evaluate whether we can continue offering popular flavors that 

depend on pollinated ingredients because of higher production costs. 

That brings us to the looming specter of higher consumer prices. While CCD has 

not yet led to higher prices, we fear that’s a likely result if the crisis remains 

unabated. Farmers and pollinators will either pass along their skyrocketing costs, 

or choose to exit a field that is less profitable, thereby reducing the supply of pollinated ingredients to companies such as Ha ̈agen-Dazs. 

Mr. Chairman, a combination of private sector and government efforts can make 

sure that doesn’t happen. 

The Ha ̈agen-Dazs brand is doing its part. We recognized that to preserve our variety of flavors, to help consumers, and to be a responsible steward of the resources 

we use, we needed to take corporate action. Earlier this year, we introduced 

48

Ha ̈agen-Dazs loves Honey Bees, a multi-faceted public education program. Among 

our efforts:

• A limited edition flavor, Vanilla Honey Bee, to draw attention to the crisis.

• A $250,000 pledge to fund sustainable pollination and CCD research at Pennsylvania State University and the University of California, Davis, partially 

funded by sales of Vanilla Honey Bee ice cream and our other bee-dependent 

flavors.

• A commitment to work with community groups to distribute 1 million beefriendly flower seeds (more than 350,000 distributed so far).

• A Honey Bee Board of leading scientists and beekeepers to advise us on the 

issue.

• An online, downloadable honey bee education program for students and families, available at www.helpthehoneybees.com.

• Sponsorship of ‘‘The Vanishing of the Bees,’’ a documentary that investigates 

the bee crisis.

• Print, television, in-store and online advertising campaigns drawing attention 

to the crisis, as well as information in retail stores.

• At Ha ̈agen-Dazs offices, we landscape with bee-friendly plants such as glory 

bushes, jasmine and rosemary.

• We give our employees free seeds and encourage them to plant bee-friendly gardens at home.

Despite those efforts, there’s a long way to go. A recent survey commissioned by 

the Ha ̈agen-Dazs brand showed that more than half of Americans are not even 

aware of the honey bee crisis. 

So Ha ̈agen-Dazs Ice Cream challenges other consumer-product companies reliant 

on pollinators to step up to the plate—to educate the public and help in efforts needed to save this essential natural resource. It only makes economic sense that companies which benefit from pollination should help ensure the survival of those species 

that allow us to commercially thrive. We applaud Burt’s Bees for doing so, as well. 

Nevertheless, there is no substitute for robust federal action in this area. The 

Ha ̈agen-Dazs brand stands with the Pollinator Partnership in urging Congress to 

fully fund and implement the pollinator protection provisions of the recently-passed 

farm bill. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral presentation. I ask that my entire statement be submitted for the record. Thank you for your time today. I’d be happy to 

answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for being here, and God bless your 

company for the work they do. Normally we don’t have such a highprofile corporate involvement in Congressional hearings, but I will 

tell you that the work your company has done has been quite extraordinary. 

Ms. PIEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next up we have Mr. John———

Mr. REPLOGLE. Replogle. 

The CHAIRMAN. Replogle—I am so sorry, but I can’t get that one, 

my tongue doesn’t seem to go that way—President and CEO of 

Burt’s Bees, Durham, North Carolina, and the fact is that I can’t 

say your name but I certainly know my children use your products 

on a regular basis, so thank you for being here and please proceed 

with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN REPLOGLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

BURT’S BEES, DURHAM, NC 

Mr. REPLOGLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify about the status of research and other activities related to 

the health of the honey bees and to all pollinators. My name is 

John Replogle and I am the President and CEO of Burt’s Bees 

based in Durham, North Carolina, a 400-person company invested 

49

in the well-being of humans. More importantly, I am the father of 

four girls and I am vitally interested in their health and well-being. 

Allow me to state the obvious: honey bees are important to Burt’s 

Bees. Our roots are entangled with theirs. We share their name. 

Their image still adorns our logo, and to this day a majority of our 

products rely on their instinctive skills. The health and welfare of 

bees is very dear to us. While we rely on bee byproducts as well 

as ingredients pollinated by bees, our interest in the health of bees 

is also very closely linked with our commitment to the environment. We work with our suppliers to ensure our beeswax, honey 

and bee-pollinated ingredients are sourced with bee-friendly and 

sustainable sourcing methods. Our commitment to the finest natural ingredients and products is intrinsically tied to how we care 

for our environment. Even more important than our own product 

supply is the impact on our bees to the overall health of the ecosystem. Bees are responsible for pollinating a third of the fruits 

and vegetables we eat, and collectively they support a $15 billion 

cash crop as well as are the backbone to ingredients of a $50 billion 

personal care industry here in the United States. 

Without being overstated, honey bee health is directly linked to 

our planet’s health and every person’s well-being. If we fail to take 

action now to mitigate the loss of honey bees, there will be broad 

implications on the foods we love, the plants that we depend on for 

many of our products and the well-being of our planet. Put bluntly, 

in 2008, honey bees are the proverbial canary in the coal mine. So 

go the bees, so goes the well-being of all Americans. 

We applaud and support the efforts by the Congress and by the 

USDA to address Colony Collapse Disorder and other pollinator 

health issues through the historical inclusion of pollinators in the 

farm bill with both research and conservation. I would like to say 

thank you to you, Chairman, today for the Committee’s pledge to 

fully fund the issue. I believe business along with government can 

powerfully join forces to have a positive impact on our changing environment. Therefore, Burt’s Bees has taken action directly, given 

the gravity of this situation. We hope the government will continue 

to play a much more active role in partnering with business to find 

solutions to this acute issue. 

While the causes for CCD are unknown, we do know that forces 

like habitat disruption, misuse of pesticides, invasive species and 

global warming create risks to honey bees. That is why Burt’s Bees 

is taking a holistic approach to honey bee health. We have joined 

forces with the Pollinator Partnership to provide funding to support 

research projects through the new Honey Bee Health Improvement 

Project, which is guided by a task force of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, which is also focusing on four key 

areas: breeding stock improvement, best practices for commercial 

beekeeping, effects of pesticides and chemicals, and improving nutritional resources. We are very pleased with the progress and 

quality efforts of the task force and we have already committed to 

a second year in partnering with the Pollinator Partnership. 

Second, Burt’s Bees has launched a public service awareness 

campaign. Not enough Americans are aware of the issue today, and 

we believe when individuals become aware of the environmental 

50

challenges and are given information about simple actions they can 

take, many will be inspired to take action. 

Third, we are expanding our reach to make the issue known on 

every main street in America. We are doing this by launching a 

Help the Honey Bees beeswax lip balm with 5 percent of the proceeds going to directly fund the Pollinator Partnership. We will distribute over 2 million units to further engage consumers and to 

fund research. 

In closing, we at Burt’s Bees truly believe that by helping to save 

the bees, we save a lot more than the bees. We appreciate the time, 

attention and leadership you are devoting to the health of our pollinating partners. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Replogle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN REPLOGLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BURT’S BEES, DURHAM, NC 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify about the status of research and other activities related to the health of 

honeybees and all pollinators. My name is John Replogle, and I am President and 

CEO of Burt’s Bees, which is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina. Burt’s 

Bees is the leading Natural Personal Care brand, bringing Earth-friendly, natural 

personal care products to consumers for more than 20 years. Our mission, simply 

put, is ‘to make people’s lives better everyday, naturally.’ We do this by creating the 

best natural personal care products with the finest natural ingredients to help individuals maximize their well-being and the well-being of the world around them. We 

operate our business with a commitment to The Greater Good—care for our products, our planet and our communities. 

Why Burt’s Bees is Involved in Pollinator Health Efforts: 

Honeybees are important to Burt’s Bees. Our roots are entangled with theirs. We 

share their name. Their image still adorns our logo. And, to this day, many of our 

products rely on their instinctive skills. Our co-founder, Burt Shavitz, was a beekeeper for over 20 years. 

Indeed, bees are the foundation of Burt’s Bees’ business. The health and welfare 

of bees are very dear to us. Even though we get beeswax and honey in a completely 

bee-friendly way, we know we all can and must do more. More important than our 

own product supply, the impact of bees on our ecosystem is critical—they are responsible for 1⁄3 of the food we eat. It’s another major indicator that demonstrates 

the importance of caring for our environment. If we fail to take action, there could 

be further negative impact on the fruits and vegetables that we eat as well as the 

biodiversity of the plants that we depend on for many of our products. 

Burt’s Bees is deeply concerned about the health of honeybees and other pollinators because of two of our core beliefs: natural ingredients work in harmony with 

the body; and we must protect and provide for the precious resources of our planet. 

Many of the natural ingredients in our personal care products are either directly 

produced by honeybees, such as beeswax and honey, or are derived from plants pollinated by honeybees, such as almond oil, sunflower oil, avocado butter and peach 

stone. To make certain that all our products meet the highest natural standards, 

we carefully craft them using time-tested, proven recipes with ingredients that are 

the best nature has to offer: beeswax, botanical and essential oils, herbs, flowers 

and minerals. These safe, effective ingredients have withstood the test of time. And 

because of that, we never use any ingredient that isn’t proven safe and effective. 

This fine attention to quality is recognized by our consumers; for the past two years, 

college students around the country have recognized us as one of the Top 10 Socially 

Responsible Companies through the Alloy U awards. 

