British Beekeepers, Bayer and sell-out - from Private Eye
The British Beekeepers Association (BBKA) is still receiving money from the controversial pesticide giant Bayer, despite links between the German firm's products, and the deaths of hundreds of millions of bees.
Next month, when beekeepers gather for their annual meeting, the BBKA will also face demands to stop labelling Bayer products as "Bee Friendly".
Millions of German bees have died along the Rhine this year, following the use of the neonicotinoid pesticide Clothianidin on crops.
Bayer Crop Sciences blames farmers for using the pesticide incorrectly, by not applying a fixing agent to stick the compound to seed coats, but Germany withdrew licenses for eight neonicotinoids in August. German campaigners Coalition against Bayer Dangers have since filed a charge against bosses of AG Bayer with the public prosecutor in Freiburg.
Italy suspended sales in September, while there are already bans on neonicotinoids in France and Slovenia. In November, the European parliament passed a resolution calling for the EU to investigate links between bee deaths and several pesticides, including clothianidin.
Meanwhile, American environmental group the Natural Resources Defence Council has filed a lawsuit demanding that the US Environmental Protection Agency hand over secret honey bee data submitted by Bayer when it applied for approval for Clothianidin in 2003.
Despite this, the BBKA continues to accept funds from Bayer, and endorses some of it's pesticide products (although not neonicotinoids) with it's "Bee Friendly" scheme, which it defends as "constructive engagement" with the agrochemical industry.
Any donation made by the companies concerned, none of which have exceeded £5,000 per annum, is dealt with by the executive, NOT by the technical committee, which restricts it's advice to the matter of whether the product can be considered "bee friendly" or not, says the BBKA.
Phil Chandler, one of the beekeepers pushing to force the association to abandon the scheme said it made the BBKA "a laughing stock among other European beekeeping organisations"
I would guess at ?5,000 a product - and several products......that is SOOOOO cheap for an organisation's good name - certain chemical companies must be widdling themselves after screwing that sort of deal out of them
My god, they're so thick, they can't even negotiate a fair price..........
> Unfortunately I got a bit banned from the BBKA forum for giving
> an arrogant colonial a well-deserved tongue-lashing............
No, you spewed venom in ALL directions, and got nothing but
calm and even-handed responses all around. When you were
banned, as you hoped to be banned, I openly objected on your
behalf, as I did not want you to be able to be yet another
martyr, and your attempt at self-immolation was so feeble.
And I'm still waiting to continue the discussion your banning
abruptly ended, as you have a number of basic misconceptions
about systemic pesticides that I think would be easy to set
straight for you. (If nothing else, they would make your
arguments against their use more credible as you would
not be saying things that are so easy to refute.)
But you and I are not so far apart at all on the whole
endorsement thing, so you may want to update your
list of "enemies" vs "allies".
Jim, I think that it is fair to say that Brosville just directed his strongest insults at you, even if his declarations on pesticide companies were a bit unfocussed at times. The insults were totally out of order, and put Brosville in a poor light, I thought. His continued declarations about arrogant colonials reveal a certain ... oh I don't know .... immaturity. Until then I had hoped that Brosville might like to continue the little debates we had been having on the real reasons bees were in trouble, but now I'm not so sure.
So Brosville - should we continue your education here? In case you missed it, from my vantage point N of the border I also do not think that the BBKA were right to endorse the pesticides they believe to be bee-friendly. No beekeeping organisation can afford to be seen to be snuggling up to such companies. In that light, the 60-40 vote in favour of continuing the arrangement seems amazing. OK, the voting system at the local association level may be imperfect, but doesn't it speak volumes for the effectiveness of those that campaigned against the arrangement if they can't persuade the representatives of a majority of associations to say no?!
To be frank, if I had wanted to continue being patronised by the arrogant, I would have possibly slightly moderated my entirely justified riposte to a great many unutterably rude, and incredibly ignorant postings by a certain person, and continued "looking over my shoulder" whilst continuing to post on that "other board".
I think both yours and Fischer's posts have amply demonstrated unbelievably patronising arrogance (which says far more about those who made those posts than me), for which I have no time whatsoever, so as far as I'm concerned, you can take your "education" you had in mind for me, and.........
No, our weather is going downhill .... dreich, as we might say, and not a good day for a peek at the bees, which is just as well as I've a broken central heating system to sort out on my day off ...
Brosville: you really shouldn't get so excited. Jim is very far from 'ignorant'. His views certainly are very different from yours, but calm, rational debate with someone with different views is always a good thing, isn't it? Isn't that one of the delights of the internet, that you can chat with people in other places and find out about their perspectives? All it needs is a bit of a civility top-up, and a blind eye to anything you think might be a wind-up.
For example, on CCD what is the point of wild speculation this side of the pond when there are very well informed people prepared to bring their views and experience to the table? I know, I know .. it might upset the things you *want* to believe, and we can't have that, can we?!