The unbearable plight of beeness: When a bug we rely on for so much is in trouble, so are we

[marmar]

from the Montreal Gazette:



The unbearable plight of beeness
When a bug we rely on for so much is in trouble, so are we

By MONIQUE BEAUDIN, The Gazette May 15, 2010



Things are bad for bees.

The ones humans know best - honeybees - have been experiencing a vertiginous drop in numbers recently, known as colony collapse disorder. In 2006-07 alone, nearly 40 per cent of the honeybee colonies in the United States died out.

Worldwide, bees face monumental challenges: fending off parasites and invasive species, dealing with chemical herbicides and pesticides that humans have introduced into their environment, disappearing habitats and climate change.

Besides honey-lovers, why should people care about the calamity bees are facing?

According to Canadian melittologist - or bee entomologist - Laurence Packer, what's happening to the bees could very well be a warning sign for the rest of us.

He likens bees to canaries in a coal mine - because they are so sensitive to negative changes in their habitats, they serve as a sort of early-warning system for things going awfully wrong in the environment. In his new book, Keeping the Bees, a tribute to an insect he has studied for more than 30 years, Packer lays out some of the problems they face. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/unbearable+plight+beeness/3031260/story.html#ixzz0o9LaNb1r

[RKP5637]

1. Yep, the warnings are there, but humans will most likely continue on marching

off the cliff. I do think the human species will become extinct. Almost all other species have, why should we be different. Our supposed intelligence and tools have gotten us into too much trouble, we are an irresponsible species. I'm not pessimistic, just a realist.

[William Z. Foster]

4. there you go

I think you have reiterated the underlying message in articles like this - it is "human nature" that is bad and evil.

The message -

The problem couldn't be with capitalism. It couldn't be with the wealthy. It could not be that the few are oppressing the many, no, we are all on the wrong track, we are all to blame. It is the fault of the people, the working people, not the rulers. It is human nature and inevitable, it is not the system we have that is at fault. It could not be that we need public solutions to political and social issues, no, no, all you need to do is make the right individual personal choices. It is not that we should apply science to the challenges, no, we need to simply feel the right way about things and get everyone else to feel the same way.

This paves the way for further assaults on small farmers and on working people. That is the goal - eliminate everything that is in the way of the corporations. Much of the propaganda, such as this article, is being intentionally inserted into liberal and progressive channels to get them to promote what is essentially a right wing agenda.

The article is illogical and nonsensical, yet the emotional theme behind it - "the bees are dying!" - causes liberals and progressives to suspend critical judgment and so to fail to see the real message being delivered. Each paragraph in the article is unrelated to the previous paragraph and even contradicts it. Yet with these various buzz words and ideas are strung together willy-nilly, the article has an emotional impact and the message is delivered.

The article most definitely starts out strongly suggesting that the topic is the problems being faced recently with European honey bees. Yet the expert cited does not study honey bees. "Whatever, close enough, a bee is a bee and the readers are too ignorant to know the difference" seems to be the writer's thinking.

Of course we ARE facing the perfect storm. The right wingers know that they could not convince us otherwise. So how can they combat us? By confusing and misleading us, by feeding us our lines to parrot, by steering us into the futile and ineffective "personal choices" corner.

[RKP5637]

6. I have several friends that are professional beekeepers that have been talking about

this for several years now and the potential implications to humans. This is not the first article I have seen on the topic. That said, I do agree with most of what you said, especially, "Much of the propaganda, such as this article, is being intentionally inserted into liberal and progressive channels to get them to promote what is essentially a right wing agenda." The latter is interesting, in fact, I had not heard that before.

[Webster Green]

7. What is the right wing agenda regarding bees?

I'm missing something here. How is this information (or propaganda) supposed to make progressives turn against small farmers.

[RKP5637]

11. I think, if I'm getting it correctly, that corporations would like to exclude the

competition from the small farmers. Being raised years ago near farming areas I recall well when large corporate farms/food processing units like Seabrook Farms and Heinz grouped the smaller farms and transformed them into basically tightly held suppliers to the corporate machine taking away their independence. There was a lot of resentment. I think he's stating the feeling by corporations that only they know how to correct the bee problem. Hence one more major step at corporatism for the smaller farms, and that would make progressives turn against small farmers as larger corporations would have the ultimate solution and safer food products.

[William Z. Foster]

14. exactly

Where do you think this bee hysteria is leading? To some sort of punitive government actions that will put small farmers and beekeepers out of business, and clear the field for corporate agri-business.

The corporations don't get inspected or hassled at all by the agencies supposedly overseeing them. It all falls on the small farmers. The corporations will get - have gotten in so many areas - the agencies (populated by their own people) or Congress to enact things that on the one hand convince the public that "something is being done about this terrible problem!!!!" - a "problem" that didn't exist until the right wing noise machine cranked up on it - and on the other hand are impossible for the small farmers to comply with (nothing to do with safety or good practices, but rather with absurd amounts of paperwork and legal consultation requirements and liabilities) and so the farmers will be forced into control by the corporations. Meanwhile, the corporations are at no risk, suffer no penalties, undergo no inspections.

Right now the corporations are forcing all farmers to sign legal forms saying that any problems with any of the food the corporations sell will be the farmers' fault. If the corporate food vendors poison the public with E. Coli, well, then if you had "any animals on your farm" then you are in violation of the agreement and liable. WTF? How do you keep birds and mice out, for example? Even if you could, how can you do that consistent with good environmental stewardship? Otherwise, if you don't sign it they will not buy from you and you are out of business. I kid you not. I am looking at one of those forms right now, from one of the major corporate buyers.

Corporations are "grouping the smaller farms and transforming them into basically tightly held suppliers to the corporate machine taking away their independence." Yes, exactly.

[Overseas]

18. Thank you for this background.

I hadn't thought about what agribusiness wants out of this.

[William Z. Foster]

12. all life is at risk

Planet wide the entire ecosystem and all life is at risk, all habitats are being destroyed, everything is in danger.

Focusing on bees - which sustain the last ag segment dominated by small family farmers - fits the pattern. If family farmers are doing it, then it must be wrong. The foodies are naive and gullible enough, and sufficiently enamored by the "free market" and sympathetic to libertarian ideas, while being antagonistic to "red neck, Republican voting, gun-toting, fundy" family farmers, that they gladly promote the corporate anti-family farm agenda.

Bees are doing OK, relatively speaking. Deciduous fruit is the most reliant on them, and I talk to all of the growers. They face many problems, but a shortage of bees is not one of them. Beekeeping is difficult, and I cannot remember a time when beekeepers were not a worried bunch and losing bees every year. The Varoa mites have been a real threat for quite a while now, and are implicated in recent losses. Beekeepers are a unique bunch, somewhat on their own and out of the loop, and neglected.

Are there some beekeepers out there who can be interviewed as "experts" who will paint a grim picture? Sure. I know one who is convinced that aliens are visiting and causing the problems here. Is there a grower or two out there crying the blues and unable to get bees? Sure. But those two things have always been true. The ten or fifteen commercial keepers within a few hundred miles of me, in one of the most intense fruit growing regions, are not having problems. The several hundred growers in the region are not either. Is it a concern? Yes, of course - but not in the top 20 or even top 50 concerns, global warming (possibly a contributing factor in bee decline that never gets mentioned, by the way) and destruction of the public agriculture infrastructure, and a flood of substandard, unsafe, uninspected food imports being high on the list. A team has been put together at Penn State and they are working on it - as with all aspects of farming.

Could pesticides or some other contaminant be harming bees? Sure. There is nowhere in the country where toxicology is taken more seriously and monitored and studied than it is - or was before the Republicans cut all of the funding - in the ag schools at the Land Grant colleges, the extension and research services and the USDA.

If the worry is that we will not get the food that depends upon bees, the coddling moth larvae is a far greater threat than the loss of bees would be. Yet in the anti-science, naive and idyllic imaginations of the foodies we can somehow have bees and not have codling moths - by magic, I guess.

As with all agriculture activities, pressures are increasing and farmers and beekeepers and everyone is struggling to survive and adapt to a world gone crazy.

[Webster Green]

2. It would seem that we're facing a "perfect storm" scenario.

All the petro-chemical crap, GMOs, threatened honey bees, global warming, nuclear threats, greed driven leaders, and on and on. We're reaching critical mass.

Not good.

[William Z. Foster]

37. yes

That is true, and I hope that nothing I have posted here suggests otherwise.

However, do articles like this lead people to a better understanding, do they support the type of action that is needed, or do they work against what needs to be done? I am convinced that it is the latter.

Public food policy cannot be privatized or left to consumer choice, not can it be driven by fear and based on misinformation.

[William Z. Foster]

3. terrible article

I cannot understand how the bee scare has such an appeal for people. It just goes on and on. The journalist here just mailed this piece of tripe in. This is the worse one yet on the be scare.

The article plays on the CCD scare campaign, but then fails to mention that the expert they are citing does not even study the European honeybee.

Ask Laurence Packer about why he doesn't study honey bees and he responds in an instant.

"All the world's yearly research papers on honey bees would create a pile this tall," he says, placing his hand at waist height - and a particularly high waist, since the pony-tailed York University professor of biology stands six feet four inches tall. "All the research on the rest of the world's maybe 20,000 species comes to this," he says, dropping his hand to his knees. "Do you see something wrong here?"

http://www.universityaffairs.ca/the-buzz-on-bees.aspx

What he is involved in is trying to get the Canadian Pollination Initiative up and running. If he's successful, this would be a cross-country effort to study how the myriads of non-honey bees in Canada - more than 800 species - are silently contributing to both pollination in farmers' fields and pollination of nature at large.

More study of wild bees is needed, yes. More public research is desperately needed in hundreds of areas.

But I know of no fruit farmer who is unaware of the role played by wild bees, and I never see a fruit tree in bloom that that does not have wild pollinators on it.

If we are going to say that the reason we should be concerned about bees is because our food depends upon them (always vastly overstated in these articles) then the suggested solutions - stop pest management for example - contradict that concern.

ALL farming globally is under terrible stress. ALL creatures are at risk. That is not going to be solved by "going organic" or planting a garden on your roof.

Fruit farmers are under a lot of duress - ICE raids, FDA harassment, "free trade" competition, the collapsing public agricultural support infrastructure, the privatization of the Land Grant colleges, control over the food supply by an handful of corporations, etc. The biggest threat this season right now, and for the last dozen years, is climate change. Exceptionally warm winters are bringing fruit trees out of dormancy too soon so that they are more vulnerable to subsequent freezes. Massive losses are happening right now from that. I don't talk to any fruit farmer who is having any problems due to a shortage of bees.

I think this is part of the effort to eradicate small family farms that is being ramped up everywhere now. Those farms are in the way of the corporate juggernaut, preventing unfettered access to resources and labor for them, and blocking total control over the food supply. They mist be eliminated, along with all traditional sustainable farming communities around the globe. The bee scare is one of the several methods for getting liberals and progressives on board with the anti-small farm campaign.

[Webster Green]

5. One thing I don't understand about what you wrote...

"The bee scare is one of the several methods for getting liberals and progressives on board with the anti-small farm campaign."

How so? I don't get that part.

[William Z. Foster]

8. thanks

That question gets right to the heart of the inherent contradiction in these articles, which is a tip off that they are manipulative. First, good things are mentioned to appeal to the reader - "save the bees!" for example or "organic food!" - and then the reader is steered to privatized solutions combined with acceptance of police state enforcement actions. Of course no bees are saved, and no corporations are harmed. Inspections, extension, research, support are all cut, and the cops in the form of the feds are sent out after the supposed bad guys.

I will give you another recent example of how this works. I was a fly on the wall at a meeting of right wing think tankers and overheard a discussion of how to get libertarian ideas into the organic movement, and then we recently saw it in action. By using the right buzzwords and appealing to people's emotions, they can be led to a libertarian "solution" to the "problem."

The most progressive Democrats were putting together a new farm bill after decades of de-regulation and de-funding by the Republicans. Right wingers put together a piece - just full of the most blatant and obvious lies - and were able to get all of the organic organizations to publish and distribute it. The word "Monsanto" was sprinkled in it - that has been tested to be very effective at swaying liberals. The essay claimed that the new regulations would make it illegal for people to grow tomatoes in their back yard and would force farmers to grow "GMO food" and would outlaw organic produce. "They are taking away our freedoms to help Monsanto!" The essay claimed that a new draconian inspection regimen would make roadside stands and small farming impossible. None of this was true - all one had to do was read the bill to see that it was not true. But millions of liberals were brought to a privatization and de-regulation position on this, into opposition to the bill, by the clever juxtaposition of "Monsanto" versus "organic," with the bill supposedly helping Monsanto and hurting organic. It was a pure libertarian anti-government screed, and if you took out the words "Monsanto" and "organic" I think that most liberals would have seen it for what it was.

The underlying implication of these articles is that the bees are being killed - and by whom?

The contradiction is this - on the one hand we should all fear the loss of the bees (which are not especially endangered) because otherwise we will not have food, but on the other hand we are led to see farmers (who are endangered) as the culprits.

The bait and switch is this - on the one hand we are presented with a problem of public concern that demands a public solution, but on the other hand the solutions presented are private and individual.

It is complicated, because the right wingers have so confused people and because liberals and progressives are so gullible and so easily steered.

What most people do not see is that there are three major groups involved in agriculture: farmers, foodies, and corporations. The corporations want to eliminate the farmers, and are successfully enrolling the foodies (organic, CSA, farmers market, consumer choices, etc.) into their program. The foodies are relatively upscale, and sympathetic to privatization and consumer choice as models for the food industry. The are antagonistic to the existing public agricultural infrastructure and to the rural farming families.

Honey bees are an important tool for growers in one of the last segments of agriculture in this country that is still dominated by small family farms. That is why there is an uproar about honey bees.

[AuntPatsy]

10. Your post is interesting and yet what stands out to me your few words...

:liberals and progressives are so gullible and so easily steered: and before that" the right wingers have so confused people"

You lost my ability to take your words seriously with that particular sentence and thats incredibly sad..

why do people do that?

what is the goal?

and do you seriously believe those words in that sentence to be fact based?

why the labels?

so many people can be guilty of those accusations regardless of political affilation..

you seem intelligent, perhaps this was on purpose and with that your loss...as it all of ours...

[William Z. Foster]

13. not following

Sorry, not sure what you are saying.

Should we not be concerned that we are vulnerable to being steered, and where and how?

Should we not acknowledge that there is a well-funded and orchestrated ongoing campaign by the right wingers on behalf of their corporate masters, and that this is infecting and corrupting all discussion about political and social issues? Should we not be alert to that?

It seems that somehow you were offended or something, but that was not my intention and I hope we can clear up any misunderstanding.

[Webster Green]

15. Yes, I remember the deal about outlawing growing tomatoes.

I got into that far enough to realize it was bullshit.

True enough that the mere mention of the name Monsanto starts my blood boiling. I detest them! I spent a few days in Sacramento, CA. years ago, attending workshops and protesting a GMO big shot's conference held there. There were farmers from all over the world telling their Monsanto horror stories. The Sacramento cops were in full riot cop mode to protect the GMO conference from the shouts of angry demonstrators.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it. :thumbsup:

[William Z. Foster]

16. Monsanto

It is fascinating, with dozens of equally "evil" corporations involved in the food industry, and with it being so obvious that we have a systemic problem, that all of the attention is on Monsanto.

Take down Monsanto, and the same investors, the same mangers, the same board members, the same executives will set up shop under a different brand name and do the exact same things. Of course.

If you ran a right wing think tank and wanted to make sure that no mass opposition to the corporate takeover of our food supply would develop, how would you go about it? Make one corporation the evil one and rant about them all day long, as though they were the exception and not the rule so that people do not see the bigger picture; encourage people to make different personal lifestyle choices, and buy different products - "organic? You want organic? We got your organic right here, suckers!" is what the corporations are saying now; whip up fear campaigns about trivial and irrelevant things; plant obviously absurd and easily debunked ideas into the liberal and organic literature to discredit the entire movement.

That is what I would do. That is what they are doing.

[laughingliberal]

32. I do believe I'm hearing more from the left these days about buying local...

... and less emphasis on organic. I also pegged the crap about vegetable gardens as BS very quickly. In fact, immediately on hearing it.

[William Z. Foster]

36. yeah

Of course that won't work either.

Why cannot people be brought to support the true liberal, progressive and left wing solution, the New Deal solution - a strong, independent and well-funded network of public institutions devoted to sustainable farming practices and food safety?

Consumer choice solutions are reactionary and will always be co-opted by the corporations and will always promote the corporate agenda.

If, based on science, a food is superior, than ALL should have access to it, not just the knowledgeable and upscale few. If a food is dangerous or inferior, NO ONE should be eating it. The foodie movement is based on the premise that the smart people find the good food, the safe food, the healthy food, while the stupid or ignorant people do not. That is an aristocratic and gentrified position that works against support for a robust public food policy and infrastructure.

on edit - I will give you an example of why the latest clever little marketing slogan "buy local" doesn't work.

Where we are is ideal for cherries - sandy soil, close to the lake, rolling hills, long photo-period, wide range of temperature change over 24 hour periods - perfect. 200 miles southeast of here the small growers can do a great job with tomatoes, melons and cukes - deeper soil, warmer weather, more humidity. So every day in season the small growers here run a truck down loaded with cherries and bring tomatoes or other veggies on the run back. Customers in both locations get really superior produce, fresh everyday. It is very efficient - loads both ways, and loaded to the gills. Everyone wins.

But the "buy local" activists in both locations give the growers a hard time, and bar them from farmer's markets. Why? "It isn't local."

[Luminous Animal]

33. While I agree with you, you're broadbrush characterization of "foodies"

is misguided. The Northeast Organic Farming Association, Slow Food USA, Food & Water Watch, and the Organic Consumer Association, all debunked the hysteria. Mother Jones and scores of food bloggers debunked the disinformation and many other bloggers issue mea culpas.

FYI, OpEd News and the NICFA were at the forefront of unleashing the hysteria.

[Overseas]

19. K&R. //nt

[Ozymanithrax]

9. On my walk every moring, I pass by two wild beehives.

It is fascinating, hearing their song, watching them swarm, seeing them enter and leave their hidden hives.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. Four words:

Dinosaurs. TV. Show. Finale.

[marions ghost]

20. The bee disaster is real and disturbing

Sorry, not buying the argument in this thread that it's a US agribusiness plot to stamp out small farmers. And something about "liberals are gullible" enough to believe it. :eyes:

----------------------------

For one thing, it's a world-wide phenomenon.

"The decline of the country's estimated 2.4 million beehives began in 2006, when a phenomenon dubbed colony collapse disorder (CCD) led to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of colonies. Since then more than three million colonies in the US and billions of honeybees worldwide have died and scientists are no nearer to knowing what is causing the catastrophic fall in numbers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/02/food-fear-mystery-beehives-collapse

Independent scientists are studying this. Let's continue to follow the research, instead of looking the other way because somebody tells us to "move along, there's nothing to see here."

Thanks for posting this, OP. Right now we need to hear all opinions. It's like the oil disaster. We need to stay tuned.

[marions ghost]

21. Eh...?

"The bee scare is one of the several methods for getting liberals and progressives on board with the anti-small farm campaign."

:freak: :wtf: :freak: I am just not getting the connection. Progressives would not be anti-small farm, no matter how many bees disappear.

[William Z. Foster]

22. understood

You don't get it, so you assume the worst.

It is an interesting subject. I may post more tonight. Have been at work all day and you posted after I signed off.

Why be hostile and suspicious?

[marions ghost]

23. Address my point...

the bee loss is worldwide, not limited to US farmers of any kind. You ridicule the topic by calling it The Bee Scare and making snide comments about liberals.

Wanna talk about Lizard Loss? Species degradation that's maybe neutral? I didn't think so. :shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

25. so hostile and combative

No need to be combative. I am going to make several posts tonight on the subject - or subjects I should say. Notice that the article starts out implying that it is the CCD phenomenon with the European honey bees that is the topic, but then the rest of the article is about an expert on wild bees and native pollinators. Both may be in decline - is there anything that isn't? I spend a lot of time with reptiles and amphibians and the declines there are alarming - and there may be a connection, but the article makes no attempt at connecting the two.

I had to run some errands just now, and something occurred to me that is related to this. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of wild apple trees in this area. I just looked at a few dozen in the last hour. All of those trees, year after year, are bearing and bearing abundantly. That means they are getting pollinated - well pollinated. That does not mean that bees are not in decline, of course, nor does it tell us that we should not be concerned about their well-being. It does mean however that the suggestion in these articles that food supplies are at dire or immediate risk is fear-mongering and overstated at the very least.

Another observation - I have been out watching pollination the last couple of weeks and there is something interesting that happens that people may not be aware of. The European honey bees are relatively plodding and tend to sit on one blossom and load up. Since deciduous fruit is not self-fertile, pollination requires two or more varieties, which means that the less the bees move the less cross-pollination there will be. The wild bees by way of contrast move faster, and jump from blossom to blossom and tree to tree more. (This year I am seeing 30-50% wild bees on many of the trees. By "wild bees" I mean native species as opposed to European honey bees that have gone wild - there are a lot of those as well.) The wild bees also bump the European honey bees off of blossoms and keep them moving more.

Another thing people may not know - there are going to be huge fruit losses this year, maybe worse than ever before. It will not be because of a shortage of bees - there is no such shortage that we have seen or heard about. Were the problem even 10% as bad as these articles suggest, it would be the main topic of conversation among growers. But it rarely if ever comes up. People must think that farmers are really stupid, or they must know little about farming - they must not know anything about farming, actually, or else they must think that all farming is now corporate or factory farming.

The cause is unusually warm weather in January and February. That brings the trees out of dormancy prematurely. All deciduous fruit goes into dormancy in the winter, and different varieties have different requirements for "chill hours" - hours below 45 degrees or so. Once the trees are out of dormancy they start developing and moving forward. The farther along they get, the more vulnerable they are to subsequent freezes. This has been happening for a dozen years or more, in all of the fruit districts around the world and getting worse.

Unlike any problems that may be found in the realm of bee culture, this climate change problem most definitely is an immediate and serious danger to food supplies, and is a subject that growers are talking about continually.

[marions ghost]

30. I'm sure that climate change is a factor

in messing up natural systems.

But you'd have to do a lot more convincing to get me to believe it's some agribiz propaganda. Too many scientists studying it. There's something going on.

Anyway post your stuff. I'll read it.
mg

[William Z. Foster]

35. here is how

If bees are suffering from malnutrition, and there is evidence that they are, that would weaken them against parasites or toxins. Warmer weather in January and February would bring bees out of hibernation, and they would quickly deplete food supplies.

The only thing I am trying to convince people to do is to think critically about these issues. I don't have a hidden agenda I am trying to push about this - other than that I am opposed to corporate and Wall Street control over the food supply, and I support rebuilding the public agriculture infrastructure that the Republicans have destroyed.

Scare articles that misinform and distract the public most definitely serve corporate interests.

Yes, many scientists are studying it. That is good. It is also not unusual. The context is what is missing for the average person. Hundreds of things are constantly being studied related to agriculture by many scientists. There is "something going on" in all aspects of agriculture and food processing and delivery. As I said, it is a matter of proportion and perspective - seeing the forest for the trees - and it is a matter of which direction the public is being steered. Are people being led to support increased funding and independence for the public agriculture infrastructure, or are they being frightened into making different consumer choices? The first is the progressive and left wing position that serves the public welfare, the second is the libertarian position that serves corporate interests.


on edit - One more note - you say there are too many scientists studying this. There are far too few scientists studying this issue. Funding and support is woefully inadequate. That is true across the board in the food and agricultural sciences.

[marions ghost]

38. people don't connect bees

with "consumer choices" in any logical way. Too complicated.

If the disappearance of bees begins to get people interested in your topics, seems that would be positive, as far as you are concerned.

[William Z. Foster]

40. they should

They should, and they will. Watch for it. Someone will figure out a way to cash in on the bee scare - "bee friendly honey" or something, under the "Happy Bees" label, actually owned by a holding company controlled by General Foods - although that will be hidden from consumers - with bastardized imported honey from China, blended from corn syrup with honey flavoring (already happening on a massive scale), brought through Australia or Canada to disguise its origins - that will be hidden from consumers, as well. Have you read about what is happening to honey?

These are not "my topics" by the way. Farming issues are a vital concern to all of those who eat, or hope to. Also, I reject the sales and marketing - "winning friends and influencing people" - approach to politics and social issues. So I am not trying to "win people over" to "my cause." What would be a positive for me would be food security for all. It is not anything of personal benefit to me.

