by Paul Driessen
As stubborn facts ruin their narrative that neonicotinoid pesticides
are causing a honeybee-pocalypse, environmental pressure groups are
shifting to new scares to justify their demands for “neonic” bans.
Honeybee populations and colony numbers in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and elsewhere are growing.
It is also becoming increasingly clear that the actual cause of bee
die-offs and “colony collapse disorders” is not neonics, but a toxic mix
of predatory mites, stomach fungi, other microscopic pests, and
assorted chemicals employed by beekeepers trying to control the beehive
infestations.
...However, the flawed data gathering, unjustified assumptions about
neonic impacts, and failure to consider the likely effects of multiple
bee diseases and parasites make it clear that the CEH model and
conclusions are essentially worthless – and should not be used to drive
or justify pesticide policies and regulations.
As Prime Minister Jim Hacker quipped in the theatrical version of the British comedy series Yes, Prime Minister:
“Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re
seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people
to make fools of themselves.”
And yet studies like this constantly make headlines. That’s hardly
surprising. Anti-pesticide campaigners have enormous funding and
marvelous PR instincts. Researchers know their influence and next grant
can depend on issuing studies that garner alarmist headlines and reflect
prevailing news themes and imminent government actions. The news media
want to sell ads and papers, and help drive public policy-making.
The bottom line is fundamental: correlation does not equal causation.
Traffic lights are present at many intersections where accidents occur;
but that does not mean the lights caused most or all of the accidents.
The CEH authors simply do not demonstrate that a neonic-wild bee
cause-effect relationship exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment