Sometimes speaking up and saying something does make a difference!
Following my post about General Mills’ “Save the Bees” campaign, I was put in contact with the company’s public relations director. He wanted to reach out to me and discuss the concerns I had about the campaign. If you recall from my original article, I had several. My biggest was the message that bee populations are in decline (they aren’t), without also mentioning the varroa mite. Also, the company’s citations on its website linked to the activist organizations Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace, including a link that blamed genetically modified crops for pollinator deaths.
The Director informed me General Mills has a pollinator program and donates money to the University of Minnesota Bee and Pollinator Research Lab. Included in their research is work to combat the varroa mite. I wish the company would have considered the mite important enough to at least mention on their website. The campaign was an excellent opportunity to educate the public about challenges facing bees. If General Mills feels the varroa mite is important enough to fight with a financial donation, certainly telling people about it on the website would have been a good idea. It also would have raised awareness about an issue most people know nothing about. Nonetheless, I’m happy that General Mills donates money to legitimate scientific research through a public university.
But those citations…
In his email, the Director stated only this: “It’s always best practice to cite to research directly, and we’re updating the website to do that.” True to his word, the citations on the website are updated to more reputable links (though not directly to scientific research…).
Honestly, I’m confused about the initial citation debacle. Were they just not prepared to launch “Save the Bees” so they decided to simply grab whatever citations were handy? If they work so closely on these issues and with the University of Minnesota, why didn’t they have citations to actual scientific sources? Why even think it was appropriate to link to extremist organizations – especially one as heinous as Greenpeace? Did they read the article from Greenpeace, which partially blamed genetically modified crops for bee problems? Or did they just get caught doing something dumb and that’s why they decided to change them?
Whatever the case, the citations to NRDC and Greenpeace have been removed. That’s a win.
I’m still irked that we are “saving” the bees when they don’t exactly need “saving.” Perhaps the campaign could have been something about helping the bees “thrive” or “supporting” pollinator health. I know, that doesn’t quite sound as snazzy, imminent, or heroic, but at least it would be more honest. In my response to General Mills’ PR Director, I shared this concern. Hopefully, future campaigns can more carefully consider wording choices. It isn’t that the campaign is bad or wrong, but is it a bit misleading and tries to capitalize on the bee-pocalypse type headlines.
So, go ahead: order your wildflower packets and don’t feel so bad about it now.
As a farmer, I’m glad you mentioned the GMOs not contributing to the decline of bees. We get so tired of the fear mongering about GMOs. Farmers need the bees.
Then stop using the pesticides and round up ready seeds….defies any type of logic to think that poison that kills insects wouldn’t harm the bees.
Round-Up is a herbicide, so it doesn’t actually hurt insects, it hurts weeds. And we have not used any insecticides on our crops since adopting genetically engineered traits into our crops.
I appreciate your efforts and the information on your page. Could you please look at Alt Nationsl Park Service “Save the Bee” as well. One of their FB posts in early March was a Program that they would send supporters organic flower seeds and the recipient would send in pics of their flower garden. Not too offensive but from the Natl Park Service it is a bit misleading. I contacted them but I do not have the clout you would. Thanks for all you do for science and ag ed.
fantastic work! I apereciate you fightin’ the good fight for accurate and supported information over internet hype
Great work! I am surprised but glad that they took the time to respond and make some changes.
You didn’t even mention Colony Collapse Disorder. Varroa mites were a problem for a couple decades before CCD ever showed up. Are you saying CCD is insignificant? Do you have any scientific studies to cite for your implicit assertion that CCD is insignificant to the health of honeybees? Or if that’s not what you’re saying, how do your reconcile your statements with the advent of a major problem with honeybees developing decades after the arrival of varroa mites?
I’m not an international company that is running a PR campaign about “saving the bees.” And I have addressed CCD previously on my blog. You can read my original article about bees here (and stop trying to read something nefarious into my article): https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/06/the-real-buzz-on-bee-pocalypse.html
I don’t think her response was “nefarious” at all. Your rebuttal is, “read my previous post?” Like her concern is irrelevant? In fact you managed to attempt to discredit and harass a company that was actually sending free flowers that will improve the life and health of bees across the country. And encourage folks to be conscious of the insects and their beneficial contributions to our life. Without mentiojing the concern this lady has expressed as if it means nothing. Why would this offer of free flowers be so offensive to you in the first place? Yet this woman’s response obviously irritates you. Is it hurting anyone? I don’t think so. And why not address this lady’s issue in a new article? Address all
Concerns on this issue?