I have been giving this a lot of thought, so I appreciate your comments and interest. I think that we need a new approach to all of these issues.

Let's stretch our imaginations a little on this. Let's say that we are going to re-organize national food policy to seriously address the various concerns and fears people have - save the bees, solve the so-called "illegal immigrant" issue, reduce or eliminate dependence upon oil and "pesticides" - a buzz word that is more or less meaningless - for food production, eliminate the various threats associated with the "Monsanto" ideas - another buzz word that is more or less meaningless - improve the quality of food, protect and save crop genetic diversity, while feeding the population adequately. I wholeheartedly support those goals, I am ready to discuss how we get there and ready to work toward those goals. But let's get serious about what that would take.

Here is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - suburbia. It is suburbia that is causing the problems, the suburban lifestyle, the suburban development model, suburban attitudes. The sprawl, the pesticide use for gardens and lawns - a much bigger problem than on farms according to the USDA; your veggies are more likely to be contaminated by airborne toxins sitting on a table in suburbia than they are to come contaminated from the farm - the consumerism, the arrogance and competitiveness, the racism, the wasteful use of energy and on and on.

Notice how everyone wants to remake the urban centers - lots of yap lately about converting Detroit to farms - suburban hobby boutique garden farms for the upscale. Has there ever been a more absurd idea? In other words, extend suburbia into the city - for fun and profit for the few. Then people are talking about organic and CSA and home gardens and "eat local" as "solutions" to something - extending suburbia into rural farming country.

It would take a massive overhaul of the country's priorities to solve the food issues, and what would have to change would be suburbia, everything about suburbia - not farming and not urban centers.

Back 40 years ago, practically everyone on the left, and most liberals and progressives saw this - they knew that suburbia represented everything that was wrong with American culture, was the root cause of the social, economic and political problems. Today, people get outraged and offended should you dare to suggest that suburbia needs to change. That tells us that those who want to overhaul and remake urban areas and farming are themselves suburbanites, does it not, and that they are first and foremost defending suburbia?

All of the various activist causes about farming are severely biased to support a suburban American point of view about the world. That is the problem and can never be a source of any solutions.

Let's take one example - oil. Before tractors a farmer could feed 12 people and since tractors a farmer can feed 1200 (according to a famous foodie activist I argued with on the radio recently.) The activist's conclusion was that farming is all bad and wrong and must change, or else we will all starve. I called in and said that nothing would change in farming if oil disappeared, we would just need a lot more labor and that would mean that all of those people who left the farm to do whatever it is they do in suburbia would need to go back to work on the farm if they wanted to eat. Farming is not dependent upon oil - modern suburbia is. I said that people jetting around the country peddling their latest book on the radio lecturing everyone about what is wrong with farming are the ones whose lifestyles would need to change.

All of the problems in agriculture can be traced back to suburbia. Farmers are obligated to feed the people - whatever they want and wherever they are and whatever it takes to get it to them. Farming is forced to adjust to and respond to the pressures from the suburban phenomenon, and it impacts everything in farming - land costs, energy requirements, more and more control over food by the hustlers and marketers and brokers and speculators in the form of Wall Street and corporations, environmental degradation, forced specialization and outcropping, and on and on.

Until and unless people are willing to consider a radical overhaul of suburbia, it is futile and absurd to talk about radically overhauling urban centers and farming country. It is the gentrification, the suburbanization, the rampant consumerism, the brokers, dealers, marketers, hustlers, the strivers, the controllers, the bosses and managers and owners that are the cause of the problems - and that is all happening in suburbia. It is the sprawl, the waste, the misuse of land, the energy inefficiency, the speculation in real estate, the destruction of community, the toxic waste and chemical soup that comes from modern American lifestyles that are the problem - and that is all coming from, driven by suburbia, and all of that stuff is the foundation of the "success" that suburbanites are pursuing.

I can tell you that there is all sorts of abundant wildlife here in farm country, thriving eco-systems, abundant wildflowers, song birds, massive insect populations of tens of thousands of species, clean water, healthy soil. None of that is true in suburbia - suburbia is the "dead zone" and it is the dead zone spiritually, environmentally, socially and politically.

[marions ghost]

43. OMG-- what a tretise

OK I just got home...I will have to take awhile to digest this William. ;)

[William Z. Foster]

44. thanks

I very much appreciate the discussion and your willingness to consider my views on this.

[marions ghost]

45. Well your views are radical these days

but maybe after the "crash" there are more ears tuned to what you are saying.

--I don't know how you would begin to change suburbia. I agree, everything about it is wasteful and consumerist at a level that is not sustainable. But it literally defines the American lifestyle.

I grew up in a close inner city situation, then lived in typical suburban rancher sprawl, and now live in a semi-rural transition zone near encroaching new suburban developments. Where I actually live is a neighborhood that grew organically and was not bulldozed, so there's a lot of "natural area." There are some small family farms around, not "hobby farms" so much--they make a living off them. I eat local honey & don't want faux honey from China you may be sure.