Burt’s Bees has a long-standing commitment to the environment, which is a central component of our mission. We are committed to leading innovation in our 

choices for packaging, using materials that are biodegradable, recycled and/or recyclable. We strive to operate our business with constant attention to minimizing our 

impact, including reducing our energy and water use and educating and inspiring 

our employees to change personal habits. For example, our company grew 26 percent in 2007 and, through the work of our dedicated team, was able to reduce our 

energy use by 2 percent. In 2008, the Carolina Recycling Association gave Burt’s 

Bees an award for the Best Business Recycling Program, which was developed and 

51

led by volunteer employees. This year, we also led the first annual Planet Earth 

Celebration in Raleigh, NC, attended by over 15,000 members of our community. 

Burt’s Bees got its start back in 1984 in Maine, when Roxanne Quimby and Burt 

Shavitz teamed up selling candles and lip balm made from the beeswax created as 

a by-product of Burt’s honey business. At the very first craft fair, they sold $200 

worth, and by the end of the first year, sales climbed to $20,000. As the company 

grew, they realized the need to relocate to best position for further growth and 

brought the company to North Carolina in 1993. Since then, company growth has 

been a testament to individuals living the ‘American Dream,’ with the company experiencing double-digit growth year over year, reaching $350 million in retail sales 

in 2007. 

Actions to Support Honeybee Health: 

Burt’s Bees has chosen to take a holistic approach to supporting honeybee health. 

Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, has been the catalyst for increased research efforts, even though it is one of a myriad of challenges confronting honeybees, beekeepers, and growers who require pollination services as a vital stage in crop production. While the causes for Colony Collapse Disorder are unknown, we do know 

that forces such as habitat destruction, misuse of pesticides, invasive species and 

global warming create risks to honeybees. 

Research is critical to providing the knowledge and science-based solutions needed 

to address CCD and a host of other challenges threatening the health and sustainability of honeybees and other pollinators. We commend the increasing efforts by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct and coordinate research on CCD 

and other challenges impacting honeybees and other pollinators, such as USDA’s 

CCD research action plan launched last summer. 

We also applaud this Subcommittee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Congress 

for enacting a new farm bill that for the first time includes pollinator-specific research and conservation provisions laying the groundwork for further action. 

Burt’s Bees urges the Congress to provide additional funding for pollinator research and conservation in the Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations. We also urge the 

research and conservation agencies at USDA to take maximum advantage of the 

new pollinator provisions in the farm bill in implementing their programs. 

I believe business, along with government, can collaborate as a powerful force to 

positively impact our changing environment. At Burt’s Bees, we feel a responsibility 

to take action directly, given the gravity of the situation. After considering options 

on how best to help, Burt’s Bees joined forces last fall with the Pollinator Partnership. We are providing funding for research projects through the Pollinator Partnership’s Honeybee Health Improvement Project, which is focusing on four critical 

areas:

1. Breeding stock improvements

2. Best practices for commercial beekeeping

3. Effects of pesticides and chemicals

4. Improving nutritional resources

The Honeybee Health Improvement Project is being managed by the Honeybee 

Health Improvement Task Force of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC). NAPPC is a tri-national, public-private sector collaboration facilitated by the Pollinator Partnership. With a well-respected team of researchers guiding the project, we believe their work will go a long way in improving honeybee 

health and sustainability. 

Additional information about the Task Force and research projects is provided in 

the testimony of the Pollinator Partnership as well as at www.pollinator.org/honeybeelhealth.htm.

As a bee-friendly company, we know the critical role bees play in our ecosystem. 

We are proud to support this Task Force and believe the research projects will yield 

outcomes that will help improve the health of bees and indeed benefit all of us who 

depend upon their industrious pollination labors. 

Burt’s Bees has been so pleased with the progress and quality of existing efforts 

that we have already committed to a second year in partnering with the Pollinator 

Partnership. 

Increasing Public Awareness and Encouraging Consumers to Take Action: 

Burt’s Bees believes that when individual citizens become aware of environmental 

challenges and are given information about simple actions they can take to help, 

many will be inspired to take action. Individual actions can collectively make a difference. 

52

Last year Burt’s Bees produced a 60-second Public Service Announcement (PSA) 

(http://www.burtsbees.com) that describes the CCD problem and outlines basic actions our consumers can take to help, including purchasing locally grown organic 

foods and planting bee-pollinated flower seeds. Visitors to our website are encouraged to visit the Pollinator Partnership’s website (http://www.pollinator.org) for 

more information. 

The PSA launched last November, generating over 5 million impressions in its 

first few weeks. Through the PSA and our website, we distributed over 50,000 seed 

packets in just 8 weeks. That’s millions of flowers planted around the country that 

represent forage for honeybees and other pollinators. We continue to educate consumers with the PSA this year on our website and as part of our 2008 Bee-utify 

Your World Mobile Tour, which will be visiting 30 cities around the United States. 

While we know flower seed packets aren’t the cure, we hope they’ll help broadcast 

the problem and educate consumers about the life-giving role that bees play in a 

healthy, balanced food chain. 

This year, Burt’s Bees is taking another step to increase public awareness and 

contribute funding to support pollinator protection efforts by launching a ‘‘Help the 

Honeybees’’ Beeswax Lip Balm, with 5 percent of proceeds directed to support the 

Pollinator Partnership’s Honeybee Health Improvement Project. The lip balm package and supporting in-store displays publicize the issue, the need to take action and 

where to learn more about what can be done to help. 

In closing, we at Burt’s Bees truly believe that by helping to save the bees, we 

save a lot more than the bees. That is why we are motivated to support pollinator 

health research to increase public awareness and encourage individuals to take action. 

We appreciate the time, attention and leadership you are devoting to the health 

of our pollinating partners.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony. 

And finally, we have with us today Ms. Laurie Davies Adams, 

Executive Director of the Pollinator Partnership from San Francisco, California. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF LAURIE DAVIES ADAMS, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, POLLINATOR PARTNERSHIP, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Ms. DAVIES ADAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify. I am Laurie Davies Adams and 

I am the Executive Director of the Pollinator Partnership, a nonprofit promoting sustainable agriculture and biodiversity through 

research, education, conservation, policy and partnerships, and our 

largest initiative is the management of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, or NAPPC, which is a public-private 

collaboration of over 125 North American stakeholders from industry, government, NGOs and science to be proactive in their support 

of the health of all pollinators. So, we concern ourselves not just 

with bees but with butterflies, beetles, bats, birds and more. 

Now, you have heard that the critical role of animal pollinators 

in American agriculture is clear. It underscores the need, however, 

to have a continued focus on the totality of pollination systems. 

That includes managed and solitary bees but also other animals. 

The loss of habitat has been identified by the National Academy of 

Sciences as one of the irrefutable factors in the decline of pollinators. Pollinators suffer from real estate scarcity. Both commercial bees and natives face diminishing floral resources and nesting 

sites. The reason: development, pesticide misuse, invasive species, 

edge-to-edge farming. They have all contributed to the disappearance and fragmentation of habitat. 

This week, National Pollinator Week, we introduce a program on 

our website, pollinator.org, called Selecting Plants for Pollinators, 

a series of ecoregional guides that are available free of charge to 

53

farmers and ranchers, public land managers, professional home 

gardeners and home gardeners, and the general public to help solve 

the habitat problem. The guides are step-by-step instruction manuals with specific plant lists and bloom periods for each ecoregion, 

and to help people know their ecoregion, we have created a ZIP 

Code habitat locator and that we developed with the U.S. Geological Survey and NBII. It provides Google satellite data to determine 

the exact habitat and then connects to an ecoregional guide. The 

first six guides roll out this week, two more each month until September when we will complete all 35 next year at the end of 2009, 

and with your permission I will show you this right after my testimony. 

Why have ecoregional guides? They provide the best science for 

critical pollinator habitat. All of our NALC partners, but most especially NRCS and CSREES, NACD and the Forest Service will help 

distribute links. Now, why is this so important to agriculture? 

These guides were developed on a model from Montana NRCS, a 

project developed by State Conservationist, Dave White, who pioneered WHIP and EQIP support for pollinator-friendly plantings. 

So our guides expand that opportunity across the country and specifically support the recent inclusion of pollinator plantings in the 

farm bill. 

I think we can all feel proud of all of the work and all the testimony you have heard today and contributions by groups like NALC 

and by visionary companies like Burt’s Bees and Ha ̈agen-Dazs and 

also by vast numbers of everyday citizens. This issue resonates 

with people more than any agricultural and conservation issue I 

can remember. It crosses every age, every demographic and every 

political stripe. People care about bees, but they also want to do 

something. America is awakening to the terrifying prospect that 

our pollinator and the agro- and ecosystems that they support are 

in jeopardy, but I also want to assure that you Americans are also 

expressing their eagerness to step forward to engage in positive result-producing actions. Thanks to the ecoregional guides, there is 

something important to contribute on the ground. It is just one 

step, but it is significant. You have heard today about problems 

that involve nutrition, that involve pesticides and foraging. This is 

a first step that we can do in every Congressional district in every 

state, in every city, on every farm, in every school. We can do it 

now. It is part of a comprehensive approach that we applaud this 

Committee for having. 

We applaud your leadership and we hope that you will continue 

to push this as much as it deserves. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davies Adams follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURIE DAVIES ADAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLLINATOR

PARTNERSHIP, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify about the status of research and other activities related to the health of 

honeybees and other pollinators. My name is Laurie Davies Adams, and I am Executive Director of the Pollinator Partnership. 

54

1Founded as the Coevolution Institute, now does business as the Pollinator Partnership. 

Interest of the Pollinator Partnership: 

The Pollinator Partnership (P2) 1 is a nonprofit organization headquartered in San 

Francisco, California. P2’s mission is to catalyze stewardship of biodiversity. P2 

places a high priority on efforts to protect and enhance animal pollinators (invertebrates, birds and mammals) and their habitats in both working and wild lands. 

More information about P2 may be accessed at http://www.pollinator.org.

P2 is a strong advocate of a collaborative, science-based approach. P2 is honored 

to have a number of beneficial pollinator partnership efforts ongoing through management of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC), a tri-national, public-private collaboration of scientific researchers, managers and other employees of state and federal agencies, private industry and conservation and environmental groups dedicated to ensuring sustainable populations of pollinating invertebrates, birds and mammals throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico. 

NAPPC’s voluntary participants from over 125 entities are working together to 

proactively:

♦ Promote awareness and scientific understanding of pollinators;

♦ Gather, organize and disseminate information about pollinators;

♦ Provide a forum to identify and discuss pollinator issues; and

♦ Promote projects, initiatives and activities that enhance pollinators.

Since its founding in 1999, NAPPC has been an instrumental cooperative conservation force in focusing attention on the importance of pollinators and the need 

to protect them throughout North America. More information about NAPPC and its 

collaborative efforts can be found at http://www.nappc.org.

Pollinators Play Critical Role in Agriculture and Are at Risk: 

Insect and other animal pollinators play a pivotal part in the production of food 

that humans eat—with estimates as high as one out of every three bites—and in 

the reproduction of at least 80 percent of flowering plants. The commodities produced with the help of animal pollinators generate significant income for agricultural producers. For example, domestic honeybees pollinate an estimated $15 billion 

worth of crops in the U.S. each year, produced on more than 2 million acres. It is 

increasingly recognized that native bees also contribute significantly, providing 

‘‘free’’ ag pollination services. Recent estimates credit native pollinators for providing about $3 billion annually in crop pollination services. 

The cost for pollination services as a purchased agricultural input has actually increased at a higher rate than energy prices over the past several years. The availability and reliability of these pollination services are no longer certain. It is thus 

in the economic interest of both agriculture and American consumers to help ensure 

a healthy, sustainable population of honeybees and native pollinators. 

Today, possible declines in the health and population of pollinators in North 

America and globally pose what could be a significant threat to the integrity of biodiversity, to global food webs, and to human health. A number of pollinator species 

are at risk. Due to several reported factors, the number of commercially managed 

honeybee colonies in the U.S. has declined from 5.9 million in the 1940’s to 4.3 million in 1985 and 2.5 million in 1998. All indications are the problem has worsened 

in recent years. 

About 900,000 rented colonies are employed to pollinate 500,000 acres of just one 

major cash crop, almonds, grown in California—and that acreage is increasing. Producers of other specialty crops are increasingly concerned about the reliability and 

cost of pollination services. Availability and reliability of pollination services are the 

top priority to producers—simply stated, no pollination, no crop!

CCD Wakeup Call for Pollinator Conservation Action: 

Even as efforts are appropriately focused on research to find out how to address 

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and other issues related to pollinator health, there 

are scientifically based actions we can take. We have the scientific understanding 

to know that improving habitat for both honeybees and native pollinators is an important tool to improve pollinator health. Here are some conservation actions that 

can be taken now:

♦ Farmers can incorporate pollinator-beneficial practices now in their conservation efforts.

55

♦ Congress can help now by funding research and conservation provisions under 

the new Farm Bill to realize their potential to provide farmers and ranchers 

with pollinator assistance.

♦ USDA can help now by implementing pollinator provisions in the new Farm 

Bill, coordinating efforts and collaborating with the ag community and other 

natural resource managers.

♦ P2 pledges to help now by continuing to facilitate collaborative efforts on pollinator research, conservation and public awareness.

♦ All Americans can help now with pollinator-friendly practices in their own back 

yards. 

New Ecoregional Guides Tool for Native Habitat for Pollinators: 

To empower stakeholders with the information needed to move forward with pollinator habitat conservation efforts on the ground, P2 is pleased to announce the National Pollinator Week launch of the first six in a new series of practical Ecoregional 

Guides, ‘‘Selecting Plants for Pollinators.’’ There are 35 ecoregions in the United 

States, and within two years there will be a guide released for each ecoregion. Two 

new guides each will be released in July, August and September. 

These guides are intended to be practical tools for farmers, ranchers and gardeners who want to establish habitat for honeybees and native pollinators through 

native plants that are specific to their own region. The guides are available in 

downloadable form for free at http://www.pollinator.org along with information 

about how to use them. Exhibit 1 is a short Q&A on the guides. Exhibit 2 is a 

1-page flier on the new guides that is being widely distributed. 

What is an ecoregion? Why aren’t we developing guides by state or county or other 

familiar geographic delineation? Scientists in USDA and elsewhere told us that 

plants and pollinators don’t ‘‘think’’ along state or county lines. Scientists recommended that we use an established system of ecoregions that could be used to 

match native plants and pollinators. Ecoregions (ecological regions, or bioregions) 

denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. The biodiversity of flora, fauna (including pollinators) and ecosystems that characterize an ecoregion tend to be distinct from that 

of other ecoregions. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and 

implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. 

You have no idea what your ecoregion address is? P2 was struggling with a way 

to connect this tool to potential users. Our partners at the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) pointed us to an existing online system. NBII is a 

broad, collaborative program to provide increased access to data and information on 

the nation’s biological resources. 

All you need is your ZIP Code, and our online ZIP Code Habitat Locator will 

connect you to your ecosystem map and guide. If the guide for your ecoregion is not 

yet available, you can enter your e-mail address and receive an alert when it becomes available. 

For illustrative purposes, Exhibit 3 is the full ecoregional guide for the Central 

Appalachian Broadleaf Forest. As indicated on the map on page 7 of the guide, this 

ecoregion includes the District of Columbia and parts of Virginia and Maryland, 

with the region portions of states from Pennsylvania to South Carolina. The first 

part of each guide covers standard information, including:

♦ Why pollinators are important, and Getting started

♦ Understanding the ecoregion covered by the guide

♦ Meet the pollinators, and Which flowers the pollinators prefer

♦ Developing landscape plantings that provide pollinator habitat

♦ Tips for—Farmers, Public land managers, and Home landscapes

Each guide provides plant-pollinator information specific to that ecoregion, including (1) Bloom periods; (2) Native plants that attract pollinators; and (3) Habitat 

hints. Finally, each guide provides additional resources and tips, including (1) Habitat and nesting requirements different pollinators; (2) Basic checklist; and (3) Where 

to access additional information. 

It is important to emphasize that the guides are science-based and that great care 

has been taken to avoid including any invasive species in selecting the recommended lists of native plants specific to each ecoregion. 

The guides are being funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the 

C.S. Fund, the Plant Conservation Alliance, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau 

56

of Land Management. P2 is providing oversight. NAPPC volunteers have provided 

expertise in the development of the guides. The concept was also reviewed by a 

number of agencies and trade associations like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Garden Association. The guides will undergo continuing review and can be readily updated since they are maintained online. 

The ecoregional guides were inspired by ‘‘Montana Native Plants for PollinatorFriendly Plantings,’’ a pamphlet published in 2005 by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Montana under the leadership of David White, State 

Conservationist. The pamphlet was offered to farmers and ranchers and nurseries. 

On a trial basis, the State NRCS offered bonus eligibility points in selected costshare programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to farmers and ranchers who opted to 

include pollinator habitat in their conservation efforts. P2 is conducting a follow up 

study under a Conservation Innovation Grant from the Montana NRCS—including 

a survey, field visits and a demonstration site to determine how well the program 

worked and how it could be made better in the future. One thing we have learned 

from this initiative is that native plantings differ in different parts of Montana. This 

helped prompt our effort to look for better approaches, which ultimately led to the 

ecoregional planting guides. 

P2 hopes to collaborate with NRCS, using the Montana pamphlet and the improved information in the ecoregional guides to develop similar user-friendly pamphlets for other states. 

National Academy Report Blueprint for Science-Based Actions: 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a major report in late 2006—

before CCD became an issue of concern—on the status and health of pollinators in 

North America that included a number of recommendations on research and conservation action. That report was released at a day-long Pollinator Symposium put 

together by P2/NAPPC and hosted by USDA. The NAS study came about as a result 

of a 4-year campaign by NAPPC partners and was supported by 52 national organizations including major farm, commodity and agribusiness groups. Diverse stakeholders found common ground in the principle that sound science is essential to 

guiding policies and actions related to the future of pollinators. In essence, the report from a cadre of top researchers in North America recommends that we must 

(1) improve our scientific understanding, (2) increase awareness about the amazing 

world of pollinators and their importance to our food supply and healthy ecosystems, 

and (3) take action to protect pollinators and their habitat. These recommendations 

are now serving as a science-based blueprint as we move forward on research, conservation and other initiatives. 

