Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees

http://www.fastcompany.com/1708896/wiki-bee-leaks-epa-document-reveals-agency-knowingly-allowed-use-of-bee-toxic-pesticide

by monkeygrinder • 16 years ago

217 40 16 years ago

fastcompany.com

JanezStupar5• 16 years ago

There is corporate "ethos" and "greed is good" etc... But what I find disturbing is that these wankers (corporate and government) are stupid/greedy enough to fuck over honeybees.

The same honeybees that are providing us with 1 in 3 meals every single friggin day! Maybe big-pharma is confident that it can feed the humanity - but I see it as an incredibly shortsighted strategy that WILL cause us our lives - before global warming or nukes - since we're apparently trying extremely hard to exterminate the little critters.

InclinedPlane3• 16 years ago

"The same honeybees that are providing us with 1 in 3 meals every single friggin day!"

citation needed

JanezStupar5• 16 years ago

Citation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1702377/figure/f...

In old days every farmer in our village had a beehive - the honey and pollination services were both much appreciated. My father has always taught me that killing a bee is a horrible crime.

alecco4• 16 years ago

I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.

nitrogen• 16 years ago

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/court_rulin...

alecco4• 16 years ago

My condolences.

lotusleaf1987• 16 years ago

because the SCOTUS believes money = free speech.

sp332• 16 years ago

(I know this is naive, but) Corporations are made of people. All that money belongs to someone. So if those people decide to give that money to politicians, why does that make problems?

kbutler• 16 years ago

Corporations are not "made of people". Legally, corporations have individual free speech rights like people (in the U.S.). People individually deciding to give money to politicians is different from the corporation giving money to politicians, but both acts are considered free speech in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

alecco4• 16 years ago

In general, publicly traded corporations are run by people aiming to get bonuses by maximizing shareholder value. Those shareholders could be very indirect, in particular for pension funds.

With this level of abstraction, the final shareholders usually are not (or don't want to be) aware of things done in their name. The situation makes it very easy to look the other way.

IMHO, Adam Smith would be disgusted about this.

fleitz• 16 years ago

It makes problems because political hay can be made over how campaigns are financed. Most people want the gov't to have a large degree of control over how others conduct their affairs. Politicians believe that making reforms to campaign finance is a platform on which they can be elected. The issue is not whether campaign finance reform actually works, or improves the situation, the issue is whether you can be elected for promoting it.

People don't like the gov't but believe that it's a matter of who is in charge rather than the structure of the system.

artmageddon• 16 years ago

While you're logically correct based on that assumption, what happens when a corporation breaks a law? It's one thing if an individual within the corporation, but what a violation occurs due to a collective action taken by the company? Who goes to jail? Who exactly pays the fines owed?

mseebach• 16 years ago

I couldn't deduce from the article that money changed hands, much less in a campaign-situation? I don't know exactly how the EPA is structured, but it seems unlikely that elected officials would have much clout at such a low level.

alecco4• 16 years ago

Context.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...

narrator• 16 years ago

Don't worry. We'll lock down campaign contributions so much that only the six major corporations that control the mainstream media in the U.S can cover their campaigns.

>Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-med...

damoncali2• 16 years ago

That's not actually true. It's more fragmented than that.

Alex3917• 16 years ago

Considering the EPA's past lies about the air quality at ground zero, the mercury levels in fresh water fish, etc., let's just say that if you believe anything they say then I've got a boat load of perfectly safe shrimp from the gulf to sell you.

jonprins• 16 years ago

Not to mention their stance on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing .

qeorge• 16 years ago

The timing seems incredible.

maukdaddy• 16 years ago

FYI the ORIGINAL Grist article much better and full of detail:

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked-document...

BrandonM• 16 years ago

Is there any reason these beekeepers can't sue Bayer and the EPA for the side effects of the pesticides? Couldn't such a suit call for an injunction preventing its use pending the results of the lawsuit?

DrHankPym• 16 years ago

My only guess is that the evidence provided was not legally obtained.

extension• 16 years ago

They did sue Bayer in 2003, though for a different drug. The suit was thrown out by a judge in 2008. Info in this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.for...

Bayer gets sued all the time and they are probably pretty good at working the legal system.

julian37• 16 years ago

This article has additional history:

http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=598

byteclub• 16 years ago

That's ok, we'll just replace honey with high-fructose corn syrup - problem solved!

Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees

Related Stories