I have friends in the new developments and I don't judge them for living there, but I know these suburbs are absolutely NOT what we needed to have built (and are still building, though the pace has slowed). As a wannabe architect I have a lot of criticisms of what's been built--vast neighborhoods with no core, no center, no character--yuk. But I know people just wanted a place to live & that's what was easily available. Many of the developments with large houses have only a couple of inhabitants--it's like everyone has to have a little fortress. (I imagine chopping the big ones up into condos). By comparison the small inner city box I grew up in seems tiny, and yet it never felt cramped at the time. I loved the neighborhood diversity as a child, and still miss it. So anyway, I have experienced the variety of options.

OK so I'm with you that the whole suburban lifestyle is a huge, if not The, problem. You make a good case. You are saying things perhaps a lot of people don't want to hear, and I realize that you have to say it forcefully to get attention. So be provocative. Stretch imaginations--yes, people need that. But after the criticism, then I think you have to talk about the "how." Imagine the how. How could it change for the better? What's your vision for dealing with it?

We've really come a long way from the discussion of bees. I get the connection, but instead of calling it Bee Scare (ridiculing people for caring and worrying)--you could appeal to those same people in a way that doesn't turn them off and get allies. Because these ARE the people who are listening. You are talking about change on a scale that would be frightening to many who have adapted to suburbia, invested in it, and are hostile to radical change ideas--they are the people who are NOT listening. How you get them on board I don't know, but to change the situation, you have to offer ideas. And get supporters among those who DO hear you.

How about starting some threads here & see what people think. And then compile your thoughts in a book we can order on the internet--you certainly are full of Words. So put them out there, if you haven't already. I take you to be a farmer who's trying to push back after years of concern. Maybe that's my fantasy, but anyway, it's a perspective that we may need at this juncture. Especially as we have now experienced a shocking speed bump in our collective drive to consume and grow and build and consume more and grow bigger and....wham. People are sensitized. Our heads are spinning. We might listen.

:thumbsup: mg

[William Z. Foster]

46. good post

I never judge people for where they live, or how they survive. It is the system that is the problem, not individuals. There is no way to survive now without cooperating with the system in various ways. But at least we should be questioning it.

Thank you for the suggestions - they are excellent, and I will follow your advice.

How things can change for the better - first I think we need people to question the social conventions and arrangements and relationships much, much more than they are now. Without that, =it will be impossible to change anything. People were doing this in the past at times when there was great social change - Emancipation, the Labor movement, the Civil Rights movement - but it is hardly happening at all today. It is as though everyone is saying "how can we radically change everything, without actually questioning anything?" You cannot. People restrict their criticism to very shallow partisan political grounds, and are resistant to any biting social criticism.

Then, it is going to take public works, public institutions, and public programs to change the food and farming system. It cannot be left to the "free market" or consumer choice.

[marions ghost]

24. I repeat

the bee loss is worldwide, not limited to US farmers of any kind. You ridicule the topic by calling it The Bee Scare and making snide comments about liberals.

Wanna talk about Lizard Loss? Population decline that's maybe neutral? I didn't think so. :shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

26. typing as fast as I can

I decided to dig in on the subject, and will be making several posts tonight about it here.

I did not make any "snide comments" about liberals. Let's not get all worked up about that. I am talking about the community on the left, all of us, and a vulnerability we have to be manipulated and inadvertently promote right wing ideas. Why should that topic be taboo? Vital, in my opinion. We are constantly bombarded with a very sophisticated propaganda campaign from the right wing on behalf of their corporate sponsors. I think it is absolutely essential that we are alert to the effects of that.

[William Z. Foster]

27. the original article

The original article that started the scare was in Der Stern magazine, and then the things in that article were spread far and wide.

It should be noted that the Einstein quote is phony, and that the researchers who tested bee hives with cell phone towers actually found the opposite result from what Der Stern said they did.

One would think that if 70% of the bees had disappeared in the Eastern states, as claimed here, that there would be some impact on fruit pollination.

Here is a sample article. There have been hundreds, all quoting each other and repeating the same things.

Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left."

It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.

They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously home loving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html

[William Z. Foster]

28. Nosema fungus possibility

Fungus fingered in US honeybee wipeout

According to the Los Angeles Times, researchers have identified the single-celled fungus Nosema ceranae in dead bees from hives in Merced County, California. Other teams have similarly spotted the fungus in affected hives across the US, as well as two further fungi and 12 viral infections.

Powdered dead bee samples from the California hives were analysed by Dr. Charles Wick of the US Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Maryland using a "new system of genetic analysis". Wick pinned down several viruses, "including members of a recently identified genus called iflaviruses". These RNA-containing viruses infect the Varroa mite, which in turn lives on honeybees, and scientists speculate they may be fatal to bees.

The center's Evan W. Skowronski was able to offer a more clear-cut explanation for CCD, though. He said: "There was a lot of stuff from Nosema, about 25 per cent of the total. That meant there was more than there was bee RNA. That leads me to believe that the bee died from that particular pathogen."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/27/ccd_fungus_link/

[marions ghost]

29. and pesticides...

