NEEPS

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 663

Today’s News 6 November, 2009
Jack Hunter Soil Association

DEFRA claims pesticides are not a serious threat to bees
“DEFRA has angered anti-pesticide campaigners after it claimed chemical sprays were not to blame for the sharp decline in British bee numbers.
During parliamentary questions last week, the Department also defended the use of public money to investigate the health of bees in a jointly funded research project with the pesticide manufacturers Syngenta. Dan Norris, Defra minister, told MPs in the House of Commons that the Government took the drop in bee numbers very seriously but said adequate measures were already in place to protect bees against harmful sprays.”
Soil Association comment: There is a mounting body of evidence from European countries of the damaging effects neonicotinoid insecticides have on the neurological and immune systems of honeybees. Other European countries have banned or suspended the use of these chemicals. Bees are acutely susceptible to pesticides for a number of reasons. Honeybees have less detoxifying capacity in their bodies compared to some other insects, which makes them particularly susceptible to sub-lethal exposure to pesticides. Honeybees have also been found to have a higher number of the neurological receptors that are targeted by neonicotinoids than other insects. Please sign our petition today here. http://apps.soilassociation.org:80/Bees/Register.aspx
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

Diana · Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:46 pm Post subject:

I'd certainly like to see some independent research done about these (and other agricultural) issues.

The biggest problem we face when trying to form our own opinions is that many studies are backed by companies some people believe are causing the problems. Therefore the studies are classed as bias and therefore we have trouble believing them.

Can anyone see a real way forward?
_________________
Tumuli Design
The Blog

Being looby keeps me sane

IainC · Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject:

Problem is, it's hard to have a fully independant test of things, 'cos people on both sides will make out that they are following their own agenda, and that they are in the pocket of X or Y (depending on who the report favours).

Diana · Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:52 pm Post subject:

Agreed
_________________
Tumuli Design
The Blog

Being looby keeps me sane

Maria · Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject:

How about something like the....erm...what's it called...the study about frogs that takes it's name from Rachel Carsons Silent Spring. That one that has been undertaken by a researcher who has worked for edu/industry and now independently. Watching his presentation, i felt, for the first time in ages, i was getting closer to the truth. (think the link is around here somewhere)?
_________________
Better late than never!

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 663

True science is impartial, unfortunately there are whole industries devoted to asking the wrong questions of it, and distorting the results to prove an agenda, which is why we desperately need truly independent research on this and many other subjects - government should provide that (they're using our money, they should fund totally impartial research into the problems with bees) - unfortunately, DEFRA and government are totally in the say of the major agrochemical companies, and ALL research deliberately avoids even looking in the direction of "icides" as a possible cause.....
Aided and abetted, of course, by the British Beekiller's Association which accepts funding from Bayer and Syngenta (and then denies that pesticides couldn't possibly be at fault) - obviously no connection there then!
(Or the funding of the latest round of "research" by Syngenta)
The word "incandescent" springs to mind.............
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk