# Call to action - tell the British Beekeepers Association what you think



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

With demands becoming louder to support the German and French beekeepers, who have suffered heavy losses due to pesticide poisoning by Bayer's Imidacloprid and Clothianidin pesticide products, the British Beekeepers Association is under pressure to cut their ties with Bayer and other agri-chemical manufacturers. They currently endorse a range of pesticides as being 'bee-friendly', while accepting cash from the manufacturers.

I think you will agree that for an organization that claims to protect the interests of the bees to endorse pesticides of any kind is quite extraordinary and increasingly untenable. 

The BBKA have at last published a statement on their website that, I believe, sets new standards for spineless behaviour in the face of bribery by corporations. You can read it here http://www.britishbee.org.uk/news/statements/bbka-endorsements.shtml and post your comments about it.

Read about the mass killings in Germany here http://www.cbgnetwork.de/2517.html

Please let the BBKA know exactly what you think of them!

Best wishes,
Phil Chandler
www.biobees.com

My comment:

Pathetic, spineless rubbish - you should be ashamed of yourselves for trotting out such drivel. These companies are poisoning bees all over the world with their filthy products, and all you can do is let yourselves be used by them to promote more poisons. I challenge you to prove your statement that the majority of beekeepers support your position.

We should support our German and French colleagues by calling for a ban on all pesticides that kill bees.


Best regards, 
Phil Chandler


----------



## pcelar (Oct 5, 2007)

Beekeepers in England *should make new national beekeepers association which represents views of beekeepers* and absolve association which is composed from spinless politicians.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Time to launch BARB - the British Association of Radical Beekeepers!


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

Would BARAB do as well...British Association of Radical Africanized Beekeepers----might make them sound a tad more testosterone driven and aggresive.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*stop endorsing bee-killing pesticides: support needed*

There have been massive kills of bees in Germany in the last couple of weeks - you may have heard. The culprit has been found to have been one of Bayer's highly toxic seed dressings.

What you probably don't know is that the British Bee Keepers Association (BBKA) actually endorses some of Bayer's pesticides as being 'bee friendly' - which is actually far from the truth.

The BBKA accepts 'donations' from Bayer amounting to around £20,000 pa in return for Bayer being able to use their logo on some of their products.

There is a campaign to persuade the BBKA to STOP endorsing pesticides - see http://www.britishbeekeeping.com and to start supporting organic farming.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

According to the published research, Imidacloprid is NOT toxic to bees in concentrations that they're likely to come in contact with. What are you sources, please?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> According to the published research, Imidacloprid is NOT toxic to bees in concentrations that they're likely to come in contact with. What are you sources, please?


Do some Googling.

For example:


_Beneficial insects
_The application of imidacloprid by foliar spraying, is highly toxic to honey bees. 
Imidacloprid is acutely toxic to earthworms, for example the LC50 (the lethal concentration required to kill 50% of a test population) of the species _Eisenia fetida_ is between 2 and 4 ppm in the soil. At lower concentrations, the activity of the enzyme cellulase in the soil, that allows the break down of plant litter is reduced by imidacloprid concentrations of 0.2 ppm.
Soil application of granular imidacloprid is the most common. This is less harmful than the foliar spray because it is less likely to come into direct contact with non-target insects. However many natural enemies supplement their diet by feeding on plant material. As imidacloprid is systemic it can be translocated to the surface of the plant, increasing the chances of direct contact with insects on the plants. Laboratory tests have also shown that imidacloprid is acutely toxic to a variety of predatory insects including mirid bugs, ladybirds and lacewings19.


http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/imidaclo.htm


http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788581066~db=all~jumptype=rss


etc

*INTRODUCTION:* Imidacloprid is a systemic, chloro-nicotinyl insecticide with soil, seed and foliar uses for the control of sucking insects including rice hoppers, aphids, thrips, whiteflies, termites, turf insects, soil insects and some beetles. It is most commonly used on rice, cereal, maize, potatoes, vegetables, sugar beets, fruit, cotton, hops and turf, and is especially systemic when used as a seed or soil treatment. The chemical works by interfering with the transmission of stimuli in the insect nervous system. Specifically, it causes a blockage in a type of neuronal pathway (nicotinergic) that is more abundant in insects than in warm-blooded animals (making the chemical selectively more toxic to insects than warm-blooded animals). This blockage leads to the accumulation of acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter, resulting in the insect's paralysis, and eventually death. It is effective on contact and via stomach action (1).

