>Date:    Fri, 4 May 2001 07:04:08 -0400
>From:    Bill Truesdell <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: nice summary of imidacloprid
>
>Allen Dick wrote:
>>
>> This came over the transom.  It is a MUST READ:
>> ---
>> Thought you might be interested in this nice summary of imidacloprid. You
>> can view it at www.pesticide.org/imidacloprid.pdf
>
>Interesting reading, but I am hesitant to accept the conclusions of an
>organization dedicated to eliminating pesticides from the environment.
>Too much agenda.


This is crazy.  Should we also suspect the motives of organizations like
the Kidney Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Association, the Heart
Association?  After all, their objectives are the elimination
(cure/prevention) of human disease.  The objectives of organizations trying
to protect (cure/prevent) planetary 'disease' (pollution) should be
susapect because they have an 'agenda'?

Corporations fund 'non-profit research institutes' (like the US-based
Hudson Institute) which provide 'third party experts' to advocate on their
behalf.  The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) for example is a
commonly-used front group that produces PR ammunition for the food
processing and chemical industries.

NCAP, the group that published the summary on imidacloprid, is
well-established and highly credible.  Much of their work involves projects
with conventional farmers. A bit too mainstream for me, actually. There are
other groups around, including the group I work with, that see much more
urgency to the problem of pesticides permeating every corner of the Earth.

People involved in the environmental movement at the grass-roots level
(like NCAP) operate on very little money, and many individuals I know,
including me, are usually broke and live below the poverty level.  We are
not paid to adopt an 'agenda', and we have no hope or expectations of some
financial pay off somewhwere down the line.  Our research is generally
thorough and well-referenced because we know every last word will be
scrutinized by the Earth Destroyers in hopes of finding some trivial error
that can be used to discredit us.

>I am especially wary when even the inert ingredients
>are labeled carcinogens. Just about anything in excess or used
>improperly causes problems.

This is the old "pesticides if used properly are safe" line that you get
from the chemical industry, government and pesticide sympathizers.  Along
with that goes the line that there are just a few 'bad farmers' out there
and if we can just rein them in, educate them, then everything will be
okay.  Pesticides used according to label directions DO cause harm.  There
is overwhelming documented evidence - shouldn't have to be a need to even
say this anymore.

 >There is also an article in the latest Bee Culture by Mark Winston on
>the same subject and has more balance.

Balance?  The balance is completely and utterly skewed toward the Earth
Destroyers.  With billions of dollars spent every year on propagnda
(advertising, infommercials, scientists-for-rent) by corportaions, and with
their control of the corporate media, where is the balance?  When these
polluters and exploiters of humanity and the Earth are confronted with
citizens armed with evidence of injustice, they call for 'balance'.
Corporations and government launch their PR campaigns to depict these
ordinary citizens as emotional, alarmist and unscientific.

People know when wrong things are happening.  We don't need to wait for the
very last scientific test to be completeted. The name of the game for
corporations is to create confusion, to cast doubt on the science or
observations of anyone questioning corporate products/practices. They have
been very successful because you, Bill, unless you have some financial
stake in the pesticide industry, have become one their many unpaid,
volunteer spokespersons - even though you say you are not a defender of
imidacloprid, your posts are pro-pesticide industry and you work with them
to create doubt and confusion. I prefer to err on the side of human health,
a clean safe environment, biological diversity, and social and environmenal
justice for all living things.

The Precautionary Principle, widely promoted these days by scientists and
even some elected representatives, says that we do not need to have
conclusive scientific evidence to raise the alarm and to have suspected
harmful practices/products stopped until they can be proven safe. We need
only have reasonable scientific evidence.


> Especially pointing the finger
>>back at us for using organo-phosphates, which environmentally are a much
>>more dangerous class of pesticides than imidacloprid.

It gets tricky when you start comparing the relative risks of pesticides.
Imidacloprid is new and we usually only find out how bad a pesticide really
is after it's been on the market for a time. Canadian government scientists
are studying imidacloprid in the field now - we simply do not how bad it
will prove to be. And why should we, or any other living thing, have to be
the guinea pigs?

I am releuctant to say a nerve toxin, or a carcinogen is worse than a
groundwater polluter or fish killer or a hormone-disruptor for example. All
pesticides have their own little horror stories.

Sharon