Poorly chicken

[beesontoast]

If you are even remotely interested in bees and what has been happening to them, do go and see this film as soon as you get the chance - it is on general release around the country now - see http://vanishingbees.co.uk/screenings/

 

It shows how the agri-chemical industry mutated from manufacturers of wartime nerve gas into profit-driven purveyors of agricultural pesticides, and in the process have poisoned land, people and the bees across the USA and Europe.

 

In the UK, Defra refuses to concede that pesticides are a problem to bees. They themselves are paving the way for the agri-chem giants, such as Bayer and Syngenta, to spread their toxic muck around our countryside with Government blessing, while an ignorant population is too busy watching Big Brother to care.

 

We cannot let them get away with this.

[Sheilaz]

That's a really interesting link, thank you Beesontoast. I share your concern about agri-chemicals and am interested in, and horrified about it, in equal measure.

 

Unfortunately the film isn't listed on the link as showing anywhere at all near me. However, I shall try and find out about other possible screenings, I'd really like to see it (and not Big Brother!).

[Lesley]

I don't watch Big Brother.....but I have done in the past.......does that make me too ignorant to watch this one?

[Sheilaz]

My guess is that one could be interested in both!

[Lesley]

I would agree - I find I can care about bees and watch utter drivel on TV

 

....which makes this....

 

while an ignorant population is too busy watching Big Brother to care.

 

.....unnecessary and patronising - hardly the way to gain people's interest in something as important as the plight of bees!!

[Old Speckled Hen]

Not on near me either.

Should I have selected "outside the UK" for Cumbria

Amazon will have it

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vanishing-of-the-Bees-DVD/dp/B002VE97MU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1257751614&sr=8-1

[Egluntyne]

Thanks OSH. Have ordered it.

[chickenanne]

I've seen it. Personally, I was disappointed in it. A lot of footage had already been shown elsewhere - particularly "Who killed the honeybee?".

It didn't spend enough time prooving the agri-chem case either IMO, which was disappointing: if the film makers are convinced that this is the cause of CCD in the US, then it would be better if they had spent more energies trying to convince others watching the film /prooving the case.

 

I also felt there was a bit of an "invented scandal" regarding agri-chemicals being tested by their manufacturers. Someone has to pay for such testing, and this is how it's done for all sorts of stuff, including medicines. The people involved in the testing are sadly not unbiased, but they do have to PROOVE that they have tested according to guidelines: and we are talking about people working in labs here, not some completely evil, power-and-profit-crazed "Them". It isn't in any way a perfect system, but how else could we pay for it? Whilst many would say agri-chems we can live without, far fewer would be willing to do without research into life-saving medication.

I just don't think it added anything to the film and made the case against these checmicals appear to be more of a rant than well-founded on scientific proof, which was such a daft thing for the filmakers to have done. All the film-makers needed to do was explain the evidence that (properly used) agri-chemicals are seriously and unsustainably damaging bees, e.g. becuase the testing requirements as laid out by governments are not rigorous enough/long term enough. That isn't the same as saying the tests aren't carried out properly.

Also, a side comment was made that "organic veg has same commercial /end user yeild as non-organic" (can't remember the exact quote). But this is because people buying organic produce are less likely to insist on "perfect" uniform items, or rather, have the supermarket insist on their behalf. To me, stuff like that FEELS like it has been included to mislead, which is so unnecessary and silly: if the film is right that the problem is largely down to neo-niquitinoids, then if they proove this in the film the job is basically done.

 

I don't disagree re: suspiscioun of neo-niquitinoids, but don't feel that the film presented the facts at all well.

 

I don't think there is a single cause of CCD, but reckon that all of the following could be factors working in combination:

a) the cocktail of agro-chems the bees are exposed to

b) large-scale movement of colonies between mono-crop areas,

c) over-use of antibiotics,

d) failure to change combs often enough

e) in-breeding

f) heavy year-round feeding of syrup

[beesontoast]

I agree about CCD being multi-factorial, and I agree with your list of likely factors.

