On Tue, 1/14/14, Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  seems to me from the outside looking in, its a money issue... to much
>  publicity and money going to the wrong test???
 
Neither academia nor the pollinator protection groups have displayed
much interest in the impact on bee health of the declining availability of
forage in the neonic treated crop growing areas (e.g. the upper Midwest).
Instead, their focus is on the potential impact of the neonics on health.

Evidence: There have been several articles in recent days like this one
about repealing the renewable fuel standard:
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20140112/NEWS/301120019/Ethanol-mandate-unlikely-face-repeal?nclick_check=1
or http://tinyurl.com/mxktu6y

That standard is what caused farmers in the Midwest in recent years
to tear out tree belts, fence lines and similar places where wildflowers once 
grow to make room for more corn and soybeans.  And caused them to farm
more conservation reserve program land.  And caused them to grow more corn 
instead of alfalfa and clover. 

And yet now that talk of repealing the standard is underway, the academics
and pollinator protection groups are silent on the issue; i.e. they are
not openly backing the repeal even though they know it would help stop the 
ongoing decline in bee forage. They know nutrition is an important componet 
of bee health, so why are they not interested in supporting repeal of the 
renewable fuel standard? Why did they not lobby hard against passage of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
in the first place?

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

             ***********************************************
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