Video lecture about risk profile of neonicotinoid insecticides

[Eric McArthur]

Hi All
Gavin wrote:
The only folk who consider the relationship 'beyond doubt' seem to be the usual small group of campaigners and McCarthy of the Independent.
.................................................. ...........
The Avaaz petition registered 1 250 000 signatures for a ban of the neonicotinoids
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
PS. here is the link to the pages. No conspiracy Eric. I suppose you thought Bayer black ops agents had nobbled the editor of the Bulletin of Insectology.
.................................................. ............................
Where did the ‘conspiracy’ come from – not from me? Conspiracy theory seems to be high profile these days. I initially thought that Gavin , yourself and perhaps Jonathon had a direct line to God but I am more inclined now to the persuasion that Moses is the source.
However so saying I have Googled - “Bulletin of Insectology 56(1): 69 -72, 2003, ISSN 1721-8861” no less than 10 times in the hope that the permutation of items would eventually throw the item up – never happened! There must be a t least 200+ kibitzers following this thread – it would be interesting to get feed- back on how successful were their attempts to raise the offending piece using the ‘Bulletin’ info given!
I never cease to be astonished at your lack of regard for the well being of the honey bee when a conflict of interests arises between the bee and the forces working against her welfare. My conflict with the forces which seem to supply your dynamic is solely generated by a deep concern for this small insect – nothing less, no axe to grind, no hidden agenda - just a need to fight its corner and foster its existence against forces which do not appear to have her best interests at heart.

[gavin]

A nice retort Eric. OK then, the usual small group of campaigners, the Award-winning journalist at the Independent, plus over a million signatories to an international petition.

Fighting corners is all well and good, but when the fight distracts and detracts from fighting the likely real issues then it is time to think again.

[Jon]

I never cease to be astonished at your lack of regard for the well being of the honey bee when a conflict of interests arises between the bee and the forces working against her welfare.

Let me gently remind you again then - a vote to ban neonicotinoids is effectively a vote to bring back the older families of pesticides which are generally regarded as being less safe for the environment in general and people in particular.
Even if one's position is to ban all pesticides, and I know you don't take that extreme position like some of the campaigners, the banning of neonicotinoids will de facto lead to greater use of the older ones.
I don't think you are on any higher moral ground re. the honey bee than Gavin, myself or anyone else posting on this thread. Everyone is concerned about the welfare of the honey bee and the disagreement is about the best way to promote bee heath and beekeeping in general. I think the anti neonicotinoid campaign is a complete red herring and very likely sucks funding away from other areas of research which would be more fruitful. The idea of having to be on the side of the honeybee, or on the side of Bayer is a false dichotomy in my humble opinion.

[Neils]

Citing an emotively worded Internet petition is hardly "general consensus". I cite again the continuing campaigns to ban the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide as ample "proof" that if you word something emotively enough that people will stick their name to it and that one's being doing the rounds in one form or another for over a decade.

Backing an Internet campaign is no evidence that people have any real comprehension of what they're apparently supporting.

[Jon]

And the wording of the Avaaz petition was too rich even for the Bumblebee Conservation Trust who put out a series of corrections!
But I am sure every one of the 1,250,000 signatories checked the background information carefully rather than just signing a piece of paper which effectively stated, if you like bees and want to save them, just sign here.

Avaaz is a 6.5-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making.

Yesterday they launched a campaign to urge the US and EU to suspend neonicotinoid pesticides.

BBCT share concerns about growing evidence suggesting that some pesticides, including neonicotinoids, are harmful to bees.

However, there are some statements in the Avaaz summary which, based on BBCT's understanding of the scientific evidence, are not well supported. This weakens their position and threatens to make hard-won signatures less valuable. Furthermore, they make a strong case for pesticides being the root cause of global bee declines. In some instances pesticides may be seriously affecting honeybees, but it is BBCT's view that many of our wild bee species have declined primarily due to habitat loss and other factors, besides pesticide use. With honeybees the situation is also more complicated than the Avaaz literature implies. Disease has a significant role in ongoing declines.

BBCT have contacted Avaaz and offered to help them reach a more robust campaign stance. To date we have not heard back from them.

http://www.bumblebeeconservation.org.uk/avaaz.html

[Neils]

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

For the snopes take on it.

[Jon]

Moreover, Zohner's target audience was ninth-graders, a group highly susceptible to allowing peer pressure to overwhelm critical thinking. Thrust any piece of paper at the average high school student with a suggestion about what the "correct" response to it should be, and peer pressure pretty much assures you'll get the answer you're looking for. Someone that age isn't very likely to read a friend's petition calling for the banning of whale hunting and critically evaluate the socio-economic and environmental impact of such a regulation. Instead, he's probably going to say to himself, "This issue is obviously important to my friend, and he must have some good reasons for circulating the petition, so I'll sign it.

LOL
Apart from ninth graders, the peer pressure is obviously strong on biobees.com and moraybeedinosaurs.
Any excuse to post the Life of Eric, I mean Life of Brian clip again!!

[Neils]

Indeed. It perhaps also explains the relatively recent "so you hate our troops/Like Saddam/Love Pesticides/want to see our country bankrupt" etc etc etc school of debate on the internet. If we put the argument that x kills bees, and bees are good. If you won't agree with it then you must hate bees.

I still want to know, and still cannot get a straight answer to the question:

If we ban Neonicotinoids, what takes their place?

The obvious answer seems to me pretty much everything that was being used before, all of which are classified as extremely toxic to honey bees and much else besides, so what do we really change by banning Neonicotinoids?

[Eric McArthur]

Hi All
Does all this prose above detract from, or excuse the fact that 11 500 honey bee colonies were killed due to the use of planting machines, which had been demonstrated to have ‘fatal’ flaws, five full years before the German catastrophe occurred?
.................................................. ............................

Nellie wrote:
If we ban Neonicotinoids, what takes their place?
.................................................. ...................................
Perhaps a rationale of well regulated, moderate application of pesticide substances, based on proven need of application instead of the ”hard sell” by the multi’s sales' forces, whose only consideration is “the more we sell the bigger our profits” – and who gives a damn about the long term consequences anyway?

[Neils]

Perhaps a rationale of well regulated, moderate application of pesticide substances, based on proven need of application instead of the ”hard sell” by the multi’s sales' forces, whose only consideration is “the more we sell the bigger our profits” – and who gives a damn about the long term consequences anyway?

The petition doesn't ask for that, it calls for an immediate ban on neonicotinoids and nothing more.

How do you quantify proven need of application rather than splash it all over, just in case?