Bee Health - Meeting December 2006
MINUTES OF THE
ANNUAL MEETING WITH BEEKEEPING ASSOCIATIONS: CSL 5 DECEMBER 2006
| Present: |
Defra |
Beekeeping
Associations and other interested organisations |
| |
Stephen Hunter - PHD (Chair) |
Lynne Matthews - BASF |
| |
Steve Ashby - PHD |
Martin Tovey - BBKA |
| |
Alan Inman - PHD |
Paul Metcalf - BBKA |
| |
Tricia Brobyn - PSD |
Tim Lovett - BBKA |
| |
Mike Brown - NBU |
Bernard Diaper - BDI |
| |
Andy Wattam- NBU |
Claire Waring - Bee Craft |
| |
Richard Ball - NBU |
John Howat - BFA |
| |
Nicola Spence - CSL |
Robert Field - BFA |
| |
Libby Barnett - CSL |
Ian Milligan - BFA |
| |
Helen Thompson - CSL |
Robin Lewis - BFA |
| |
Heather Oliver - VMD |
Terence Clare - BIBBA |
| |
Kim Chadwick - PHD |
Les Webster - CONBA |
| |
Margaret O'Donnell - PHD |
Peter Martin - HIPA |
| |
Nigel Wood - PHD |
Dewi Rowlands - IBRA |
| |
|
Michael Young - INIB |
| |
|
Ian Craig - SBKA |
| |
|
Norman Walsh - UBKA |
| |
|
Dinah Sweet - WBA |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Scott McDowell - SEERAD |
| |
|
Mary Gibson - DARD |
| |
|
Thomas Williamson - DARD |
| |
|
Paul Moore - DARD |
1. Welcome and introductions
1.1 Stephen Hunter welcomed everyone to the meeting which was the first hosted by Plant Health Division (PHD) who had taken over responsibility for bee health on 1 April. Apologies for absence had been received from Mary Bradley (SEERAD), Hazel Doonan (AIC), Dermot Maxwell (NAAC), Michael Badger (CONBA), Ann Robinson (NAWAD) and Richard Harris (PHD).
2. Minutes of last meeting and matters arising
2.1 Paragraph 2.5 - Helen Thompson advised that the proceedings of the ICPBR conference had not yet been published.
2.2 Paragraph 9.2 - Stephen Hunter explained that this would be covered under item 13.
3. Defra change programme
3.1 Stephen Hunter explained that the NBU would be remaining as part of CSL. Subject to Ministerial approval, it seemed likely that PSD, PHSI and PVS would be integrated with CSL to form a new agency by 2009. The new agency would incorporate delivery work together with some policy work but the actual details had yet to be decided. In addition, other significant changes were also taking place across the Department.
3.2 Ian Milligan
asked if these changes were due to cost cutting. Stephen Hunter replied that one of the main
drivers was
4. Bee health Strategy
4.1 Stephen Hunter explained that at a meeting with the BBKA earlier in the year, the development of a bee health strategy by PHD was raised. It was likely that a draft paper would be circulated to stakeholders early in the new year with a view to the strategy being in place by the start of the 2008/09 financial year.
4.2 Steve Ashby outlined the aims and objectives of the strategy. There were three main threads - to determine the relevance of the current bee health programme to Defra's high level objectives (at present this seemed to fit very well with the Department's commitment to sustainable development); to establish its effectiveness in terms of pest and disease control; and to identify any weaknesses or gaps such as controls within the Community.
4.3 The development of the strategy would revisit and update the issues included in the Economic Policy Evaluation and look at the current policy on existing disease issues, such as AFB and EFB, to determine whether the existing strategy based on containment is still the right approach. New threats will also be considered and wider threats, in relation to indigenous species may also be included. The strategy will also consider the role of Government and industry as regards disease control as this area is being looked at across the board within Defra. It was intended to develop the strategy with industry and it was envisaged that input would be sought through the Bee Health Advisory Panel.
4.4 Tim Lovett said that the BBKA would want to be involved in the development of the strategy. In particular, the BBKA were very interested in the training aspects but remained concerned about the Inspectorate's resources. Stephen Hunter explained that this was an issue but the strategy was necessary in order to be able to justify resources. Tim Lovett referred to the ADAS study which had been used in the Economic Evaluation and the suggestion that some of the figures were not relevant now. He hoped that this was not an attempt by Government to lessen the contribution made by bees to the economy and suggested that the contribution would be even more impressive now. Stephen Hunter agreed and stressed that was why up to date figures were necessary. A robust strategy with up to date information was vital at a time when the Department was considering future funding for all programmes.
