Channel 4 News now... item coming up

[Dishmop]

The US research was done by Jeff Pettis who from the photos definitely looks like a him to me.

see.... waste of time them doing media studies....they should have put his name in the proper place then.... infact his name is not even mentioned in the written article

 

[Nellie]

Today, however the leading American researcher who linked the insecticides to outbreaks of bee diseases told Channel 4 News that what he saw in the lab doesn't occur in working hives.

"The lab study certainly seemed very clear that low levels of pesticides were impacting on honey bee health. But when we look in the field we don't see the same results. Even when colonies that were exposed to low levels we're not seeing outbreaks of the gut parasite pathogen that we saw in the lab," said Dr Jeff Pettis of the

Agree the opening paragraph looks like it was constructed by throwing letters at a board though and I had to re-read a couple of times.

 

[Queens59]

I'm glad it wasnt my bees they were banging off the frame as seen in the programme.

Hope the bee inspector doesn't do that when they call !!

Ummmm...YES mine did - first time I had seen it - along with using the hive tool as a lever to squash the frames togetgher - and ignoring the crunchy sound the squished bees made...but I guess the hive has thousands...

 

[Brosville]

It's a plain whitewash attempt by those tame pesticide apologists in DEFRA to "twist" what has actually been said....... Channel 4 are pretty good at helping with such shenanigans (anyone remember Durkin's "documentaries"?)

Pettis is quoted (in a somewhat less biased report) as saying "We can't just point to any one single factor as being the dominant thing in the decline in honey bee health. Of late, it seems that this has been the dominant issue, that pesticides are driving everything in bee health.

"I think there's more of what I call the 3-P principle – poor nutrition, pesticides and pathogens. Those three things are interacting greatly. Nutrition is the foundation of good bee health, and certainly there's some pesticide exposure going on, but it varies widely over time and space. And the pathogens in my opinion are often acting secondarily. But it's the interaction of these three [that matters]. You get three of them lined up and surely you'll have bees in poor health. Even the combination of any two could be problematic."

Which puts a very different complexion on the "spin" put on it by Channel 4's "story"

I could quite reasonably suggest on the strength of what Pettis actually said, that the DEFRA "expert" is talking through her...... in claiming that it completely exonerated "icides" - it doesn't, by a long chalk......

 

[Nellie]

Is Pettis part of this grand conspiracy as well Brosville? I ask given the prominence that his study was given by the Ban campaign or has he now joined the great global conspiracy to protect Bayer's business interests?

At what point do you stop shouting whitewash and just quietly hope that people stop looking I wonder?

I'm still unconvinced that the existing problems are caused specifically by pesticides and I also still don't think that any pesticide is "good" for bees. But how many studies failing to conclude what you want it to does it take to start to look like perhaps there isn't the link there that you want to find?

 

[BobH1]

It's a plain whitewash attempt by those tame pesticide apologists in DEFRA to "twist" what has actually been said....... Channel 4 are pretty good at helping with such shenanigans (anyone remember Durkin's "documentaries"?)

Then your scientists need to be a lot more aware of what they are saying, if you (and they) think they can be missquoted.

Listening to what Pettis said in the interview, it was clear to me that he said he could not find a connection, in the field, between colony deaths and these pesticides. If that is not the case then he should not have said it!

 

[Nellie]

That might have been what he said Bob, but are you sure that's what he meant?

 

[BobH1]

That might have been what he said Bob, but are you sure that's what he meant?

That's my point, if he didn't mean it he shouldn't have said it. People need to be media aware and need to be very careful about what they say. Be aware that whatever you say will be taken out of context!

In point of fact, of course, he was quite clear - he could not find a connection.

 

[Nellie]

I'm going to put it out there Bob and I know it's a crazy notion, but perhaps he meant exactly what he said?

I know by tomorrow morning there'll be people dismissing him as in the pay of Bayer, but even reading the conclusions to his original study, that so much was made of by the Ban Brigade, he's consistently explicit in his language.

If we take what Brosville assertions as gospel, then I'm pretty hard pushed to think of a single person or body in the UK or US looking into bee problems that isn't part of Bayer's science team and or taking a back hander to manipulate the data.

DEFRA can't be trusted, the bee unit can't, Pettis now can't, Ratniek can't, the entire University of Sussex cant. No-one in the BBKA or the BFA's opinion isn't tainted and so on. That's pretty much the entire UK body of Apiculture (and much of the US) that is apparently more interested in hiding the truth than caring for the welfare of animals they're all supposedly passionate about and not a single whistle blower amongst them. Is there something uniquely corruptible about beekeepers? Or have I just not looked hard enough on wikileaks?

 

[BobH1]

 

[Dishmop]

My references were on the article in this link

http://www.channel4.com/news/bee-decline-not-caused-by-pesticides

 

[Brosville]

"DEFRA can't be trusted, the bee unit can't, Pettis now can't, Ratniek can't, the entire University of Sussex cant. No-one in the BBKA or the BFA's opinion isn't tainted and so on. That's pretty much the entire UK body of Apiculture (and much of the US) that is apparently more interested in hiding the truth than caring for the welfare of animals they're all supposedly passionate about and not a single whistle blower amongst them. Is there something uniquely corruptible about beekeepers? Or have I just not looked hard enough on wikileaks?"

-let's go through that little lot, bit by bit.........

DEFRA have a long history of "being in bed with Big Pestco", even back in the days when they were "The Min of Ag and Fish" they trumpeted their line, and did their best to rubbish organics (I know, I suffered their onslaught)

Pettis, if you actually bother to read the Independent article (from which I quoted) is not of the opinion that pesticides are completely blameless, but part of a causal triptych, and we await the verification of his work on neonicotinoids.

Many suspect Ratnieks was awarded the post because he's long dismissed pesticides as being a problem with an airy wave of the hand, and is not held in high esteem by many in the bee world.

The BBKA hierarchy perpetrated an unforgivable paid liaison with the pesticide companies for years (originated and carried on in secrecy, and still extant in a slightly modified form) - following howls of righteous protest, no apologies, no resignations, no change in policy, still punting Big Pestco's porkies, nowadays for the industry's trade association..........

Just for those who can't or won't scroll back a little, I'll requote Pettis himself

"We can't just point to any one single factor as being the dominant thing in the decline in honey bee health. Of late, it seems that this has been the dominant issue, that pesticides are driving everything in bee health.

"I think there's more of what I call the 3-P principle – poor nutrition, pesticides and pathogens. Those three things are interacting greatly. Nutrition is the foundation of good bee health, and certainly there's some pesticide exposure going on, but it varies widely over time and space. And the pathogens in my opinion are often acting secondarily. But it's the interaction of these three [that matters]. You get three of them lined up and surely you'll have bees in poor health. Even the combination of any two could be problematic."


Unless they've changed the meaning of the English language overnight, he clearly states that he considers pesticides to be at least part responsible for the problems with bees. Van Engelsdorp and the Penn State have been saying similar now for years - "a perfect storm" - several factors conspiring together.

This clearly shows that either DEFRA's "expert" is talking out of her....... or Channel 4 is misreporting it (take your pick!)

I've said for ages that I considered it highly likely that bees are weakened by pesticide exposure (particularly when "in cocktail"), which is never investigated by "the industry", and that the "coup de grace" is administered by something else - mites, disease etc, none of which is at odds with Pettis', or Penn States findings (if fully and correctly reported)

Add into that the latest findings from Australia, there is no doubt that pesticides (particularly neonicotinoids) are contributing greatly to many of the problems in the environment - and quite frankly, anyone who thinks otherwise is "ostriching"

I don't think Pettis or Penn State are in the pay of "Big Pestco", BUT the makers of neonicotinoids are very rattled by the recent campaigns, and are fighting tooth and nail to discredit critics, and to keep the muck on the market - they stand to lose gazillions if it is banned....