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/imidaclo.htm

It is persisten and lethal to just about everything in its path, including aquatic life, which it ends up killing as soon as it gets into streams and rivers.

Whoever thought this stuff was 'bee friendly'?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Sorry about the rubbish formatting of the above - for some reason I couldn't edit it.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

No worries about formatting. It's the devil I tell you!

Not to nitpick you, but nothing that you posted has anything to do with bees.

On to the science. According to the papers I have read, Imidacloprid has zero effect on bee at levels they encounter in the field (1.9 ppb in nectar and 3.9 bbp in pollen). I would like to direct your attention to this paper: http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/56/ab6.htm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> No worries about formatting. It's the devil I tell you!
> 
> Not to nitpick you, but nothing that you posted has anything to do with bees.


Unless you think bees are not insects, they have everything to do with bees.

And one paper, describing a very short-term experiment, not in any way taking in account long-term cumulative effects, proves nothing.


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

As I recall, DDT was thought to be acceptable when utilized "according to labelled directions". It took time to reveal the hidden shallows and reefs to be suffered under it's usage...Let us hope that we are not willing to risk the long tem effects of this new killer, only later to find that we have erroniously reopened Pandora's Box.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Ok then, Since you choose to ignore facts that don't agree with your views; show me research that proves your stance please. 

Bees are indeed insects, but what you posted says nothing about how it effects them or shows exposure result or anything else that shows how that compound effects bees in any way.
It's more than one paper. If you'd look at the cited works on that paper, it lists 9 other studies. 
I don't think you can get into long term effects on such a short lived animal. Long term is relative, don't you think?


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

Bees are , in themselves, indeed short-lived, but they are members of a hive oriented society, which is long lived. Therefore, they are affected by the accumulative effects of long-term exposure, and that must be taken into consideration...Many tests are conducted by people who stand to gain financially from "proof" supported by the papers they submit, and these must be seen as biased by the general public.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> Ok then, Since you choose to ignore facts that don't agree with your views; show me research that proves your stance please.


Simple application of the precautionary principle - don't put poison anywhere until it has been proven to be safe (it is poison: how can it be 'safe'?) - should be enough for most people, but even if you think this is somehow 'unscientific' and simple-minded', the FACT that it kills everything that lives in the soil should, I would have thought, have every reasonable person with a brain and an eye to the future campaigning against its use anywhere on the planet. 

Isn't it enough that waterways everywhere are becoming more toxic by the year? Will your last words on Earth be "well, show me the research that proves we are all about to become extinct?"



> Bees are indeed insects, but what you posted says nothing about how it effects them or shows exposure result or anything else that shows how that compound effects bees in any way.


Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are reading something different to that which I posted.



> It's more than one paper. If you'd look at the cited works on that paper, it lists 9 other studies.


And how many of those fine institutions are funded by Bayer, or other transnationals, I wonder?



> I don't think you can get into long term effects on such a short lived animal. Long term is relative, don't you think?


Indeed it is. Individual bees are, of course, short-lived. Bee colonies, however, are much longer lived. Local populations - ecotypes, if you like - are longer lived than you or I or any other individual animal on Earth. 

Try to look past the end of your nose and study entire eco-systems, rather than what happens to be on your microscope slide, and you will learn about living systems and how complex and interactive they are, instead of what A does to B under laboratory conditions.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

LtlWilli said:


> As I recall, DDT was thought to be acceptable when utilized "according to labelled directions". It took time to reveal the hidden shallows and reefs to be suffered under it's usage...Let us hope that we are not willing to risk the long tem effects of this new killer, only later to find that we have erroniously reopened Pandora's Box.


