by BETTER FARMING STAFF
The Ontario government has no more information on the harm caused to pollinators by neonicotinoids than does the federal Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, ministry of agriculture and environment staff admitting during public consultations in London on Tuesday.
Yet the provincial and federal regulators have come to different conclusions. In late November, the province announced a plan to reduce neonicotinoid use in Ontario by 80 per cent, on the same day that Health Canada (PMRA is part of it) released a report concluding that more work needed to be done to make the connection.
The apparent lack of scientific evidence supporting the province’s decision to proceed with regulation was noted early in a public consultation meeting held Tuesday in London. Presentations by Sharon Bailey, director of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs food safety and environmental policy branch and Steve Klose, director of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change standards development branch were scrutinized carefully.
In answer to a question from one of 120 participants, Klose cited “a body of evidence growing in terms of work in Europe, right here in Canada, Saskatchewan, that’s starting to look beyond the edge of field and where things are.” He called the area “an evolving science.”
The participant persisted. “PMRA is looking at all of that information too and they very clearly said on November 25 that there is insufficient information to take action,” she said. “So what expertise do you have in your agency that they don’t have in theirs?”
“We don’t have extra evidence that PMRA doesn’t have,” Klose replied. “We would share all information and work quite closely with PMRA . . . We’re scanning the science like everybody else.”
Klose allowed the PMRA and the province have different focuses. The PMRA “have to act nationally,” he noted. “We have to act in terms of what’s going on and what’s the evidence in Ontario in terms of the direction the government has taken at this stage and wanting to exercise precaution . . . and wanting to move forward with some action and not wait.”
The agriculture ministry’s Bailey said the province’s proposal is to focus on using neonicotinoid treatments only where they are needed. “We really shouldn’t be using pesticides where they are not needed, and that’s sort of a general approach.”
Joanna Wallace, Seaforth, a certified crop advisor, farmer and a Pioneer seed seller questioned why the province, which has been encouraging producers to employ conservation practices such as no-till and cover crops, would want to reduce a seed treatment considered a necessary tool for no-till.
Elgin County farmer Tom Martin says he is already changing how he farms in anticipation of regulations. “We’ve been no-till or minimum till for 20 to 25 years,…we’re working ground right now as I speak for the first time in many, many years.
“We need this (neonic) protection for our seeds. Without that we’ll have to plant in conventional till to get these plants up growing faster. So that’s a direct impact on me already.”
Glencoe farmer Dave McEachren said farmers have already taken voluntary measures and the PMRA’s recent preliminary report has shown a tremendous reduction in incidents. Moreover, he added, the PMRA’s report indicates 72 per cent of the poisoning incidents this year involved only three beekeepers.
Paul Ward, president of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture, warned that if regulation came into place, farmers would “go underground … and get the same corn (from other provinces or the United States) for years to come and you will not even know it. This is a big province.” BF
Comments
since by Mr Klose Statment that the gov wants to move ahead and not wait and Ont is going this alone
Sugest at this time for any and ALL proudcts contaning nenick used by all consumers, in the interests of precaution be
Reveiwed immediately as well as products that have been exposed to this so called threat from entering Ont at this time
All in the interest of precaution you know ! And doing something
Larry Lynn
Farmer and consumer in Ont
Mr. Lynn wasn't at this meeting - I was. The Province made it abundantly clear that neonics restrictions would be for commercial corn rather than for seed corn and/or sweet corn because these were specialty crops - a proposal which although being of little help to bee-keepers who operate close to seed corn and/or sweet corn farming operations, would be, according to the two bee-keepers at my table of nine participants, of considerable benefit to those who don't.
Therefore, even though the two bee-keepers at my table believed, based on their own experience, that a complete ban on neonics was justified, they appeared willing to accept partial restrictions - something grains farmers and the GFO are fighting tooth-and-nail to oppose.
Therefore, given that government seems to be proposing the "least-worst" option, and that bee-keepers seem at least partially willing to accept it, Mr. Lynn's suggestions are pedantic and obstructionist.
Furthermore, when Mr. Ward of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture asked his question/comment about enforcement and undocumented usage of neonics, the speaker noted that regardless of the source of the neonic treated seed, the unauthorized use of it would be breaking the law.
I mean, really, given the public's increasing doubts about the farm community's environmental responsibility, Mr. Ward's question served no purpose but to create even more doubts and even more calls for a complete ban.
In addition, even though I rarely agree with the CFFO's position on anything, I completely agree with a recent commentary by Clarence Nywening who stated that of greater concern than neonics was the risk of eroding the public's trust in agriculture.
Finally, and further to the matter of public trust, there were two Letters to Editor in the Saturday edition of the London Free Press - one was from an urbanite who noted that contrary to what the GFO predicted, neither her voice, nor the voice of anyone else, was "diluted" at the meeting, and the other was from someone who noted that when someone demands that decisions be made on "science", that person is casting aspersions on science. I confess to not understanding what that meant, but since the rest of that person's letter, as well as the letter from the urbanite, would appear to cast aspersions on the overall environmental responsibility of the farm community, I suggest that the "no restrictions at all" segment of the farm community, and particularly the GFO itself, are on the wrong side of an increasingly-wavering public trust.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
In order to have some clarfication and understanding for others reading MR Thompson comment re my not attending the meeting
Lets just cut the crap right now
right from the Start
You were aware that I had Knee surgery MON and unable to attend on Tue as I was in the hospitial
You indicated That you had no intentions of attending untill GFO suggested Producers possible not Attend
Then declared MR Steve Thompson I am going to the meeting to have my say
IF those attending meeting are the only people able to comment or ask questions , that certainaly is a interesting point of veiw you have !!!
This would leave you with lots more spare time and nothing much to write or complain about
Upon trying to re veiw this some how am unable to get the rest of my further written posting
so will send this and see what shows up
Larry Lynn
PS yes there is much more comming but felt clarification for others needed to be up front first !! on a serious question asked about in the info from reporter above and ignorred by Mr Thompson
While it's good to see that Mr. Lynn's recent surgery did not reduce his desire to post on this site, it is unfortunate that the surgery didn't reduce his penchant for pedantry and "shooting the messenger".
If I learned nothing else at the recent pollinator health meeting, I learned that the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) places absolutely no value on any bee-keeper's documented evidence showing neonics to present in every post-mortem of his/her bees.
I never did have a lot of use for the tactics used by the GFO when, with no public consultations at all, they gleefully lobbied government into ramming ethanol mandates down the throats of hog and livestock farmers, and then equally-gleefully paid for at least one structurally flawed report claiming that ethanol didn't harm Ontario's hog and livestock farmers.
I have even less use for the GFO's current attempt to marginalize and trivialize the bee-keeping industry, as well as for acting exactly like cigarette companies in the early 60s when they claimed there was no "conclusive proof" that smoking caused cancer. Or, in other words, while demanding "conclusive proof" that "water doesn't run uphill", GFO is, just like the cigarette companies in the 1960s, ignoring common sense reality, as well as, in this case, Ontario Environment Commissioner, Gord Miller, in favour of stalling.
The saddest part is that mainstream agriculture has, as Clarence Nywening recently warned, given the public ample reason to distrust us, our motives, and our tactics, yet we refuse to do anything about it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Further clarification
See my other posting and as suspected a lot did not get sent
Now to Mr Thompson reveiw of the meeting there seems to be other reveiws that are 180 degree different take from Mr Thompson
Including Mark Whales past OFA pres who shares a concern re the Gov use of precautionry prinicple and what creteria is being used
Letters in London paper r at the editers discreation as to what is used
The first letter indicated no obstruction by anyone and that would include farmers in attendance who also just might have been grain farmers
As for the second letter even Mr Thompson admits confusion on content of the letter that appears to be written possibly by some one who did not attend the meeting
Taking issue with a OFA PERSON asking A QUESTION is rather interisting
Does this mean from Mr Thompson point of veiw farmers are
not to ask questions but only sit and be taught ?
If that is the intent there really is not much use of any farmer attending
As for puplic trust others with very definte agenda r planting those seeds already and have been doing so for a long time
Check out the serria club ads and ask for money
As for me being obstructive I was merly pointing out if Ont is going this alone and based on neonick use all products need to be looked at and seriousuly question why product grown with treated seed from other areas would be allowed into Ont be it from the rest of Canada or the U.S.
This has gotten long enough so will now stop
Larry Lynn
Pround to be a grain farmer and producer of food in Ont
In their rush to embace the convenient and self-serving absolutism of "science", Mr. Lynn, and the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), seem to have conveniently forgotten that the basis of proof used in all criminal proceedings is the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt".
The public, the government, the bee-keeping industry, and even Ontario Environment Commissioner, Gord Miller, would all seem to believe that the threshold of "reasonable doubt" has been well-more-than met when it comes to the deleterious effects of neonics and that, therefore, it is time to make decisions.