If you want to know where the present government's sympathies lie, just look at their tearing up the pesticide spraying rulebook, and Ms Spelman's machinations to steamroller in GMOs.

- On which subject, many people wonder why they get "CCD" in the States, but not here - they have GM crops there, we don't here (yet!)


Quotes taken from the Independent article http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=9650

 

[Poly Hive]

Just for accuracy DEFRA no longer exists.

The dept is now called FERA.

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/

I do not believe myself either mob. I suspect the middle ground will be probably right. However the jury is still out.

PH

 

[greatbritishhoney]

I agree with Rooftops.

It is only a non-statement if (for whatever reason) you have already made your mind up - and this is not what you want to hear

Not all Rosti. I haven't made my mind up - infact, all I said was that it didn't already tell us anything we didn't already know. We knew that there was no definitive cause for CCD and we knew that bee losses have not been as great over the last few years. I don't disagree with the statement, I just don't understand why FERA thought this was newsworthy or how it furthers their cause or the cause of beekeepers in general.
I guess I am asking what's the motive of putting out a statement that basically just says we still don't know what causes CCD?
It's like Cancer Research going on prime time news to say we still don't know what causes certain types of cancer.

 

[Brosville]

"However the jury is still out"

- indeed it is, the Channel 4 "story" claims pesticides are blameless, which is unproven, and a twisting of the truth - as we know from smoking, it can take decades to prove causal links, particularly if there's big rich multinationals working hard to discredit any such research......... (and the very same lobbying companies are now employed by the pesticide, GM and Nuclear companies......)

 

[Chris B]

I only caught the clip once. Didn't she say something like there's no evidence at the moment that pesticides are causing honeybee decline in the UK? Not too surprising as there is no honeybee decline in the UK.

 

[nelletap]

I am sure the timing of the news article has some significance. It was yesterday that the meeting of MP's, beekepers and scientists was to discuss this matter (mentioned on other threads here). Either it is an attempt to influence, or to prepare the ground for a pre-decided announcement. I am not sure whether any beekeeper I know was going to the meeting so I am curious as to what may have arisen from the meeting.
Tricia

 

[Brosville]

Now let me guess....... "Pesticides are good for you, bees, birds and the environment in general, and should be spread liberally on your cornflakes"

- and that ringing sound isn't tinnitus, it's the tintinnabulation of "kerrrrching"

 

[Black Comb]

The other point I picked up was that nearly equal weight was given to "other pollinators".

 

[Nellie]

I only caught the clip once. Didn't she say something like there's no evidence at the moment that pesticides are causing honeybee decline in the UK? Not too surprising as there is no honeybee decline in the UK.

That perhaps depends on how you look at things. Certainly I think the current explosion in Beekeepers and colonies will mask any underlying issues when taken at face value.

On the other side of the coin, many of those have bought into the religion of conventional Beekeepers being a bunch of evil *******s and are effectively off the radar so neither their uptake or their losses are being recorded which may or may not be a good thing depending on your outlook.

The last couple of year's winter losses figures have been reasonably encouraging, against a backdrop of continued misleading reporting of the numbers, and anecdotally this year losses again don't seem that high but that's just based on talking to people and doing quick counts on forums like these.

Are we just getting better educated and better at managing varroa? Has the shift away from just chucking apistan into the hive once a year to a continual programme of IPM been of benefit to the beekeeper as well as the bee?

Im not suggesting all is rosy in the world of UK beekeeping let alone globally, but I do wonder whether the fixation on neonicotinoids and the desire to see them conclusively linked to colony kisses runs the risk of ignoring the wider picture.

I don't think we should now put a big tick against them either or stop reasearch into them conpletely, but the current campaign smacks of ideology and not a million miles removed from the phone mast brigade who'll pin those as the root cause of whatever's in the press at the moment and anyone who disagrees as in the pay of Nokia and the phone networks who would say they're harmless wouldn't they?