>Would you agree that without these "activists" (I prefer to call them
educators), the environment would have no hope, while we wait for the
scientific community to come up with the data that shows that many of these
pesticides do in fact have serious impacts?

I already said that I support those environmental activists that have done
their homework.  I've been an environmental activist all my adult life, and
have in addition donated a great deal of money to environmental groups.
Please don't try to paint me otherwise.

>Calling oneself an environmentalist whilst using or promoting pesticides
and taking "profits" from the corporations that make them, seems to me a
contradiction.

Let's see if we can avoid degrading this discussion to low blows.  I have
never promoted pesticides (other than natural products for varroa
management), nor taken a penny from any company that manufactures them,
other than once supplying hives (along with two other leaders of our
industry), for a single trial with the Beeologics/Monsanto team to obtain
data on winter bee health.

>Unreasonable fear? Please let me know how you think these "activists"
should do their jobs (and find the funds) looking out for the environment,
humanitarian issues, etc. without the use of some sort of fear mongering.

There is a monster difference between EDUCATING the public and
intentionally generating fear (especially unsubstantiated fear).  Dow
Chemical company was forced into bankruptcy due to activists drumming up
the fear that silicone breast implants caused female inflammatory disease,
despite complete lack of evidence, and despite the fact that the product
was finally found not to cause the disease.

Hundreds of thousands of parents are withholding critical vaccinations of
their children due to activists generating unsubstantiated fears that
vaccinations cause autism (again, later found to be without merit).

And remember the fear messages of how we were all going to die from
fluoridation of our water?

And now it's unsubstantiated fears of GMO's.

Fear is very harmful to our health.  Groups that hammer us with
unsubstantiated fear messages hurt us.

So in answer to your question, please go back and read my original
message.  Groups should stick to facts and evidence.  They should educate
the public honestly, not dishonestly (thanks Richard and Jeremy, for the
posts).

 >Take a step back and look at the advertising dollars spent for Roundup
each year (gross profits in 2009 were over $2B) and compare that with all
of the environmentalists salaries combined.

Funny that you should use that example.  My rough arithmetic suggests that
the combined "environmentalist" salaries would be greater.

 >An overwhelming majority of activists are unpaid and make attempts to
take on the Goliaths for the sake of their cause.

This would describe me.  And some of the Goliaths that I'm taking on are
environmental groups that are  KNOWINGLY disseminating misinformation (I
know so, because many have approached me for information about bees, and
when I steer them toward accurate information, they ignore it).  As a case
in point, on this List we recently had an activist ask about how much the
"decline" of bees has progressed.  I personally know that that activist had
been exposed to accurate contrary information.

The problem is when the "cause" has no clothes.  I live in California, and
am surrounded by well-meaning people who live in fear because of all the
"advertising" by groups that want the fearful to send them dollars.  But
many of those fears are completely unsubstantiated.  This is a waste of
environmental activism, and a Jeremy pointed out as I'm typing these words,
puts "environmentalists" in the position of crying wolf--which
unfortunately gives fodder to those wishing to discredit
environmentalists.

I want environmental activism to be directed towards causes that actually
help us and the environment, such as population control, reducing pollution
and CO2 emissions, cleaning up the oceans, reducing pesticide use, reducing
habitat destruction, and practicing agroecology rather than corporate
monoculture.

>CDPR and the EPA, IMO, are not doing their respective jobs when products
are registered for use without sufficient testing and data supporting their
safe use.

They are doing their jobs.  Few in any occupation or government position do
their jobs perfectly.  EPA and CDPR have responded to environmental
concerns and phased out the organochlorines and most of the
organophosphates (other than one still demanded by beekeepers).  In my
lifetime they've greatly cleaned up California air and water (still a way
to go).  They've done their best to prevent the extinction of native plants
and animals.  Why are you unable to recognize their successful efforts?

Now in the case of almonds, they clearly missed the boat on some pesticide
registrations.  As you well know (since I personally put you in touch with
some of the top regulators), they are quite concerned about this, and
working on it.

>
> >Imidacloprid is one of the most acutely toxic pesticides for bees.


There are natural aflotoxins just as toxic.  Saying that something is
acutely toxic means nothing.  What one needs to do is to put it into the
perspective of exposure.


> >While the scientific community is getting fat on study after study


I know of few labs that feel "fat" on funding.  And would you prefer that
they stop these studies?  It is those very studies that are finding out how
pesticides may be harmful to the environment in ways that we did not
suspect.  What is your alternative to "studies"?  Without those studies, we
would have no idea that something was harming the environment, shy of
seeing piles of dead organisms.


> >real harm is being done to our environment for the sake of IPM.


That statement could use some elaboration!


> >IPC to IPM has come a long way since the 70's. It has been used in the US
> for over 20 years and it looks like we won't have the reevaluation data
> until at least 2018.


And now I have no idea what you are talking about.  IPM has been widely
adopted for some crops, but not for others.

I suspect that the "data" that you are speaking of is for imidacloprid on
citrus.  And as I previously pointed out to you off list, the data
requested by EPA has already been collected and sent to them.


> >Is this really the best science can offer us?


The scientific method is a way of learning.  It offers us only a model for
our thinking (see Christina's post).  And it may take time.


> >Why do we "environmentalists" have to put up with this?


Put up with an American public that votes every day in the grocery store
with their wallets?  Who make the very strong statement that they expect
abundant, cheap, cosmetically-perfect produce?  There is only one way to
produce that product for the price that they are willing to pay, and that
is with chemical-heavy corporate agriculture.  I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS
MODEL.  But that's the way it is.  The American consumer speaks out of both
sides of their mouths--they want cheap pretty food, but aren't willing to
pay for "green" certification.  THAT is what you need to put up with.


> >How do we change these "experiments" with our environment?
>

Todd, our current "experiment" is to see what happens when we put 9 billion
humans on the face of a planet that could perhaps support 1 billion without
associated environmental degradation.  How can "we" change this
experiment?  Eliminating several billion humans would be politically
unpopular.

More seriously, the introduction of any pesticide, no matter how thoroughly
tested, will always be an "experiment."  The pesticide that you are
currently involved with in Southern California is imidacloprid on citrus,
being applied in response to the very rational and well-researched fear
that citrus greening disease will soon kill every citrus tree in the
State.  The disappearance of citrus would not be well accepted by the
public.

The question then is, how best to prevent the psyllid from infecting
trees?  Unfortunately, the only viable option at the present is through the
use of insecticides (all other options are currently, and fervently, being
researched (more "studies")).  But for now, insecticides are the only tool
that works.  So the question to you is, exactly which insecticides would
you prefer to be applied, and how?

I do not envy any beekeeper or nectar-eating organism currently living in
citrus areas.  It's going to get worse before it gets better (Florida and
Brazil being cases in point).  The only viable alternative at the moment is
the planting of GMO citrus trees, which would eliminate the need for
insecticides.  Unfortunately, some activists groups have drummed up such
fear in the public of genetically-engineered plants that this may be a hard
sell.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html