Could you elaborate on this a bit? This is the first time I've heard an accusation against Monsanto in relation to bee death. If you've got some good articles I'd like to read up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/the-fox-mons...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-science-pestici...
Monsanto itself is actually purchasing companies that develop bee-safe pesticides, so obviously they believe it's a problem, too, even if you'll never hear them come out and say it in so many words:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q1M0UO0.htm
Also, I have to take issue with the headline here, "No one knows why" doesn't appear to be true at all, even according to the NY Times article itself. Just a lot of hand-waving by those who profit from GMO/pesticides to throw off the trail while they figure out what to do behind the scenes, hoping it's not too late.
Monsanto is the biggest player in that field (by far, I think).
There is so much GM hate by people who have only read or heard soundbites. My experience with GM crops has been that they have resulted in massively reduced levels of pesticide spraying (from an agricultural background) with the side Benicia thet the farmer saves money and insects are spared
Bees forage in corn. That means they are exposed to and possibly affected by GMO Bt-Corn pollen endotoxins and the neonics they treat the corn with.
GM crops (in general, not limited to roundup) allow a dramatic reduction in pesticide use. While they might not improve the predicament of bees being fed pesticide-contaminated corn syrup, they will reduce the overall background levels of pesticides in many hives' environments.
so the propaganda goes ... In fact, the opposite happens:
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-t...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesti...
The way to reduce pesticide use is organic farming.
The organic label is meaningless, while true organic farming is resource-intensive and unsustainable as a global agricultural strategy.
The most upsetting fact is that most GM opponents simply refuse to acknowledge that genetic modification not only holds great promise for agriculture, but is simply a more efficient way to manipulate crops in ways that we have been doing for tens of thousands of years. This gets us farther from the goal of GM safety and agricultural sustainability, not closer.
It says: "At least for the short term, it looks as if more expensive and more hazardous chemical inputs will continue to increase in use for corn, soybeans, and cotton because of pesticide resistance which is growing at an alarming rate."
"Multiple possible causes of CCD have been identified. In 2007, some authorities attributed the problem to biotic factors such as Varroa mites and insect diseases (i.e., pathogens[5] including Nosema apis and Israel acute paralysis virus).[6][7] Other proposed causes include environmental change-related stresses,[8] malnutrition, pesticides (e.g.. neonicotinoids such as clothianidin and imidacloprid[9][10][11]), and migratory beekeeping. other possibilities have included both cell phone radiation[12][13] and genetically modified (GM) crops with pest control characteristics although no evidence has been found to suggest this.[14][15]
Emphasis mine.
[14] http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2007-03-...
[15] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/collapsing-colonie...
If someone has a greater understanding than the Wikipedia consensus and the sources to back it, please respond (or update Wikipedia!)
That Wikipedia text quote is full of the former kind of phrase, using "Possible causes have been identified", "other proposed causes", and "other possibilities".
The sentence you emphasized starts with such a phrase:
"other possibilities have included […] genetically modified (GM) crops with pest control characteristics"
And then further weakens the statement with "although no evidence has been found to suggest this.*"
So, if I read that Wikipedia article, I mostly read "we don't know."
And I can't find any evidence of any of that.