 

However, I have seen a great deal of evidence that the agri-chem/drug companies are far more ruthless that you describe. I know one or two people on the fringes of the industry who have warned me - quite seriously - to 'mind my back' when publicly criticizing such as Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta as people have had threatening phone calls and personal intimidation after doing so. Remember Arpad Pusztai? He was sacked after revealing that a Monsanto GM potato had killed lab rats.

 

There are astonishing sums of money at stake here, and these corporations are utterly ruthless in the pursuit of profit. Monsanto have just been forced to withdraw a GM product that was designed to accelerate the growth rate of animals fed with it. Just think about that for a moment: they wanted farmers to grow a crop that would fatten animals quicker. Any implications for humans here?

 

It is important to be vigilant and not naiive - these people will sell you something that they say is safe and make a nice fat profit before someone discovers that it is far from safe. One example: aspirin - peddled for over 100 years as a 'safe' headache cure, and now scientists are warning us not to take it because it can cause severe internal bleeding and destroy your stomach lining! On top of that, it is now known NOT to be beneficial in preventing heart disease (as the makers have been telling us for years) and make have been an exacerbating factor in the deaths of the 1918 flu outbreak, due to the massive doses that Bayer were recommending to people who contracted the virus.

[chickenanne]

My understanding with asprin is that the warning is to those who take it daily to help reduce risk of heart attack -something which it was never designed for, and the safety of taking one-a-day-every-day was probably never tested as the drug was not intended for this sort of use. The side-effects (on stomach) and risks (of bleeding) are known and have been known, for a long time (hence the insturction not to take on empty stomach, and the info on side-effects). Asprin is a relatively safe drug. But like all drugs it has an active ingredient which changes the way the body responds to something, which carries inherent risk of side-effects. I'm not sure there are any meds which are effective and which have no side effects; have to choose wether the risks outwight the benefits. It's up to consumers to make themselves aware of the risks, by doing something as radical as reading the packet (or speaking to the pharmacist). The manufacturers have not "hidden" the risks or side effects here.

 

My own view is that some medications, chemicals, and the like will have side-effects or unintended consequences which we only discover very late on (not just chemicals: think of the wonder-product, asbesdos). But that this is not due to the "evil" of people testing these things or conceiving of them. Thalidomide had terrible consequnces for unborn children, but it had never been tested for safety in this regard.

 

Doesn't actually matter; both "sides" seem to agree that IF neo-nic. drugs impact bees it is after a far longer period of time than was considered in the safety tests prescribed.

 

I don't think that including arguments re: how terrible agro-chems are helps as ultimately the issue isn't "did they do the prescribed testing properly?" it's "did the prescribed testing go far enough?".

The testing limits are not decided by the businesses, they are set by govt agencies.

 

As to whistleblowing: there are two sides to all stories. Monsanto had a procedure to be gone through if people felt research etc was not being conducted properly, and that didn't involve going to the media or pressure groups before speaking up internally. If someone involved in testing has doubts they (morally) HAVE to bring them up, and if they are not settled internally then they HAVE to report externally. But when someone immediately goes to the media without raising it internally first (even anonymously) then you can understand why an employer would suspect that their motivation was not to improve the testing but to discredit the company. It would amaze me if some of the prototype meds/chemicals/lipsticks/whatever which are tested in labs of big companies aren't found to be danagerous. These ones are not then released to the market though. Thats what the testing is for, and the likes of Glaxo spend terrifying amounts on research into stuff which never makes it to market. Inadvertently developing a GM potato which killed rats doesn't mean that Monsanto were about to release rat-killing GM potatoes onto the market.

 

I don't know anything re: threatening phone-calls and the like, so can't comment there.

[beesontoast]

I don't intend to get into a lengthy discussion on the ethical standards within agri-chem companies - there is plenty out there already.

 

Let's just say that I trust Monsanto, Bayer etc to tell the truth about their products about as much as I would trust your average psychopath: the psychology has many parallels (I really must write that essay...).

 

Anyway, to get back to CCD, you may like to watch this video of Marianne Frazier of Penn State University, who has probably done more research on CCD than anyone else.

 

Here's the link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4115244451959719523#

 

Incidentally, about 10 minutes in, she blows the 'cell phone theory' of CCD out of the water.

[beesontoast]

The link above was to a presentation by Marianne Frazier in (I think) 2008. Here is the link to her latest, presented only a few days ago.

 

http://tinyurl.com/ylh57eb

[Melbourne12]

I too have seen this film. By the end, I was enraged at the insult to my intelligence and the sheer crude propagandising. Like Chickenanne, I wondered why the scientific evidence had been abandoned in favour of misleading and emotional irrelevancies.

 

But I was fortunate in attending the performance at the Tricycle when the film launched in UK, and which was followed by a Q&A with Maryam Henein (co producer, co-director, and co-researcher of the film) and with Alison Benjamin and Brian McCullum, authors of “A World Without Bees” http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Without-Bees-Alison-Benjamin/dp/0852650922/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258119644&sr=8-2

 

Let me say first that for anyone who is thinking of seeing the film, don’t. Buy the book instead and get a sensible and balanced view of the subject.

 

The film is based on the book, and features all the same characters, the beekeepers and scientists most knowledgeable about Colony Collapse Disorder. But where any message in the book doesn’t suit Maryam Henlein’s prejudices, she simply omits it. So we hear that a Bayer pesticide called Gaucho has been banned in France. Hurrah! One in the eye for the wicked chemical peddlers. But we don’t get to hear the result, scrupulously related in the book, that it made no difference, and indeed French bee losses continued to escalate.

 

And, as we’ve heard, she adds a bunch of nonsense about holistic living and spiritual values, and bizarre claims that current pesticides are identical – “the same molecule” -as second world war nerve gases. She gets her history a bit wrong at this point, and shows footage of chlorine gas attacks in the first world war trenches. But hey, it’s good tub-thumping stuff.

 

My outrage subsided during the Q&A after the film, when Maryam Henlein made two key statements.

 

First, “We should all live by our principles”, by which she meant we should all live by her principles.

 

Second, “Scientists are myopic”. She clearly has a huge contempt for scientists, although she isn’t too proud to quote them when they support her case.

 

It was at this point that I suddenly understood what I’d seen. It wasn’t anything to do with the facts, or careful analysis, or coming to a rational conclusion. There’s no point at all in presenting scientific evidence to the conspiracy theorists. They want there to be evil in the world, and they want agrochemical companies to be the embodiment of it. Simple as.

 

As beesontoast says, it’s a question of trust. Do we trust Bayer, or Monsanto, or Syngenta, or BASF? And if we don’t, then they’re guilty - at least, guilty of not winning our trust.

 

But of course, by extension, do we trust Maryam Henlein?

 

Is she a good filmmaker? Let me quote from a professional reviewer, and one who was on the whole in favour of her film. “… this rather simplistic documentary.

Choppy editing, cheap-looking animation, cheesily emotive music and a repetitive structure are actually minor problems; the real problem is the condescending, schoolmarm-ish narration, which continually states the obvious as if viewers are all 4 years old and have never heard of a bee before.”

 

Here’s her potted CV:

 

“Maryam has more than fifteen years experience working as an investigative journalist, a documentary and television producer and professional researcher. Her credits include producing documentaries for the BBC, Discovery, Robert Greenwald and Morgan Spurlock. As a journalist she has written for publications such as The Los Angeles Times, Science & Spirit Magazine, and The Cairo Times. The former Montrealer gained notoriety by breaking a story about Dodi Fayed's imposter, who duped hundreds across North America and set a precedent in Canadian legal history.

