Failure to Select: The Cause of Weakness in Bees

Politics: The Economic Drivers of 'Chemical' Policy 

(Draft 1)  This should not be read without some familiarity with the Main Thesis and the principles of good husbandry. 

Reading the beekeeper journals, visiting the mainstream beekeeper association websites, and examining the literature provided by the governmental regulatory bodies does not supply any inkling of an alternative to systematic medication, nor any clues to the fact that many beekeepers worldwide reject the 'chemical' approach to beekeeping.  We have to ask why this is.  We can identify a number of reasons:

First, the 'organic' or 'natural' beekeepers are relatively poorly organized.  They don't have their own journals, and are not experienced communicators.  Most are not clear that failed breeding strategy is the source of the problem, and that their own approach contains a good breeding strategy, and it is that which causes them to be successful.  The sole overarching point of agreement, that 'natural' beekeeping does work is too vague to supply much unity.   Many have pet theories about the causes of the problems that others disagree with.  

Secondly, 'Natural' beekeeping does not not always work.  In areas with high levels of artificially maintained stocks, it is often impossible to get even a small percentage of hives to over-winter without medication against varroa.  It is only where an apiary is relatively isolated from the unadapted genes thrown out by medicated stocks, and where local ferals have adapted to the mite that dilution of healthy generations does not cause regression by input of unadapted genes.

It is a forth factor that I want to present here.  It is not in the interests of the broad beekeeping industry to promote the 'natural' solution.

I'll take the elements of the industry one at a time:

First, the journals.  Print media has to make money to remain in existence.  In the case of the bee magazines a proportion of this money comes from subscribers, but the greater part comes from advertisers.  You need only look at what is being advertised to understand that the proprietors of these business are terrified by 'natural' beekeeping.  What is being sold through their pages is a vast array of paraphernalia that is utterly unnecessary to the pursuit of keeping bees.  Their articles and editorials are carefully chosen to support not the bees, not even the small beekeepers, but to promote the parasitic industry that support their own business, their own livelihoods.  These magazines are enormously influential - large and small beekeepers and regulatory bodies are very much informed in their thinking through the attitudes they take.  In short: the bee journals are an important part of the problem.

The next three groups supply a different kind of pressure, and can be treated as one.  Second are the large and medium-size bee businesses.  This group includes the large apiaries who produce honey and provide pollination services.  Third, the farmers needing pollination services.  they want bees, when they want them, in the numbers they need, and no messing.  Forth are the supermarkets demanding regularity of supply.

Fifth are the pharmaceutical companies making the medication, and often funding, and directing the 'research'.  To ask what interest they have in understanding and publicizing 'natural' beekeeping would be foolish.  It is in their interest to have permanently sick bees. 

These five groups supply the great bulk of pressure to the regulators.  They are what is known in policymaking terms as the 'stakeholders.'  It is their livelihoods that are at stake, and therefore, the reasoning goes, it is they who must be heard when policy is made.  And, here is the crux: all of them think and operate entirely in terms of short-term needs.  It is this month's, this quarter's, this year's returns that interest them.  (An exception might be made for the pharmaceutical industries, who tend to plan long term).  When these stakeholders respond to the consultation documents sent out by regulators to establish the effectiveness of current policy, and to design changes, it is their short-term needs that are registered.   

These short-term needs then supply the guidelines for funded research.  Scientists are directed to look at this disease or that disease, with a view to understanding its origins, means of transmission, and to find chemical compounds that will medicate against it - soon.  They fall very easily for the view that a 'cure' always exists for animal sickness, and that medication is the way forward.  

This outlines the business-political nexus that ensures that there is no funded research into 'natural' methods, and that the simple understanding that it is appalling breeding practice which flies in the face of basic evolutionary theory that is at the root of the problem.

And it shows too the way forward.  The 'natural' and 'organic' keepers must act firmly to counter the machine.    It must understand the problems from a scientific perspective; must organize and build links with other conservation groups and interests.  It must publicize and lobby.   

It is quite simply wrong that a small group of moneyed interests is able to so badly damage the Honeybee.  It is not theirs to damage, to shape as they wish, to build into a profit machine.  We must  act to stop them.

Please help.

There is an email discussion group dedicated to the issue:

Michael Bispham   

23rd May 2008

For problems or questions regarding this web contact mikebispham@aol.com

Last updated: July 02, 2009.    ( 27th May 09)