P2/NAPPC Honeybee Health Task Force Research Efforts: 

To help address multiple concerns about the health of our nation’s honeybees, last 

fall P2 facilitated the establishment of a Honeybee Health Improvement Task Force 

through NAPPC. Top scientists from universities and federal agencies were recruited and teamed up with leading representatives of the beekeeping community. 

Burt’s Bees stepped up and donated vital funding to support the Task Force at 

NAPPC’s International Pollinator Summit, hosted by the Department of the Interior 

last October. P2 applauds the leadership provided by Burt’s Bees and major contributions for research on honeybee health and sustainable pollination to the University of California-Davis and Penn State by Ha ̈agen Dazs. Ha ̈agen Dazs has joined 

the growing P2 team this year as a partner and sponsor. An exciting but less well 

known story is that individuals from all walks of life are also making contributions 

to help support pollinator health efforts, from school children to private individuals 

and foundations. 

The Task Force has worked to identify specific research needs that would complement research being funded by USDA. In response to a request for proposals, 

nineteen eligible proposals were received from applicants all around North America, 

totaling more than $200,000 in funding requests. The caliber and diversity of the 

proposals received speak to the importance of and need for honeybee health research. The five one-year grants awarded cover a broad range of honey bee related 

topics such as the effects of climate or environmental variables, the effects of nutrition on honey bee physiology and/or colony health, the effects of sublethal doses of 

pesticides (including miticides) on honey bee physiology and/or colony health, and 

genetic stock improvement. A list of proposals that have been awarded follows:

♦ ‘‘Assessment of sublethal effects of imidacloprid on honey bee and colony health’’ (University of Maryland Foundation; Dively and Embrey)

♦ ‘‘Diagnostic gene panel for honey bee breeding and disease management’’ (USDA–ARS Bee Research Lab; Evans and Chen)

57

♦ ‘‘Effects of miticide and Fumagilin-B on honey bee survivorship and 

immune responses’’ (Acadia University; Little, Shutler, and others)

♦ ‘‘Changes in hormonal and protein levels in honey bees that are experiencing migratory transportation’’ (Michigan State University; Huang)

♦ ‘‘Nutritional effects on intestinal health and longevity of honey bee 

workers’’ (University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Rueppell)

A more complete description of the Honeybee Health Task Force and research 

projects is provided in Exhibit 4 and at http://www.pollinator.org/honeybeelhealth.htm.

We appreciate the increasing efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) to conduct and coordinate research on CCD and other challenges impacting 

honeybees and other pollinators, such as USDA’s CCD research action plan 

launched last summer. We also applaud this Subcommittee, the Agriculture Committee and the Congress for enacting a new farm bill that for the first time includes 

pollinator-specific research and conservation provisions that lay the groundwork for 

additional action. The Pollinator Partnership is urging the Congress to provide additional funding for pollinator research and conservation in the Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations. We also urge the research and conservation agencies at USDA to take 

maximum advantage of the new pollinator provisions in the farm bill in implementing their programs. 

New Farm Bill Provides New Pollinator Protection Provisions: 

P2 commends this Subcommittee and the Congress for including pollinator-beneficial provisions in the research, conservation and specialty crops titles of the new 

Farm Bill. A summary is available at http://www.pollinator.org/Resources/

PollinatingtheFarmBill,ConferenceReportSummary.pdf.

Conservation programs can be highly effective in addressing factors which can 

contribute to pollinator declines including: habitat fragmentation, loss, and degradation causing a reduction of food sources and sites for mating, nesting, roosting, and 

migration; improper use of pesticides and herbicides; aggressive competition from 

non-native species; disease, predators, and parasites; climate change; and lack of floral diversity. Effective pollinator protection practices often overlap and complement 

other conservation practices, particularly those designed to improve wildlife habitat, 

and vice versa. In other instances, a practice designed to achieve wildlife or other 

conservation practices could generate significant pollinator benefits by integrating 

modest enhancements. 

The focused objective of targeted modifications to authorizing language is to better 

equip and direct USDA research and conservation agencies to build on current pollinator-related efforts by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Cooperative 

State, Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) and other agencies and to help farmers, ranchers, foresters and other private natural resources incorporate pollinator needs in their conservation efforts. Pollinators, agriculture and healthy ecosystems deserve no less. 

Pollinator Importation Can Do More Harm Than Good: 

If CCD and other pollinator health issues continue to threaten ag pollination services, P2 cautions against scrambling to fill the void by importing non-native pollinator species from other countries or other eco-regions. If CCD proves to be a persistent problem, the pressure to allow such remedies could grow. We need to avoid 

compounding one problem by unintentionally creating others that could make the 

situation far worse. Imported species intended for a good use can quickly become 

out-of-control invasive species (including pests and diseases the imported species 

may carry and introduce). The unintended consequences could overwhelm the beneficial effects of research and conservation measures and actions facilitated by the 

Farm Bill. 

This problem and the demonstrated risks involved are so great that NAPPC collaborators teamed up in 2006 and produced a ‘‘Bee Importation White Paper’’ focused on the risks and consequences of importing non-native bumble bees. The following excerpt captures what is at stake:

‘‘Non-native species introductions may have dramatic negative consequences. In 

the last century, invasive species of all types have cost the U.S. an estimated 

$137 billion in damages (Pimentel et al. 2000). Yet introductions of exotic plants 

and animals persist, partly because those who introduce exotic plants and animals may not fully understand or bear the consequences of their behavior 

(Perrings et al. 2002), which can be devastating on both economic and ecological 

scales.’’ [p. 23]

58

The report is available at http://www.pollinator.org/Resources/

BEEIMPORTATIONlAUG2006.pdf and includes a number of key recommendations. If trans-boundary shipments of pollinating species are considered, the greatest 

care must be undertaken in developing effective protocols to prevent such unintended consequences. 

National Pollinator Week June 22–28, 2008: 

June 22–28, 2008 was designated as National Pollinator Week through a proclamation by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer. A number of events across the nation to celebrate and raise public awareness about our pollinating partners and the 

need to take actions that protect pollinators and their habitat. For example—

♦ On June 25, P2 hosted a briefing on the status and plight of bees and other 

pollinators.

♦ Governors in 26 States have signed proclamations Pollinator Week at the State 

level.

♦ Pollinator Week activities and events are occurring in at least 38 States and 

Canada.

♦ P2 has launched the first six Ecoregional Guides, ‘‘Selecting Plants for Pollinators.’’

♦ P2 is signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Association 

of Conservation Districts (NACD), with the first action focused on the 

Ecoregional Guides.

♦ Pollinator Podcasts produced in partnership with the Department of the Interior http://www.pollinator.org/podcast.htm.

♦ Free items, including ‘‘Bounty of Bees’’ Poster and Pollinator Wheels.

The goal is to encourage actions in support of pollinators through the year. More 

information is available at (http://www.pollinator.org/pollinatorlweekl2008.htm). 

CoE stands ready to work with this Subcommittee and interested stakeholders to 

help ensure that honeybees and native pollinators are sustained for the benefit of 

agriculture, consumers and healthy ecosystems. 

Respectfully Submitted,

LAURIE DAVIES ADAMS,

Executive Director.


11039005
59

EXHIBIT 1


11039006
60


11039007
61

EXHIBIT 2


11039008
62

EXHIBIT 3


11039009
63


11039010
64


11039011
65


11039012
66


11039013
67


11039014
68


11039015
69


11039016
70


11039017
71


11039018
72


11039019
73


11039020
74


11039021
75


11039022
76


11039023
77


11039024
78


11039025
79


11039026
80


11039027
81


11039028
82


11039029
83


11039030
84


11039031
85


11039032
86

EXHIBIT 4


11039033
87


11039034
88


11039035
89

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Davies Adams. You 

had mentioned that you wanted to share something with us right 

after your testimony. Do you want to do that at this time? 

Ms. DAVIES ADAMS. Yes. If you go to pollinator.org, you will see 

this page. If you go to the next page, if you were to go up to the 

corner where the ecoregional guides are, you would go to a page 

that then asks you if you already know your ecoregion, you can get 

the guide for free, but you can also type in your ZIP Code and find 

your ecoregion. It will connect you to a map. This, for example, is 

a map that includes this area but it also shows you your total 

ecoregion. I actually have your ecoregion, Chairman. I can identify 

it for you but that guide is not coming until our next round. You 

are in the California dry step province. 

But I think what is interesting is, this is a new way for people 

to actually look at where they live. A lot of people say, think global, 

act local. Local really means your habitat. It really means a natural system of which you are a part along with plants and animals, 

so this is a system we hope everyone will take advantage of. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I couldn’t agree more. 

Mr. Godlin, I want to start by asking you a question. Concerns 

continue to be raised over the impact of agricultural pesticides on 

honey bee populations. In the March 2007 hearing of this Committee, we asked those questions, and my experience has been that 

farmers and ranchers are generally incredibly wise users of agricultural pesticides. In fact, there are two reasons. First of all, they 

know the impacts of those pesticides and they want to be judicious 

in their application, and second of all, pesticides cost dollars, and 

they don’t want to apply any more and increase their cost any more 

than necessary. So generally I found that farmers are very responsible users of pesticides, and follow the label directions on pesticides that have impacts on these practices to minimize those effects, is my understanding. Yet concern over the role of pesticides 

continues to appear. Many of you mentioned it in your testimony 

today. We have heard it several times. I would like for each of you 

to discuss as you are capable of in greater detail your perspective 

on pesticide use vis-a`-vis this problem, and as I asked last year, is 

labeling the problem, is it an education problem, does EPA need to 

reassess its methodology for registering pesticides in view of what 

has been claimed to be potentially lethal and sublethal effects on 

the bee population. We will start with you, Mr. Godlin, and then 

we will go down in the same order as you originally testified. 

Mr. GODLIN. Thank you. It is true that they don’t want to apply 

anything they don’t need to, and———

The CHAIRMAN. That being farmers? 

Mr. GODLIN. Farmers, and we are, as I said, we rent bees for almonds and we rent bees for seed alfalfa on the J.G. Boswell Company. They spray us. We know they are going to spray us. I don’t 

put that many hives in that contract for that reason, but we always 

had a relationship with that company forever. They have tried very 

hard not to kill bees. They have worked on a number of concoctions 

trying to do as little damage as they can, and yet still protect their 

crop. Other crops that we sit around are corn, alfalfa and cotton, 

and again, these are places where I am sitting to try to benefit my 

bees with pollen and nectar, and farmers don’t grow crops for bees, 

90

they grow crops to sell to make money, and I am a guest. I pay 

them honey. I give them whiskey at Christmas. I am their best 

friend, and I am registering with the counties for pesticide notification so I can either move the bees out or not go, and we do have 

registration and pesticide notification that has been very helpful. 

But again, I am not going to tell that man, hey, you can’t spray 

your crop. I am gone. He is going to say ‘‘What? You know, I am 

not growing this for you,’’ and this is the problem is, we don’t have 

a way to—I have to take the hit or not go, and if I don’t go, I am 

sitting on what we call fencepost honey or dirt clod honey and 

those don’t exist, so I am kind of forced to go to these locations year 

after year. Some years are worse than others. Some years, bug 

pressure is not bad, we don’t have a problem. Other years, it is terrible and we are forced to pull out, give up, get out, it is bad, don’t 

go. But we go to these growers with our hat in our hand to ask 

for these locations, and that is the problem. We don’t have the authority or the right to tell these guys what to do with their crop. 

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that. Let me ask a follow-up. 

With regard to, you were talking about one farmer that you still 

provide your bees to, you know they are going to spray. Have you 

seen significant detrimental effects post spray in those areas? Is 

that something that———

Mr. GODLIN. Sometimes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sometimes? So it may not be the cause all the 

time? 

Mr. GODLIN. No, I don’t think so. I know that they keep working 

on better and better materials, like the imidacloprid to get rid of 

the organophosphates that everybody knows are harmful. But as 

far as the labeling and things, I am not a scientist. I am not a 

spray guy. I just know that I think progress is being made, but it 

is terribly slow. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment on this 

question? Yes, let us go on the order. Mr. Mendes. 

Mr. MENDES. I think it is important to say that we are really not 

talking about misuse of pesticides. Certainly that could happen but 

that is not our concern right now. I have been in the pollination 

business 30 years. I work with 200 cranberry growers. I work with 

vine crops in Florida. Growers are responsible for the most part. 

You get an exception once in a while, but that is not my experience 

at all. Growers aren’t the problem. The mode of action of the products that we are concerned with now has changed and the regulation has not kept up with it. The way that pesticides are regulated 

under EPA right now is a system called LD50s. It is a lethal dose 

that it kills a certain percentage of the bees, and the new products 

that we are concerned about have very low toxicity to adult bees. 

That is not our concern. We have dealt with that over the years. 

You get a bee kill, you get a lot of dead bees on the ground, you 

know what you hit, you know what happened, you move on with 

that, and I think that is what Steve was talking about. 

But what has happened now, these new products, these 

systemics, they can be applied to the soil, they can be applied 

foliarly, they can be seed treated on corn, for instance. Corn is coming up everywhere. The price of corn is sky high. People that have 

had problems in the Midwest in the last 2 years, they planted corn 

91

near their bee yards, all of a sudden their bees are coming apart 

and they don’t come apart right away. The way these products 

work is, it does not kill the adult bees. The bees come back to the 

hive, it goes into the pollen. They feed that pollen to the bees in 

the developmental stages and it affects the nervous system of the 

bees. The reason we know this is, if you read the research on how 

these products are used in a normal way to treat termites, this is 

what they say, that it affects feeding behavior, it affects the immune system of the insect and it creates memory loss. That is what 

we are seeing in our hives. If you want to understand CCD, the 

frustrating thing is that the cause and effect seem separate. You 

could be exposed in March or April and your bees look fine through 

the summer. Come October, first little bit of cold snap or first time 

when there is no food coming into the hive, they are coming apart, 

or even in January they are coming apart. So the whole mode of 

action has changed. 

So it is not a misuse. The farmers aren’t the problem. It is the 

products that they have to work with, and the difficulty right now 

is these new products are the wave of the future. I talked to my 

blueberry growers, I talk to my cranberry growers. They are pulling the organophosphates and they are replacing them with these 

products and it is scaring me to death because I can’t—I don’t even 

know when I am hit. It has made the bees sick and you can’t fix 

that once it is inside the hive. So it is a very different process than 

what we have dealt with in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Anyone else want to speak specifically to this? Let us go in order. 

Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like 

to say that I agree with Mr. Mendes that the farmers are going to 

use what they have available to them. Now, what tests the EPA 

are conducting with regard to the honey bees, we can’t control that. 

Obviously it is a concern for us. We want to use these products as 

a tool, and in the most cost-effective and safe way as possible for 

the environment and for us. 

One thing I think we need to be aware of, I think that a problem 

of this magnitude and what we are seeing happen to the honey bee 

in general, I think it is going to be like any other disaster. There 

is no one cause. I think at the end of the day when we figure this 

out, if it is tomorrow or if it is 15 years from now, it is going to 

be a multipronged issue that has several variations of problems to 

it. I think pesticides can be the easy scapegoat right now in the 

early stages and I will just push for more testing, more research, 

and that is definitely what we need at the university level because 

the first thing, pesticides cause everything from cancer to baldness, 

just the first thing you shoot off the hip from, and I think we need 

to be very careful, but we do need to address the issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I agree with you, sir, because it seems a little bit fishy to me. I don’t dispute at all what Mr. Mendes says. 

I believe———

Mr. EDWARDS. And neither do I. 

The CHAIRMAN.—it is very plausible. But on the other hand, you 

are seeing wild bees be affected. You are seeing bees being affected 

in other countries that wouldn’t have access to those products. So 

92

the fact that this is global in nature lends itself to the belief that 

there may be multiple causes, or there may be one cause that is 

affecting us that we haven’t figured out yet. It could be just bees 

are made weaker by a combination of all these factors and then 

they are being more susceptible to diseases that then get spread 

through global transportation methods that are now being employed. 

Mr. Flanagan, then Ms. Davies Adams. 

Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza. One quick comment. I have been in agriculture a long time and I am a believer 

in the benefits of the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Those two Acts came out of a crisis 

of the 1960s and I think it produced the safest food supply in the 

world and some of the best turnarounds in water quality possible. 

So having said that though, I think in the beekeeping world, the 

CEO of a beekeeping company is the same guy that drives the 

truck up to your land, that puts the bees out, that watches them. 

So, when these guys give anecdotal evidence about what they are 

seeing, that is the essential common sense of the matter and I 

think what it has caused us to wonder at Wyman’s is about the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the EPA 

that governs it, maybe we should review how the practices are 

done. What they have observed does make you wonder about the 

impact, the growing impact of our chemicals. All of us are certainly 

motivated to use less and less chemicals, both from our customer 

base and from our own cost profiles, but we need some of them, yet 

then we listen to the stories of these fellows and we think we have 

to step back and take a look at the whole rulemaking process, I believe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Davies Adams, the last person to come in on this question. 

Ms. DAVIES ADAMS. This will be a quick recap of answering some 

of your questions. You asked about labeling. Yes, it is an issue. We 

need to work on more effective, easier to read, and easier to understand labels. We also need to think about multiple exposures. This 

is part of what the reality of the world is now. We need to also look 

at the mix and the combination of chemicals which are creating exposures. We also need to look at sublethal effects, which currently 

we don’t look at, that is an easy thing to add, and long-term effects. 

