Bumblebee Trust Refuses to Campaign against Neonicotinoids

[borderbeeman]

566417531_f9c95da964.jpg

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/bee-protection-group-under-fire-for-failing-to-fight-pesticide-armageddon.18271390 Bee protection group under fire for failing to fight pesticide 'armageddon'

BY ROB EDWARDS ENVIRONMENT EDITOR

A major bee conservation group in Scotland has become embroiled in a bitter row for failing to back a ban on nicotine-based pesticides blamed for killing bees.

The Bumblebee Conservation Trust, based at the University of Stirling, is facing calls for the resignation of its newly-appointed chairman, Professor Michael Usher, and criticism from its founder over its cautious stance.

One reason the trust has refused to support a ban is revealed in a paper agreed at the last meeting of trustees in May.

"If we take an aggressive campaigning stance then we risk reputational/ relationship damage with government and, importantly, with farmers," it said.

Neonicotinoids are toxic chemicals designed to paralyse insects by attacking their nervous systems. With annual sales globally of more than £1 billion, they are used on four million acres of crops in the UK to protect them from pests.

But scientific evidence that they harm bees is mounting, with a series of studies linking neonicotinoids to colony collapse disorder, which has decimated bee populations worldwide. According to beekeepers, more than 10 million honeybee colonies have died since 1992.

As a result, neonicotinoids have faced bans or restrictions on their use in Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia. But regulators in the UK and the US have so far accepted the pesticide industry's contention that the toxins were not to blame for wiping out bees.

Usher, formerly chief scientist at the Government wildlife agency Scottish Natural Heritage, was recently quoted in a gardening magazine defending the use of neonicotinoids. This has infuriated beekeepers and campaigners, who are now demanding he resign or be sacked from the bumblebee trust.

In a letter to the Sunday Herald published today, two of the trust's life members and two activists from the campaign group Friends of the Bees, have warned that wildlife is facing "ecological Armageddon".

If the trust fails to back a ban, it "may find its membership sliding towards extinction faster than the bumblebees", they said.

The Bumblebee Conservation Trust has also come under fire from Professor Dave Goulson, a bee expert from the University of Stirling who originally founded the trust. He published research in March showing that bumblebees fed a neonicotinoid suffered an 85% loss in the number of queens in their colonies.

"I don't understand the trust's position," Goulson told the Sunday Herald. He said it had not discussed its stance with him, and he did not think Usher's remarks were founded on any specialist knowledge.

"There is now considerable evidence that neonicotinoids do have an impact on both honeybees and bumblebees, so it seems anomalous for a bee conservation charity to be stating that these compounds are necessary," he said.

According to Graham White, an environmental author who keeps bees in the Scottish Borders, wildlife organisations had been "co-opted" by the pesticide industry.

He said: "They are scared to confront this massive issue. We have to act, or in another few years not a single bee will be alive in this country."

The bumblebee trust defended Usher, claiming that his remarks had been misrepresented.

Its chief executive, Ben Darvill, said: "We neither back the continued use of neonicotinoids, nor do we call for an immediate ban. We call for an immediate review to determine the crop protection solution which has the minimum impact on pollinators and other beneficial insects."

One problem was that farmers deprived of the pesticides might use something worse, Darvill argued.

He said: "The trust recognises the need for agricultural chemicals in some farming systems. However, we are understandably concerned these crop protection chemicals may be harming the pollinator populations which many flowering crops need to ensure an optimum yield."

The Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide companies, dismissed studies suggesting that neonicotinoids harmed bees as "unrealistic".

An association spokeswoman said: "Our industry is actively involved in working with all stakeholders, including beekeepers, farmers and the scientific community, to gain a better understanding of the science surrounding poor bee health."

Letters, pages 38-39

[Oldtimer]

Their stance will not please everybody, especially those who have a big agenda against neonitinoids and think everybody else should too.

However lobby groups are nessecarily political. The bumblebee group is set up to promote bumblebees as their first objective, not oppose neonicitonoids as their first objective. While no doubt in private they all would like to see the end of neonicitonoids, they have stated several good reasons why getting involved in a public stance on the matter could be counter productive to their primary aim.

Bit like the Green political party in my country. They started out not only promoting environmental issues, but also pro marijuana, and a strongly leftist stance on socio political issues such as more tax for the rich, more money for unemployed, etc. This meant they appealed to a small sector of society and got some votes, but they always alienated the majority. Quite a few years later they have realised their position will never get them any meaningful amount of votes and have dropped a lot of their more extreme agendas, even though in private I'm sure most of them still have the same beliefs. As a result their share of the vote at the last election increased substantially.

The bumblebee group are likely taking the same pragmatic approach. Stick to core goals, don't alienate people we need as friends.

[lazy shooter]

What would be the result of removing all neonicitonoids from the ag universe? This is something that I have never seen on any of these posts.

[Slow Modem]

What would be the result of removing all neonicitonoids from the ag universe? This is something that I have never seen on any of these posts.

One problem was that farmers deprived of the pesticides might use something worse, Darvill argued.

[Scrapfe]

What would be the result of removing all neonicitonoids from the ag universe?...