Actually DDT has been proven to be safe many times over and the Myth that was propagated by the WWF and Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" has led to the deaths of millions in the third world due to Malaria and other insect borne diseases that were easily preventable.

You can look here for just one example http://media.www.osusentinel.com/me.../01/12/News/The-Ddt.Controversy-2629832.shtml

Your "Google Fu" should be able to come up with numerous other examples that dispel the DDT Myth.

I personally would attempt to choose a more organic solution but when the consequences are bad enough, sometimes the only solution is to get the big gun out.

Is it possible that you are thinking about PCB's?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*Ddt*

*Mechanism of action*

DDT is moderately toxic, with a rat LD50 of 113 mg/kg,[13] and has potent insecticidal properties; it kills by opening sodium ion channels in insect neurons, causing the neuron to fire spontaneously. This leads to spasms and eventual death. Insects with certain mutations in their sodium channel gene may be resistant to DDT and other similar insecticides. DDT resistance is also conferred by up-regulation of genes expressing cytochrome P450 in some insect species.[14]



Harmless? We obviously use different dictionaries.


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

I am afraid that I lack any "Google Fu" ,so I appreciate you using yours to reveal my mistake. I only rarely use chemicals of any kind, and the DDT hysteria that I am apparently a part of is my undoing. I apologize for my lack of being quite so up-to-date...Have the organophosphates, Kelthane, Lindane, Mirex, and Toxaphine also been vindicated without my knowledge?
I am willing to admit being wrong, as you have pointed out, but I think my stance will be to remain chemical free, if at all possible. I think a good, long look is a supportable position to take when so much is at stake. During the American Civil War, doctors were thankful for a new drug to come onto the market, so that they could avoid addicting wounded soldiers to opium. It's name was heroin.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

buckbee said:


> *Mechanism of action*
> 
> DDT is moderately toxic, with a rat LD50 of 113 mg/kg,[13] and has potent insecticidal properties; it kills by opening sodium ion channels in insect neurons, causing the neuron to fire spontaneously. This leads to spasms and eventual death. Insects with certain mutations in their sodium channel gene may be resistant to DDT and other similar insecticides. DDT resistance is also conferred by up-regulation of genes expressing cytochrome P450 in some insect species.[14]


Tx for looking further into some of the research, I'm moderately curious about some of the details of the research but forgive me for being somewhat skeptical of all of the references to Wikipedia.




buckbee said:


> Harmless? We obviously use different dictionaries.


Gee, I reread my post and I definately didn't use the word harmless, I did however use the word safe....for humans and birds (mammals etc).....that is it not safe for insects is of no real surprise since it is after all an insecticide.

My post was meant to dispel the myths that surround this chemical and point out the outright lies that were told by the environmental movement in the 1970's that doesn't help to lend them credibility.

Its important to recognize that like most things, if used appropriately there are great benefits but the abuse can be detrimental.....even water can be harmful if you consume too much.....


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

*sigh* I'm sorry for trying to inject some rational, scientific thought into your discussion. Please carry on...You already have your mind made up and will not do the required research or listen to anything that doesn't fit into your view of the world.

Have a nice day.


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

Now we approaching a more amiable tone, and I do appreciate that, since I like open discussion without it transforming into a verbal jousting match. Civility is taking hold---I just know it--BRAVO!!!
I readily agree that moderation is the key in the utilization of anything. In fact, I think that several types of water torture were utilized during The Inquisition....Quite possibly, it is the overuse of some chemicals by the stupid or uninformed that got them taken from the market. I really do not know, as the realm of chemicals lies outside my line of interest. Bees , older military guns, and the growing of fruits and berries are more to my liking.
Also, I must admit, me mum was a Brit, so I felt compelled to not let Buckbee go it alone here...


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> *sigh* I'm sorry for trying to inject some rational, scientific thought into your discussion. Please carry on...You already have your mind made up and will not do the required research or listen to anything that doesn't fit into your view of the world.


