# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Scotsman: Stinging attack on Scotlands beekeepers

## HRH

*Scotsman: Stinging attack on Scotlands beekeepers*

By JULIA HORTON 
Published on Saturday 6 April 2013 00:00

A BATTLE is raging inside Scotlands beekeeping community over a proposed ban on pesticides thought by some to be wiping out billions of bees worldwide.

The UK charity Friends of the Bees has accused the Scottish and British Beekeepers Associations (SBA and BBKA) and the Stirling-based Bumblebee Conservation Trust (BCT) of greenwashing the truth about the links between chemicals called neonicotinoids and the decline of bee populations.

In a letter to The Scotsman today, Graham White, spokesman for the Friends, claims beekeepers from the SBA, BBKA and BCT have sided with the pharmaceutical company that produces neonicotinoids  Bayer and Syngenta  to defend these poisons.

Mr White wrote: Members of these charities face a dilemma: do they join the fight to ban these deadly poisons, or continue to serve the interests of the pesticide companies, until every last honeybee, bumblebee, butterfly and bird is dead, or survives only in a glass-cabinet?

These charities have lost all credibility as conservation bodies.

Todays criticism coincides with an urgent review of evidence, launched by Scottish ministers after a damning report by the UK Parliament environmental watchdog concluded that official UK research that failed to find any link was flawed.

The study had been cited by both Westminster and Holyrood as a reason not to support European Commission calls for a two-year moratorium on use of the insecticides in the face of growing evidence suggesting they are deadly to bees.

Last month, the SBA voted against a motion calling for it to lobby for a moratorium north of the Border amid concerns that farmers might revert to using chemicals whose harmful affects are undisputed.

The BCT also refuses to call for a moratorium, despite a key study last year by founder Dr David Goulson which revealed that bumblebees fed neonicotinoids produced 85 per cent fewer queens than normal.

Last night, a spokeswoman for the BBKA said: The BBKA does not wish to see any action taken that may in itself cause damage to pollinators, for example by the inevitable re-adoption by farmers of older superseded and more hazardous chemical agents being re- employed in crop protection.

Lucy Rothstein, of the BCT, agreed: Are pesticides bad? Yes, of course they are, but what is the level of harm caused by these chemicals in the field? We believe whatever decision is made should be evidence-based.

..................................................  ..................................................  ..................................

This is truly awful news.

I have made some enquiries which found the above to be correct with regards to the SBA.

Hence I will have to reconsider my association with this group.


Respectfully, HRH

----------


## drumgerry

So you join the forum to post this - no introduction?  You have no profile information.  Something stinks of fish.  And what is "news" about this?  This issue has been discussed on this forum right left and centre for a number of years.  Incidentally I have already started a thread on this and saw no need to post the article in its entirety.

----------


## madasafish

Spamming for a cause ensures readers judge the cause based on the quality and sensibility of the posters.

----------


## wee willy

The guy obviously has dilutions of grandure !
WW


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## drumgerry

That post just made my day WW!  ROTFL!

----------


## wee willy

> That post just made my day WW!  ROTFL!


Just a thought! "It could be him". 
WW 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## gavin

Hi HRH

Why not stay around and try to find out why the AGM didn't vote with the motion?  We *do* all care about bees, just don't agree that it is at all certain that pesticides have much to do with it.

G

----------


## The Drone Ranger

In calling for bans the unfortunate outcome is that the campaigners have damaged the ability of their respective organisations to lobby in the future
That was badly done, but even worse, was to bring down the wrath of the press on the said charities immediately
I can't understand how the cause is served by undermining the very organisation you hope will influence government policies

----------