Here's a more recent article, still speculating but actually using the word pesticide:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/24/tech/main6328765.shtml

MERCED, Calif., March 24, 2010
Bad Winter Deepens Disappearing Bee Crisis
Survey Indicates Heavy Bee Die-Off while Study Shows Honeybees' Pollen and Hives Laden with Pesticides
------------------

AP) The mysterious 4-year-old crisis of disappearing honeybees is deepening. A quick federal survey indicates a heavy bee die-off this winter, while a new study shows honeybees' pollen and hives laden with pesticides.

Two federal agencies along with regulators in California and Canada are scrambling to figure out what is behind this relatively recent threat, ordering new research on pesticides used in fields and orchards. Federal courts are even weighing in this month, ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overlooked a requirement when allowing a pesticide on the market.

And on Thursday, chemists at a scientific conference in San Francisco will tackle the issue of chemicals and dwindling bees in response to the new study.

Scientists are concerned because of the vital role bees play in our food supply. About one-third of the human diet is from plants that require pollination from honeybees, which means everything from apples to zucchini.

Bees have been declining over decades from various causes. But in 2006 a new concern, "colony collapse disorder," was blamed for large, inexplicable die-offs. The disorder, which causes adult bees to abandon their hives and fly off to die, is likely a combination of many causes, including parasites, viruses, bacteria, poor nutrition and pesticides, experts say.

"It's just gotten so much worse in the past four years," said Jeff Pettis, research leader of the Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Md. "We're just not keeping bees alive that long." (snip)

[William Z. Foster]

34. sure

The researchers are looking at everything. As the honeybee colonies have become increasingly threatened by pests, keepers are using more materials to control the pests. There is always a trade-off. I don't think a correlation has been made yet between particular pesticides and incidence of bee loss.

As always in agricultural research, all factors are examined and there are no areas of research from which opinions and findings could not be pulled that the public would find alarming or disturbing. We live in a unique time, as there has never been a population so removed from its food source before as most Americans are now 3-4 generations removed from the farm and take many things for granted. Food and water borne pathogens, not so long ago, killed children in almost every family, for example. Large segments of the population were struggling with hunger to one degree or another. People removed from the farm have no sense for the struggle required to feed the population.

This is another example of an alarmist article that is not very informative.

Examples:

"Scientists are concerned because of the vital role bees play in our food supply. About one-third of the human diet is from plants that require pollination from honeybees, which means everything from apples to zucchini."

Scientists are always concerned. It is the job description. That sentence is carefully constructed to have maximum scare value - don't we wish that a third of the diet for the average person was fruits and vegetables. Row crops are wind pollinated. They represent the bulk of the diet for people.

"Two federal agencies along with regulators in California and Canada are scrambling to figure out what is behind this relatively recent threat, ordering new research on pesticides used in fields and orchards. Federal courts are even weighing in this month, ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overlooked a requirement when allowing a pesticide on the market."

That describes what is always happening, every day. The sentence is basically fluff and says noting, though it sounds dramatic and alarming.

"Bees have been declining over decades from various causes. But in 2006 a new concern, 'colony collapse disorder,' was blamed for large, inexplicable die-offs. The disorder, which causes adult bees to abandon their hives and fly off to die, is likely a combination of many causes, including parasites, viruses, bacteria, poor nutrition and pesticides, experts say."

There have been periodic mass bee die offs and disappearances recorded for hundreds of years. They have always been "inexplicable" - so far. It is highly likely that in a more and more difficult market for small growers and beekeepers, that the margins are being pushed and the bees worked too hard and that a combination of stress factors may have made this die off worse, if it is in fact worse, than previous die offs.

CBS does the public a disservice with yellow journalism like this.

[annabanana]

31. The local bumblebees like my rhododendron..

I smile at them and say "hi". . and hope they keep coming by.

[happy_liberal]

39. It's the high fructose corn syrup!

Heat Forms Potentially Harmful Substance In High-Fructose Corn Syrup, Bee Study Finds
http://alaskafreepress.com/news/3528

I have the feeling we shouldn't be eating it either.

[William Z. Foster]

41. another silly scare campaign

People are eating too many empty calories, yes, and the use of HFCS in everything has meant massive windfall profiteering by the food processing corporations. Those are social and political issues that demand political solutions, not fear campaigns and more consumerism approaches.

No one is being poisoned by HFCS - it is just silly to think that.

Corn is heavily subsidized, and people are eating too much sugar and not enough fruit - which is not subsidized. Margins are low for corn farmers, which has led to the "grow big or die" phenomenon. Fruit farming is still dominated by thousands of small family growers, one of the few areas of farming where that is still true. The corn subsidies, originally intended to solve serious hunger issues in the country, now subsidize corporations, CAFOs, HFCS, ethanol for the energy corporations, etc. Those are political issues - they are not going to be solved by the "consumer choice" model. People in the US were protein and fat deprived in the 30's - subsidizing meat production at that time was sound public policy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. It's cell phones.

And fluoride.