Ontario beekeepers and the PMRA

Beekeepers are in a pitched battle with the government again. The recurring theme, for more than a decade now, has been the new generation of insecticides, called neonicotinoids. These are highly engineered and targeted products, unlike traditional nicotine, which is poisonous to just about everything. French beekeepers were the first to try to link these new products with the deplorable state of honey bee health in that country at the time. Many studies were conducted which showed that these products are safe at field levels. More importantly, the rock was turned over and the discovery made was that colonies throughout France and Europe were heavily parasitized by pests, particularly the varroa mite which vectors a bunch of lethal viruses. To combat these mites, beekeepers were using chemicals ranging from corrosive acids (oxalic acid) to organophosphates (coumaphos). 

Yet, despite decades of study, this scapegoat refuses to die. Most recently, the beekeepers of Ontario have mounted an assault on the provincial government, who they claim has been attempting to provide cover for Agribusiness. In response to this, Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) responded to the appeals of Ontario beekeepers, by generating a report analyzing the reported bee kills since 2007. The results are quite surprising. First, of the 110 bee kill incidents reported to PMRA between 2007 and 2012, 104 were filed in 2012 alone.  Only 6 were filed in the previous five years.  That's  about 1 report per year for all of Canada in those years.  Of the 104 incidents reported in 2012, the bulk came from Ontario.

This might lead one to conclude that pesticide kills could be correlated to increased use of pesticides, but it is far more likely that the steep increase in reported kills has been caused by publicity, which has encouraged beekeepers to collect dead bees which in the past would probably have been attributed to "normal losses." In fact, researchers and lawyers alike have been encouraging the collection of dead bees, for the simple fact that without evidence we have no idea how many bees are being killed and what is killing them. Without the evidence there is no story and certainly no case.

Hence, the sharp increase in collection and reporting. What is significant, however, is the fact that very few of the serious bee kills involve neonicotinoid pesticides. Five times as many "major" and "moderate" pesticide-related bee kills were sourced to other non-neonic chemicals.  In fact, the number of 'major' bee kill incidents caused by chemicals placed by beekeepers in their hives to combat the devastating varroa mite exceeded the number of 'major' incidents attributable to neonics.  

PMRA's historical data suggest that other chemicals were far more likely to cause "major" or "moderate" damage to bee hives than neonicotinoids, and that neonic incidents were heavily concentrated in just two provinces – Ontario and Quebec.  But other Canadian provinces, especially in the agricultural west, use neonics far more heavily than farmers in Ontario and Quebec.  Some 19 million acres, mostly in western Canada, are devoted to canola production alone – pollinated by bees and 100% treated with neonicotinoids.  Yet PMRA's 2007-12 incident reports reveled that – apart from a single, ambiguous case – there were no reports of bee kills attributable to neonics in all of western Canada.

Meanwhile, in the US, the focus has shifted as well, from the so-called Colony Collapse Disorder of several years ago, to the putative connection between agrochemicals and failure to thrive. Much to the dismay of the beekeeping industry, no certain cause was ever found for colony collapse, other than the ever present varroa mites, and their viruses. For a time, the industry was compensated by the US government with money set aside for the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program. The program included the provision: "to be eligible for a loss of honeybees due to colony collapse disorder, the eligible honeybee producer must provide documentation to support that the loss was due to colony collapse disorder." Which is ironic, since no one has ever determined what CCD is, or was. Yet millions were paid out, until the government realized this could go on forever, paying for disappearing bees. 

The Canadian Government, in its wisdom, declared that there was no CCD in Canada, so no payments for bee losses should be expected. Attention shifted to Agrochemicals as a possible culprit. Beekeepers have been keen on finding some deep pocketed source of compensation. Whether it's the farmers who applied the chemicals, the companies who made them, or the provincial governments who approved the applications, the thinking goes: someone should be made to pay.

Peter Loring Borst

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html