Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

24K views 73 replies 23 participants last post by  JClark 
#1 ·
The Four Dog Defense

The Pesticide Lobbyists use a well-recognized series of lies and delaying tactics to dominate the debate in the Press and on Radio and Television. See if you recognise these techniques being used by people on this Forum.

The classic strategies are: Outright Denial; Smokescreen; Diversions; Sowing Doubt.
Of these 'sowing doubt' is by far the most common and the most effective. Entire teams of university academics are paid large sums to sow doubt in their 'science' papers, all the time, year after year.

Public Relations Specialists are also employed to fill the newspapers, TV chat shows and online forums/ Social media with a daily drip feed of Propaganda. Again, mostly sowing doubt although diversion and denial are also used. Online Forums are by far the most cost effective way to do this - you can bet your bottom dollar that there are paid professionals monitoring this Forum right now, ready to heap scorn, sarcasm and ridicule on anyone who dares to oppose the Poison industry.

Well known public figures are paid or persuaded to make public pronouncements on TV and in the Press, praising the poisoners and condemning objectors as 'hippies', 'conspiracy theorists' and 'back to the Stone Age' green idiots.

These techniques of Pyschological Warfare were perfected decades ago, when the corporations challenged the Science about the human health hazards of :

  • Lead,
  • Tobacco,
  • DDT
  • Abestos
  • Food additives like Aspartame, MSG, Bovine Growth Hormone etc.
  • PCBs

This is now a $billion dollar industry in every country; in fact, the food industry, the drug industry and the chemical industry could not function without these propaganda experts.

These underhand tactics are known as The Four Dog Defense.
The basic steps of the defence are:

1. My dog does not bite. OUTRIGHT DENIAL - THE BIG LIE
Dog Dog breed Canidae Mammal Facial expression


At first, the company denies that its product is harmful. This usually includes attempts to discredit scientific studies, or authors of studies, that show harm while the company generate its own fake-studies designed to show no harm.

NOTE: when Bayer license neonicotinoids in 1992 they stated that it could not possibly harm bees because the neonicotinoids NEVER emerged in pollen and nectar. That was an outright lie - 96% of peer-reviewed Science studies and 10,000,000 dead bee colonies prove the lie.


2. My dog bites, . . . but it didn't bite you. SMOKESCREEN - OBFUSCATION
Dog Mammal Vertebrate Dog breed Canidae


Pesticide industry concedes that the chemical 'may' be 'potentially' harmful, but insists that bees are not actually exposed to it 'in the real world'.
This argument works best if only the industry carries out tests or monitors for the chemical (they do).
It works even better if you use a 1940s testing methodology, which can never reveal chronic, long term effects
Absence of data is often used to argue that there has been no toxic exposure.

NOTE: Bayer and Syngenta admit that neonics are hyper-toxic to bees, but claim that ' in the field' bees never receive a fatal dose.

3. My dog bit you, but it didn't really hurt you. SPREADING DOUBT
Dog Mammal Vertebrate Canidae Dog breed


The Pesticide Industry admits that people or wildlife are exposed to the poison, but denies that the exposure caused harm.
Industry concedes that the chemical is harmful, but only at very high doses.
It kills bees, or people, but only under unrealistic test conditions, but not at the lower levels or real-world scenarios to which people or wildlife are actually exposed.

They focus on differences between humans and laboratory animals, alleging that harm such as cancer seen in animal experiments is not relevant to people.


Bayer, Syngenta, Monsanto have all used this argument.
In America, the EPA and various high profile beekeepers are the main spreaders of doubt.


4. My dog bit you, and hurt you, but it wasn't my fault. DIVERSION

Mammal Dog breed Canidae Dog Snout

Industry admits the chemical is harming bees, but tries to shift the blame onto other people to avoid regulation and liability.

Possible culprits are
  • improper use by farmers,
  • out-of-date farming practices, defective planting machines, dry weather
  • blame other toxic chemicals, bee-medications, or poor bee health
  • in the case of bees, the culprits are varroa mites, viruses, poor nutrition, and poor beekeeping.
 
See less See more
4
#60 ·
<Farming worked well for over a thousand years here in the UK without pesticides of any kind. Britain was the bread basket of the Roman Empire from AD 64 to AD 400 and after that it exported wheat and barley to the world for centuries. It is a fallacy that crops cannot be raised without pesticides. Organic farmers do it all the time. A world record yield of rice was achieved recently by an Indian farmer with no pesticides whatever- check out this article:>

This always bothers me. Define "well"
Yes there was farming, but you need a history lesson if you think that the farmers had it made back then, not to mention famine, brutal labor, spoilage and waste. The article is nice, yes if we can find chemical free ways to improve yield we should, but I wouldn't rule them out either. Bet you if those same farmers could increase their yield further with a chemical they would do it, or if they could mechanize the weeding process they would to that too. I spent enough time working/living on farms as a kid to know what is involved. I evn tried running a CSA last year and after factoring in my labor and input costs (chemical free) I probably made a good 2 dollars an hour. I wouldn't charge more because I was selling food and wanted to provide it at a resonable competitive price. The only people making a go of it that was are charging "yuppy prices"

Fact is though like it or not pesticides make farming cheaper and easier. And cheaper means more people get fed. I'm sure we could drop all pesiticides from crop production and after a billion or two people died we'd be able to feed everyone by plowing up even more lab to account for lower yields and increased spoilage due to pest damage.

It reminds me of a couple of years ago after the earthquake in Haiti. Monsanto offered to donate a bunch of seed (hybrid seeds no GMs) to help get farmers back on their feet. the offer was refused and instead the farmers were given hoes. Here you go, please continue to farm the "old way" and eke out a meager existance while I buy cheap food at the giant supermarket. talk about a slap in the face.
 
