greenlight - Citizen Journalism onEarth

Editor's Picks |  Read All Community Posts

Chemical Giants, Regulators and Governments Fiddle While Honeybees Burn

As many of you know, populations of honeybees have, in recent years, been tragically and "mysteriously" disappearing around the world.

I say "mysteriously" with some sarcasm, because pesticides are already known to be one of the factors. Yet, instead of removing these known toxins from the market, ever-more harmful ones are, shamefully, being approved!

Not only do the bees produce our honey, they are our most important pollinators, responsible for the production of up to one-third of the human food supply!

Despite countless studies into the phenomenon, which has been dubbed "Colony Collapse Disorder," nothing is being done and the bees continue to disappear.

So I'm not really optimistic for the future of these wondrous creatures.

Why? Because we have now let harmful chemicals insinuate themselves so completely into our lives, we can no longer separate reality from industry or government hype.

Some Manitoba beekeepers are themselves concerned about chemicals now being sprayed on crops like sunflowers, where some of their bees pollinate.

In a recent letter-to-the-editor, a government entomologist talks about "managing" insects on sunflower crops (with chemicals, of course).

It's a single word. But it speaks volumes about how completely we have now divorced ourselves from the notion of working with nature to produce our food.

We are so bogged down in the nuances of the debate; which products will kill bees "on contact" (as opposed to which ones will kill them later on, I guess), and how "target" and "non-target" insects are affected, we can no longer see the forest for the trees.

Of course these chemicals have all been sorted into these neat little compartments, each with its own label.

That's nice.

But, does anyone truly believe there will be no harmful synergistic effects when so many chemical soups are applied with such abandon to our food crops yearly?

Are we supposed to accept that new generations of ever-more-potent poisons, descendants of ones used in wartime to kill people and now specifically designed to kill insects, will somehow stop doing their job, say "excuse me," politely and magically step around beneficial insects and kill only the bad ones?

Give me a break!

Yet huge chemical-makers brag on their websites and copious commercial messages, without fear of contradiction, that they work "with nature," toward "sustainable" agriculture and an end to world hunger!

All the while, their products are threatening food production, not promoting it!

Their version of "sustainability" is to pour ever-larger amounts of their over-priced products onto our crops, just so our producers can "stay even" with last year!

Figures from credible sources show that, despite the chemical onslaught that has transformed agriculture since the 1930's, crops lost to pests of all kinds, have actually increased as a percentage of production!

Might there actually come a day when corporate chemical-makers, government bureaucrats, politicians and regulators, will actually face penalties if they know that certain products are harmful to human health or the environment, yet do nothing?

Probably not.

But wouldn't that jam up our courts!

If you think that sounds harsh, consider that one out of every three spoons-full of food we eat, comes courtesy of honeybees!

Meanwhile, North American "regulators", armed with the certain knowledge that products already out there are "very highly toxic" to bees, not only continue to allow their use, but are approving new ones that are probably even worse!

So, on whose behalf are these "regulators" acting? Yours? Mine? Or the chemical companies and their fat bottom lines?

You be the judge.

Meanwhile, scientists and researchers continue to chase their tails, frantically trying to explain every last reason behind "Colony Collapse Disorder," a phenomenon that has been conveniently invented to impress people about how deep a mystery it is to solve.

There probably are factors other than pesticides involved, granted.

But why cross every "t" and dot every "i" when they could be acting on one they already know about?

It's been pointed out with monotonous regularity that many bee deaths (such as some Canadian ones) do not "fit the profile" of Colony Collapse Disorder.

Gee, I guess they don't count, then! No point in even trying to do anything about those!

You can bet the chemical companies are wringing their hands in glee, knowing that, as they rack up record sales, multiple scientific studies go madly off in all directions, concluding nothing.

In a couple of radio interviews I have heard, academics put a devilishly clever "spin" on the topic. Bending over backwards not to offend the chemical companies, they conceded that "not much more" can be done using pesticides, to protect the bees (from things like mites, etc)!

Heaven forbid they should even hint that they are actually a factor!

(One has to wonder just how "beholden" are their respective universities to the chemical companies because of grants they may get from them? Journalists don't ask those kinds of questions, any more.)

If I were some crude American politician, I might be moved to shout, "It's the pesticides, stupid!" (But I'm not, so I won't.)

FOOTNOTE: It has been months since my story, "Lament for the Honeybee," documenting this tragic story, was first published. Since then, I have twice politely asked Canada's Minister of Health, L. Aglukkaq, who is responsible for the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, to look into this. She has not responded.

Comments

  • Steven Earl Salmony wrote on April 12, 2009, 08:44AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    Wonderful discussion. The ideas generated in this post appear vital to me. While I agree with everyone who says no one can predict the future, I also believe we can likely agree that if the human community keep doing precisely what we are doing now, we will keep getting what we are getting now.

    One indication of faulty reasoning and extreme foolishness, I suppose, would be for us to believe that we can keep overconsuming, overproducing and overpopulating as we are doing now and somehow achieve different results from the ones in existence now.

    If, for example, by doing "more of the same business-as-usual activities" that we are doing now, we could be leading our children down a "primrose path" to a recognizably horrendous fate of some unknowable kind, would reason and common sense not suggest a change in behavior?

    We have self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us who are recommending to the children that all of us can live large and long; that we can conspicuously consume limited resources, pollute the frangible environment, overpopulate the finite planet and ravage the Earth......just the way they are insisting all of us do now. These arrogant and avaricious leaders are living examples of patently unsustainable lives and, yes, they take pride in their gigantic ecological 'footprints' and lifestyles based upon excessive consumption and unbridled hoarding. If our children were to keep doing what my not-so-great generation of elders are adamantly advocating and doing now, what is likely to become of them?

    My growing sense of frustration results from a realization that remarkably clear, intellectually honest and morally courageous reports from so many responsible and duty-bound scientists show us that the Masters of the Universe are determined to deny what could somehow be real and not to speak publicly about what they believe to be true regarding the predicament in which the family of humanity finds itself in these early years of Century XXI. Even worse, their minions with leadership responsibilities and duties in environmental organizations have collusively been enjoined from speaking about whatsoever they believe to be true. As a consequence, a conspiracy of silence has been established among all these leaders and the absurdly enriched talking heads in the mass media who eschew intellectual honesty and moral courage in favor of reporting repetitively about whatsoever is politically convenient, economically expedient, socially agreeable and religiously tolerated.

    The silence of so many leaders is deafening, while the duplicitous, disinformational chatter of the talking heads is morally outrageous. What is much worse, sad to say, is that the determination of these leaders and the talking heads to live large and long in such stupendously unsustainable ways -- come what may for the children -- is not only grossly irresponsible, it is a profound dereliction of their duty to warn, I believe.

    Perhaps change is in the offing.

  • Larry Powell wrote on April 12, 2009, 12:15PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    Thanks for the comment, Steven Earl.
    I totally agree with the sentiments.
    But I would really prefer,in future,
    if you post only comments specific to the article,
    rather than a form letter!
    Thanks!
    Larry

Comment on this post
OnEarth is a quarterly magazine of thought and opinion on the environment. OnEarth and the Greenlight blog are open to diverse points of view; the opinions expressed by contributors, online commenters, and the editors are their own and not necessarily those of NRDC.


Subscribe to Magazine | Site Map | About OnEarth | All Authors | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Contact the Editors | NRDC Home

NRDC