The truth about bee deaths. Possibly

Recently I met someone at Bromham Mill market and we discussed the plight of bees. Apparently there had been something on television/wireless about insecticides and I assume this meant neonicitinoids [hereinafter referred to as neonics].
I said the problem I had was that I thought science to be hopelessly corrupt on this issue The big conglomerates can produce their own scientific 'evidence' to prove they are not dangerous as easily as Friends of The Earth, Greenpeace can produce 'evidence' to prove they are.
'Yes, but we know the truth' he said, rather conspiratorially..
Well, no we don't. I'm not a scientist and I'm pretty sure he isn't either. We haven't studied for years, passed exams,devised scientific investigations, be able to interpret complicated scientific reports to produce a conclusion, if there is one.
It seemed a bit like saying, 'Yes I know some scientists say E = mc² but we know its  E = mc³

We seem to adopt positions for no obvious logical reason and then surround ourselves with 'proof' we are right. Anything else is 'fake news'

Recently the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology produced yet another investigation into the effects of neonics on bees
When other reports have been produced implicating neonics in bee deaths, the standard response of Syngenta and Bayer, the producers of the neonics, is that the reports are not conslusive as they do not recreate field conditions  and are too small in size to be accurate. They know quite well universities and research centres do not have the financial backing to do anything of any size.
On the face of it the CEH report overcomes this and covers bees in the UK, Germany and Hungary. Sounds good but it was only 2000 hectares.

Leaving aside the results and their interpretation, the first thing that struck me was that the research was funded by Syngenta and Bayer, the companies who produce the neonics. It only cost them £3m and was voluntary. Quite why they would do this is not clear. Either they were sure they would get the result they wanted or they are stupid. As sales of thiamethoxam are worth $1.1bn to Syngenta I would have thought it could be an expensive mistake.
They had funded something similar in America in 2014 with results that focused on the apparent benefits to the agriculture industry

Secondly the report only covers two of the the three neonics banned in the EU. The three neonics banned are thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacioprid yet imidacioprid isn't included. Is it safe? - if so why is it banned, if not why wasn't it included.?

Rather than wade through all the various 'pros' and 'cons' articles I just looked at the CEH web site.

The researchers found that exposure to treated crops reduced overwintering success of honeybee colonies – a key measure of year-to-year viability – in two of the three countries. In Hungary, colony number fell by 24 percent in the following spring. In the UK, honeybee colony survival was generally very low, but lowest where bees fed on clothianidin-treated oilseed rape in the previous year.No harmful effects on overwintering honeybees were found in Germany.

They went on to say

According to the CEH lead author, Dr Ben Woodcock, "The neonicotinoids investigated caused a reduced capacity for all three bee species to establish new populations in the following year, at least in the UK and Hungary."

So, not a universal result. It seems a little odd to say neonics caused an effect in all three groups..... except Germany. Why not say effects were found in two of the three countries.

They think the reason for the variation in results is due to the fact that German bees are 'healthier' than UK and Hungarian bees and have access to a wider range of wild flowers to feed on.
So given that German bees were OK, does this mean if British and Hungarian bees had access to more forage and were healthier [however that is measured], they also would not have been affected and then all three countries would have have seen no effect?
Almost inevitably the report finishes off the the standard Scientists Lament

In Dr Woodcock’s view, "There may be opportunities to mitigate negative impacts of neonicotinoid exposure on bees through improved honeybee husbandry or availability of flowering plants for bees to feed on across non-cropped areas of the farmed landscape. Both these issues require further research.

Yes folks more research.

So, what has been made of this report?
On one side we have the Corporate Bee Killers. Peter Campbell from Syngenta said'

The negative and positive results reported by CEH could easily be random, ie not real.” He said even taking the results at face value “demonstrates that neonics can be used safely or even with benefit to bees under certain circumstances, such as reported in Germany.”

The National Farmers Union:-

We strongly believe that policy decisions – such as restricting the use of neonicotinoids – must be based on sound science which gives strong evidence. And while this CEH study provides more useful information, we still don’t have that definitive evidence for the impact of neonicotinoids.”

Bayer Crop Science said

The CEH did not find consistent effects across Germany, Hungary and the UK on key indicators of honeybee health such as colony strength, forager morality, overwintering success of the colonies, behaviour or disease susceptibility in honeybees.' Colony death rates in the UK were generally too high to support robust scientific conclusions.

And the paid lobbyists for the companies wade in.

Surprisingly the Eco Hippies thought differently and the Guardian had no doubts.

Greenpeace got their lentils in a lather claiming on their Energydesk site

Scientists have found for the first time that neonicotinoid pesticides can harm honey bees in the real world.

They somehow forgot to mention the German bees
Their chief scientist said

“This major study marks a watershed moment in the fight to protect our bees [and] fills a crucial gap in our scientific understanding, The case for a permanent ban on these pesticides is now unassailable, and our politicians will have to take action.”

Buglife came up with much the same and Friends of the Earth were silent although one of their campaigners said.

This crucial study confirms that neonicotinoid pesticides come with a nasty sting in the tail for our under-pressure bees. It's time for a complete and permanent ban on these chemicals.

'Sting in the tail - geddit? Hilarious.

To be honest I'm a bit bored by the endless Scientific Top Trumps and I've decided to ignore the to'ing and fro'ing of this for the time being. As Peter said in 'The Thick of It'' I'm bored with this I'm going for a Twix

In other news, do you know what these two are?

The one on the left is a British Black Bee. These are our true native honey bee that was virtually wiped out over 100 years ago. However a few colonies still exist in parts of Wales, Ireland and Scotland.
On the right is a wasp.
If you couldn't tell them apart don't worry neither can the pest control officers of Angelsey County Council.
They were called to a swarm and decided they were dealing with wasps so killed them all. 15,000 of them apparently but I wonder who counted them.
Problem was they weren't wasps, they were honey bees. Rare British Black Bees.
In fairness to the Pest Control Officers its extremely difficult to tell them apart.

• The British Black Bee is black whereas the wasp is black and bright yellow.
• Bees are furry whereas wasps have a hard exo skeleton.
• Bees swarm wasps don't. 
• Bees legs are flat whereas wasps are round
• Wasps fold their wings longitudinally, bees don't

These trivial, obscure facts are hardly the sort of thing Council PCO's are likely to be taught unlike the fact that they can't charge for dealing with honey bees but can do so for getting rid of  wasps.

Still not to worry, an Angelsey spokesman said 

It appears that our usual procedure was not followed in this instance, and we will therefore be investigating the matter further

I emailed Angelsey asking if they  would publish the results of their investigation.
Didn't get a reply. Probably busy working on the investigation.