5. Veterinary Medicines Legislation update
5.1 Heather Oliver explained that under a recent EC Directive, all bee medicines were classified as available on prescription only. However, due to a good deal of pressure by VMD and beekeepers, the Commission had come forward with proposals under which the current authorised products (Apiguard, Bayvarol and Apistan) would continue to be available without a prescription by a vet. As regards other products, vets may prescribe any substance in the Annex to the EC Regulation which has a MRL (which included Oxalic Acid). The alternative was to treat the hive when the bees were not present as this practice did not require authorisation. This was the only legal option. She added that as bees are classed as food producing animals, beekeepers are required to keep records of all treatments as these will be checked if a problem regarding residues arose.
5.2 Peter Martin reported that there was good evidence that antibiotic residues appeared in honey where bees had been in contact with farm animals that had been treated. He added that DG Sanco had put forward proposals for regulations with suggested Reference Control Limits under which no action would be taken if the residue level was below the stated limit. He asked whether there would be an opportunity to comment on the Commission's proposals.
5.3 Heather Oliver explained that the proposals had been brought forward by DG Sanco and DG Enterprise. This was part of a reflections paper on the residues legislation which was also looking at how the legislation worked with a view to making it less bureaucratic. There had been various discussions and working groups but the outcome was not expected for at least a year. She agreed to keep beekeeping associations informed of developments.
5.4 Tim Lovett expressed his appreciation for VMD's co-operation in achieving the desired outcome regarding the approved medicines. However, he was concerned about the use of non-approved medicines, such as oxalic acid, which the BBKA has previously been advised could be used as hive fumigants or to control varroa. There had been no mention that the hives had to be empty in order to apply the substance. Heather Oliver confirmed that oxalic acid could not be used when the bees were present as in these circumstances it would be classed as a medical substance and therefore subject to the legislation. Icing sugar is not a medical substance and therefore its use was a different issue. Tim Lovett indicated that he was not prepared to accept this view as he considered it went back on the previous advice given by VMD. The BBKA would therefore be pursuing this matter further.
5.5 Richard Ball added that it was a fairly simple procedure to obtain a prescription to use oxalic acid and often this could be obtained free of charge.
Terry Clare thought this information was useful and asked whether vets could be issued with guidance on this issue. Heather Oliver agreed to consider this and meanwhile suggested that if any vets were uncertain about the position, they should be advised to contact her.
5.6 In answer to Michael Young, Heather Oliver explained that the penalty for using unauthorised medicines was a maximum of 2 years in prison. However, it was unlikely that prosecution would be considered for a first offence. In such cases, it was likely that the medicines would be confiscated and destroyed with the offender paying the destruction costs. Prosecution would be likely for persistent offenders. As regards essential oils, Heather Oliver also explained that it would have to be checked whether a particular product had a MRL and asked that anyone using such products refer the question to her. If the product had an E number it would have been included in the list stating that an MRL is not required so it could be used.
5.7 Ian Craig and Terry Clare expressed their concern at the lack of effective products - beekeepers were running out of options. Apiguard was not a viable option after bees were returned from the heather due to the ambient temperature requirement. Robin Lewis asked in respect of Apivar whether anyone other than the manufacturer could apply for mutual recognition. Heather Oliver explained that only the person who has the marketing authorisation for a product could apply for mutual recognition and suggested that Robin Lewis contact the holder of the Apivar authorisation about this issue. Richard Ball added that under the cascade principle, vets can prescribe EU medicines subject to the issue of a special import licence. Heather Oliver confirmed that vets could also apply for the import of medicines from outside the EU. Robert Field said he had been in contact with the holder of the authorisation for Apivar to bring forward the required application and would continue to pursue the issue.
5.8 Heather Oliver explained that it was open to associations to report a lack of efficacy to VMD under the Suspected Adverse Reaction Scheme and action could be taken if reports are submitted. Mike Brown added that the NBU is able to provide details of resistance. Peter Martin was also willing to provide his expertise to enable the required information to be sent to VMD. Stephen Hunter suggested that he work with Mike Brown on this matter and PHD would consider whether it could contribute further to this issue.
Action: VMD to keep bee associations
informed of Commission's proposals on residues and PHD to consider resistance
issues.
6. Bees and Pesticides
6.1 Libby Barnett
summarised a report on the incidence of poisoning incidents involving
bees in 2006 which had been circulated prior to the meeting.
There had been 15 incidents of suspected poisoning of beneficial
insects - 10 from
6.2 Ian Milligan suggested that pest control companies may be unaware that when carrying out treatments using lances rather than ladders to control feral bees, other bees may be at risk of poisoning if holes are not properly filled. This could account for residential bee deaths from insecticides such as bendiocarb. The findings of the WIIS do not support this, since the number of bee poisoning incidents involving bendiocarb has fallen.
6.3 As regards
tank mixing, Helen Thompson explained that the WIIS had looked for evidence
of a reduction in the inherent repellency of pyrethroids to bees when
they were tank mixed with other pesticides, but that there had not been
any findings. Some work had been carried out looking at the
potential impact and details were available on the website. Tricia Brobyn stated that one company had voluntarily
included advice on its label not to tank mix pyrethroids with certain
fungicides in order to protect bees from possible risk. However, there is no conclusive evidence that
this is a problem in the
6.4 Ian Milligan asked whether climate change was causing pyrethroid sprays to break down more quickly. Helen Thompson replied that the ICBPR had no evidence to suggest that this was the case. Tricia Brobyn added that pyrethroid resistance was being considered by the Pesticides Resistance Action Group and that any alternative products developed by the agrochemical industry would have to be approved via the proper channels. Libby Barnett explained that pesticide residues should not degrade when stored correctly at -20oC.
6.5 Ian Craig
raised his concern about the issue of systemic insecticides. In particular, the alleged effects on bees from
products such as imidacloprid and fipronil, which are claimed by French
beekeepers to cause disorientation in bees and also affect earthworms
as residues can remain in the soil for 6 years.
Tricia Brobyn explained that the position remained the same as
reported last year. PSD was keeping a watching brief on the situation
but no problems had been reported in the
7. Bee Association reports
7.1
7.2 Welsh Beekeepers' Association: Dinah Sweet said that there were
2,000 beekeepers in
7.3 Scottish Beekeepers' Association: Ian
Craig explained that there had generally been a good honey crop except
in the extreme
7.4
7.5 Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders' Association:
Terence Clare explained that the association had 400 members covering
all of the
7.6 Council of National Beekeeping Associations
in the
7.7 Bee Disease Insurance Ltd: Bernard Diaper reported that the company were actively involved in education and research. There had been more applications from Bee Farmers in the past year.
7.8 Bee Farmers' Association: John Howat said that last winter several members had experienced losses due to resistant Varroa and this was a serious concern. Some colonies had absconded over the summer but no disease problems had been reported. However, IPM was considered to be very time consuming. There had been an increase in demand for pollination services this year particularly in respect of borage. The honey crop had been average with some areas far better than others depending on the weather.
7.9 British Beekeepers' Association: Martin Tovey reported that membership was up 2,000 from last year to 11,000. There were also 6 associations who may join shortly. The season had been varied. A wet spring had affected the rape crop but the situation had been better in the summer although was poor again in respect of heather crops in the autumn. Winter losses last year were higher than usual but there had been less incidence of swarms. There had not been many reports of queen failures. The BBKA had become more involved in training and had put forward IPM as an element to be included in examinations. The spring convention at Stoneleigh had been well attended with 2,000 visitors.
7.10 Honey International Packers' Association:
Peter Martin explained that the
8. Review of the season
8.1 Stephen Hunter reported that although a final decision had not been taken by Ministers, he understood that funding for the whole of the NBU would be unchanged next year. However, he warned that Defra still had funding issues and it was possible the whole area would be revisited.
8.2 Richard Ball
presented a review of the NBU's activities in 2006. Nearly 25,000 colonies in over 4,000 apiaries
had been inspected. 68 colonies
had AFB of which 56 were in
8.3 Tom Williamson
summarised the
8.4 Scott McDowell
summarised the
9. R&D, including shook swarm
9.2 Alan Inman reported that Defra was currently funding two short term projects pending the development of the bee health strategy. Steering groups had been set up for both projects and these included representatives from the BBKA and from bee farmers. Project details were available on the Defra website and from Beebase. For the coming financial year, funding would again be given to short term projects whilst bee health strategy was being development. The areas under consideration were SHB management options and the epidemiology of one or both foul brood diseases. In addition, PHD were extending their taxonomic plant health fellowship programme to include bee health and were considering funding a bee virus fellowship in 2007/8. There was also a Defra research project (Biosecurity chip) which was looking at diagnostic microarrays for a range of animal, human and plant viruses which would include bee viruses. Mike Brown added that as part of its seedcorn work funded by Defra/CSL, the NBU was developing at a full range of molecular assays using TaqMan real time PCR - the same technology routinely used by CSL on tests for (plant) pests and pathogens and for identifying the "Cellardyke Swan" which was associated with Avian flu.
9.3 As regards the current projects, Mike Brown explained that as part of the EFB project, nearly 200 samples had been taken from colonies from apiaries which had EFB confirmed and those where it had not been found. The samples were being tested for bacterial load using TaqMan technology. Results were being assessed. Shook swarm was being widely used by beekeepers who were taking this option under the Statutory Control procedures. The SHB project was looking that the development of a lure and kill method. Both projects started midway through 2006 and are due for completion in the summer/autumn or 2007. Details of the projects are available through the Defra Science WebPages.
9.4 Ian Craig asked what had happened to the fungal work
being carried out at Rothamsted and what the options were for the treatment
of varroa. Alan Inman replied that
this work had been led by
9.5 As regards VMD's residues withdrawal project, Mike Brown explained that a proposal had been submitted by CSL to VMD and a response was awaited.
10 Contingency planning
10.1 Mike Brown explained some adjustments had been made
to the draft contingency plan for SHB following the consultation exercise
earlier in the year. The plan had
been field tested in
10.2 Similar plans
for
11. EU Developments and Apiculture programme
11.1 Steve Ashby
reported the action taken by Defra in response to the suspect SHB case
in
11.2 As regards
the apiculture programme, Kim Chadwick explained that in the new year
PHD would be developing a new three year programme which would be submitted
to the Commission by 15 April. Beekeeping
associations would be consulted on the draft programme. The Commission were currently compiling a report
to the Council on the operation of the current programme and this was
due to be completed in the new year. The
Commission had asked for information from member states to assist in the
compilation of the report and a response from the
Action: A copy of the
12 Update and review of bee health legislation
12.1 Kim Chadwick
explained that when the current Bee Pests and Diseases (
13. Other bee issues
GM co-existence
13.1 Steve Ashby reported that the consultation had closed in October and the comments were being considered. A summary of the responses would be posted on the Defra website in due course. The GM unit had apologised for not including the BFA on the consultation list. A response by the GM unit to the questions raised by Les Webster at last year's meeting had been circulated to those present. Les Webster was unhappy at the delay in responding to his queries, particularly when his question regarding compensation had not been fully answered. The GM Unit would be asked to provide a reply to Les Webster in accordance with the Defra service standards.
13.2 John Howatt
reported that Rowse's required producers to sign a declaration to confirm
that hives have been situated more than 6 miles from GM crops. This was a big issue for beekeepers and there
has been no mention of compensation where honey had been contaminated. There were 2 supermarkets which would not accept
honey with any gm content. Paul
Metcalf added that
Action (1): GM Unit to be asked to reply to Les Webster
on the issue of compensation.
Action (2) PHD
to explain concerns about GM contents of honey to the GM unit.
Honey issues
Labelling
13.3 The FSA had advised that in cases where honey had been blended using EU and non-EU honey, there was no requirement for details of the ratio to be included on the label. Nicola Spence added that an EU project on the origin of foods funded by the FSA was underway at CSL which was examining the authenticity of food, including honey.
Traceability of packaging
13.4 The FSA had advised that no guidelines would be issued on the requirements of Regulation 1935/2004 which entered into force on 27 October.
Food Hygiene Regulations
13.5 Steve Ashby reported that the FSA had advised that the recent consultation on the new primary production enforcement regime which closed on 20 November had highlighted the need for further consideration of a number of points, including the interpretation of small quantities. In order to develop policy options where the small quantities exemption could apply, further evidence was needed and the FSA would be seeking comments from stakeholders and enforcers over the coming months.
13.6 Les Webster thought that this contradicted earlier advice he was given by the FSA, in which he was advised that this would be dealt with by local authorities. He questioned whether the FSA would be making national legislation? Steve Ashby advised that the FSA would be best placed to answer any queries.
Next meeting
15.1 A show of hands supported CSL as the venue for next year's meeting. This could, on request, be preceded by a tour of the CSL facilities.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
|
AIC - Agricultural Industries' Confederation |
|
BBKA - British Beekeepers' Association |
|
BDI - Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd |
|
BFA - Bee Farmers' Association |
|
BIBBA - Bee Improvement and Bee Breeder's Association |
|
CONBA - Council of the National Beekeeping Associations
of the |
|
CQRA - Commercial Queen Rearers' Association of
the |
|
CSL - Central Science Laboratory |
|
DARD - Department of Agriculture and Rural Development |
|
FSA - Food Standards Agency |
|
GM - Genetic Modification |
|
HA - Honey Association |
|
HIPA - Honey Importers' & Packers' Association |
|
IBRA- International Bee Research Association |
|
ICBPR - International Commission for Plant Bee Relationships |
|
INIB - |
|
NAAC - National Association of Agricultural Contractors |
|
NAWAD - National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department |
|
NBU - National Bee Unit |
|
NFU - National Farmers' |
|
PHD - Plant
Health Division |
|
PSD - Pesticides Safety Directorate |
|
SBKA - Scottish Beekeepers' Association |
|
SEERAD - Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department |
|
UBKA - |
|
WBKA - Welsh Beekeepers' Association |
|
WIIS - Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme |
Page last modified:
23 Feb 2007
Page published: 23 Feb 2007