MY view of the world? Try telling that to the 7,000 beekeepers in Germany who just lost their bees to Bayer's 'safe' clothianidin seed dressings (and the reseach backs that up, BTW)

My mind is made up by looking at the real world, where insects, birds and mammals are dying as a result of the unrestrained greed of Bayer and the other profit-worshippers. Your opinions appear to be formed by their propaganda - oh, I mean the research they fund.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

In a peer reviewed journal they HAVE to have full disclosure. It's part of the process. This keeps exactly what you claim happens from happening.

You know what bugs me? Ignorance. Self imposed ignorance is bad but willfully ignoring fact to reinforce your views is just sad.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

buckbee said:


> My mind is made up by looking at the real world, where insects, birds and mammals are dying as a result of the unrestrained greed of Bayer and the other profit-worshippers. Your opinions appear to be formed by their propaganda - oh, I mean the research they fund.


Buckbee, can I assume that you voted for Labour in the last election?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> You know what bugs me? Ignorance. Self imposed ignorance is bad but willfully ignoring fact to reinforce your views is just sad.


And do you know what I think is sad? Apologists for peddlers of poisons, posting their propaganda in a beekeeping forum.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Again, your reply saddens me.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> Again, your reply saddens me.


You'll get over it. I already have.


----------



## Apuuli (May 17, 2006)

*Talk about myths...*



JPK1NH said:


> Actually DDT has been proven to be safe many times over and the Myth that was propagated by the WWF and Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" has led to the deaths of millions in the third world due to Malaria and other insect borne diseases that were easily preventable.
> 
> You can look here for just one example http://media.www.osusentinel.com/me.../01/12/News/The-Ddt.Controversy-2629832.shtml


ACTUALLY DDT has been implicated in causing multiple forms of cancer in humans as well as causing developmental abnormalities. It has little if any acute toxicity in mammals, but because it is lipid soluble, it collects in fatty tissue and is not excreted. Because of this it bioaccumulates and is thus found in high concentrations (compared to environmental concentrations) in long lived animals high up on their food chain. Thus acute toxicity is unimportant compared to long-term effects.

The AGRICULTURAL use of DDT was banned in the US (and in many other countries), however it is still being produced (for a long time in the US) and used extensively in many countries for human health reasons (usually malaria control) because it is cheaper than the alternative pesticides. The malarial deaths since the 1970's are not due to a global ban on DDT. There is no global ban. Complete (or effective) malaria control is impossible in some places due to the lack of government interest or effectiveness, lack of infrastructure, sources of malaria in wildlife populations, and DDT-resistant strains of mosquitos (a problem long before the 1970's). Polio is still present in many areas and it is much easier to control.

The example article from the Sentinel is full of misunderstandings, misstatements, and outright falsehoods. Articles written by journalism students are often not the highest calliber. Aside from the fact the author is unaware of the continued use of DDT around the world for controling malaria (as well as the use of other pesticides when DDT is not used) and the established relationship between bird eggshell thickness and DDT levels (including derived compounds), he is also unaware that human eggs do not have cell walls. Plants have cell walls. It may be a simple mistake, but one that calls into question his other claims.

I'm not sure what Buckbee's voting record has to do with the veracity of his information, unless perhaps it makes it easier to stereotype him and pigeon-hole him as a "them", thus making it easier to dismiss his thoughts.

Just sos you know, I'm a bird-watcher and an ecologist (a scientist, in case there is doubt). I've also had malaria and knew several people who died from malaria or have lost children to malaria. The issue is not as simple as many people would like to believe.

On another note, Wikipedia is surprizingly accurate (Nature 2005, 438: 900-901). Especially when you consider that it's all just a conspiracy of the WWF (World Wikipedia Federation).


----------



## tlozo (Jun 13, 2008)

*DDT was not banned but discouraged*

Yes DDT was not totally banned but what you don't say is that no donor country ( in the West) would pay for DDT eradication programs. Also the few poor African countries that thought of spraying DDT themselves where threatened with bans on their products that were exported. So in effect you had a virtual ban on DDT use imposed by Western environmentalists.


Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Wall Street Journal
Feb. 21, 2007


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

Now that I have been at least partially redeemed of being guilty of complete ignorance, I will say that I believe that between all these cooks in the kitchen, a universally accepted position upon this subject will not be reached within my lifetime....I shall, therefore, step off this trolly and go out to seek a bottle of DDT to gargle with----I would imagine that it should surely kill the germs that cause bad breath....I will also offer an opening line for the inevitable comeback post...."Please do."...Pretty snappy, huh?
There you have it. I can be both jolly and helpful.
Regards to friends and antagonists alike.
Rick ---the simple hick from Texas


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

You crack me up, Willi.


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

Bodo.....I do what I can to relieve the tensions that seem to creep into every aspect of life. It is trite to say, but I will repeat it in case someone in Botswana missed it----"Life is too short" to do battle over things that just are simply not worth the inherant scars..No one can "win" an arguement of this sort, so why fight....If a testosterone buildup is the cause for such aggressive behaviour, there is a far better means of relief from that problem.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Amen brother!


----------



## NewBee2007 (May 6, 2007)

Bodo said:


> According to the published research, Imidacloprid is NOT toxic to bees in concentrations that they're likely to come in contact with. What are you sources, please?



Not true....It is used in concentrations that do affect the bees per their MSDS documentation 


It says: "This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area."

This was the sheet for the application of the material Merit 75 which they were planning to apply last year at my office building until I printed this MSDS sheet out and walked it to our building manager and informed him that I had contacted our state environmental conservation pesticide group and informed them that their were honey bees all over the clover that was in the "lawn" around our building and that this was in direct violation of what was noted on the MSDS sheet...suffice it to say that they didn't apply it that month, but the following month when I was out of the office, I was informed by a coworker that they had applied it while I was on a vacation trip. I just hope that the bees were no longer foraging there at that time.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Please read the journal article I refered to. 

With any pesticide, proper application is very important. Any pesticide sprayed during the day, on blooming plants will kill bees. When used properly, it is a safe, useful tool for farmers.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

So safe that it killed over 300 million bees in Germany - as a seed dressing - not even sprayed! 

Your faith in chemicals is touching, but appallingly naiive, IMO.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

As it's already been stated, I'm not going to bore you with the application problems that you're refering to in Germany.

I have absolute faith in Chemicals. It's the people not using them properly that's the issue, not the Chemistry.


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

Thank you, Bodo---an appropriare response there.......The last thing that chemical companies with millions of customers want is a million lawsuits from a dangerous chemical. They do extensive testing to not only protect themselves, but the environment , too.There have been unforseen problems in the past, it is true, but "When used as directed" proceedures are adhered to, I too, think there is a necessary place in the scheme of things for chemicals. Large scale farming depends upon it.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

LtlWilli said:


> Thank you, Bodo---an appropriare response there.......The last thing that chemical companies with millions of customers want is a million lawsuits from a dangerous chemical. They do extensive testing to not only protect themselves, but the environment , too.There have been unforseen problems in the past, it is true, but "When used as directed" proceedures are adhered to, I too, think there is a necessary place in the scheme of things for chemicals. Large scale farming depends upon it.


I find it hard to believe that people intelligent enough to use the internet can spout such arrant rubbish. Anyone who can use Google can find out how corporate vested interests pull the wool over consumers' eyes and run rings around regulatory bodies. 

I despair for the future of the planet when corporate propaganda is swallowed wholesale by beekeepers.

Instead of behaving like a robot in the pay of Monsanto, take a minuite to do some homework - http://www.bayer-kills-bees.com


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Buckbee,

I understand that you're upset and worried. Who wouldn't be? I think that your energy would be better spent working with Bayer and farmers instead of demonizing them. If you're really interested in helping the bees, find out what really happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

Gee, buck, it would appear that my boundless ignorance has you a tad riled up. Please, give me a moment to find my Big Chief tablet and a good crayola. I will write myself a note as a reminder to lose sleep tonight due to causing your great discomfort.
I will let it go at that, because I must oil up all my robotic metal in order to visit the mailbox in the rain---I believe that my kick-back check from Monsanto should be in today, and I do need it in order to purchase more cookies and milk.
Oh, and please do not despair too greatly. Just remain aloof and above it all long enough for us to kill ourselves with all the dangerous chemicals we ae paid to promote.
Cheers,
Rick

Please note that all I have just written is in direct reaction to the unneecessary verbeage you have just thrust upon me. 
1. I am NOT a simpleton
2.I am Not a robot
3. I am NOT in bed with Monsanto
Tit-for-tat , as you would say.....ta ta


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> Buckbee,
> 
> I understand that you're upset and worried. Who wouldn't be? I think that your energy would be better spent working with Bayer and farmers instead of demonizing them. If you're really interested in helping the bees, find out what really happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


I know what happened - it is well documented. And it will go on happening until people realize the damage that these profiteering criminals are doing to the planet. 

Here's what the German beekeepers are doing - staging protests in Munich and gathering a lot of public support. What are you doing?

The report below was sent to me by Walter Haefecker. All the pictures and newspaper reports can be found here http://www.biobees.com/images/German_demo/ 


Dear friends, 

as you know, the Bavarian government is growing MON-810 Bt-corn as part 
of a bogus research project. A german court ruled, that any 
contamination of bee products with MON-810 will render these unfit to be 
marketed, because MON-810 only has approval as feed but not as food. 

The court further ruled, that the beekeepers will have to move their 
hives out of the area to protect their products, but may sue the 
government for civil damages to recover their cost and losses. 

This week, corn will start to bloom. The beekeepers are mostly hobbyists 
without the necessary equipment and with their bad backs, they need 
help moving their hives. 

This is were we come in. On Tuesday, we as professional beekeepers did 
evacuate more than 50 hives for our fellow beekeepers with heavy duty 
equipment (easy loader etc.). 

Now, we did not bring the bees just anywhere. We did bring them to 
the Bavarian captital Munich and set them up in refugee camps throughout 
the city and especially in front of the bavarian parliament and the 
governers office. 

The bees, that have been driven off their land by the Bavarian 
government's actions were officially welcomed by representatives of 
the city of Munich, which has declared itself GMO-free, as well as 
members of the bavarian parliament and the beekeepers associations here 
in Munich, who have offered to grant them "political asylum". There was 
the ceremonial opening of the entrances of the hives. It was a beautiful 
sunny day and the bees happily started exploring the city. The ignored 
the safety perimiter around the governent buildings just as the ignore 
seperation distances around gm-fields. 

State television and radio and national and local newspapers were in on 
the story and were loving it. Bertram Verhaag has filmed the whole 
exodus with his crew for an upcoming documentary and a political 
TV-show, which is going to air Thursday night prime time on Bavarian 
state television. 

This comes as a particularly bad time for the present Bavarian 
administration, since they are up for re-election in a few months and 
causing the flight of the beekeepers does not look good at all. In the 
above mentioned court case, the press reported, that the government 
attorney was pretty much silent and Monsanto's legal team did all the 
talking. 

The greens in the Bavarian parliament have offered bills to help the 
beekeepers, but the ruling party has used a rare procedure to table the 
vote until after the election. This also looks bad and we are making 
sure the voters will be well informed about this. 

For those of you, that are able to read German, I'm including some of 
the press coverage. The others still may enjoy the pictures, the press 
has published of our refugees. In the case of the nationwide paper "the 
Tageszeitung (TAZ), we made it onto the front page. 

Overall, the press and the public have received our action extremely 
well. Several radio stations did broadcast this as a major news item 
throughout the day and citizens of Munich came to visit our refugee 
camps to show their interest and support. 

