B.E.E. Heroes

Do different groups have different viewpoints?

- Try to find out what each group might think about the issue. How do different cultures or people view the issue?

- Identify different arguments and positions taken, noting any contradictions in the reports and sources you find!

 

 

We found a lot of different viewpoints. Most of the information we found is about research on CCD. People like college professors and students and Beekeeper groups are writing a lot about CCD being caused by Pesticides. But, we also found that CCD or mass bee die-off has been documented for a long time (see our History page).

 

The first viewpoint in support of using pesticides is from two manufacturers of neonicotinoid pesticides. In an article below, Bayer Company in Germany, talks about how important and helpful the pesticide is for farmers.

 

"They were adopted by farmers around the world because of their effectiveness in controlling harmful and destructive crop pests, some of which had developed resistance to other insecticides already on the market."

                                                                                                                              http://beecare.bayer.com/agriculture/neonicotinoids

 

 

Their product is used in many ways such as spraying seeds to help them to tollerate soil-borne and early season foliar pests.  Neonicotinoid-based products have replaced many older crop protection products because they really work against harmful pests and they're safe for the farmer.

 

 

From the Bayer website (their viewpoint):

 

Recently published scientific studies have received significant attention, because they raised concerns about a possible connection between the use of neonicotinoids and bee losses.

 

Researchers from the Universities of Wageningen, Ghent and Amsterdam have come to a different conclusion: A recently published review has, for the first time, summarized 15 years of research on the hazards of neonicotinoids to bees. The conclusion: While many laboratory studies described sublethal effects, no adverse effects to bee colonies were ever observed in field studies at field-realistic exposure conditions.

 

These findings are in line with many large-scale, multifactorial studies that were undertaken in the USA, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France and Germany. These have shown that poor bee health is correlated with the presence of the Varroa mite, viruses and many other factors, but not with the use of insecticides.  Laboratory research focuses on the response of individual bees to different pesticide application rates – including deliberate overexposure. Such research is useful for product evaluation, but results do not imply that they are transferable to “real world” field exposure conditions. Thus, care must be taken to draw the right conclusions from the findings of laboratory studies.

 

                                                                                                                            http://beecare.bayer.com/agriculture/neonicotinoids

 

 

This is a statement on their website, by two manufactures of neonicotinoid pesticides, who are working together to fight the ban on pesticide use in Europe. Notice they use the words 'theoretical risk' meaning that no one has proven that they've actually caused CCD. The CEO of the other company, Syngenta, said that just banning their products won't stop the dissappearing of the bees, and that the European Commission is not focusing on the real cause of CCD.

 

 

In Basel, Switzerland, on March 28, 2013, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience propose a comprehensive action plan to help unlock the European stalemate on bee health.

 

This follows the failure of the European Commission to reach agreement with Member States on an appropriate response to EFSA’s report on the theoretical risk to bee health from neonicotinoid pesticides. John Atkin, Syngenta’s Chief Operating Officer, said: “This comprehensive plan will bring valuable insights into the area of bee health, whereas a ban on neonicotinoids would simply close the door to understanding the problem. Banning these products would not save a single hive and it is time that everyone focused on addressing the real causes of declining bee populations. The plan is based on our confidence in the safety of our products and on our historical commitment to improving the environment for bees.”

 

Dr. Rüdiger Scheitza, Member of the Board of Management of Bayer CropScience and Head of Strategy & Business Management, said: ”Even though all the evidence points to various parasites and diseases being the true cause of poor bee health, we are keen to do everything in our power to give consumers confidence in our products. The significant lack of agreement between the European Commission and the Member States needs a bold plan so that farmers in Europe can continue to produce the high quality affordable food, in a way that promotes the health of bees and other pollinators. We believe that such a plan as this can be delivered.”

 

The key features of the action plan are:

• Significantly scale up the creation of pollen rich, flowering field margins across the EU to provide essential habitat and nutrition for bees.

• Support for the establishment of a comprehensive field monitoring program for bee health including the detection of neonicotinoid crop protection products – particularly in maize, oilseed rape, sunflower and cotton.

• Mandatory implementation of strict measures to mitigate the exposure risk to bees; these are currently already recommended by the manufacturers and effectively applied by most farmers as good agricultural practice.

• Investment in and implementation, at the earliest opportunity, of new technologies which further reduce dust emissions from the planting of seed treated with neonicotinoid crop protection products.

• Further investment in the research and development of new solutions for the main factors impacting bee health, which include parasites and viruses, and establishment of area-wide long-term pilot studies which demonstrate their effectiveness.

 

                                                                                                               http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/news-center/news-releases/pages/130328.aspx

 

 

The second viewpoint is from a commercial Canadian Beekeeper. On March 19, 2014, The author, Lee Townsend writes about "Canada’s bees are thriving: public needs facts, not fear."  He says that the honey bee industry in Canada is far from collapsing.

 

"The numbers don't lie. Both the total number of honeybee colonies and beekeepers in Canada has risen dramatically since 2008."

 

He says that environmental activists like the Sierra Club, are turning beekeepers into enemies of farmers by scaring them about neonic pesticide exposure. They are making them believe that the products are worse than the scientific data shows.

 

"But these special interest groups have scared beekeepers, the public, and the media into believing these products are far worse than actual scientific data indicates. If it was the epidemic they claim, why is it only affecting one per cent of Canada's colonies? And out of that one per cent, we have yet to see data indicating exactly how many of those hives' sole problem was neonic exposure. "

 

At the end of the article he says the only solution is for beekeepers, farmers and pesticide manufacturers work together towards a common solution to CCD.

 

 

I can’t find research information that is culture based.