# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Bees, lies and evidence-based policy

## gavin

An interesting perspective on the propaganda war waged around bees and pesticides from one of the scientists appearing at the UK Parliament Environmental Audit Committee.

G.

*Bees, lies and evidence-based policy
*

Misinformation forms an inevitable part of public debate, but  scientists should always focus on informing the decision-makers, advises Lynn Dicks.



G.

----------


## Neils

Interesting blog post and good too see straight from the horses mouth so to speak.  I think there are some good points raised covering many aspects of this "debate".

She'll be labelled a pesticide industry shill elsewhere in 5...4...3..

----------


## gavin

> She'll be labelled a pesticide industry shill elsewhere in 5...4...3..


Have you had a look on Beesource lately?  That place must be packed with shills  :Wink: 

I had a colleague at work today trying to persuade me that she was biased in the opposite direction.  I see what he means, but tried to talk him out of it.  Apparently the 20% yield loss of wheat should a total ban come to pass is entirely reasonable, and he's the man to know.

----------


## Neils

Not very recently, but I assume its related to that story of the 1,000 colony loss being blamed solely on Neonicotinoid exposure the previous spring?

----------


## Jon

Got it in one but it was 2000 colonies.
All your old friends are there.
The Yanks know the smell of bull and have given that post the grilling it deserved.
As an example, ol' billybonkers is claiming that the half life of Clothianidin is up to 19 years in some soils.
Why, that's only about 18 1/4 years more than most estimates.

----------


## Neils

There's an ever shrinking number of forums willing to put up with them and I know there's nothing Americans like more than being lectured about their lifestyle by the british  :Smile: 

I got the gist of it from BKF but haven't had a chance to check it out yet.

For those interested, the thread in question can be found here

----------


## Neils

To get back on topic, I found it interesting that she deliberately didn't try to correct the guardian's misrepresentation if her position on the basis that, fundamentally, it didn't matter.

I question that approach in some respects, especially since the MMR debacle. Herd opinion, for want of a better description is important. The anti campaign are dressing up everything 'wrong' with bees, including varroa, into these pesticides. Get those banned and the problem is solved. We don't need to fund research etc if we ban imidacloprid. 

In the case of MMR common sense did, eventually, prevail, but there is still a sizeable minority pinning cancer, diabetes and other ailments on vaccination and there have been deaths from measles as a result of people not getting their kids vaccinated. Hislop said sorry on Have I got news for You once so everything's fine right?

I know there's a degree of comparing apples with oranges in the above but it does concern me that the popular narrative in beekeeping is starting to tell people, especially new Beekeepers, that their problems are related to pesticides that their bees may never have been exposed to.

----------


## Alton

Exciting writing and good too see directly from the horse mouth area so to talk. Not very lately, but I believe its relevant to that tale of the 1,000 community reduction being held responsible completely on Neonicotinoid visibility the past spring?

----------


## prakel

> Exciting writing and good too see directly from the horse mouth area so to talk. Not very lately, but I believe its relevant to that tale of the 1,000 community reduction being held responsible completely on Neonicotinoid visibility the past spring?


Well, I've ran this through google translate but it's come out the same so it's obviously been posted in the right sub-forum.

----------

