Article content continued

In the myriad documents released by the Ontario government on the subject, there was a list of research studies. Most of these studies have been discounted in scientific circles, either given their protocols or their premise. For example, many studies artificially exposed bees to extremely high rates of insecticide to determine the effect. Dosage rates the equivalent of locking you in a room, giving you 40 ounces of whiskey, telling you there is an hour to drink it and then measuring the impact. Common sense tells you the outcome of the study before it is undertaken.

If neonicotinoids were removed in the Prairies, canola acres would drop precipitously and bee numbers with them

Interestingly there are two Ontario government researchers not cited. Their research was paid by the provincial government, done to international standards, and was not only ignored but muzzled. Their work showed that controlling emission dust from air planters reduces exposure; that despite claims by environmental groups, neonicotinoids have a short life in the soil and do not translocate in the plant to a level that will cause harm. In fact their research supported the plethora of studies submitted to the federal government before the products were registered over 15 years ago.

We need to look no further than Europe or Western Canada to understand the relationship between bees and neonicotinoids. The EU introduced a moratorium on neonicotinoid use two years ago with the goal of improving bee health. Bee health numbers have since declined, not improved. Some countries within the EU are looking to reverse the ruling or make crop exemptions. The irony is European farmers had to increase pesticide use to control insects like flea beetle. Some growers needed to spray three times last fall before plants were six inches tall versus zero times before. Many growers are now reducing their acres of winter oilseed rape, a crop that treated or untreated is a preferred food source for bees. Does this make sense?