Hello All:

Robert Mann forwarded the edited following article:

>WHAT'S THE BUZZ?:
>A LEADING BEE SCIENTIST GETS A GOVERNMENT RUNAROUND
>November 15, 2000
>Canadian Business, pg.128
>Andrew Nikiforuk

In view of threads on this list by Jerry Bromenshenk and others regarding
the altering of the facts by journalists, I thought bee-listers might be
interested in the actual thoughts of Mark Winston on this subject, not the
interpretation of them by a journalist.  Thus what follows is Mark's own
writing on this.  In this case, however, the journalistic accuracy seems to
have been impeccable.

Regards, Stan

July 18, 2000
The Vancouver Sun
Editorial
A15
Opinion
Mark Winston

I¹m a bee scientist and beekeeper by occupation and pastime. Beekeepers
have two concerns about genetically modified crops.

The first is that European consumers have become shy of anything
genetically modified, and our Canadian beekeepers export honey to
Europe. Genetic engineering does not affect honey directly, but
bioengineered crops such as canola are major sources of honey in Canada,
and so honey has been swept along in the general biotech hysteria.

The second concern is that a protein resulting from genetic engineering
of plants might get into pollen, which bees collect and feed to their
young, and perhaps could have some unforeseen negative effects on colony
populations or bee behaviour.

There is no evidence to date that either honey or bees have suffered
from genetic modification of crops, and nothing of concern was revealed
at a recent ``bear pit¹¹ panel I participated in during the annual
beekeepers conference in Saskatchewan. Included on the panel were a
honey packer, a representative from the canola industry and an official from
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Nevertheless, I remain a hard-core scientist at heart, and when the CFIA
spokesman said that pollen from GM crops did not harm bees, my
data-sensitive antennae twitched and I made a mental note to obtain the
relevant studies.

Upon returning to Vancouver, I e-mailed the CFIA staffer, asking him to
substantiate the results alluded to in his talk. In my circles,
providing data for fellow scientists to corroborate statements is akin
to passing the salt at the dinner table. It¹s good manners, if nothing
else.

I knew something was amiss when my e-mail message was bumped up to a
higher-level civil servant. The questions I asked were straightforward,
seeking information needed to develop an informed opinion about an issue
that could seriously affect beekeepers¹ livelihoods. The answers also
were straightforward, although not in the way I expected:

Have honey bee adults or larvae been examined in tests to evaluate
effects of GM pollen on bees? Answer: Yes.

What GM crops were tested?
Answer: Can¹t tell you that; it¹s proprietary information.

Where did the data originate‹from industry or an independent source?
Can¹t tell you that; it¹s proprietary information.

Can you provide me with the experimental protocols for these tests?
Can¹t tell you that; it¹s proprietary information.

What were the results? Can¹t tell you that; it¹s proprietary
information.

Why can¹t you reveal the protocols and results from these tests? We deem
those to be confidential business details. I¹ll be blunt. There is
absolutely no reason for this information to be kept confidential. I can
understand a novel process, or even the nature of a particular gene
product, being kept under intellectual-property wraps.

But how could information like number of replicates, methods and
experimental protocols used, what plants were tested, and how many bees
lived or died possibly be considered a threat to patent protection or
industrial confidentiality?

If a GM crop is safe for bees and people, the public should be allowed
to see the data that says it¹s safe. If it¹s not, we should have clear
information about the danger. Period. Our government needs to be a
trustworthy arbitrator of such issues, and their secrecy stance
torpedoes credibility.

It¹s not just bee data, and it¹s not just GM crops that we should be
concerned about. As one CFIA official put it, ``secrecy is business as
usual as far as we¹re concerned.¹¹

There are many issues larger than bees and pollen. Our government makes
decisions about biotechnology products, pesticides, antibiotics fed to
livestock and myriad other health and safety matters based on copious
data provided by industry.

I don¹t happen to share the deep distrust expressed by many on the
environmental left about industry-generated data, but I do share the
opinion that such information should be publicly accessible when it
relates to human and environmental health.

Nor do I have any particular reason to mistrust the quality or
professionalism of the staff at the CFIA or other Canadian government
agencies. I¹ve worked with regulators on many issues, and found that the
on-the-ground workers are dedicated, honest and as helpful as they are
allowed to be. They often have told me stuff they are really not
supposed to reveal because they, too, see the foolishness of overdone
silence.

The problem lies in government policy that has handcuffed our civil
servants. Stealth may be necessary for an undercover military spy. But
can someone explain to me why the number of bees killed or not killed by

GM canola pollen is a government secret? Or, if a pharmaceutical company
develops a new antibiotic for livestock, why can¹t I see the data
presented to government on residues in meat, even without top-secret
information on the identity of the antibiotic? How about the inert
ingredients in which pesticides are dissolved before being
sprayed?

The underlying issue is trust. The consequence of secrecy is that we
perceive conspiracy by shadowy government-industry cartels at every
turn, whereas the opposing perspective, transparency, would reduce our
anxieties about new and potentially beneficial technologies.
Anything less than full disclosure on information pertinent to human and
environmental health is an affront to the public interest. How about it,
Ottawa? I await the data.

Mark Winston is a professor of biological sciences at Simon Fraser
University, and a regular contributor to The Sun.