It's likely that most people have never heard of Gaucho. And no, it's

not a South American cowboy. I'm talking about a pesticide.

There is increasing reason to believe that Gaucho and other members of

a family of highly toxic chemicals -- neonicotinoids -- may be

responsible for the deaths of billions of honeybees worldwide. Some

scientists believe that these pesticides, which are applied to seeds,

travel systemically through the plant and leave residues that

contaminate the pollen, resulting in bee death or paralysis. The

French refer to the effect as "mad bee disease" and in 1999 were the

first to ban the use of these chemicals, which are currently only

marketed by Bayer (the aspirin people) under the trade names Gaucho

and Poncho. Germany followed suit this year, and its agricultural

research institute said it concluded that the poisoning of the bees

was because of the rub-off of the pesticide clothianidin (that's

Pancho) from corn seeds.

So why did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 grant an

"emergency" exemption allowing increased use of Gaucho -- typically

invoked during a major infestation -- when only a few beetles were

found in blueberries? Why did the agency also grant a "conditional"

registration for its close relative, Pancho, allowing the chemical on

the market with only partial testing? And why is the agency, hiding

behind a curtain of "trade secrets," still refusing to disclose

whether the additional tests required of companies in such cases were

conducted and, if so, with what results?

Therein lies a tale. Most pesticides, we're told, are safe. So we add

about 5 billion pounds a year of these deadly chemicals to our world,

enough to encircle the planet if it were packaged in 100-pound sacks.

Sure, they are regulated -- but badly -- under the antiquated Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. This law allows a chemical

on the market unless it's proved to pose "an unreasonable risk," far

too weak a standard.

Gerard Eyries, a Bayer marketing manager, said in connection with the

French action that "imidacloprid [that's Gaucho] left a small residue

in nectar and pollen, but there was no evidence of a link with the

drop in the bee population." Bayer also blamed seed makers and

suggested that there may be "nonchemical causes" for this massive bee

kill. But Bayer may not be entirely objective here. In 2006, Gaucho

sales topped $746 million.

Something is killing the bees, though. Some scientists suspect a

virus; others mites, even cellphones. (Bees are not known to use

phones, though, having their own communications system -- a dance

called the "waggle.")

Here in the U.S., the bee kill is a big problem. Domesticated bees

were brought to the U.S. on the Mayflower. Today, they contribute at

least $15 billion to the nation's agricultural economy. For example,

California's $2-billion-a-year almond crop is completely dependent on

honeybees from about 1.5 million hives for pollination. This year,

more than 2.4 million bee colonies -- 36% of the total -- were lost in

the U.S., according to the Apiary Inspectors of America. Some colonies

collapsed in two days.

Part of the problem is how we farm. Rather than rotating crops,

farmers grow the same one each year. This "monoculture" creates a

breeding ground for pests. Farmers then use chemicals that kill not

only the target organism but other life forms as well -- like

honeybees. That this approach may now be coming back to bite

big-production agriculture is not without some irony. For decades the

agriculture industry has been its beneficiary -- with farmworkers,

consumers and local communities the victims. But, actually, we're all

in trouble.

No independent government testing is required before a pesticide is

registered for use. Large gaps in basic scientific knowledge about

pesticides remain, including their environmental "fate" (where they

end up) and their toxicity to humans and to wildlife. A problem

pesticide may be removed from the market only after a long process and

full trial -- something that should be done before. The Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996 improved control of residues in our food. That

didn't help the bees.

Rachel Carson was vilified by an industry smear nearly 50 years ago,

after the release of her book, "Silent Spring." "If we were to follow

the teachings of Miss Carson," said American Cyanamid, the maker of

DDT, "we would return to the Dark Ages ... insects, vermin and disease

would once again inherit the Earth." But, as Carson so eloquently put

it in a CBS documentary in 1964: "Man's attitude toward nature is

today critically important simply because we now have acquired a

fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is part of nature,

and his war is inevitably a war against himself."

Al Meyerhoff, an environmental attorney in Los Angeles, is a former

director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's public health program.

Source: LA Times