Edgework

I spent six or seven hours on Main Street at Summer-in-the-City in Steinbach on June 20-21 this year at the South Eastman Transition Initiative booth. The main attraction stopping passersby was the sight of hundreds of dead bees lying around two beehives on a table. Written on the beehives was the slogan: “You Can’t Get Honey from Dead Bees.” Next to the hives was an attractive display in the form of a pictorial quiz about bees and other pollinators. The goal of our display was to engage people around the urgent topic of what is now globally known as “Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD),” a term widely used to describe the massive loss of honey bees and many other pollinators world-wide.

I was pleased to note that many people I talked to had heard of this global problem and shared our concern. Not unexpectedly, some blissful party-goers had not even heard of the problem and appeared to be floating through life like one of the soap bubbles coming from a clown upwind. The most troublesome response I got was from a lady who agreed with me that the situation was dire but there was nothing we could do about it. The world is in such a mess right now, she said, that only God will be able to fix it – so I won’t get involved.

One of the questions on the pollinator quiz was about how many species of native bees are found in North America. Most people, including myself, did not guess the right answer which was over eight hundred. And that doesn’t include many other insect varieties that participate in the annual pollination process needed to grow much of the world’s food. This struck me as an important observation because, unlike the honey bee which can be nurtured back to full strength by human interventions like importing bees from elsewhere and dividing hives, when native pollinators are decimated their recovery time will take much longer if it happens at all.

So what is our “Plan Bee?” In other words, what kind of actions are we prepared to take to reverse the collapse of pollinator populations in the world? Another way to think about it is to ask what is our “Plan B” when “Plan A,” which depends on insects for pollination, fails? We hear of some places in China, for example, where they already have to pollinate fruit trees by hand if they want fruit to develop. Is it likely that we can come up with a mechanical system of pollinating food crops that have until now depended on insects to do the job? Even if we could find such a mechanism, what would be its cost and what would become of the many native plants needing pollination to produce fruit? And how would the loss of such native fruit affect the delicate balance of nature – and with what consequences?

Researchers point out that bees can die from a variety of causes such as parasites, malnutrition, various pathogens, genetic factors, loss of habitat and changing bee-keeping practices. But since all of these factors have been around since time immemorial, it is hard to imagine that any of these factors drive the Colony Collapse Disorder which has become so prominent in the past decade.

One thing which many researchers are taking note of is the fact that CCD, in its modern manifestation, has emerged largely in the context of the introduction of a new class of agricultural chemicals known as “neonicotinoids,” produced by the Bayer Corporation. Of course this has set up a classic battle reminiscent of the tobacco battles of the late 20th century. The stakes are high. On the one hand, the Bayer Corporation is making billions of dollars a year selling these chemicals to farmers, much of which is used to treat seeds. As the plant grows it takes up some of this chemical which helps it to repel unwanted insects. And so another set of stakeholders are millions of farmers around the world who have become used to this chemical solution to a pest problem and are making handsome profits through its use. But then on the other hand you have the thousands of beekeepers around the world who are having increased difficulty keeping their bees alive and productive. And ultimately the stakes may be highest for
the global population of pollinating insects and many birds and animals dependent upon them for food.

As is to be expected, corporate experiments and reports tend to underestimate the negative effect of neonicotinoids on the bee population. On the other hand, an increasing number of independent studies are beginning to identify these chemicals as the potential “smoking gun.” Some studies have identified one of the problems being the exhaust coming from air seeders using treated seeds. Industry has responded by changing the lubricant used in the chemical to reduce the dust it produces. They claim this is reducing the risk, but skeptics say the reduction is not enough. They point out that bees also contact neonicotinoids from the pollen of these plants which have taken up the chemical from the treated seed. Also that ground water around fields where the chemical is used is laced with neonicotinoids – water which bees use for drinking. But, Bayer and Health Canada keep insisting that no solid scientific proof exists to connect CCD with the use of neonicotinoids.

In light of all these uncertainties, the European Union has banned the use of neonicotinoids for two years to give scientists a chance to verify whether it is safe or lethal for bees. You might call this a “precautionary approach.” Canada and the USA, on the other hand, insist that until it can be proven beyond doubt that neonicotinoids are harmful, farmers are free to use the chemical.

I think using the European precautionary priniciple is the best option. Is it not better to prove something is safe before using it than using it until it is proven unsafe?