I don’t think you understood Eric’s comment. In my article, I had a problem with the fact that GM did not mention the varroa mite on its campaign website, when this is considered the leading cause of bee problems. Eric’s response was that I failed to mention CCD in my post, suggesting that I was trying to hide something. I was not, hence my comment that he was simply trying to find something “nefarious” with my article. As for CCD and Eric’s concern, I discuss all of this is my other original article on bees, which I linked for him. I addressed his comment and his concern. I did not brush it off as meaningless. I seriously meant for him to read my other article because it explains and discusses the impact of CCD. I’m not sure why you think I should write a separate article when I have already written an article about CCD? Again, the reason I referred to my original article on bees that addresses all of these issues.
As to why this campaign upset me, I think I explained that very clearly in my original article on this topic. I’m not sure how else I could explain that to you. As I have said, I have no problem with planting bee-friendly wildflowers. That’s not the point.
Why do you believe bee populations are not declining?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/10/believe-it-or-not-the-bees-are-doing-just-fine/
Your answer to the question “Why do you believe bee populations are not declining?” is to cite an article that states that wild populations aren’t being monitored therefore we can’t know????
We need to use language that is a little more clear here. Honeybee populations are not declining. From what I understand, wild bee populations are very difficult to track, but they may not be declining.
But allow me to provide some more sources for you:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/28/beepocalypse-myth-handbook-dissecting-claims-of-pollinator-collapse/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/05/13/the-new-bee-crisis-is-just-like-the-old-crisis-only-different/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10802_b_8913974.html
https://beecare.bayer.com/media-center/news/detail/no-decline-in-honey-bee-populations
I agree. Its been in the news year after year and as a person i see less bees every year. They are declining.
It has also been in the news now for quite some time that the bee populations are declining. You don’t suppose that people are selling you a narrative?
Still concerned that they chose to use some non native species in the mix. If they really want to help then they could have considered providing food and habitat for all our pollinators and insects, not just their European mascot.
Yes, that is a concern and something I will perhaps address in any future correspondence with them.
Good job. Sometimes it’s ignorance, sometimes good intentions but wrong information.
except…..the seed packets contain non-native species that are actually illegal in some states.
I agree
Maybe you need to do more research. Marla Spivak, many bee keepers and many others do not begin to agree with your assessment of the bee issue. Flowerless landscapes, varroa mites, and pesticides ARE causing issues for our bees. GreenPeace is far better than your ridiculous “extremist, heinous GreenPeace organization”, comment.
Greenpeace is an eco-terrorist group. Lighting research fields on fire, denying children Golden Rice so they don’t go blind, destroying farms, and ruining ancient ruins are not honorable actions.
I called Greenpiece, to get more info on their involvement, also gave them your comments, info and slander.
LOL. Good, I’ll gladly talk to them about the misinformation they spread.
My concern is that these wildflowers, being shipped throughout these United States, contains species that might be considered invasive to some state’s ecosystems.
Thank you for addressing these important issues. Real science rather than theories should be cited.
I have also heard that some of the seeds are invasive species depending on where you live. Have to you had the opportunity to look in to this at all?
I applaud your comments against Cheerios, but your comment ” bee populations are in decline (they aren’t),” is not correct.
Honeybee populations are increasing but many native bee populations are decreasing. It is critical everyone makes the distinction between the two classes of bees.
I would like to see some citation for that actually. I was under the impression that we don’t know because wild bee populations were hard to track. Once we figured out that honeybee populations were completely fine, the narrative just changed to say “oh, wait, we meant the wild bees!” If you have anything on the matter, that would be great to look at.
Here is one source: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/youre-worrying-wrong-bees/
I’m still concerned that their source of seeds comes from a company that is anti-gmo. They have a “safe seed” certification. They could have teamed up with serval other companies that don’t support the anti-gmo rhetoric.
You mean where the wildflower seeds are coming from? I actually completely missed that!
I kept posting this when I saw the threads about bees. Good on you for the misinformation but the seeds are bad too!
A. Natural Wildlife Federation “Invasive species” — have devastating effects on U.S. wildlife. Invasive species are one of the leading threats to native wildlife. Invasive species are primarily spread by human activities, often unintentionally.
* Ornamental plants: Some ornamental plants can escape into the wild and become invasive.
When a new and aggressive species is introduced into an ecosystem, it might not have any natural predators or controls. It can spread quickly, taking over an area. The direct threats of invasive species:
* out-competing native species that wildlife use for food or other resources
The indirect threats of invasive species:
* Changing food webs: Invasive species can change the food web in an ecosystem by destroying or replacing native food sources. The invasive species may provide little to no food value for wildlife.
* Aggressive plant species can quickly replace a diverse ecosystem.
B. We know that wheat, barley, oats etc are not pollinated by bees. We know that these crops are infrequently sprayed with a pesticide. A bug threshold must be reached before crop damage. We don’t spray pesticides on pasture and alfalfa is again seldom sprayed. With the high technology of spraying there is very little drift away from the field. The damage to another field is both costly and can bring in the govt environment agencies, so farmers are very careful.
C. Time Magazine- there are three “primary drivers” of honeybee loss: The varroa mite, pesticides and poor nutrition. A university professor of entomologist doesn’t hesitate when asked to name the largest threat to bees: “I’d get rid of the varroa first.”
Varroa mites, properly (and frighteningly) named Varroa destructor, likely migrated to the U.S. sometime in the 1980s. They attach to a honeybee’s body and suck its blood, which kills many bees and spreads disease to others. The varroa can jump from one colony to another, wiping out whole populations of honeybees. There are treatments that combat the varroa. But many small-scale beekeepers don’t use them. “That’s bad, because they can spread mites to neighboring colonies,” he adds.
D. Poor nutrition—is likely the most confounding of the honeybee’s enemies. There is a problem with lack of food sources as beekeepers keep expanding and more land is cropped.
E. Of the major bee-killers listed, pesticides have arguably gotten the most press and research suggests neonicotinoids may be extremely harmful to bees and many other insects, but “We don’t find levels of neonicotinoids that are indicative of widespread exposure or harm,” (back to farmer’s field management).
F. If you look up what the seed packets contain, they reseed either annually or biannually. Most of the plants grow tall, 3 ft or more and are invasive. Their seeds will blow in the wind and be carried everywhere.
G. One of the significant things about buying greenhouse plants is that most are hybrids that don’t reseed. The plants are grown inside in sterile garden or potting soil that has undergone heat or chemical processing to kill any pathogens and seeds that are in it. Sterile soil is less likely to spread diseases and has never been sprayed with pesticides. You don’t need to use treated seeds.
H. Cheerios is using bees as an emotional ploy, using “saving bees” and giving you something “free”. They are NOT helping the environment, the bees or wildlife. The corporate marketing board is sitting downtown figuring out profit strategies, they are not out in the fields with the farmers discussing bees.
I. Home Depot is selling on a platform that is already a standard, not something new. Gardeners use the pesticides (or not), the greenhouse doesn’t need too, they are indoors and it is expensive.
Bees are definitely having problems. But throwing seeds around that are not indigenous to the area could become the bigger problem.
Agriculture is being vilified by marketers looking for new ways to sell to the emotions of the people.
We can’t let ourselves fall for the misinformation out there. Look more for what they don’t say then their “feel good” “look at what we are doing” antics.
“Food” for thought anyway. 🙂
Another ditty I found was from IKea and their pledge to run their stores on renewables. They started buying windmills in 2012. They are saying they will buy wind power to offset the power they use by 2020. So far 314 windmills run to produce 53% of their power at an investment so far of over a billion. They have 392 stores worldwide.
That’s 780 turbines for one company. Walmart has 11,500 stores. But who’s been counting? I mean literally have you been following IKEA’s progress since 2012 or do you just hear that they are doing it? Makes pretty good advertising to an emotional market. And they love wood, “because it is recyclable”. But will they reach their goal? Who is making them accountable?
To put the wind power into perspective, IKEA bought a wind farm of 55 towers and said it was the equivalent power for the LIGHTS for 26,000 homes.
That means for ONE small city of 1 million (250,000 homes) that is 525 towers just for the lights, no stoves, furnaces, businesses, electric cars, city power etc.
I also learned that a wind farm needs replacing at about 20 years. So then we have the removal of the old systems and the new generation to build. If you look into wind farms, each generation built is designed differently (better) then the last. That’s a lot of steel.
The renewable industry isn’t sustainable yet. There is a lot of debt out there covered by our tax dollar.
So are these companies using the environment as a marketing tool or are they saving the environment?
I was happy that you called them out about all the issues. And I am very impressed that they reached out to you. As far as the “save the bees” statement, I honestly feel that it reaches out and gets the attention needed. Young people respond to this language, and I have to say that I took notice when I began seeing that phrase on FB and other media. So, in my humble opinion, that phrase is doing what it needs to do. Thank you for your work. I have learned many things from you, and pretty much agree with what you say.
Thanks, Donna! Like I said, I get why they used the phrase, I’m just disappointed it conveys the message that it does. These are marketing people, can’t they come up with something more clear?
There’s still the concern about receiving non-native wildflower seeds, which could be invasive or noxious.
Nice takedown!! Way to show General Mills about sourcing science with out sourcing any in your own two articles!! Except that real Agriculture article (not a science website) that has an argument that boiled down to “bees die in the winter, so bees year over year are not in decline.” This is like the “Its cold in winter so climate change is a Chinese hoax” argument. The rest is about captive bee populations in Canada on the rise, as if that proves there is nothing wrong. Captive cheetah populations in the US could be up, doesn’t mean cheetahs are in the clear. I do appreciate your commitment to science, how about an article on global climate change(great opportunity to cite 97% of scientists!) and the effect it will have on farmers and what we as stewards of the land can do to combat rising temps.
Oh gosh, you totally got me….except, I do source all of my stuff! That’s right, if you click on the links within the articles, you can find those sources!! Super cool stuff; right?!
I’m glad you discovered the folks at GM aren’t sinister people trying to pawn off bad science on the world.
When I just googled “beekeepers concerned about losses” this article popped up on top:
Nation’s Beekeepers Lost 44 Percent of Bees in 2015-16
https://beeinformed.org/2016/05/10/nations-beekeepers-lost-44-percent-of-bees-in-2015-16/
Maybe there IS some concern about declining bee populations!
http://www.statepress.com/article/2016/11/spscience-asu-declining-bee-populations
This is a more recent article. You are correct that bee populations are at an all time high. I wonder about the native bees versus raised species? So a mixed bag in this article.
I did a check on “native” versus “domestic” because I thought it was native populations that were in decline. Here is an article link that in turn cites its sources. I didn’t go through all the sources.
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/youre-worrying-wrong-bees/
Thank you Amanda, things like this irk me also & since I like multi-grain cheerios I’ve been not thrilled about they’re anti-GMO marketing. You are correct it isn’t always an outright lie, just often very misleading. Thanks for all you do! Keep up the good work.
I signed up to get email updates to this thread. I now want to stop getting these updates. The actual selection in the emails that would stop my getting the posts does not appear in the email. Would you please tell me what I need to do to stop my getting these updates.
You all do need to do more rearch yourselvles its not the gmos themselves but the heavy doses of roundup that has been directly linked to many of the bee kill offs in florida and georgia, not the varroa, and do you really want eat something that can be soaked in poison and not die
Oh really? It’s the Round-Up? Too bad that’s not how Round-Up works. Round-Up is a herbicide, it affects plants, not insects. Nor has it ever been linked to bees dying in Florida and Georgia. Nor do farmers “soak” their crops in poison. Simply saying something does not make it true.
My oldest son who is 12 is a beekeeper and the bee population is declining due to all the pesticides that are used on yards and crops. Though they may not be in extreme danger they are in deed in danger and we need all the help and knowledge we can get out there to people.
This is coming from your 12 year old son? I’ll read something more like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/10/believe-it-or-not-the-bees-are-doing-just-fine/
Wow….You believe the Washington Post???? Did you actually speak with any people who work with and know bees?
The data comes from the USDA. And, yes, I actually spoke with scientists studying bees at Michigan State University when I wrote my original article. You should try reading that.
These references have interesting information:
Harvard. (n.d.). Autonomous Flying Microrobots (RoboBees). Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://wyss.harvard.edu/technology/autonomous-flying-microrobots-robobees/
USDA. (2013, July 24). Bees Exposed to Fungicide More Vulnerable to Nosema Parasite. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2013/bees-exposed-to-fungicide-more-vulnerable-to-nosema-parasite/
Klein, A. (2017, February 9). Robotic bee could help pollinate crops as real bees decline. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2120832-robotic-bee-could-help-pollinate-crops-as-real-bees-decline/
USDA has many research articles to explore on bees, bee activity, and monitoring efforts. Harvard also has many other research and technical reports on the robotic bee technology. Harvard investing into this technology bangs the drum loudly. Although the effort could also be tied to weather monitoring and surveillance, but that is another topic altogether. I hope these articles are informative for everyone.
Best,
Patricia