Part of this is regulatory, part of this is monitoring, but we also 

need to look at the applicator certification programs state by state. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Mendes, I have a couple questions for you. You make reference to regulatory action in Germany and France. This is sort of 

a follow-up on the pesticide question. You make reference to regulatory action in Germany and France to restrict certain systemic 

pesticides. It is my understanding that European beekeepers are 

still suffering significant and nearly the same losses, if not more, 

despite these regulatory actions, and that the German decision was 

based on the action of a type of European planting equipment on 

the seed coating containing the pesticide rather than the misuse of 

the pesticide itself, as we were talking about earlier. Do you have 

any specific information on general health and condition of European bees that you can help us with? It is my understanding that 

93

there have been no specific reports of significant honey bee incidents in the United States associated with the material that is in 

question in Germany, which is, as I understand it, clothianidin, 

which trade name is Poncho. So if you can———

Mr. MENDES. Sure. The situation in France was interesting. I 

will try to do this briefly. They did pull one particular product off 

for one particular crop. They couldn’t use imidacloprid on sunflowers. Well, what they replaced it with was the same basic type 

of product so they said well, we pulled the product and nothing improved but that really wasn’t a step ahead, and that is an ongoing 

issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have to throw that question out is what you 

are saying. You can’t say that———

Mr. MENDES. Well, you pull the imidacloprid and you replaced it 

with fipronil so they both have a similar mode of action. So, to say 

why didn’t it fix the problem, that is one thing that you put another product that had a similar mode of action. The second thing 

is, these products do stay in the soil. We know they are persistent 

in the soil. I don’t have to say ‘‘we think.’’ We know they are persistent in the soil. Some of our early information in looking at this 

issue came from Canada, where they would use soil applications on 

potatoes. Bees don’t work potatoes at all. They would put a soil application. The following year, they would rotate and put a cover 

crop of clover, and the bees would die from the clover a year later 

because this stuff stays in the soil for a long time. We know it 

stays there for a long time. The residuals are a big issue in all of 

this. Anything that is applied is there for a long time, very different than contact killers that once they are dry no longer are as 

much of a problem. 

As far as in this country, Poncho is used. I don’t believe you cannot purchase any good quality corn seed in this country that is not 

seed treated. The folks that are getting hit really bad right now are 

in areas where there hasn’t been corn traditionally. They have 

bought either CRP land or land that was on other crops to switch 

over to corn. This happened last summer. In the fall, the bees are 

coming apart. So these products are used here. It hasn’t been documented because the cause and effect isn’t clearly understood. There 

are a lot of beekeepers. This is not generally understood in the beekeeping world. Dave Hackenberg and I have started right from the 

beginning on this and we have done a lot of research, and I would 

love to have the data to either prove or disprove. That is really 

what we are asking is, give us the ability to collect the data. If we 

are wrong, nobody is going to be happier than us because this is 

such a big issue that it would be wonderful if this was just a specific bee virus that is causing this problem. We just don’t see that 

happening. 

And what I will add in, this is anecdotal but my own experience 

and experience of several beekeepers is, you bring your bees to an 

area where these products are being used. Several months later, 

they are collapsing. The bees that you left in the woods far away 

from those crops, they are just fine, and this has happened for 2 

years now. Anything that is exposed, several months later, those 

bees are no good. The bees that stayed away from it, same manageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
94

ment practices, those are fine. But you can’t change regulation with 

that kind of information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Correct. I understand that. Thank you. 

Let me follow up just briefly. Is there anyone here who uses their 

bees to pollinate organic crops? There are two names for this Committee. It is Horticulture and Organics. Organics are a growing 

area. It would make sense if what you say is correct that the organic fields wouldn’t have the same cause. Now, they could be next 

to a field that has some other products so that can’t be a direct necessary link but does anyone want to speak to that question? 

Mr. MENDES. Sure. I work with a couple of organic farms in Florida that grow vegetables, but they are adjacent to orange groves or 

something else where the bees are exposed and organic agriculture 

in this country is in small pockets. It is not widespread enough. 

And in my case, I pick up the bees and I move them. I take them 

to blueberries, I take them to cranberries, and so———

The CHAIRMAN. You can’t speak to the specific exposures? 

Mr. MENDES. No, not at all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. That question didn’t help us 

very much then. Mr. Mendes, I am going to follow up with you one 

more time, and that is, has the ABF conducted any assessment of 

the potential effects on the recent floods in the Midwest and the 

fires in the Southeast and in California, what those calamities 

might mean to bee production and your industry? 

Mr. MENDES. Well, we are farmers. I mean, we are subject to 

weather. Anybody who is in those areas certainly is devastated. It 

is more common to have problems with drought. I mean, we have 

had drought in several parts of the country for the last couple of 

years, California last summer. I mean, any weather-related incident is certainly going to affect beekeepers as much as anything, 

so the floods, the droughts, whatever we have is going to hurt 

things. The problem the industry is having is, we are in a weakened position already, so any additional damage is going to show 

up more. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Pien, can you tell us how your company began identifying 

pollinator health as an economic issue rather than simply as a 

marketing issue and that type of question? 

Ms. PIEN. Yes. We first discovered issues through reports from 

The New York Times and CBS’s 60 Minutes, and when we learned 

that honey bees are responsible for one out of every 3 bites that 

the Americans take, we felt compelled to leverage really the passion that consumers have for Ha ̈agen-Dazs ice cream to help draw 

attention to this crisis. You know, as I have spoken out, we did a 

survey and more than half of Americans aren’t even aware of the 

honey bee crisis, and given that this crisis impacts every one of us 

who cares about the food that we put into our mouths, we felt like 

this is an issue that we had to get involved in and help address 

and proactively take action towards. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Replogle, does your company own any of its own hives or do 

you just purchase the products that you put into your own products, purchase the ingredients, and how does your company view 

its support for the Pollinator Partnership long term, and what were 

95

the decisions that led you to support the program for a second 

year? 

Mr. REPLOGLE. Very good question. Currently, we do not have 

our own hives although our roots are from a beekeeper. Burt and 

Roxanne, the founders of our company, Burt is a beekeeper. In fact, 

I spoke to him on the way here this morning, and he is very passionate about this issue, as a beekeeper would be, and he believes 

that that has to be the force of business is to protect well-being. 

Our company’s mission is to make people’s lives better every day 

naturally, and this is a fundamental issue that goes back to the 

roots of our business, back to Burt as a beekeeper, and so today 

actually we source all of the bee byproducts from others. We do not 

have any of our own hives today but we are advised and guided by 

our legacy and by Burt, who is and has been an active beekeeper. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Davies Adams, thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate it. Can you tell us more about the process used by the Pollinator Partnership in deciding which proposals are funded? 

Ms. DAVIES ADAMS. We have a Honey Bee Health Improvement 

Committee that has a distinguished list of scientists, all of whom 

are listed in my written testimony, but they include the chair of 

the National Academy of Sciences study, May Barenbaum, Nick 

Calderone, Gene Robinson, a number of distinguished scientists 

who are already engaged, including ARS scientists. We put a Request for Proposals out to the scientific community and we received 

22 proposals. We had a review committee consisting of bee scientists who evaluated them and determined a ranking for each of 

the proposals, and we then funded the number of proposals that we 

had money for. Those that we thought were extremely important 

and vital, we went out and looked for money for and we actually 

received funding not just from our corporate partners but from an 

oncologist in Vermont, from a 4th-grade class in California. We 

have sought more funding because there were so many proposals 

that we felt were worthy. 

The CHAIRMAN. It really is amazing, the passion, when you talk 

about that 4th-grade class and others, the passion that has been 

brought to this issue from the grassroots and just concern by the 

public at large has been remarkable. I had interviews with a number of news media groups from all other the world including the 

BBC just last month, so I am very familiar with what you speak. 

That was my last question. I am going to turn it over now to Mr. 

Etheridge, who has a series of questions. Mr. Etheridge, the floor 

is yours. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first apologize to our panelists. I had a bill on the floor and I couldn’t be in 

two places at once, and we have a fairly important piece of legislation dealing with the CFTC and all the issues surrounding the 

issues we worry about today. So thank you, and I am sorry I wasn’t 

here, and if you have answered any of these questions when I get 

to them, just let me know and I will move to my next question. 

Mr. Replogle, it really is good to see another North Carolinian 

here today, so thank you for being here. 

Mr. REPLOGLE. Thank you, sir. 

96

Mr. ETHERIDGE. And I would venture to say with 400 people that 

drive in from a pretty good distance, and I would almost guess 

some of them live in my district, so I am going to take that as a 

yes anyway. But I don’t think you mentioned this in your testimony, but my question has to do with, has the CCD problem and 

the shortage of bees that it is creating thus far had an economic 

impact of significance on your business because you indicated you 

have no bees but you buy your wax from producers. So it stands 

to reason that you have a loss of hives across the country. You 

have to be expanding your area of where you are purchasing your 

materials. 

Mr. REPLOGLE. That is right. It goes back to simple supply and 

demand. We have a demand for direct pollinated products. Sixty 

percent of our products use ingredients that are linked to pollination by bees and another 40 percent of our products use direct 

byproduct, wax, beeswax or honey. And therefore our supply being 

curtailed and as we heard today in testimony, the crop yield 

shrinking or the ability to plant more crops being impacted by the 

plight of the honey bee is certainly increasing the cost of our raw 

material ingredients, our natural ingredients. So far we have been 

successfully able to offset those costs by efficiencies in our business, 

but along with other price increases and cost increases in our business, it is putting a strain on our business, on our well-being and 

on the choices we make every day in terms of the well-being of our 

employees. So to continue to thrive and grow in the Tarheel State, 

we need to have a national solution to the honey bee crisis so that 

further detriment to the crops, and therefore the costs of doing 

business, not only for Burt’s Bees but for the $4 billion natural personal care industry and the wider $50 billion personal care business is not impacted. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. I think a lot of folks don’t really 

think about this sometimes. They think it is truly an agricultural 

piece or a piece dealing with one segment but I think your point 

and each one of you made this indirectly, we are all linked together 

in this thing and it is more fragile than we want to admit where 

we are on this planet and our food supply is a part of that. 

