Why did the SBA vote to keep Neonics?

[worm (JTF3)]

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.

[gavin]

Because the people in the room were unconvinced by the arguments put forward for the motion?

[EmsE]

.... Try and defend yourselves here.

No one needs to defend themselves here. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions whether you agree with them or not. I guess it's along the lines of entitlement of free speech and probably covered by the human rights act somewhere or other.

Some forum members may completely agree with you, others may disagree with you and some are still undecided, and that's absolutely fine so long as your able to engage in a respectful discussion.

[drumgerry]

I see the terms "respectful" and "discussion" running for the hills as we speak. I wasn't at the meeting but would have voted against the motion if I had been - without feeling any need to justify myself to anyone. The anti-Neonic Taliban seem not to understand that people have a right to disagree with them.

[The Drone Ranger]

I don't think that's what they did, they didn't vote for a ban
In fairness the SBA is about bees not an environmental pressure group
So people would be deciding based on whether they felt their bees were being harmed
I doubt anyone was saying they like pesticides being used

I'm a floating voter if you like and unlikely to be won over by either side whacking me over the head with their wads of evidence

[Trog]

To put it another way, only 31 out of the entire SBA membership, all of whom were aware of the motion, felt that the SBA should lobby for a ban on neonics.

It could be said that the proposer was able to convince only 31 beekeepers in Scotland of the rightness of his cause?

[The Drone Ranger]

To put it another way, only 31 out of the entire SBA membership, all of whom were aware of the motion, felt that the SBA should lobby for a ban on neonics.

It could be said that the proposer was able to convince only 31 beekeepers in Scotland of the rightness of his cause?

Hi Trog
In fairness though only 34 voted against so either a lot of people didn't know enough to decide or they think its a non issue.
It is possible that the majority of members are unwilling to be drawn into an acrimonious argument.?
I like a bit of an argue and sometimes am bit of agent-provocateur but I was surprised by this thread
There is real hostility here and another similar thread not very nice for visitors reading it

[chris]

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, ............... .

Just to show that the issue is not as black or white you apparently want us to think, a recent 12 year study by the Comité interprofessionnel des vins de Champagne has found an interesting result, and decided that it was not the moment for any communication on the subject.The study compared vines cultivated traditionally with those cultivated organically.Two key factors were retained: the microbian biomass (is that English?) and the earthworm population in the soil.Result? More earthworms present in the traditionally cultivated soils than in the organic ones. The reason given was the extra use of copper in organic grape growing.
Another study carried out in Languedoc-Roussillon reveals that the earthworm population in organically cultivatrd soil compared with traditionally cultivated vines has diminished by 65% over the last 17 years.

I doubt anyone was saying they like pesticides being used

Precisely. And decision makers need to be informed of the many consequences of their decisions to be able to weigh the pros and cons.

[Jon]

I use bordeaux mix which contains copper sulphate to spray my spuds and one of the other guys on the allotments who uses dithane argues with me that bordeaux mix is maybe worse for the soil due to the copper in it even though it is considered a 'soft' treatment and was allowed in organic production until recently. It maybe still is allowed although I know it was under review.

[Neils]

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?