It is ironic that farmers regularly excoriate government for stalling on this, that, or the other, by pointing out that there is enough "proof" for government to act - yet, when it suits the purpose of farmers to urge the government to stall, farmers fail to see the contradiction.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Legal concept of reasonable doubt has no relevance here.
Complete non sequitur -
Anonymous comment modified by editor.
Hilarious faulty logic
Legal threshold for finding of guilt has no logical connection to policy threshold for protecting the environment.
Neonic ban is absolute necessity - but on the precautionary principle not reasonable doubt.
Proof needed is different - much lower than legal proof.
Anonymous comment modified by editor.
Reasonable doubt has everything to do with, and is, for the most part when it comes to public policy, completely-interchangeable with precautionary principles.
It's like this, my anonymous, and very-pedantic friend, somebody needed to push the scientific absolutists off their pedestel, and the principle of reasonable doubt was an excellent way to do so. I could have just as easily used the joke showing five skeletons in wheelchairs with the caption 'Five women looking for the perfect man" to illustrate the point that absolutism of any sort can be, and appears to be in this case, especially when it comes to squandering our credibility and the public's trust in agriculture, "too little, too late".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The point being made (and ignored) is that the precautionary principle pushes scientific absolutists off their pedestals much, much sooner - affording more protection to the environment than the legal standard of reasonable doubt. That's your goal right? Incorrectly promoting reasonable doubt may protect your ego but it hurts the argument of best protecting the environment.
It simply doesn't matter whether someone understands the concept of precautionary principles, or whether someone understands the concept of beyond reasonable doubt, the overall thrust is still to place the decision making process at some point less than at the largely-elusive level of scientific absolutism.
However, to argue that the precautionary principle be used instead of a reasonable doubt principle when making decisions to protect the environment, is as pedantic, and as empty, as is the argument proffered by grain farmers which is to adhere to the principle of scientific absolutism.
For example, I used beyond reasonable doubt because it's a concept every layperson understands in that they've seen it applied hundreds of times on TV, and because it would be expected of them if they were to be a juror in a criminal case and because it means exactly what it says.
I didn't use precautionary principle because it can, and often does, mean completely different things to different people. For example, some people wouldn't fly as a precautionary principle because they've fearmongered themselves into believing they'll crash, while others wouldn't fly as a precautionary principle because they know they will get airsick, yet neither application of the precautionary principle has anything to do with any reasonable doubt about whether the plane will crash.
In the same way, some people would apply the precautionary principle to decide to stay at home because they might have a flat tire, regardless of anything else. People applying the beyond reasonable doubt principle would decide to stay home after assessing the condition of their tires and the condition of the road.
Therefore, the precautionary principle can be, and often is, a convenient and unwarranted shield/crutch for people who want to promote, or defend, things which have little, if any, evidentiary merit to support them being promoted or defended.
For this reason, promoting the use of the precautionary principle is as fraught with peril as, and as un-balanced as, promoting the principle of scientific absolutism - both are equally-lame, albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Because of what I heard the government spokespeople say at the meeting, and because of what I heard Gord Miller say on TV, and because of what I heard the bee-keepers say at my table, I suggest that any reasonable person who heard the same things could, and would, conclude that the proposed neonicotinoid restrictions are based on each having reached, in their own way, the threshold of reasonable doubt, rather than by having adhered to some nebulous concept of precaution.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Here is a link to a very enlightening and important article explaining why you believe there is a reasonable doubt, and how you have been duped. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine post_8761_b_6323626.html
Yes it is obvious from what Mark Wales said in an interview after the meeting that Mr. Thompson was in his own little private special place at his end of his sandbox. Want proof? check out: http://www.realagriculture.com/2014/12/north-america-watching-farmers-we...
Wales weighs in on what he views as the danger of regulating based on the “precautionary principle, where emotion over rides sound science and facts, and stresses the need for more reliable data and a continued focus on all factors impacting bee health. Wales says the regulatory process is going “too far, too fast.”
“We need to make sure that this is a very sound, verified process before we rush into it,” says Wales.
Furthermore, Wales said in the interview that virtually every table came out loud and clear with the “too far, too fast.” claim.
“We need to make sure that this is a very sound, verified process before we rush into it,” says Wales.
So explain to me how these products were OK'd for use in the first place?
Obviously that is where the "rush" you and Wales refer to, occurred in the first place. Now we have to back up and there is no process in place for that.
GFO makes it appear that their concern is for a couple more bushels of corn and not the safety of the bees...and oh yes, their fellow human beings who happen to be their market.
I distinctly heard one bee-keeper at my table say that every post-mortem done on his bees in the past number of years indicated the presence of neonicotinoids.
I distinctly heard another bee-keeper at my table say - "nothing has killed bees like this (neonicotinoids) since Furadan", and since I am told that this individual represents a major honey operation located not that far away from the Wales farm, Wales obviously doesn't listen to his neighbours, certainly not his bee-keeping neighbours.
Therefore, given the presence at my table of only two individuals who came pre-determined to defend neonicotinoids at any cost, while there may have been the claim of "too far, too fast", from my table, it came from the two individuals who didn't come to listen to any other opinion than their own in the first place.
Furthermore, even though the two bee-keepers believed, based on their own farm's "science", that a total ban was justified, they were prepared to accept the proposals put forward by government, even though one indicated it would be of limited benefit to his farm because of its proximity to significant acreages of sweet corn which would be exempt from the proposed neonicotinoid restrictions.
Finally, the claim of "too far, too fast" is always to be expected from lay-people, especially those who don't understand the design of, the implementation of, and/or monitoring of, any sort of public policy, especially the type of public policy which will need to be designed and implemented here. I suggest there has never been a public policy consultation process which hasn't thrown up the "straw man" argument of "too far, too fast", and this one is no exception. The "too far, too fast" argument is always a proxy for fear of the unknown, and that's why it simply doesn't work anywhere else, and also why it won't work here either.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Mr Thompson
It was you who shot the mesenget by starting off critising me for not attending the meeting
Now once more off topic and dragging up the same old same old re ethonal etc
Get a life and move on to the issues of the day
My orginal thought still stands re what excatly precautionary and moving on by gov really means
As noted some at least at OFA also have the some concerns
Larry Lynn
Proud grain farmer and provider of food
The credibility of, and partisanship of, the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) is very-much an issue of the day, and always will be unless and/or until GFO admits to trying to have it both ways when it came to ethanol. Or, in other words, if they couldn't be trusted then, why should they be trusted now?
Furthermore, Mr. Lynn's own credibility is also at stake here - in his original posting, he never mentioned he wasn't at the pollinator health meeting he referred to in his posting, and by not mentioning this rather-significant detail, he led readers to believe his posting had more evidentiary value than it actually did.
"Shooting the messenger" normally happens when the messenger is shot for being the bearer of bad news (the unfortunate fate of many economists), and it's usually a bad move. However, pointing out that the messenger wasn't even there in the first place, and that, therefore, his bad news is based on hearsay, is an entirely-responsible course of action, and can make shooting the messenger entirely appropriate.
Finally, why, for example, should the views of Mr. Lynn, as a "proud grain farmer and provider of food" be assigned any more evidentiary value in a pollinator health exercise than the views of someone who is a "proud bee-keeper and provider of food"?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
It works both ways,how can we believe Beekeepers when statscan. reveil honey production in this province was 2 million lbs. more this year than 2013 and there are more beekeepers and colonies now than in 2010.
Somewhere along the line someone is not telling the entire truth!
..but then the truth will never stop the environmental fanatics from spreading their unfounded doom and gloom to the masses.Add in the ever popular vote seeking politicians and you have the formula for what we see now,consultation meetings that mean squat!
While farmers like to huff-and-puff about environmental fanatics, the only people who could even be remotely-considered "fanatics" at my table were the individuals who seemed to have come for the sole reason of defending neonicotinoids.
In addition, the only doom and gloom at my table was on the part of the neonicotinoid defenders who parroted the "too far, too soon" mantra.
Therefore, the wrong people would seem to be getting pillioried in this process because, based on what I saw and heard, the "fanatics spreading their unfounded doom and gloom" were farmers, not environmentalists.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Seems more clarification is needed it seems
My orgional post question and comments
Were based on the information given by BF staff reporting
Mr Thompson feels it very important that everyone knows HE ATTENDED THE MEETING WHILE I DID NOT
Congrats Mr Thompson on attending One meeting and becoming a expert
I will not stoop to the level of Mr Thompson other than to say
I WILL STAND BEHIND MY CREDIABILTY AND TRUST record
I have served Huron and Ont farmers to the best of my abilty at the local and prov level.
Having approval by Mr Thompson is a non issue for me
I still ask the Question as to what limits or creteria is the gov basing there precaution on in order to be seen doing something ?
Will all products using or treated with neonick be looked at ? And if not why not?
In order to be seen to be doing something
Larry Lynn a proud farmer and food producer in Ont
In order to be credible about his original posting, Mr. Lynn should have indicated whether he was at the meeting or not. He didn't do so, and thereby, even inadvertently, cast a shadow on his credibility.
Even if he had been there, his tangent about the banning of all products containing neonicotinoids is plainly obstructionist and does little more than cast aspersions on the ability of grains farmers to be responsible participants in the public policy process involving pollinator health.
For example, while one bee-keeper at my table wasn't happy that the proposed neonicotinoid restrictions wouldn't apply to sweet corn and seed corn fields, he was prepared to accept what he considered to be a workable compromise, something the grains industry refuses to do, and by refusing to do so, puts the credibility of, and public trust earned by, all farmers at the substantial risk of being squandered.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So once more Mr Thompson wants attention for attending one meeting and letting his ego think he is now a expert on yet another subject in his own mind
Before the crap about shooting the messenger
You are the one who has questioned my crediabilty and abilty
This is not the first time you have done so
I have let it slide other times
Not this time
I will not stoop to your level other than to say any respect I had in the past for you is now gone.
Your ego has shown your true colours and lack of crediablty
As for attending meetings with bee keepers I have attended many more than one and sat on bds with bee keepers and have had disscusions with more than one or two bee keepers
Now for your assertion that only those attending a meeting have a right to comments is certainaly a interesting idea from some who has a always right in there own mind comment on most subjects.
Now there is lots of proof, of your previous comments on subjects that you did not attend the meeting but have felt free in your aggronace of always being right in your own mind to comment on in this fourm and other farm publications
By your standards you either start attending meetings or quit making comments
Fact is you have not attended any GFO imeeting in more than a year
As well probaly very few if any supply mangment meetings
I stand by my crediabilty and contribution to Ont agriculture
As for being a obstructionist you had better take a look in the mirror
Now back to the orgional question
I still stand by my orgional question, if investigating neonicks why are not all products containg neonicks being looked at?
Seeing the gov is in such a rush to be seen to be doing something.
Larry Lynn proud Ont grain Farmer
A rather refreshing view from a commercial beekeeper.
See: http://albertabuzzing.com/?p=57
Quote:
If even a quarter of the time and money spent on the neonic debate was committed towards finding better controls for the varroa mite and nosema apis/ceranae, we’d have even more success stories from within the beekeeping industry. And that’s scratching the surface, as replacement stock, nutrition, and disease controls are also in dire need of attention.
Instead of focusing in on those beekeepers that can’t seem to figure out their problems without blaming neonics, it’s time to highlight those beekeepers that are successful and what they have been doing to achieve that success. These beekeepers are found in each and every Canadian province. You just have to open your eyes and minds.
Trouble is those successful beekeepers will not be at these consultation meetings.Bee nutrition and disease will not even be brought up,nor will any study be examined as to why these beekeepers are successful.
Its tunnel vision on the part of some beekeepers and of course the urban-placed Government.
This stretch of imagination is based on pure fantasy in the mind of the above anonymous, and dismissive poster.
I had two successful bee-keepers at my table who did discuss bee nutrition and disease, but when one claimed that every post-mortem on his bees in recent years revealed the presence of neonicotinoids, bee nutrition and disease, while seemingly always a straw to be grasped in the minds of those simpletons who would blame bee-keepers for their own misfortunes, becomes moot.
As usual, and as always, the "tunnel vision" is on the part of that segment of the farm community which doesn't know what they are talking about, has nothing to say, but yet does say it anonymously, and therefore, says it with zero credibility.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The arrogance and dismissiveness of those who would blame bee-keepers for being the architects of their own mis-fortunes never ceases to amaze, horrify, and disgust.
While, for example, the two commercial bee-keepers at my table acknowledged that varroa mites are a constant problem, they believe they have proven that, in their operations, neonicotinoids are their real problem, and unlike varroa mites, neonicotinoids are a problem beyond their control.
By any standard, these two bee-keepers are successful and for anyone to demean them by implying that they can't figure out their problems without blaming neonics is disgusting and beneath the dignity of any farmer anywhere.
What's worse is that it is completely-disgusting to have anyone seem to believe that blaming bee-keepers, including the two at my table, for being, in any way, the cause of their own problems, is a "rather refreshing view".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Such a contradiction,successful but with constant problems?
What agriculture commodity doesn't have problems from time to time but when l see stats that indicate hive numbers were 81,200 in the autumn of 2009 and 100,000 last fall,with a raised level of honey production of over 2 million pounds in 2014,its no wonder you can call beekeepers in Ontario successful.
The Neonics scare is just one of many that the media can sink their teeth into and politicians being what they are try and ride the wave.
Post new comment