• Who’s Behind UK Offering a Hand to the Bees?

    By -

    Who’s Behind UK Offering a Hand to the BeesRecently I wrote about a large Canada-wide surveillance initiative: Look Who's Behind This Large Study to “Help the Bees”. If you follow the track of money, you could see that Canada's government was placing “hope” for a solution unto chief international biotech and agricultural companies such as Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta etc. Similar companies whose chemical merchandises are associated for waning bee populations and gain everything by “finding” an answer that doesn't single them out.

    It may come as a disclosure or not, but the same shade is marionetting in the UK.

    British MPs are “up in arms” saying that government bee research to boost pollinators is now tainted by corporate funding.

    NewScientist reports:

    report released today by Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee critiques the government's draft National Pollinator Strategy, which sets out plans to halt the decline in pollinating insects like bees.

    The strategy was created by Defra (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). The list of consultees appears here. Whaddya know? On that list, among many Big Agri and Big Biotech interests, appears BASF, Bayer CropScience, and Syngenta. Also, the Crop Protection Association, of which Syngenta is a member.

    The evaluation is really asking Defra to agree to the ban and stop the tiresome overturns. Three kinds of neonicotinoids were ceased namely: thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid

    The critique states:

    The Government’s draft National Pollinator Strategy envisages further research on the impact of pesticides on pollinators, but it needs to be transparent and subject to independent controls or it will not command public confidence, the Environmental Audit Committee warn. Some of this research will be paid for by pesticide manufacturers.

    Will the EAC report and discussion result in some kind of concrete solution? More likely it will be yetanother compromise or synthesis. A realist also says “no,” when he looks back on 50+ years of damning studies and sees not innovation – but decades' worth of “chemical swaps.”

    Hearing and reading the news about this, there is nothing at all but turmoil and commotion. No one is actually ending the corporate effect. There is no transparency in this as always.

    Chair of the Committee, Joan Walley MP, said:

    When it comes to research on pesticides, Defra is content to let the manufacturers fund the work. This testifies to a loss of environmental protection capacity in the Department responsible for it. If the research is to command public confidence, independent controls need to be maintained at every step. Unlike other research funded by pesticide companies, these studies also need to be peer-reviewed and published in full.

    So, as for Canada, it is very improbable anything significant will come of this problem or the subsequent research. The EU is self-assured to become more docile to biotech, permitting them higher power regardless of previous GMO bans and the public's revolt.

    The true relevance of science would comprise advancement and profusion of non-patentable results. That real quest of innovation doesn't simply narrow down to just chemical or nothing at all.

    Please read the rest of the article at



    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *