In a message dated 9/20/00 11:01:32 AM, [log in to unmask] writes: <<The introduction of foreign pollen type may result in the production of a seed containing the wrong " fatty acids", "genetic components","lower yield" etc.. Greenhouse growing with proper covers on vents and entryways is the only way to control with any certainty against pollination contamination in this scenario. <<in some cases actually would be considered as a pest Hence, the argument goes, keep the pesticides and get rid of the need for the bees(and at the same time, the annoying individuals collectively termed Beekeepers- that is in polite circles.) >> I can't believe you are fairly stating this argument, because it would require designating a vast number of insects as "pests" besides honeybees, since there is a great diversity of pollinating animals (mostly insects). Perhaps somebody was trying to "get a rise out of you" because they knew you were a beekeeper. I can't see somebody credibly advancing the idea that large areas of open-grown crop can be nearly completely denuded of animal life to an extent and with a consistency that cross-pollination contamination would be minimized. Spraying on purpose to target pollinators is probably illegal where there are rare or endangered insects (in North America and Europe at least), and in any event, would draw a lot of negative publicity from activist groups that are good at getting media attention. I've been wrong before though, so here's a question for the list: Is anybody aware of an agricultural practice anywhere where pollinators are considered pests, and are targeted with a pesticide-spraying campaign? More likely, the growers would self-regulate (or convince the state to regulate) what could be grown in the area to avoid contamination from undesirable pollen. This is why a woman who developed a variety of colored cotton was pushed out of California. Growers feared cross-pollination contamination would ruin their harvest of snow-white cotton lint.