Document View

In light of the fact that fully informed beekeepers were less fearful beekeepers, Bayer provided a FAQ's document, plus some 30 published papers on the neonics. Dr. [David Fischer] expressed Bayer's desire to project a more positive public image by making a point of being more transparent about their research data.

The neonicotinoids insecticides have been given widespread press coverage, and even been the subject of street protests in Europe, for their purported effects upon honey bees. With the advent of Colony Collapse Disorder, beekeepers have been questioning Bayer CropScience® whether the "neonics" could be causing sublethal effects on bees that could be harmful to colonies.

To better answer that question, researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk (The Univ. of MT-Missoula) invited Dr. David Fischer (Chief Scientist, Ecotoxicology, Bayer CropScience®) to participate in a groundbreaking stakeholders meeting at the CA State Beekeepers Convention in South Lake Tahoe November 11. This meeting was convened to establish a forum for objective discussion between beekeepers, researchers, and Bayer CropScience about the safety of pesticide products to honey bees.

This initial four hour meeting was purposely kept small to form the framework for a "Working Group." In attendance were representatives from Bayer, the national and California beekeeping organizations, commercial beekeepers, bee scientists, the Almond Board, and a State agricultural official.

Beekeepers are realists

Beekeepers made the point that they were realists who understood that pesticides kill insects, and that pesticides would continue to be a part of agriculture. Beekeepers were not asking for a sugarcoated version of the data, but simply wanted to know the good, the bad, and the ugly about each chemical so they could make informed decisions in working with growers and pesticide applicators. The beekeepers made it clear to Bayer that they were not interested in being at odds with the company, but would rather work together to find solutions.

Beekeepers expressed their concern as to whether current testing requirements for insecticides addressed potential sublethal effects of the newer systemic insecticides, such as effects upon brood and the fertility of queens and drones. Bayer acknowledged that simply satisfying EPA requirements did not necessarily address beekeeper concerns. They indicated that the purpose of their attending this meeting was to open a more positive dialog with beekeepers to address the transparency and trust issues.

As an example, questions were raised about the new insecticide, Movento®, which may affect lipid synthesis of bee larvae, and for which the label states: This product is potentially toxic to honey bee larvae through residues in pollen and nectar." Dr. Fischer explained that the label only allowed the "short version" of the issue, and then elaborated about the full research studies. The beekeepers generally found the full data to be less alarming.

The issue of "transparency"

One complaint by beekeepers was that some of the trials used to test for the effects of chemicals upon bees appeared to be inadequately designed. They proposed that the national beekeeper associations form a Honey Bee Advisory Board (HBAB) to work with Bayer by reviewing the experimental design of trials prior to their initiation, so that beekeepers would accept the results as valid. Bayer affirmed that communication begins with the design of a research project, its relevance and scope, and that this process could be improved by input from beekeepers, coordinated with other researchers.

In light of the fact that fully informed beekeepers were less fearful beekeepers, Bayer provided a FAQ's document, plus some 30 published papers on the neonics. Dr. Fischer expressed Bayer's desire to project a more positive public image by making a point of being more transparent about their research data. He explained that one of the reasons for the apparent lack of transparency was that the company needs to be concerned that their testing data might become available to competitors, especially in other countries, where it could be used by another company to register a product. Assuming that matters of intellectual property protection could be resolved by signed agreements, the idea of an HBAB was well received by the Bayer representatives. Having an Advisory Board to work with Bayer on the design of appropriate and realistic trials could be an important step toward increasing beekeeper trust and acceptance of test results as relevant and valid.

Bayer may rely upon independent researchers to test their products. Some beekeepers questioned the adequacy of the experimental design of one of these trials. Dr. Fischer has taken due note of our critiques, and will address them at the next meeting. The Company is not adverse to repeating trials if it appears to be necessary.

In general, the beekeepers found that it helped to understand the constraints that the pesticide company operated under, whereas Bayer was open to beekeeper input in the process of pesticide registration.

Bayer invited to present at the AHP conference

Dr. Fischer was invited to return to the upcoming American Honey Producers Association conference in Fresno to present information on three pesticides of considerable interest to beekeepers: imidacloprid, clothianidin, and Movente. The beekeepers also suggested that Bayer could use the national bee magazines to keep beekeepers fully informed about their products.

An issue brought up by Dr. Fischer was the lack of "incident Reports" of bee kills for individual pesticides. Gerry Miller (Calif. Dept. of Food and Agriculture) explained that the problem is that county agents are no longer taking on the responsibility for investigating and reporting pesticide kills. In some states, reported kills are not forwarded to the E. P.A. Therefore, when a pesticide company or the E. P.A. look into the E. P.A. database to see if a pesticide is causing problems, there are far fewer documented incidents reported than the actual number of kills taking place. As far as government regulation is concerned, unless a kill incident is placed into the database, there hasn't been a problem. The Group will look into ways to make pesticide kill reporting easier for beekeepers, and perhaps fund their own database.

Bee friendly labeling

The issue of bee-friendly labeling was discussed. Unfortunately, Bayer is constrained as to what they can legally place on the label. The beekeepers suggested that perhaps a "Bee Friendly" logo could be added to draw applicators' attention, or that an additional leaflet could be attached. One recommendation was to use a European model of "best management practices" that could be tied to the Bee Friendly logo, including certification of growers who abide by such practices.

Recommendations for further progress included inviting the Canadian Honey Council to participate, to eventually invite other pesticide companies to join the group, and to consider annual Crop Protection participation by pesticide manufacturers at national beekeeping conferences. One of the next steps will be to determine how to move toward forming a permanent Honey Bee Advisory Board (to work with pesticide manufacturers) in conjunction with the national beekeeping organizations.

The overall feeling of the participants was that it was an initial step in a positive direction for cooperation between beekeepers and the pesticide industry. This face-to-face meeting helped to overcome preconceived perceptions by both sides. The willingness to engage in an open and honest discussion of issues bodes well for future cooperation between the beekeeping and agrochemical industries.