Mr. Godlin, we hear more and more and we have heard testimony about how it is becoming imperative that bees have to travel 

greater distances simply because of the problems we face. My question to you is, not knowing a lot about it, can you tell us how well 

bees adapt to the travel, and also both moving from field to field 

and from, I guess at the same time, from one part of the country 

to another, from one environment to another, with humidity, high 

temperatures, cooler temperatures, what kind of impact———

Mr. GODLIN. It is a very precarious job. It is a very precarious 

job. You have to have good operators. You know, we contract all the 

interstate stuff from the Dakotas and Minnesota. All those bees are 

hired trucks. We just run our own trucks within the state, 22-foot 

flatbeds, and we move them at night. You can’t stop. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Why not? 

Mr. GODLIN. Well, the bees come home. The bees come home in 

the evening every night. All the foragers come in, get into the 

hives. You load them on the truck in the evening and move them 

to where you are going to go and unload them in the morning or 

97

in the middle of the night. It depends on the pressures to get it 

done. And the interstate trucking is that you have to have them 

netted and certain times of the year you can cook them. You can 

literally cook these bees, just like cattle. You have to———

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Tell us what you mean when you say ‘‘cook 

them.’’

Mr. GODLIN. Kill them. Overheat. You have to hose them 

down———

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I understand that, but we have cameras in the 

room and———

Mr. GODLIN. You have to hose them down and keep them cold 

and you have to run that truck all day long and fuel up at night 

and you have to plan your stops. It is pretty much a 3-day run, and 

you have to be diligent to do it right. You know, I have heard horror stories of guys unhooking in Vegas and taking off with the tractor and there sat the bees in the parking lot, crazy stuff. But it is 

a dangerous, delicate job that we just try to keep a low profile on. 

We don’t want people to know that when you are driving down I5 through L.A. that, you got a load of dynamite on your truck 

there. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GODLIN. There you are. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Edwards, let me also thank you for taking 

time. I know how busy things are on the farm right now, especially 

in North Carolina and I assume it is true in most of the country. 

And I think we all know just how serious this problem has become, 

and I don’t think there is any question the need for research is critical. I think this Committee knows that and certainly the Chairman does and he has pushed hard for it in the farm bill we passed 

and he is now talking about doing more. I think that is appropriate, given where we are with this situation. But you made a 

point I think we need to hear again about helping out the beekeepers who are on the verge of going out of business, because once 

they are gone, we are really going to be in a bind. All of us are 

going to have a problem because I don’t think folks want to go out 

and do like we did years ago with some commodities and actually 

pollinate them by hand, and we still do that for seeds and others 

and I don’t think folks understand that. Aside from some type of 

crop insurance for the beekeepers, what else do you think we can 

do to better assist them beyond that and research? And also, are 

you aware personally of any beekeepers certainly in your area that 

you deal with that just aren’t able to stay in business? You talked 

about having cut your production in half. How many other farmers 

that you are aware of in your region where an awful lot of cucumbers are grown that just are cutting back? 

Mr. EDWARDS. As far as the second question, as far as beekeepers, a very long-time beekeeper and I think some of the previous panel may have known him, will be quitting this year. It has 

just gotten too tough and I think he has fought it a little too long. 

It definitely is a labor of love to keep bees. I can pretty much tell 

you that these guys are not doing it for the money. So to me, they 

are very, very powerful ally. I know we talked and focused on saving the bees when we really need to be focused as well on saving 

the beekeeper. I think he is your number one ally in this, or she 

98

is our number one ally in this fight. They have been doing it long 

before it became popular. So as far as how to go about that, that 

is a very good question. Going from an idea to implementation is 

always a challenge, but I am not sure about this new farm bill, but 

I know in the previous one, a beekeeper, and I was talking with 

a good friend of mine that does bees and asked. They were not classified as a farmer in the Farm Service Agency so they had no access to low-interest loans, which could be a good option, or some 

type of insurance. They could not get any assistance. Basically they 

were classified as a farm service provider and not necessarily an 

agricultural producer or farmer, whichever you want to call them. 

I don’t know if that has changed in the new legislation. So forgive 

me if I am wrong on that. But I think we definitely need to be very 

proactive in helping these guys out because they are definitely on 

the brink. Jeff Lee, who supplies my bees out of Mevin, North 

Carolina, Jeff has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry so he has done a 

total 180. He worked for a large company in the realm of chemistry 

and he just lost his job to outsourcing and became a beekeeper, but 

he has his house mortgaged, his credit cards totally maxed out. 

These guys are not doing it for the money. I mean, I don’t think 

anybody will put on a suit and go among 500,000 swarming bees—

I don’t think they are doing it for the money. They have to love it 

on some level and I think we need to—we can use that passion that 

these guys have. I am not discounting the university-level research. 

That is absolutely crucial to the beekeeper and to the farmer, but 

I think we need to be very, very aggressive in helping the beekeeper and do something as quick as yesterday. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, sir. I would not want to go into 

500,000 bees. I haven’t done it recently. The last time we had a 

bunch, we had them in our church and it took a while to get them 

out. You know, they found a new home, and that was not an easy 

process. 

My final question, Mr. Edwards, and you mentioned this a little 

bit in your testimony about cucumbers and where you had one hive 

per acre, and now you have cut your acreage in half. If someone 

else wants to comment on this, that would be fine too, but have you 

had to increase or decrease the number of hives per acreage, as an 

example, put out hives for an acre and a quarter to an acre and 

a half? Do you know of anyone that has, and if they have, what 

did that do for production? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I can tell you 10, 15 years ago, well, 15 

years ago my father grew cucumbers and other guys, really, pollinators were a way to enhance yield. It wasn’t a necessary. Today 

I don’t plant cucumbers unless I definitely know I can get the bees, 

because the native populations just aren’t there. We used to do a 

hive to 2 acres, maybe even more, maybe 3 acres. Now we are having to do a hive per acre because the native bees aren’t there, and 

if we don’t have them there, it causes yield problems, obviously, 

but the other thing it causes is misshapen fruit, which we can’t 

harvest. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Can you explain to folks what you mean by that 

statement? 

Mr. EDWARDS. If the pollination doesn’t occur, and I am not an 

entomologist, but if the pollination doesn’t occur in a timely fashVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:14 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-39\50679.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
99

ion, our fruit set is very intense, very heavy in a very short time 

period so if you don’t have a lot of bees out there really fast doing 

what they do best, it will cause misshapen cucumbers, nubs, they 

are also called, and crooks that can’t be processed by the processing 

companies or the consumers won’t buy them. They won’t fit in a 

jar, a host of reasons why they are just not usable. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

this hearing and let me thank each of you again for coming, and 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. You have done a 

great job as always. 

I just want to make two observations as we close up today. The 

first one is that if in fact you cut down on acreage, as you have 

testified that you have done this year, there is a significant result 

of that. Agriculture is a supply versus demand commodity-driven, 

cost-driven industry, and when you have less supply and you have 

the same demand, you are going to have increased costs to the consumer, and so what the consumers are already conveying to Members of Congress is that they are concerned about their food prices 

going up. Well, based upon the testimony that we have seen today, 

we are going to see increased food prices because of the lack of pollinators. 

The second point and one of the more globally concerning points 

that I have heard continuously since we have been researching this 

topic, is that the natural bees, the bees in the wild that may have 

been pests to us when we were growing up and we were kids walking in the woods and suddenly getting stung have disappeared. 

That has got to give us all some significant concern, not just for 

food production but what is happening globally, and is there something that we don’t understand that we need to understand about 

our environment and what is happening around us. 

So both of those things are of great concern to this Committee, 

to me personally, to Mr. Etheridge and all of us concerned about 

this question, and I would just encourage the researchers and the 

bureaucrats who have testified today, we are all going to have to 

get busy and get to the point of what is causing this before we have 

some calamitous effects that we can’t control. 

So with that, I am going to end this hearing today. Thank you 

all for being here. Thank you for your testimony. We have some serious work to be done. 

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

100

101

SUBMITTED MATERIAL BY MARYANN T. FRAZIER, SENIOR EXTENSION ASSOCIATE,

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

This was prepared and is being submitted in response to Chairman Cardoza’s request for specific information on what resources are needed to address the issues 

of CCD and declining pollinator health in the U.S. in a time critical manner over 

the next 12–18 months. While a core team of scientists from multiple institutions 

and disciplines has assembled and has sought funds to support research, the time 

critical nature for a solution to this national emergency requires additional personnel and resources to allow these scientists to have maximal impact in the immediate timeframe.

Immediate objectives and needs (addressing the cause(s) of CCD; 6 

months)

To complete pathogens and pesticides analyses of acquired samples on current 

CCD projects (meeting Goals 1 and 2 in the action plan) 

These samples come from 8 different studies or CCD field surveys and also include a small number of beekeeper submitted samples. We currently have a backlog 

of 4039 samples in storage and/or in the process of being generated from on-going 

projects. Some of these will be analyzed for pathogens and others for pesticides. The 

cost per sample for pathogen analysis is $15. The cost for pesticide analysis ranges 

from $95 to $259 depending on the hive matrix and residues being tested for. We 

estimate that to complete the analyses of the remaining samples will cost $250,000 

beyond our current resources. The eight studies include cooperative efforts by the 

working team to examine the prevalence of pathogens across the U.S., the exposure 

of bees on pollination contracts on the East Coast to pesticides and the effects of 

gamma irradiation on pathogens and pesticides in comb from CCD colonies. While 

we have not completed the analysis of all samples, the results to date are being used 

to design and carryout hypothesis-driven research to help reduce colony losses. Additional resources for these analyses, would allow researchers to redirect current resources to support these experiments.

Intermediate objectives and needs (addressing the cause(s) of CCD; 12–

18 months)

While no one factor has been identified as the cause of CCD, several key questions 

have been generated from the significant work that has been done to date. Answering these critical questions is the next logical step to identifying the cause(s) and 

potential cure(s) for CCD. The research questions here represent current key areas 

of effort by the CCD working team to identify the cause of CCD. However, the resources currently available are inadequate to fully address these questions in the 

identified timeframe. The following objectives and resources are the best estimates 

of the CCD working team members to increase their impacts. A similar analysis of 

the USDA CAP grant multidisciplinary team could yield similar results, but were 

considered beyond the time allotted for this response. 

Key Areas of Investigation 

(1) Pesticides 

Are pesticides a key factor contributing to CCD and to pollinator decline?

Key investigations

• Conduct toxicity tests of individual pesticides and their combinations to assess 

their causative association with CCD.

• Determine sublethal effects of pesticides and selected combinations of pesticides 

on physiological and behavioral systems of insects, including immune system 

suppression, interference with associative learning, and detection and/or alteration of the chemical senses of honey bees.

• Determine if adjuvants are toxic (compare toxicity of formulated material to 

technical materials or active ingredient.

• Determine if pesticides in combination with other stressors like IAPV are responsible for CCD

• Determine if gamma radiation can be used to mitigate pesticide build-up in bees 

wax comb and food

Key personnel (CCD working team)

Chris Mullin/James Frazier/ Maryann Frazier (PSU) Jeff Pettis (USDA), Diana 

Cox-Foster (PSU) (second and last objective)

Current Funding

102

Most of this funding has been spent on CCD and beekeeper sample analysis

Critical Issues; $89,000 (6/08–6/10)

NHB; $11,897 (2/1/08–12/31/08

Pending:

USDA–NRI 51.2B; $216,479 (1/1/09–12/31/10)

Protecting Honey Bee Pollinators, CAP; $90,000 to Mullin et al. in yrs 3 and 

4 (8/1/08–7/31/12)

Resources needed to address these questions:

Additional Personnel: $80,000

Operating Funds: $75,000

Total: $155,000

Investigation of pesticide involvement in bee declines requires use of high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectroscopy (LC/MS–MS) methods to 

successfully analyze samples for systemic pesticides such as neonicotinoids and their 

metabolites at the sensitivity required for FDA/EPA compliance. LC/MS–MS analytical capability is particularly essential for understanding honey bee health in regards to systemic insecticides, since honey or pollen contaminated with 

neonicotinoids at ppb levels are known to impair bees. Multiresidue pesticide and 

toxic metabolite analysis that requires LC/MS–MS instrumentation is expensive, 

and the available analytical labs routinely analyzing neonicotinoid residues under 

good laboratory practices using LC/MS–MS is severely limited. Moreover, the infrastructure for graduate education of pesticide analytical chemists in the U.S., where 

there is sufficient equipment and expertise to address the fate and ecotoxicology of 

systemic pesticides, is almost non-existent. 

Equip a MS facility with LC/MS–MS, GC–MS, workstation with deconvolution 

software and toxic substance libraries; salaried for a qualified GLP technician for 

4 years: $1,500,000. 

(2) Pathogens 

Pathogens are clearly part of the problem underlying CCD. Increased pathogen 

loads are found in colonies undergoing CCD and suffering collapse. Recently, we 

identified a virus that appears to have been introduced into the U.S. within the last 

8 years; the Israeli Acute Paralysis virus (IAPV) is not extensively found in samples 

collected across the U.S. in 2004 and has only been found in one sample collected 

in 2002. This virus was a good predictor of CCD by itself and in combination with 

three other pathogens (Nosema ceranae, Nosema apis, and Kashmir bee virus) it is 

a 100% predictor of CCD. At least two strains of IAPV are found in the United 

States and data indicate that the virus has greater variation than other bee viruses. 

How this variation in the virus is linked to CCD is not known. Current studies in 

containment greenhouses indicate that this is a fairly virulent virus; however, in the 

field, we have evidence that additional stress is needed to trigger the collapse. It 

is critical to identify these stressors and to learn how the diseases progress in the 

colony with CCD. In addition, we now have extensive evidence that these viral diseases not only are infecting the honey bee but also native pollinators. It is critical 

to learn how these diseases are impacting the native pollinators and if these diseases are contributing to the overall decline in native pollinators. 

Another essential component that is critically needed is the ability to effectively 

analyze the pathogens present in samples. Currently, few labs in the U.S. are able 

to detect these pathogens and none have the capacity to analyze increased numbers 

of samples from beekeepers, state apiarists or even from APHIS collections. In particular, individual beekeeping operations have requested analysis of pathogens in 

their colonies and have found these services greatly limited. Currently, discussions 

are being held on how the diagnosis of bee pathogens can be added to the National 

Plant Diagnostic Network portfolio. The NPDN has a regional distribution across 

the U.S. and the capacity to handle large numbers of samples. New detection methods are also needed that are faster and more sensitive across several magnitudes 

and that can identify known pathogens and parasites.

Key investigations

• Do different strains of IAPV have different virulences?

• How do stresses such as sub-lethal pesticide exposure affect the disease status 

of a colony?

• What is the impact of the honey bee viruses and other pathogens on native pollinators?

103

• How can the NPDN portfolio and capacity be increased to detect bee and pollinator diseases?

• What measures can be taken to decrease the overall disease prevalence in a colony and increase colony health and strength?

Key personnel (CCD working team)

Diana Cox-Foster (PSU), Jeff Pettis/Judy Chen/Jay Evans (USDA), Dennis 

vanEngelsdorp (PDA), Dave Tarpy (NC State), additional university and USDA/

ARS researchers

Current Funding—Cox-Foster

Penn Dept Ag.; $100,000 for viral work (through 7/09)

Critical Issues; $52,000 (end 12/2008)

Resources needed to address these questions

Additional Personnel: $80,000

Operating Funds: $75,000

Total: $155,000

Improved detection methods for known pathogens/parasites: $500,000

Increased capacity of the NPDN—additional equipment, materials, etc.: 

$1,000,000

National Survey of pathogens/parasites in honey bee colonies and queen breeding operations (APHIS and Apiary Inspectors of America): $2,400,000

(3) Genetic Diversity 

What is the role of genetic diversity in the overall health of colonies and 

the honey bee population?

Key investigations

• Correlate queen mating frequency with the incidence and prevalence of CCD 

and Nosema spp.

• Compare the gene-expression levels of several important antimicrobial peptides 

by larvae in response to disease challenge and determine if genetic diversity 

within a queen’s brood influences the degree of immune response

• Test a continuum of mating numbers by instrumentally inseminated queens by 

inoculating full-sized field colonies with disease to determine the minimum mating number of queens by which they may gain health benefits from having their 

colonies genetically diverse

• Determine the physical health, insemination success, and mating numbers of 

commercially produced queen bees to assess the ‘‘mating health’’ and genetic diversity of the honey bee stock in the U.S.

• Quantify the level of genetic diversity in the feral honey bee population, particularly in comparison to the managed population

• Determine if the non-managed honey bee population is comprised of ‘‘escaped 

swarms’’ or is truly feral (i.e., survivor stock); if the latter, the feral population 

may serve as an untapped resource for genetic diversity and disease resistance 

in the managed population

Key personnel

David Tarpy & Deborah Delaney (North Carolina State University), Dennis 

vanEnglesdorp (PDA), Jeff Pettis (USDA), Jay Evans (USDA)

Current Funding

North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Plant Industry Division, 2008–2009 (one year); ‘‘Intracolony dynamics of Nosema infection 

in honey bees’’; $15,000 [terminates 05/30/09]

United States Department of Agriculture, Arthropod and Nematode Biology and 

Management (A): Organismal and Population Biology, 2008–2010 (two years); 

‘‘The collection of non-managed honey bee colonies from the southern United 

States: characterization and quantification of genetic diversity in U.S. honey bee 

populations’’ (PD: D. Delaney); $125,000 [terminates 08/30/10]

United States Department of Agriculture, Arthropod and Nematode Biology and 

Management (A): Organismal and Population Biology, 2007–2010 (three years); 

‘‘Assessing the mating health of commercial honey bee queens’’; $346,500 [terminates 07/31/10]

104

Resources Needed (recurring)

Additional Personnel: $75,000

Operating Funds: $50,000

Total: $125,000

Long-term objectives and needs (addressing CCD and declining pollinator health; 2–5 years)

Provide additional funding aimed at understanding pollinator (honey bees and native species) decline and improving pollinator health and conservation in the form 

of competitive granting program (NRI, CSREES; Critical Issues, CAP, PIPE). The 

PIPE program funding we recently competed for has been ‘‘suspended’’ due to financial restraints. Competitive funding programs like this are vital if researchers are 

to respond in a time critical manner to emerging threats to our food supply. 

Availability of this funding would allow the attention of the wider research community to be focused on improved pollinator health.

Æ