Quote Originally Posted by worm View Post
At the recent AGM the SBA voted,by 34 to 31, not to support a ban on neonics.(conditions apply)

Given the mounting evidence of harm and the known neurological effects of this highly lucrative product on insect life worldwide, and the reprecussions up to birds and down to worms, how on earth can you support them?

Try and defend yourselves here.
Given the mounting evidence, how did Eric manage to present such a badly worded case that less than 50% of the barely 10% of the present membership agreed that the SBA should throw its whole weight behind a motion to ban neonicotinoids?

Is the case that weak? Do most Beekeepers believe there are more pressing issues? Are Beekeepers not experiencing the media narrative of bee Armageddon? Is there a wider belief that hanging undoubted problems facing pollinating insects, generally, solely on neonicotinoids, might mask wider issues and that having the associations "crying wolf", just backs us into a corner? Is there some other reasonable reason rather than we all work for Bayer?

Given the scientific credentials of those, in a position where that matters, within the national beekeeping associations who see no reason, currently, to lobby for a ban; might that not give pause for thought to those who would pin everything on these pesticides as to whether they're the root cause of problems that they like to make out?

Evidently you're disappointed that Eric's motion didn't carry, but as a supporter of it might you not be better served trying to put forward the argument(s) as to why it should rather than go on to attack those who thought it shouldn't?