We removed the bees from the government locations at the end of the day, 
but all evacuated colonies will remain in the city at several sites 
owned by the beekeeping associations until the end of the bloom of the 
gm-corn. 

On the 27th of this month is an open house at one of the beekeeping 
facilities where the general public has a chance to visit the evacuated 
colonies and learn more about beekeeping in general and the issue of 
gm-crops and beekeeping specifically. 

The teamwork between all beekeeping organisations, hobbyists and 
professionals, has been tremedous. Also, the city of munich went out of 
it's way to welcome the affected bees. Some of us were invited into the 
Bavarian Parliament for lunch with several members, which we were 
allowed to attend in our beekeeping suits, which we had worn since 3:30 
am, when we started loading the bees onto our truck/trailer in the 
affected region over 100km north of the city. 

Kind regards, 

Walter Haefecker 

President 
European Professional Beekeepers Association 
Member of the Board of Directors 
German Professional Beekeepers Association 
Deutscher Berufs und Erwerbsimkerbund e.V


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

So we're making a jump from mis-used/applied pesticides to genetically modified corn?

Companies are going to GM plants b/c they're trying to get away from spraying/applied chemicals for the vary reasons we've already discussed.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Upon further research, I can't see the reason for the hysterics of the German beekeepers. MON-810 expresses a compound toxic to moths (maybe some butterflies) and is not toxic to bees. It's already used as an organic pesticide (Bacillus thuringiensis) all over the world as a spray. 

But don't take my word for it...


> The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report on 2007-03-27 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> So we're making a jump from mis-used/applied pesticides to genetically modified corn?
> 
> Companies are going to GM plants b/c they're trying to get away from spraying/applied chemicals for the vary reasons we've already discussed.


I expect that's why Monsanto don't want to sell Roundup to spray on Roundup-ready crops, then?

You really are naiive.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Bodo said:


> Upon further research, I can't see the reason for the hysterics of the German beekeepers. MON-810 expresses a compound toxic to moths (maybe some butterflies) and is not toxic to bees. It's already used as an organic pesticide (Bacillus thuringiensis) all over the world as a spray.
> 
> But don't take my word for it...


Their 'hysterics' - as you so crudely put it - are because they won't be allowed to sell their honey because it contains GM pollen. The clue is in the first paragraph:

"A german court ruled, that any 
contamination of bee products with MON-810 will render these unfit to be 
marketed, because MON-810 only has approval as feed but not as food."

In other words, MON-810 has been approved for animal feed, but not for humans. Nobody said anything about Bt, but since you mention it, I take it you approve of killing moths and butterflies just to improve Monsanto's sales graph?


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

So your issue is with the German laws and not the GMO? Just trying to figure out why you even bothered to bring up the whole topic...


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

If I thought you were really interested in this issue, I would continue the conversation, but as you seem determined to misread everything I post, I will just let you go your own way.


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

Try me.


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

It surprises me that no other of the more "learned" members have not chimed in to voice their opinions upon this...That said, due to my position as a half-breed, I will still read this thread, but I shall not post. I shall remain in bleachers to learn....I have already taken flak for defending the gunsite I help moderate , from a Brit-basher, and I find myself with a different opinion as yours here. So, I shall remain mum. On the one hand being half Yank and brit gives me a great deal of insight on matters,but for the most I only find myself in the middle, unappreciated by neither party.
Best regards to the both of you....May you find a middle ground , if givin enough time.
Rick the Halfbreed


----------



## LtlWilli (Mar 11, 2008)

It surprises me that no other of the more "learned" members have not chimed in to voice their opinions upon this...That said, due to my position as a half-breed, I will still read this thread, but I shall not post. I shall remain in bleachers to learn....I have already taken flak for defending the gunsite I help moderate , from a Brit-basher, and I find myself with a different opinion as yours here. So, I shall remain mum. On the one hand being half Yank and half Brit gives me a great deal of insight on matters,but for the most I only find myself in the middle, unappreciated by neither party.
Best regards to the both of you....May you find a middle ground , if givin enough time.
Rick the Halfbreed


----------