 

Working in front of the camera, Maryam co-wrote and hosted a program for TLC about the Ark of the Covenant. Following a near death experience several years ago, Maryam delved into the science of nutrition and alternative ways of healing. She also became more conscious about the environment and went on to produce a piece on the Exxon Valdez Oil spill for Robert Greenwald and The Sierra Club. She has worked developing numerous documentaries on topics ranging from Creationism to Family Annihilators. Her curiosity and tenacity energizes her work as a documentarian. Currently, she has become enchanted by and devoted to the making of a film about The Vanishing Bees.”

 

Creationism? Alternative healing?? Science and Spirit Magazine??? No wonder she thinks scientists are myopic.

 

Still, there’s the very prestigious Los Angeles Times, eh? Two articles. On hypnosis and mind over matter. In 1999.

 

Well, OK, what about her track record producing documentaries? Um, not exactly. She’s been a researcher mainly, although she did reach the giddy heights of associate producer on a BBC programme called “Millionaire’s Challenge”. I suppose that is something that appeals to “an ignorant population [that] is too busy watching Big Brother to care”.

 

And here’s a quote from one of her several blogs. There’s plenty of this stuff if you Google it.

 

“I think that it’s like that with the faeries and elves. I’ve felt them in some of the forests in France and England but I couldn’t quite see them. Not quite yet at least.”

 

And there my case rests, m’lud. If anyone can explain why I should trust this fruitcake, I’d be fascinated to hear.

[beesontoast]

So, a lengthy and dismissive ad hominem attack on the journalist who made the film, and thinly-veiled contempt for those who share her values.

 

If you want to hear a very genuine, very respected scientist with impeccable credentials saying much the same thing as was said in the film, with graphs and numbers, I suggest you follow the link to Marianne Frazier's presentation above.

 

Meanwhile, shooting the messenger as a means of making your point does your arguments - such as they are - no favours. I could quote reams of well-documented material showing how the agri-chems have lied and cheated their way into the marketplace with a whole string of toxic products, but I credit people here with the intelligence to look things up for themselves. Dismissing anyone who takes a different point of view as a 'conspiracy theorist' is the sort of childish trick I would expect from a politician, or an apologist for Big Pharma.

[Christian]

Oh no, things were moving along so nicely in the bee section.

 

Could we all play nicely again please?

[chickenanne]

If there is a problem with neo-nic chemicals then this is happening in a longer time frame than the safety tests on those chemicals allowed for. The tests conducted were carried out properly and inaccordance with govt requirements. There is therefore no need to question that Bayer conducted the tests properly, only that the government guidelines should alter to require testing for longer-term effects.

 

I agree that agri-chems should be tested over a longer period. But I also agree that this film was far too much a witch-hunt and not enough of a scientific analyses.

 

In one regard I can see how the film could be interpreted as veering closer to conspiracy theory than to scientifically based documentary (Bayer et al are evil companies seeking to destroy the planet for their own gain? Or Bayer et al produce chemicals which are tested properly, and in according to guidelines, but that those guidelines should be reviewed). It is an extreme view of the film, but I can see how someone could interpret it that way.

 

This is a real shame as it simply makes the ideas and theories expressed look like they should be easily dismissed. Personally, I do think neo-nicotinoid longer term impact on bees does desperately need to be examined more closely, and an anti-scientist rant does the theory far more harm than good.

 

I don't know what causes CCD. The film made no difference to me in that regard: I'm none the wiser as a result of seeing it, and it added no new arguments which would convince me either way - and it so easily could have done.

 

The question as to wether Monsanto, Bayer, Glaxo or any other company (and all the people who work for them) are evil, dishonest, dangerous and borderline psychotic or not is actually not the question anyway - what matters is: are neo-nic's impacting bees?

[Olly]

We are all concerned about CCD and want to find out what the problem is, and I'm grateful that this topic has been raised. I haven't seen the film myself, but clearly it's one that raises strong opinions.