#62 ·
From 6:59 to 7:30 Borderbeeman apparently had too much coffee and free time. It ended with "European Science just crushed your gonads in a vice." Does that honestly pass for civil? Not sure what it takes to get banned or at least flagged on this site any more.

This is the same style study supported "science" that was used to justify all types of European governmental actions in the 30's and early 40's. Notice how Borderbeeman is already creating an out for not finding the results they need to justify banning "Big Ag" pesticides in the 2 years they've got? They need more time... more time... more time. In fact all they want to do is destroy some large argicultural suppliers, by any means neccesary. At this time it's with inuendos and public opinion, not repeatable scientifically accepted result based studies. They don't care, the end justify the means.
 
#63 ·
[he] apparently had too much coffee and free time. It ended with "European Science just crushed your gonads in a vice." Does that honestly pass for civil? Not sure what it takes to get banned or at least flagged on this site any more.
The solution to that issue is to laugh as you would at a court jester!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester

Aside from being amusing, it will also get you branded as a "lead attack dog" and make you eligible for a bribe/payoff check from the industry. What's not to like? Free money! Note that Barry has already cashed in and got his big buyout!

:lpf:
 
#66 ·
Daniel, your in an area that has no crops how are your winter losses?? should be nirvana out there.......

No one has ever claimed they do not invade the enviorment, anymore than our breathing invades the environment. but as pointed out in many real studies, these are the better of the problems. seed coatings to stop cutworms and their friends, are much better for our world and the bees than the other Chemecials used. I realize your not in farming ground, but without these treatments our yields would be imediatly cut by 25% just by cutworms alone....... Cutting the worlds food by 25% is not realistic to most people ( I realize a few nutjobs are all for it) and in this case those seed coatings are the best way known right now to accomplish it. I posted a link to a very good article by Randy Oliver. I hope you read it... I know borderbee won't because it does not agree with his thoughts...

As Mark Twain said "its easier to fool the people, than convince them they have been fooled"
 
#67 ·
We should keep in mind that they have a ban on neonics in the EU starting at the end of December AND they won't grant any new GMO product approvals till 2014!

I can't imagine what the EU farmers are going to do to recover their margins.

I think that the reality of that is going shake them back out of any delusions they may have about how beneficial the decision to ban is, and the chain of repercussions it can have.

If you can't pay back your debts, you go broke. And, this is on top of a bad economy.

I think the commission may have some dogs of its own.
 
#68 ·
I can't imagine what the EU farmers are going to do to recover their margins.

If you can't pay back your debts, you go broke. And, this is on top of a bad economy.

I think the commission may have some dogs of its own.
Sure. Government will pay for it. It's not like they already have some huge spending problems or something.

There is a reason we split from Europe a few hundred years ago. Let's hope were smart enough to not go down that road--but I'm building my farm just in case and have means to defend it.
 
#69 ·
I found the articles/linksthat BorderBeeman provided to be insightful. Some of the comments that were placed on this thread and other threads that he/she created were useless to the discussion as it seemed that they really were bullying and ridicule. And I have a personal distaste when I see it.

Having said that, I suffered large percentage of losses on my country beeyards but didn't suffer so much with my town beeyards and I really want to know what caused the differences.
 
#74 ·
I found the articles/linksthat BorderBeeman provided to be insightful. Some of the comments that were placed on this thread and other threads that he/she created were useless to the discussion as it seemed that they really were bullying and ridicule.
Probably.

said that, I suffered large percentage of losses on my country beeyards but didn't suffer so much with my town beeyards and I really want to know what caused the differences.
My first guess would be the more abundant nectar flow in towns due to landscaping and the artificial warming of towns due to retained solar radiation in paved surfaces--not neonics. The flow here in suburbialand is amazing and I'm curious how this will compare with my hives when I finally put a few on my property.

You should start taking detailed notes on honey stores, rates and timing of build up, and temps at the hive locations to see how different they are. Make notes of the landscaping in the town and talk to your neighboring farmers to see what they actually grow and how they grow it. Is it hayfield and dairy operations, no-till commodities w/ GMO products, organic market gardens (think there are a few in your area) etc. From there you could begin to probe reasons for the differences. Neonic use may be negligible in the area. Would take several years and then your data are still conjecture but at least you could form a semi-informed opinion on your particular situation.

This is what I'd do since it seems you may really be curious as to the cause and not just anti-neonic for the simple reason that it is a chemical made by a corporation. Much harder than fingering a villain for sure. I, personally, grow all my own veggies in a suburban lot and would not use neonics in my production unless it was to combat something VERY severe where the benefits drastically outweighed the risks. Much easier to do when I don't rely on it as a matter of survival though. Can't sit here in my comfortable home and full belly and condemn those that rely on products to better their situation (whether it ultimately betters their situation for real is a whole other debate).
 
#70 ·
Charlie, I am sure you believe what it is you say you believe. But in regard to our missing agriculture. I know for a fact how wrong you are. I happen to come from Kansas where I grew up on a farm. With what I learned there I now grow Tobacco in Nevada where we don't grow anything. Just a few years ago it Was Nevada Hay that we do not grow that was saving Texas cattle. And we did it with less rainfall than they got. I wonder why they where not able to grow their own. I do not for one second think that mature suddenly went haywire. I think it is lazy dependent methods.
 
#72 ·
I am betting that means you didn't/wont read the article........ learned to grow tobacco in Nevada??? Hmmm which hand would that be in? I am betting its left handed!(just kidding) Nevade doesn't even begin to show up on the neonic maps....... We both know that, and yet are your loses better than ours out here? you should be in Nirvana... all that virgin ag....
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top