<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<HR>
From: mjmiles@DOW.COM<BR>To: ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA<BR>Sent: 8/1/2012
3:28:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time<BR>Subj: Re: Bee protection group
(bumblebee) under fire for failing to fight pesticide "armageddon."<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000
size=2 face=Arial>did you not hear - there is a cure for whatever has affected
the bees - we are all
saved!!<BR><BR>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scientific-breakthrough-halts-honeybee-colony-collapse-disorder-2012-07-30<BR><BR><BR>Scientifically-Engineered
by Woman Biochemist "BeesVita Plus is composed of scientifically-engineered,
natural components proven to contrast neonicotinoids' side effects on
honeybees," says BeesFree's chief scientist and BeesVita Plus inventor Dr.
Francesca del Vecchio. "The solution also contains antimicrobial agents and
compounds to fight viruses and its interaction with Nosema parasite. Plus, it
has powerful nutrients and antioxidants." <BR><BR><BR>Best regards<BR>Mark
<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: International Commission on
Plant-Bee Relations [mailto:ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA] On Behalf Of Matt
Shardlow<BR>Sent: 31 July 2012 10:36<BR>To:
ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA<BR>Subject: Re: Bee protection group (bumblebee)
under fire for failing to fight pesticide "armageddon."<BR><BR>Here is a
summary of recent research into Neonicotinoids, please let me know if there
are any significant studies missing.<BR><BR>Cheers<BR><BR>Matt<BR><BR>Matt
Shardlow<BR>Chief Executive<BR><BR>Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation
Trust<BR>First Floor<BR>90 Bridge Street<BR>Peterborough <BR>PE1
1DY <BR><BR>01733 201210 <BR>079 21
700151<BR>www.buglife.org.uk<BR><BR>Conserving the small things that run the
world.<BR> <BR>Fun ways to help bugs! Keen Buglife supporters are running
Half-marathons, losing weight and giving up chocolate - all to raise money for
Buglife! You too could do a sponsored activity to raise money and it doesn't
have to be hard work! How about holding a Big Bug Day at work or school,
hosting a cake-bake, or asking people to sponsor you to dye your hair pink for
a weekend? Click here to find out more.<BR>Buglife - The Invertebrate
Conservation Trust is a company limited by guarantee, Registered in
England at First Floor, 90 Bridge Street, Peterborough, Cambs, PE1
1DY. Company no. 4132695
Registered charity no. 1092293 Scottish charity
no. SC040004<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Matt Shardlow
<BR>Sent: 30 July 2012 21:56<BR>To: Peter Kevan;
ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA<BR>Subject: RE: Bee protection group (bumblebee)
under fire for failing to fight pesticide "armageddon."<BR><BR>In 2009 Buglife
did a thorough review of the available scientific evidence of effects of
neonicotinoids on insects
http://www.buglife.org.uk/Resources/Buglife/revised%20neonics%20report.pdf<BR><BR>We
have not repeated this recently, but another review is justified. We do
also have a summary of post 2009 research but can't claim it is comprehensive;
I can circulate that tomorrow if people are interested.<BR><BR>For ICPBR
members to focus on the scientific data is of course correct, but also
significant and relevant to the ICPBR are the regulatory pesticide
authorisation processes and the scientific quality and breadth of risk
assessment of those processes.<BR><BR>Currently the risk assessment processes
do not include any assessment of the effects of insecticides on wild
pollinators, hence formal pesticide approval processes (such as the EU
DAR) cannot assure us that the approved chemicals are therefore
environmentally safe. This is not just the opinion of Buglife, it is
also the opinion of Defra/Fera and the European Food Safety
Authority.<BR><BR>The 2008 Fera/Defra report 'Are pesticide risk assessments
for honeybees protective of other pollinators' states that:-<BR><BR>"There are
many cases where species are several orders of magnitude more sensitive on a
per individual or weight basis than honeybees, e.g. Lepidopteran larvae.
Therefore more detailed information on the toxicity of pesticides to a range
of species and life stages is required to assess the sensitivity of wild
pollinators relative to honeybees."<BR><BR>"Given the wide range of plants
species dependent on non-Apis [non-Honeybee] pollinators a reduction in wild
pollinators is likely to have knock on effects on the plant species pollinated
by them, resulting in less forage." <BR><BR>"More detailed toxicity and
exposure information for a range of species is required for a robust
assessment of the risk
posed."<BR><BR>http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15390<BR><BR>The
very recent 'Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a
risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus
spp. and solitary bees)' European Food Safety Authority (2012) report
states:-<BR><BR>"Larvae of solitary bees consume large mass provisions with
unprocessed pollen thus, compared with honey bee larvae, they are more exposed
to residues in pollen. Moreover, bumble bees and solitary bees may be exposed
to a larger extent via contact with nesting material (soil or plants) compared
to honey bees, suggesting the need for a separate risk assessment for bumble
bees and solitary
bees."<BR><BR>http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2668.htm<BR><BR>I
hope most ICPBR members can support the call for introducing a range of
standard tests of pesticides across a range of non-target pollinator
groups. If we can achieve these improvements in the scientific process
then in the future pesticides are much less likely to damage pollinator
populations.<BR><BR>Best wishes<BR><BR>Matt<BR><BR><BR>Matt Shardlow<BR>Chief
Executive<BR><BR>Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust First
Floor<BR>90 Bridge Street<BR>Peterborough<BR>PE1 1DY<BR><BR>01733
201210<BR>079 21 700151<BR><BR>www.buglife.org.uk<BR><BR>Conserving the small
things that run the world.<BR><BR>A year of bugs! This year put a reminder in
your diary each month to check out the new Bug of the Month. Go to the Buglife
website to find out about a new bug every month! <BR><BR>Buglife - The
Invertebrate Conservation Trust is a company limited by guarantee,
Registered in England at First Floor, 90 Bridge Street, Peterborough, Cambs,
PE1 1DY. Company no. 4132695 Registered
charity no. 1092293 Scottish charity no.
SC040004<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: International
Commission on Plant-Bee Relations on behalf of Peter Kevan<BR>Sent: Mon
30/07/2012 18:24<BR>To: ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA<BR>Subject: Bee protection
group (bumblebee) under fire for failing to fight pesticide
"armageddon."<BR><BR>It seems that we are at ICPPR are also coming under some
fire in Europe, though not as seriously as for the bumblebee conservation
group in UK. We need to be cautious to the extent that the neonicotinoid
debate is emotional and scientific. I have not been following it for a
number of years, but ICPPR should reserve its assessments to consideration of
scientific data. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Cheers,
Peter<BR><BR><BR><BR>http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/bee-protection-group-under-fi<BR>re-for-failing-to-fight-pesticide-armageddon.18271390
<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>