Dr. White
English 1301
October 26, 2012
The Bee’s Knees are Crippled
“The busy bee has no time for sorrow” – William Blake Pollen production has been a growing industry in America since 1865. Not only do bees provide honey for local and national citizens, but the pollen found in most male bees has been proven to help in curing and preventing diseases that have struck those who suffer from seasonal allergies, and the pollen has been most recently used as a vitamin to prevent Alzheimer’s disease. Until recently, there has been no debate regarding the extraction of bee pollen for medical purposes. However, changes in Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations now threaten the experimental use of bee pollen. In his documentary entitled: Won’t You Please Help Us with the Bees? Jon Stewart argues for the continued extraction and production of bee pollen for medical purposes. Stewart uses many rhetorical strategies in his argumentative film. Stewart details the debate as this: local farmers and beekeepers have, historically, held all rights as owners of the pollen and honey produced by bees. Therefore, farmers and beekeepers who own the bees reserve all rights (and risks) that accompany managing bees and their pollen. However, in 2006, the FDA enacted the Please the Bees Act, which enabled corporations and contractors to “seize the bees” if any potential outbreak of bees threatened the safety of residents who lived near bees. Also, since the pollen has not been inherently recognized by the FDA as a legitimate cure and preventative treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, the farmers and beekeepers posses no real ownership of any profits or rights that may occur as a result of selling the pollen at local farmer’s markets, retails stores, or pharmacies. This debate has created a problem for: farmers, beekeepers, the FDA, pharmaceutical companies, and citizens who use the pollen as an alternative to pills and other forms of preventative treatments for common ails and Alzheimer’s disease. These groups serve as the primary audience of Stewart’s documentary. While Stewart’s documentary seeks to inform audiences of the growing problem of the bee battle in America, his argument also seeks to persuade audiences of the injustice imbedded in this political documentary. The Please the Bees Act of 2006 serves as the occasion that prompted the debate, while growing concern for the plights of farmers and beekeepers serves as the occasion for Stewart’s argument. In Won’t You Please Help Us with the Bees? Stewart uses many examples of compare and contrast to argue his position. In the first half of the documentary, Stewart compares pollen production in 2004—before the Please the Bees Act—with pollen production after the act was enacted in 2006. As Stewart illustrates in his film, farmers and beekeepers have suffered a significant financial loss as a result of the act. Stewart quotes farmer Jon Bon Jovi, who states: “The pollen from my bees was sold at 45 farmers markets and 20 drugstores before the act. Now, I only sell to 5 independent retailers” (Bon Jovi). Bon Jovi’s claim validates Stewart’s argument about the success of the farmer before and after the act by comparing the farmer’s success before and after the regulations placed on farmers and beekeepers. Stewart also uses compare and contrast to illustrate how profits from major corporations have risen since the act was passed in 2006. Stewart compares the profits of Burt’s Bees—a company from North Carolina who produces lip balm from the pollen—from 2002 to 2007. Stewart’s comparison reveals this: one year after the act was passed by the FDA, Burt’s Bees experienced a record-breaking 40% rise in profits. Because the company could extract pollen from the farmers and beekeepers who no longer had any ownership of the pollen, the company used the pollen for its lip balm business. In his film, Stewart’s compare and contrast strategy illustrates the fall of the farmer and the rise of corporations through the comparison of profits and access to pollen. In his argument, Stewart also uses cause and effect to illustrate with current debate among farmers, beekeepers, the FDA, and pharmaceutical companies. During the second portion of the film, Stewart narrates the effects of the farmer’s and beekeeper’s lack of power to combat bee ownership in the United States. Stewart interviews master beekeeper Tiger Woods, who claims: “Because of the current legislation by the FDA, any corporation can just waltz on to my property and extract the pollen from my bees. As a result, I can no longer earn a living wage as a beekeeper” (Woods). Woods also discusses the effects of non-professionals extracting the pollen and honey from the bees