The short answer is that banning all neonicitonoids will result in the immediate return of even more deadly, more destructive, more persistent, and yes more evil pesticides than are currently in widespread use. Look for (among others) the return of DDT, and Pyrethrum based insecticides coupled with massive multiple insecticide applications right at crop blooming times, or just when honey bees are the most vulnerable to agricultural insecticide poisoning.

In my humble and honest opinion this controversy smacks not of a Stalinist era show trial but rather it smells more like the 1925 Dayton, Tennessee, Scopes Monkey Trial. I chose the Scopes Monkey trial as a more fitting analogy because it was a political show trial as well as an attempt to boost the local economy, much like the political controversy surrounding the use of neonicitonoids today is designed to do. In other words it is a deliberate and premeditated attack on science mostly to garner publicity or to raise money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
I call your special attention to an exchange between the Special Prosecutor, William Jennings Bryant and the Counsel for the Defense Clarence Darrow in lines 77 & 78 [?] taken directly from the court record of the Scopes trial and reproduced in the above link.

The verdict cartoon.gif

[lazy shooter]

Thanks Scrapfe, your above post is very eye-opening for me. I can tell you are some kind of a scientist, but to this date, all I have read is that neonicitonoids are bad. So my real question was, if they're bad, why havent't they been banned?

I have worked some 50 years as a petroleum engineer, but I only had that one course in botany and biology that all freshmen science majors had to take. When I started with bees 16 months ago, my bioscience meter, that measures from zero to 100, was on two. After reading and studying about bees and their forage for the past year, my latest bioscience reading is four.

Thanks again.

[Lburou]

...snip...However lobby groups are nessecarily political. The bumblebee group is set up to promote bumblebees as their first objective, not oppose neonicitonoids as their first objective. While no doubt in private they all would like to see the end of neonicitonoids, they have stated several good reasons why getting involved in a public stance on the matter could be counter productive to their primary aim...snip...

I'm 100% pro-Bee. Yet there seems to be wisdom in considering all sides of an issue, then trying to find an outcome echoing more than one viewpoint. Do we need more GM crops that are easy on bees?

[JRG13]

The main issue in most documentaries on bees (Colony, Vanishing of the Bees, and Queen of the Sun) is that it's sub-lethal doses that need to be studied and the buildup of the pesticides in the comb and subsequent brood rearing in the presence of pesticides. Also the practice of huge mono-culture is really an issue people are trying to address. Some groups are encouraging setting aside acreage for bees and for farmers to keep bees year round and maybe alleviate some of the need for migratory beekeeping.

[psfred]

You should also understand that seed is treated with neo-nics to "improve stand" -- that is, to get more plants up and growing. Sort of like spraying with DDT "because there might be bugs" rather than targeting a specific problem. They are also used for protection of decorative plants, which doesn't merit use of bee toxic materials in my book.

We are not going to be swamped with locusts and starve to death if seed is not treated with neo-nics, I suspect there will be absolutely no effect at all. They do have uses, and they are MUCH less toxic to non-target organisms when used properly, but treating ALL the seed in agriculture is not a targeted use, and may in fact cause considerable trouble in early spring.

Lots of politics and lots of money at stake -- Bayer sells about 20 million pounds a year of neo-nics.

Peter

[Scrapfe]

... the practice of huge mono-culture is really an issue people are trying to address. Some groups are encouraging setting aside acreage for bees and for farmers to keep bees year round and maybe alleviate some of the need for migratory beekeeping.

In the dark and distant past migratory beekeeping was defined as a beekeeper chasing nectar flows from one region to another or from state to state, much like what I’ve been told is still practiced today in parts of South Eastern Europe. Mono-culture farming is the reason that today’s migratory beekeeping came into being. Whether they are honey bees or not, it is an impossibility for enough pollinators to naturally be on sight to sufficiently pollinate even a modest commercial orchard, especially during the short fruit setting period. Therefore either migratory beekeeping or hand pollination becomes a vital necessity, especially for old world fruit and nut crops like apples, pears, and almonds. Hand pollination is also performed for other reasons but I’ll save that for another episode.

Farming is most productive when it’s practiced in the best locals or optimum environments for growing a particular crop. In that case fewer pesticides and other farmer supplied inputs like chemical fertilizers are needed to make a crop. That is why you don't see many mono-culture orange groves in Maine, cotton fields in Nebraska, dairy farms in Mississippi, banana plantations in Alaska, or grape vineyards in Louisiana. Saving bees or any other beneficial insect is a perfectly acceptable goal. Just don't allow yourself to be herded, rallied, bullied, and manipulated by originations with hidden political agendas that you may not fully agree with or else don’t understand.

I think that the Bumblebee Trust's true concern is for what is best for the lonely bumble bee, in that case more power to them for making a courageous stand. To quote a famous TV personality, Kermit the Amphibian, “It ain’t easy being green.”

[Paul McCarty]

Reminds me of the Susan G. Komen controversy where they will not call for an end to cancer causing petrochemicals in the food chain.

[Nature Coast beek]

Return of DDT???

Perhaps they simply aren't on board because of, as others have already stated, IT'S POLITICAL IN NATURE and NOT NECESSARILY EVIDENCE BASED. Of course the argument that falls from this is the cost of research and the fact that all the research is by the companies with the pesticides. Well, they tested and "proved" now the opposite side must do likewise.

In the early stages of any successful cause, raising awareness is priority one. Pointing fingers comes later.