 

It's good to have a debate about it but please can we keep this discussion on a civilised level - any aggressive posts or personal attacks will be removed.

[beesontoast]

 

It's good to have a debate about it but please can we keep this discussion on a civilised level - any aggressive posts or personal attacks will be removed.

 

I note that ad hominem attacks on journalists seem to be permitted, while my responses are summarily removed. In which case, I have better things to do with my time.

[Melbourne12]

Maryann Frazier's work is indeed very interesting. She and others on the team at Penn State University appear in the book and briefly in the film. Ms Frazier leads the work into pollen analysis.

 

The problem is that the figures that she has collected, although alarming, don't reveal any "smoking gun". If you look at her published work, you'll see that PSU have identified no fewer than 171 compounds in pollen that are either pesticides, or the breakdown products of pesticides. An average pollen sample has 6 such compounds.

 

But Imidacloprid, the Bayer insecticide that the activists make so much noise about, occurs in less than 2% of samples. So even if it is the trigger for some combination of pesticides and fungicides, it's unlikely to be the main or root cause.

 

One of the things that Maryann Frazier was surprised to find was the overwhelming presence of Coumaphos (in 75% of samples) and Fluvalinate (in 85%). Coumaphos is an organophosphate, and Fluvalinate a pyrethroid, both affecting the nervous system of insects. These are the two chemicals most used by US commercial beekeepers against varroa mite, and are being introduced into the hive several times each year. So Ms Frazier certainly expected to find them in the wax. But why would they be in the pollen? The pollen samples are collected from bees returning to the hive from the field, before the pollen has been stored in a comb. So the bees are somehow exuding these two chemicals onto the pollen that they collect. And therefore these pesticides are persisting in the bees' bodies well outside the period of anti-varroa application.

 

Now I'm not jumping to any conclusions here. This is just one of many surprising things that the researchers are finding. But I believe strongly that we do the bees a disservice if we ignore the facts and just point wildly at convenient scapegoats.

 

PS for any potential beekeepers worried about varroa treatments. Most UK amateur beekeepers now use Thymol and Oxalic Acid against varroa. These are thought to be kindlier to the bees.

[chickenanne]

....Now I'm not jumping to any conclusions here. This is just one of many surprising things that the researchers are finding. But I believe strongly that we do the bees a disservice if we ignore the facts and just point wildly at convenient scapegoats.

 

PS for any potential beekeepers worried about varroa treatments. Most UK amateur beekeepers now use Thymol and Oxalic Acid against varroa. These are thought to be kindlier to the bees.

 

I agree with you that there is a real problem if we jump to conclusions and do not look at hard evidence objectively.

 

I think films are an easy way to colour people's ideas without hard evidence becuase most people (well, me anyway ) are more used to seeing films at cinema as entertainment, so develop the habit of switching off the brain (suspension of disbelief and all that stuff) whilst watching. Maybe a film is therefore a difficult medium to use to as a tool for scientific debate.

 

I think I missed the middle posts in this (spent yesterday with food poisoning - wouldn't recommend it as a great way to spend a Sunday afternoon!).

[MedusA]

....Now I'm not jumping to any conclusions here. This is just one of many surprising things that the researchers are finding. But I believe strongly that we do the bees a disservice if we ignore the facts and just point wildly at convenient scapegoats.

 

PS for any potential beekeepers worried about varroa treatments. Most UK amateur beekeepers now use Thymol and Oxalic Acid against varroa. These are thought to be kindlier to the bees.

 

I agree with you that there is a real problem if we jump to conclusions and do not look at hard evidence objectively.

 

I think films are an easy way to colour people's ideas without hard evidence becuase most people (well, me anyway ) are more used to seeing films at cinema as entertainment, so develop the habit of switching off the brain (suspension of disbelief and all that stuff) whilst watching. Maybe a film is therefore a difficult medium to use to as a tool for scientific debate.

