BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:21:34 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
> At a recent engagement in Germany, an alarmist was concerned about minute traces of fungicides in French wines.

The misnomer "alarmist" has over and over been refuted by the passage of time alone.  Later research consistently proves far more often than not that the "alarmists" were, if anything, underestimating the risk.  A good example was the impact of Coumaphos on beehives.  The impact of the Coumaphos residues prompted several large operations to put otherwise serviceable woodenware into bonfires.

> Since protesters will not allow the winemakers to use varietals with the genes for mildew resistance spliced in (since they are "genetically engineered") 

It is not "protestors".  It is the EU and Country-level authorities responsible for safety and health.  GMOs need approval before they are cultivated or sold for consumption in the EU.  A specific scientific risk assessment is done for each GMO.  I know of one GMO approved by the EU process. Bayer's "Maize MON 810" was approved as safe in 1998, and is grown mostly in Spain (on the plains, where it rains).  But eight countries banned the cultivation of all GMOs at the country level: Germany, Poland, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg.

> But the newer fungicide residues, although "synthetic," are far safer to man and the environment, and of no reasonable risk to the consumers of French wine.

The precautionary principle puts safety first, before even corporate profits.  There seem to be credentialed and respected specialists who disagree with the claimed "no reasonable risk".  If there actually was no reasonable risk, the synthetics would be approved for use in the EU.

The assertion that the synthetics are "far safer", is clearly not the view of the responsible authorities, as they allow the use of the non-synthetics, in spite of their apparent toxicity, and do not allow the use of the synthetics.  Maybe they know something we beekeepers don't.  Maybe it is about the massive dataset documenting the limited collateral damage from the traditional fungicides, vs the tendency of the synthetics to get into everything everywhere and persist forever.



 

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2