<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=3 face=Arial>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#000000 size=3 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="12"> </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: Rainer.Krell@FAO.ORG<BR>To: ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA<BR>Sent: 8/1/2012
2:01:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time<BR>Subj: Another comment 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>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Dear Peter and all,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Many thanks for all the info and discussion.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Just a thought – could not help myself to not comment:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>This is not a court of law where any chemical is safe until proven
beyond any doubt of its damage capacity and risk.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>(Releasing just any kind of chemical, tested or not, into any
environment is not a basic human right.)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>All this calling on better science is fine and acceptable as
logical linear thinking – which science is good at. It does however, not solve
the basic problem of increased rates of environmental intoxication; first of
all, because most decisions are not made based on scientific probabilities,
they only inform the decision making process. If decisions really would be
taken based on thorough science and science would serve decision making for
the best solutions (for all), then the appropriate methodology for a life
support system would be the reverse of what it is right now. We would test a
chemical for whether it is good for the environment and whether it
simultaneously fulfils a number of additional requirements among which could
be the balancing of insect species in an agricultural
field.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>In addition, the problem is not good or bad science or insufficient
science, the problem is that products are put out in the field (or
environment) before being tested thoroughly for their negative effects. While
it should be the other way around. Using the same linear approach, one would
use all this science and collaboration and perfecting of the methods and tests
before putting the chemical out there, and only do it if it tests safe and
beneficial to the whole life process in the environment and human bodies.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Such an approach would be perfectly safe and acceptable, if it were
not for different commercial interests from the chemical producer’s side. Also
because, these new chemicals are not at all needed by the agricultural
producers. There are plenty of other non-toxic alternatives available (still),
thus we can well wait for another decade or two to perfect scientific methods
and test more. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>It is however commercial interests that have been pushing, for many
decades, the whole thinking into a different direction, i.e. that of more
effective and better chemicals (assumed safe until proven toxic by
non-producer financed laboratories/institutions) to resolve systemic problems
of inappropriate, and ill-adapted production systems and production thinking.
The agricultural field is not an industrial assembly plant, nor is the human
body a sophisticated machine. Once we overcome these outdated industrial era
concepts we might also come to accept the inadequacy of the
a-chemical-to-fix-it mentality at all levels, be they producers, processors,
industry, politicians, scientists, or consumers. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Systems thinking is not a panacea and there is more, but giving it
at least a try at all levels would us get a little further and more in step
with our technical, chemical and biological (and also mental) capacities. The
precautionary principle, for example, is not anti-industry, it is pro-human
evolution. In my opinion it would do good if all participants in this game
would every now and then revisit their intrinsic or basic values, not
necessarily those currently accepted by their employers, on the basis of which
they think and act.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Such thinking would also do good to enter into the new risk
assessment methodologies. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Even in the darkest tunnel there is still hope to find a light, if
one keeps on moving and following those inner-most guiding principles. And
hopefully the first light is not the one of the on-coming train.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Rainer Krell<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">(A
personal thought, not one representing in any form an opinion of my
employer)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> International
Commission on Plant-Bee Relations [mailto:ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA] <B>On
Behalf Of </B>Miles, Mark (M)<BR><B>Sent:</B> 01 August 2012
15:10<BR><B>To:</B> ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Bee
protection group (bumblebee) under fire for failing to fight pesticide
"armageddon."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Dear Peter<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>thank you for sharing and bringing this issue to light. I
have been active in the “Bee protection group” for the past 10 years and I
have given up much of my time to support sensible scientific innovation and
understanding of the risk of pesticides to bees. I think is it sad that
such articles misrepresent all the excellent work done by the group. In my
view the worst criticisms come from the press and NGO pressure groups with
claims that industry undermine the group. This is not true, the industry
members are typically experienced and concern scientists not
anti-environmentalists. There have been unhelpful articles which have claimed
that pesticide companies are running ICPPR – this is not true – the group is
also comprised of representatives of authorities (e.g. UK CRD, US EPA, NL
CTgB, Fr ANESS, CAN PMRA etc) and many academics. In fact the pesticide
companies actually sponsor the meetings to enable and subsidize participation
of authorities and academics. Recent articles in the French press have
also criticized the work. This has been lead by a small number of people who
are part of an anti-pesticide lobby. They have attended the meetings the
meetings in Bucharest and Wageningen, where as you know the ICPPR works on
consensus. They are also welcome to spare time to contribute
scientifically to the working groups and are members of some working
groups. It seems perhaps the consensus system does not allow them to
achieve all their goals within the group. Clearly the same is true for
industry. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Other so called “criticism” by the recent EFSA opinion is a list of
scientific concerns relating to certain test designs. These views are
based on an opinion and not an analysis of the data, regulatory system or
anything else. The ICPPR groups could answers these points by analysing
existing data and indeed there are groups on larval/brood testing, the
performance and evaluation of semi-field and field test as well as bee
monitoring. Again, the NGO and authorities are a large part of these
groups. I have started to analyse tunnel test data and recently
presented it a SETAC world meeting in Berlin May 2012. More should be
done on this and there are people already working in the area. I agree
there is much work to be done but it must be achieved through science; by
analysis of existing data and ring testing new appropriate methods. This
in turn needs a thorough investigation into how these end points can feed into
a regulatory risk assessment scheme. This requires time and expertise
and that expertise lies with all the stakeholders, including industry as we
own a lot a data that could be analysed. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>Finally, recently the EU commission have issued the new data
requirements, which include far more testing for bees (including larval test,
chronic exposure and sub-lethal effects). Also mentioned are additional
formal considerations for systemic products, dust and granules. In
addition there has been a very important SETAC Pellston meeting which will be
used to development the new guidance for use in North America – I can only
hope that out of this comes some kind of across region
harmonisation.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>I call for the Bee protection group to stand up and defend
their work over the years and actively support it with scientific
analysis. Where deficiencies are noted the groups can work to addressing
them and recommend updates and revisions. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>I do however take the findings of the bumblebee work where queen
production was reduced and would be in favour of understanding the mechanism
in more detail (including testing other chemicals) and then taking steps to
understand the actual exposure of these pollinators to see if the effects are
reproduced at environmentally relevant levels.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB>I look forward to many more years of working towards protecting
both bees and crops!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"
lang=EN-GB>Best regards<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 20pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Freestyle Script'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 20pt"
lang=EN-GB>Mark </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 20pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> International
Commission on Plant-Bee Relations [<A title=mailto:ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA
href="mailto:ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA">mailto:ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Peter Kevan<BR><B>Sent:</B> 30 July 2012
18:25<BR><B>To:</B> <A title=mailto:ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA
href="mailto:ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA">ICPBR@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA</A><BR><B>Subject:</B>
Bee protection group (bumblebee) under fire for failing to fight pesticide
"armageddon."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d" lang=EN-CA>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. </SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-CA><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"
lang=EN-CA>Cheers, Peter<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"
lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-CA><A
title=http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/bee-protection-group-under-fire-for-failing-to-fight-pesticide-armageddon.18271390
href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/bee-protection-group-under-fire-for-failing-to-fight-pesticide-armageddon.18271390">http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/bee-protection-group-under-fire-for-failing-to-fight-pesticide-armageddon.18271390</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>=</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>