 

I agree. I am a film-maker's dream viewer. I swallow it all hook, line and sinker.

 

Still I'm sorry I missed seeing the film. The video clips linked to on here were very interesting too.

 

Debate is good, providing it's polite and respects everybody's right to a viewpoint.

[Guest]

Hi for what its worth, i saw the film and as i don't know squat diddle about CCD, agri-chem. co's etc, I hoped to find something new to understand? If that makes sense.

What disturbed me was that the Beek Keepers of the US appear to be using the bees for their work ethic, rather than using the by-product of that work the honey. The fact that they can pollenate Almond trees rather than producing Almond Honey. At one point one of the new Beeks [Eric i think] said that without the Almond crop there would be no Honey bees anyway.

Clearly these bees are being worked to death!

If you think about the UK beek, i dont know nor have heard of anybody just using bees for pollination here in the UK. Just those of us who take 1/3 of the honey for ourselves and let the bees get on with what they do best and leave 2/3rds of the Honey for them

I saw a programme once that said that every animal has a limited number of heart beats, so small animals who hearts tend to beat faster than large animals live a lot less. A hamster dies after 18 months or so and an elephant after 80 years. Whats the live sand of a bee? 2 or 3 years providing they live through a winter

It strikes me that this CCD is nothing more than bees worked out and at the end of their natural lives, and if you think about it all the bees in a colony come from the same stock so all are related and all must have the appox. life heart beat rate?

So no great mystery after all.

 

Got to go now i'v got the secrets of the universe to unravel before tea, well have chat with Nige the gardener

[beesontoast]

Actually, bees are - and always have been - used for pollination in the UK.

 

In the days before commercial beekeeping became economically possible with the invention of the Langstroth hive (around 1850), there were skeppists in all parts of the UK, whose bees did a fine job of pollinating top fruit, beans and many other crops, alongside the bumbles, miner bees and the many, many other insects that engage in this activity.

 

There is little migratory beekeeping in the UK nowadays, but did you know that bumblebees are imported in huge numbers for pollination work in polytunnels, and then destroyed at the end of the season?

 

One of the big players in the bumblebee import business is Syngenta, who have recently hijacked virtually all UK honeybee research (with the blessing of the British Bee Keepers Association) and have thus effectively prevented any research into the effects of their own insecticides on bees. They are also making a big play of their 'Operation Pollinator' PR stunt, which you can google if interested.

 

Don't imagine that all this fuss about bees is a storm in a teacup: there are big corporations involved, and a remarkable amount of politics! I have been publicly criticized for even raising these issues, and banned from the BBKA forum for telling nothing but the truth.

 

The real causes of CCD are not yet fully understood, but monocrops may well be part of the story - see http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1672&category=Environment

 

Italy has banned neonicotinoid insecticides, with a happy result - see http://tinyurl.com/yd44yxc

[chickenanne]

I agree re: the beekeeping practices in the US being far more extreme than in the UK: complete monocrop agriculture and moving them truely vast distances several times a year being one. In the UK, people do move the bees for better forage - e.g. to orchards, or to heather moors - and certainly where I am it's pretty commonplace, even amongst complete hobbieists. It's far smaller distance than in the US and far fewer times per year, even amongst commercial or semi-commercial beekeepers in the UK, and there are far fewer periods when they are on only one type of flower (rape or heather).

 

BUT commercial beeks in the US had been moving bees vast distances to mono-crop areas well before CCD really kicked in, so it can't be the sole cause (though could be a contributing factor).

 

Bees live a given time depending on how much work they do, but in the summer in the UK a worker bee will live somewhere around 6 weeks, in the winter they fly less so live longer. It's only queens whose life-span can be measured in years. An individual bee would last shorter time if it was foraging daily, but their would be more nectar/honey/pollen available so more brood: the colony wouldn't disappear due to there being good forage - typically the reverse is true.

[chickenanne]

Oops - posted at same time as you, beesrob!