I talked in the last post about scientific beekeeping. Basically,
using scientific facts as the starting point for beekeeping practices.
I also mentioned Randy Oliver’s website, called “Scientific
Beekeeping” and how much I like his site and the research he provides
and makes available for beekeepers. However, Randy, in my opinion, is
one of those scientific beekeepers who takes science too far.
For example, Randy recently expresses in one of his excellent blog
posts that he doesn’t feel Monsanto is “evil” because he has met the
scientists that work there and they don’t think of themselves as
“evil”. He also thinks no “sane” business would work to kill or
otherwise harm it’s customer base.
The difference I have with what Randy sees is that while Monsanto is
making a big show of donating money to bee causes and they are buying
bee health related companies and hosting conferences, they are at the
same time un-apologetically profiting from the use of their products to
create the conditions in which modern commercial agriculture is wreaking
havoc with beekeeping. They have show no signs of changing that
behavior either.
Not only do they continue to reap profits at the expense of bee
health , they actively advertize and educate modern farmers on how to
continue and expand those bee harming practices. Yes, at the same time
they are being so “noble” as to donate money and host beekeeping
conventions.
Let’s not forget the legal problems that Monsanto and other
agribusinesses have created for farmers and beekeepers and consumers
over the years. They have spent millions of dollars in courtrooms
across the country trying to wiggle out of being held responsible for
the damages and hardships their products and practices have caused or
been a part of.
Are they “evil”? Maybe not. But I certainly do not count them as friends or allies either.
Most of the “scientific beekeeping” that a Monsanto or Bayer Crop
Sciences and other corporations is interested in involves making more
money. Almost every bit of their activity is aimed directly at
commercial migratory beekeeping. Randy says the same thing himself in
the same article and tries to justify the complete ignoring of non
commercial beekeepers by how much money the commercial beekeeping
industry adds to the marketplace and economy.
He also goes on to describe “hobby” beekeepers as one of two types.
Those who just want to keep bees in boxes and those who want to keep
“natural” bees in boxes. If you don’t send beehives to the almonds each
Spring, you don’t count. His words, not mine.
What I see here using Randy’s article as but one example is that
“scientific beekeeping” according to the scientists, the corporations
and the government is part and parcel of commercial beekeeping. Almost
one and the same. I find this problematic.
Basically, it points again to the mindset that science belongs to
those who can afford it. To pay researchers, to buy high tech equipment
and to contribute to a billion dollar industry.
If your beekeeping isn’t part of that, then it’s cute, but it isn’t
“real” science” nor does it seem to be considered “real” beekeeping. I
disagree with that entirely. Science, the application of the scientific method (that’s right “The”
scientific method) is for anyone who can find in them the ability to
understand, maintain an objective, open mind and display the patience
and dedication to experiment and test.
There are so many scientific beekeepers who are not commercial
beekeepers in the world. The fact is, that this group of non-commercial
scientific beekeepers outnumbers commercial beekeepers by at least a
dozen to one. Yet they are not recognized at all because the
commercial beekeepers outspend the non-commercial by at least a thousand
dollars to one.
We’ll talk about scientific beekeeping and natural beekeeping in the next article.
No comments:
Post a Comment