BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:06:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (136 lines)
Robert Mann recently forwarded along several items concerning
genetically-modified crops, and the "amazing discovery" that bees
will forage distances of several kilometers, ignoring the several-hundred
meter "buffer zones" around plantings of Oilseed Rape (or "Canola",
as it is called in the US and Canada).

I think beekeepers should worry less about "where you stand",
and much more attention to "who is trying to stand next to you"
on this issue.

I'm going to say some less-than-charitable things about "environmentalists",
so I should point out that I am a card-carrying, long-standing member of
the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and The Nature Conservancy.  I am speaking
as someone who has been a foot solider in "the environmental movement"
for decades.  I have seen how both environmentalists and their opponents
are forced to simplify the debate for the consumption of those who set public
policy to the point where complex science is represented by cartoon-like
propaganda from both sides of the debate.

I cannot lay blame at the feet of anyone except the makers of public policy
who allow themselves to be influenced by sloganeering.  I cannot blame any
participant in the debate for using every tactic available to them in their efforts
to achieve what each side feels is "for the general good".

But!!!

The phrase "GM-Contaminated Honey" is an indication that beekeepers
are being co-opted by groups with political agendas that may not be
compatible with the best interests of beekeepers.

This is not to say that things like genetically-modified Canola are not
valid issues of concern for beekeepers.  Beekeepers have a stake
in such issues, but we need to insure that we do not let others do
our talking for us.  Neither side of this "debate" appear to be our friends.

My point is that some "environmentalists" appear to be setting up
beekeepers and organic farmers to be "victims" of "Robo-crops".  While
they would certainly cry crocodile tears for someone who finds his crop
"contaminated" from foraging on GM plants, I'd bet my hive tool that they
would produce more press releases than tears.

The majority of environmentalists don't have crops to sell, and are perfectly
willing to sacrifice your crop and your livelihood in their attempts to affect
political change.  They may even adopt a battle cry of "save the beekeepers",
hoping that no one notices that they are the sole source of claims that honey
might be "contaminated", and that such "contamination" is a concern.

They honestly feel that they see a "larger issue", and feel that they hold
the moral high ground.  In their attempts to achieve a larger "victory", they
can (and have, and will) carpet-bomb entire sectors of innocent agricultural
producers to take out one "threat to the environment".  They will incite
"food scares".  They will exaggerate risks.  They feel that they must do so,
since well-reasoned and accurate statements of concern are often ignored
by makers of public policy, forcing advocates to "up the ante" simply to be heard.

Here's the progression of steps:

1)  It is inherently obvious to even the casual observer that bees will
     not respect any of the "buffer zones" imposed in an attempt to
     prevent cross-pollination of GM-crops with non-GM-crops.

2)  But neither does the wind.  Bees are not required to make these
     "buffer zones" seem silly.  Wind alone will distribute small amounts
     of pollen, and has been shown by a number of studies to result in
     low levels of cross-pollination.  One recent large study has been
     reported on in both "Science" and "Nature".
     http://www.nature.com/nsu/020624/020624-10.html

3)  One would think that rational discussion would focus on the
     wind, leaving bees and beekeepers as a minor footnote in the
     controversy.  But the agenda of any "political action group"
     is to play "brinkmanship" on all fronts, promoting a view
     that complete disaster lurks behind whatever they oppose.
     One cannot blame them, as this seems to be the only thing
     that ever "works".  Blame elected officials who ignore less.

4)  Let's assume for a moment that governments act "reasonably",
     listens to the environmental concerns, and decide to increase
     the buffer zones.  A rational "solution" would be to ban all
     beekeeping around GM-crops at a distance sufficient to insure
     that bees will neither gather nor spread the GM-pollen at issue.
     (We must assume that they will not instantly ban the GM-crops,
     since they have not done so in the face of fierce opposition.)

5)   On the other hand, let's assume that governments ignore the
      environmental concerns, and do nothing.  The only move left
      to the environmental political action groups will be to try and
      make the public aware of "the risk".  The easy and obvious
      "risks" are organic food that is "contaminated", and honey that
      is "contaminated" from being "too close" to GM crops.

6)   These public policy debates invariably "ratchet up", and
      somewhere along the way, the hard science is replaced
      by shrill arguments.  This happens because both "sides"
      feel that they are "right", and neither has any chance of
      changing each other's point of view.  So it is a certainty
      that the progression (1) to (5) will happen, if we allow it.

So, the organic farmers and beekeepers become the "poster children"
for the environmental lobbyists, and news of their "plight" is spread
far and wide by the environmental lobby.  In fact, beekeepers might
even be viewed as "part of the problem", in that bees are clearly efficient
vectors for the spread of pollen.

The net short-term result is that a "food scare" has been created
in the attempt to gain control over agricultural policy.  In the process,
all crops are tarred with the same brush, so even a beekeeper who
can prove a lack of contamination will be hurt by a "food scare".

Note that (4) and (5) leave beekeepers with loose-loose options, in that
they either find themselves regulated "out of business", due to a lack of
suitable hive locations, or they may find their crops unmarketable.

My suggested strategy in light of all this is "The Bob Dylan Gambit":

        "the answer, my friend is blowin' in the wind".

Beekeepers need to point out that wind is a universal phenomena, while
bees are much less "universal".  While it may be possible for environmentalists
to point at your honey crop as "contaminated", the problem would still exist
even if bees did not exist, so dragging bees into the discussion does not
enhance understanding of "the problem", and poses a risk to your ability
to continue to be a beekeeper.

Beekeepers don't need bad publicity, and we do not need to become
poster children for someone else's cause.  We certainly do not need
to suffer collateral damage from someone else's propaganda.

The most ironic part of the whole situation is that we would be forced to cite
studies that show "no health risk" from consumption of GM crops to sell
our honey, which plays into the hands those who support GM crops.

So, what happens after what comes next?   Think about it.

        jim

ATOM RSS1 RSS2