Friday 27 February 2009

Defra contributes to Extinction of Honeybees and Birds in the UK.







With disappearing bee colonies in Europe and America, and dwindling oil reserves,what is DEFRA pinning its hopes on for the future of farming in Britain?

Answer.-They are pinning their hopes on the false promises and spurious claims of the hugely rich and powerful biotech corporates. The most persistant claim which holds governments in thrall is that GM crops will solve all our food problems for the future. In fact, GM crops are a failed experiment based on obsolete scientific theory.

Despite the destructive effects of intensive farming (which is driven by biotech companies)and despite the urgency of global warming and other environmental stressors, Defra seems sunk in a catatonic-like state,chanting “science, science, science” as if this word alone has the power to save us from starvation. Perniciously Defra believes that ‘science’ is synonomous with the short-term technical fixes of the biotech industry.

Meanwhile the destructive effects of intensive monoculture farming, are having to be constantly rectified, costing millions of pounds. Precious time is being wasted on a defunct agricultural system when we should urgently be developing sustainable, localised food and energy systems which do not depend heavily on fossil energies and water. GM crops have all the worst aspects of unsustainability, including susceptibility to diseases and climate extremes because of genetic uniformity.

Wherever GM’s are grown in the world, they pose a risk to the environment, to ecology, to the livelihood of farmers, and the health of local communities and livestock. To establish themselves in regions they wish to exploit, GM companies use the carrot and stick strategy. First the carrot, then a lot of stick. The sort of compulsion that biotechs use on farmers varies according to their local circumstances In poorer countries if they do not grow gm crops,or monocrops for export, small family farmers can be driven off their land and local people cannot afford to buy what is grown. Some small farmers attempt to grow gm’s but end up in debt. Rolling out the technology is facilitated by steamrolling policy makers and those responsible for safety regulations….

In Britain
“GM:The Secret Files
Ministers are funding genetically modified crop projects with scores of millions of pounds every year and are colluding with a biotech company to ease its GM tests, the IoS can reveal.
Geoffrey Lean, on a murky tale that Whitehall tried to hide”(Published:28 October 2007-The Independent.)

Last year on July 15, six German apiarists moved their 30,000 bees to Munich city some 500 km south of Berlin. They were trying to save their bees from genetically modified crops near their village Kaisheim. “If our bees were to come in touch with the GM maize, and the honey were contaminated with it, we would not be allowed to sell it.” said Karl Heinz Bablock, one of the six apiarists. In Germany gm crops are legal but their harvests are forbidden for human consumption. Earlier this year Bablock and several of his colleagues filed a protest against the GM crops before a tribunal in Augsburg, but the court ruled in May2008 that because the crops were legal, it was the apiarists who should move their bees somewhere else. Relocation of bees is taking place all over Germany.

In February 2008 Terry Boehm, vice president of Canada’s National Farmers Union warned Australian Farmers against adopting GM crops. By patenting both naturally occurring and GM crops, these companies can use aggressive lawsuits to ward off any potential rival. At the same time insidious forms of surveillance and barely concealed threats are whittling away any options farmers have for getting seeds from other suppliers. He says GM crops are introducing a crippling new form of feudalism where farmers are tied to biotech companies through expensive licence fees, royalties for seeds and commitment to buying the company seeds.(From: 'GM crops a new form of feudalism', by Janet Grogan, Perth)


Greenpeace points out that technological ‘solutions’ like genetic engineering mask the real social,political, economic and environmental problems responsible for hunger. Unfortunately, when the UK government is challenged over its collusion with the Biotech industry, it simply regurgitates the propaganda. This completely abysmal agricultural policy is contributing to the extinction of honeybees,(our main food crop pollinators), and birds.

Tuesday 10 February 2009

Honeybees,Defra dithers, and denies, denies, denies.




.
Top picture-neonicotinoid chemical structure and honeybees.
Second picture-organophosphate chemical structure and honeybees.



BIG QUESTION-

WHY IS THERE NO SERIOUS GOVERNMENT FUNDED RESEARCH INTO THE LINK BETWEEN THE HONEYBEE DECLINE AND PESTICIDES?

The bee die-off has become critical, and after a long period of complacency Defra has at last committed £4.3 million to “safeguard and undertake more research into the health of bees.” Despite this Defra still prefers to stress abnormally wet weather, coupled with the fungus Nosema as being the cause of bee deaths.
Whilst some private companies and beekeepers in Europe are making efforts to address the causes of the alarming bee decline, Defra continues to avoid the issue of pesticides.

Simon Press, the Co-op group senior technical manager, said that “We believe that the recent losses in bee populations need definitive action and as a result are temporarily prohibiting the eight neonicotinoid pesticides until we have evidence that refutes their involvement in the decline." Elliot Carnell, coordinator of Pesticide Action Network, said that the government had failed to recognize that “pesticides could be a contributing factor in the honeybees dramatic decline.” He claims "the government has fought against any attempts to protect bees which pollinate a third of the average diet.”

Last year the president of UNAAPI (the Union of Italian Beekeepers) claimed that a group of comparatively new pesticides, the neonicotinoids, were killing the bees. He said “These substances were irresponsibly authorised by public powers that bowed to pressure from the chemical industry.” (It is worth noting here that Italian beekeepers might feel less inhibited about criticizing their government than our beekeepers might criticise Defra, because they receive no type of aid from the State or the EU.)

A number of studies have linked neocotinoids to die-offs in bee colonies and also found that they are responsible for a breakdown of their navigational abilities. Germany banned the use of all neonicotinoid-based pesticides last year, and France imposed strict limits on their use on bee crops following mass die-offs in the 1990’s.

Despite these problems and the proven link between pesticides and bee deaths, Defra recently opposed the European Commission’s new rules to ban 15 percent of the most hazardous pesticides. Defra secretary of state Hilary Benn has confirmed that the government would be voting against the new pesticide rules when they come before the Agricultural Council for final agreement in March or April.

The president of the Union of Italian Beekeepers reference to pesticides- “These substances were irresponsibly authorized by public powers that bowed to the pressure from the chemical industry.” –could equally accurately be applied to the British government.