with this claim: “Because these idiots without gloves are sticking their hands in my bee cages, they’ve suffered numerous injuries. In their frustration, they’ve swatted at the bees, which kills them. I’ve lost over 4000 bees since 2006 since the act is created” (Woods). Woods’ comments help support the claim that, that not only have farmers and beekeepers suffered at the hands of the act, but the bees have also suffered as a result of the act. Stewart also uses cause and effect to show to audiences the effects of the act that he believes are not positive for allergy sufferers, and those who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease. Using a combination of compare and contrast with cause and effect, Stewart compares rates of Alzheimer disease found in the regions of the United States most affected by the act, and uses this data to show the overall effects of the act for those who found the pollen helpful in a medicinal capacity. Stewart interviews 20 citizens of Corinth, Texas who used the pollen as a preventative treatment for allergies prior to the act, and then interviewed the same citizens who no longer had access to the pollen after the act was passed in 2006. Of the 20 interviewed, 15 citizens experienced what they described to be harsh recurring bouts of seasonal allergies as a result of not ingesting the pollen. Stewart found this evidence compelling as he states: “It is clear that the community of Corinth, Texas is suffering at the hands of political gerrymandering and big business” (Stewart). Stewart’s claim attempts to persuade his audience of the FDA and corporations that pollen wars need to be ended in the United States. Stewart’s claim also informs allergy sufferers of the effects of big business on local matters and imminent domain of beekeeping. Stewart’s use of comparison and contrast and cause and effect are adequate in his attempt to persuade those in power of the growing concern of bee rights in America. Stewart’s organization of information—combined with his passionate ideas for beekeeping—is conveyed in his documentary. Although Stewart attempts to interview representatives from various pharmaceutical companies and corporations that produce bee pollen, all declined to be interviewed for Stewart’s documentary. Stewart provides statistical data to reflect how large companies have profited financially from the Please the Bees Act of 2006, but does not reveal any affirmative information about any of the companies. It is clear that Stewart’s loyalties reside with farmers and beekeepers in the argument. While Stewart’s compassion for his audience is touching, he fails to provide sufficient evidence to prove that allergy sufferers in Corinth, Texas have worsened as a result of the Please the Bees Act of 2006. Had Stewart interviewed a medical expert to offer a professional opinion of the potential causes of worsening allergies (inclusive of the act), his argument might have been more compelling. As a whole, Stewart’s argument fails to prove that American citizens are suffering at the hands of big business and covert political acts. Stewart’s documentary does little to shift the paradigm of bee domain in the United States. While his passion for bees is admirable, his documentary received no attention from members of the FDA, or anyone else in power that may change this growing debate. Of the three modes of appeal: ethos, pathos, and logos, Stewart uses mostly pathos in his film. Perhaps this is why Stewart’s argument is non-effective for his audience. Had Stewart used more logos (fact) in his presentation of information by credible scholars, scientists, and medical experts (ethos), Stewart might see more results from his rhetorical efforts. In the final scene of his film, Stewart claims: “This problem is pathetic, and it’s all the fault of the government” (Stewart). Stewart’s claim outright blames the government for the problem at hand, and Stewart uses emotion in his attempts to solve a problem that most often requires reason and professional negotiation in its resolution. Perhaps Stewart could have created a stronger argument without using pathos as his primary mode of appeal. Won’t You Please Help Us with the Bees? will continue to be screened to inform and persuade viewers of the growing problem of bee ownership in the United States. Until a negotiation can be reached among those who decide who owns the bees, Stewart’s argument will continue to be hailed as a compelling plea for the rights of bees, farmers, beekeepers, and allergy sufferers, and corporations to who use pollen in their cosmetic and medicinal efforts.

Works Cited
Stewart, Jon, dir. Won't You Please Help Us with the Bees? Perf. Jon Bon Jovi, and Tiger Woods. 2010. Film. 21 Oct 2012.