Spring without Bees has already been discussed on Bee-L. To summarize:
Schacker writes:
> As far as CCD-free regions go, there do appear to be some explanations. Some southern areas of the US are not reporting CCD, This might correlate with the spread of the Africanized bee, the so-called "killer bee," into honey bee populations in those places. African bees so far seem to be immune to colony collapse disorder, at least according to anecdotal reports in small-town newspapers.
Anecdotal reports in small-town newspapers? Is the level of expertise
we can expect from the book? Appears so. A look at the index finds no
Bromenshenks but Burt's Bees. Right away he refers to Hackenberg and
Dennis van Englesdorp. Hackenberg called upon Dennis for help early
on. Most of the book revolves around the pesticide connection as
promoted by Hackenberg and others.
Hackenberg says "I am convinced that neonicitinoids may play a role in
CCD." By the way, I am convinced they MAY play a role, too.
But they don't appear to be at all interested in Dennis's conclusions.
By the way, I know Dennis and have immense respect for his knowledge
of the situation.
> Dennis van Englesdorp, the acting Pennsylvania State Apiarist, a beekeeper, and a leading researcher, insists that insecticides cannot be tagged as the culprit. "We have NO evidence to think that theory is more right than ANY OTHER ..." page 109
Bayer is probably mentioned the most, followed by the author's
personal favorite "Plan Bee".
> Your donation will help implement PLAN BEE to STOP colony collapse disorder and save the bees!
Not only does the author attempt to build up a case that CCD = IMD
(imidacloprid), but he systematically attempts to undermine the
credibility of anyone who doubts the connection.
He writes that Dr. Pettis of the USDA says that if CCD is caused by a
virus, there isn't much we can do about that. Then Schacker rephrases
it like this:
> The beekeepers would thus have to learn how to cope with ever-increasing uses of IMD while the government-industry line would be "it's a virus, there's nothing we can do."
In the book, he has Pettis saying that CCD cannot be connected to
pesticides, that the science is inconclusive. "It's one myth. We can't
make the connection to disorientation," Pettis says. Pettis states
plainly that he thinks the answer lies in bee management issues.
Schacker mentions that Dennis van Englesdorp also does not believe in
the IMD CCD connection. Then he tries to undermine Dennis and Penn
State by saying that Bayer has its headquarters in Pennsylvania and
has "very close ties to Penn State."
> Bayer CropScience meanwhile integrates itself with the agricultural school, especially the Turfgrass Center and the Pesticide Research Lab. All this time, there has been no funded study by the Penn State CCD Working Group to see if IMD cause disorientation.
The implication being that Pettis and Penn State are somehow in
cahoots with Bayer. In his scenario only real beekeepers like Jim Doan
have the guts to go before congress and tell the IMD story. He
contrasts that brave act with the "weasel words" of Maryanne Frazier:
> "We are finding a number of things, but we don't know how they are yet connected to the CCD situation."
What else can she say? She works at Penn State and probably gets an
annual wall calendar from Bayer. Schacker writes:
> Are studies and interpretations of data on IMD by Penn State being influenced by a reluctance to go up against Bayer? The CCD Working Group would no doubt respond "absolutely not".
Schacker goes on to say that the group has suppressed the French
report which has all the proof we need. Unfortunately, it's in French
so who knows what it says.
Comité Scientifique et Technique de l'Etude Multifactorielle des
Troubles des Abeilles (CST) Imidaclopride utilisé en enrobage de
semences (Gaucho(R)) et troubles des abeilles Rapport final
http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapportfin.pdf
It's a conspiracy, of course. Schacker writes:
> The chemical industry lobbyists have been given the key to the regulatory candy store, the EPA is politicized and compromised, the USDA is focusing on natural causes rather than man made ones, the universities have been privatized by chemical industry "largesse", the growers are mesmerized by the pesticide salesmen, and all the while the bees keep dying. Even the democrats in Congress have been led off the trail by scientific witnesses.
If that doesn't scare you, read Chapter Nine: "Civilization Collapse Disorder"
> the threat of a collapse of our own human hive is now so real -- and perhaps not far away. The missing bees truly appear as the beginning of the apocalyptic futures depicted in science fiction movies.
There's a movie in it, I am certain.
I have obtained a very long paper from Germany which discusses the
losses in France and the report that Schacker refers to in his book. I
will quote very briefly from the report. Anyone who wants more info is
welcome to write to me directly
> the French Minister for Agriculture commissioned a report on the reasons for and the extent of the damage. The report published in 2003 is not suitable for supporting the beekeepers’ demand for a ban on the registration of products containing imidacloprid. It contains only a huge amount of toxicological data regarding imidacloprid and bees and different theoretical scenarios about the possible origin of the bee losses in France. All tests under practical conditions are excluded from the evaluation. Any data about real losses of honeybee populations and the reduction of honey yields are missing. A synopsis of the poisoning incidents in honeybee populations by plant protection products in Germany makes evident that these damages have been declining for about 20 years.
On p. 98 Shacker writes that nine beekeepers ended up suing Bayer in
2002 for loss of their hives and income. He says "the world will now
be watching" the test case of Bauer v. Bayer. After six years the case
was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
> WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — A putative class action alleging that the insecticide imidacloprid treatment of canola seed is killing honeybees and reducing honey production was dismissed June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania because the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to survive summary judgment (Dale Bauer, et al v. Bayer A.G., et al., No. 03-1687, M.D. Pa.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48013)
I would like to offer my respect for professional beekeepers
everywhere. They have suffered the effects of modern agriculture for
decades, and their plight has often been ignored. They are the unsung
heroes in the food chain. Often they make life affecting decisions on
hunches or incomplete information. They don't have years to wait for
answers to the problems facing them now.
I have zero respect, however, for non-beekeepers who piece together
theories in order to sell books or call attention to themselves. The
book in question bases its entire premise on the claim by the "Organic
Beekeepers" that they don't have CCD, which was subsequently found to
be false.
We still don't know what CCD is -- or was -- so how can I tell if I
did -- or didn't -- have it? My own definition of CCD is "bees gone,
don't know why." Any time somebody had a good explanation for why they
were gone, it wasn't CCD. The rampant use of chemicals in our lives
simply cannot be a good thing, but we are dependent on them for
survival. That's how it is.
--
Peter L 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
|
