Hello Peter and All,
As those around the world read the Mark Winston article I will take his
article a step further .


The problem as I see it is in proving Imidacloprid is the root of the
problem. If Imidacloprid *is* the problem then we are moving into an area
bees being effected by 1ppb and less. And as the French & some U.S.
beekeepers problems show seriously effected.

Through new methods we can now detect even smaller amounts than ppb.

Researchers are puzzled that the 1ppb of imidacloprid detected in nectar &
pollen could be the root of the problem. After all ppb of known higher toxic
chemicals have been found and the bees *seemed* unaffected.

I suspect in the U.S. lawsuit the beekeepers will try and prove the amount
found is high enough to cause the problems and Bayer will try and prove the
opposite. I believe both the American Bee Journal and Bee Culture will cover
the lawsuit in detail so we will be able to decide for ourselves.

The Mark Winston & Bob Harrison (and many others) question:

"What is the problem if the problem is *not* being caused by imidacloprid"

Because the evidence I have seen does not represent a "smoking gun" by the
past history of toxic problems most including myself & Mark are saying
simply :

"Are we correct is saying that imidacloprid is the only problem and give up
looking for a possible other answer.

All of the older beekeepers clearly remember the malady named in all the bee
books "disappearing disease". I saw the results first hand. Millions we
spent around the world and in the end the cause was never found for sure(
hypothesis are around).

Perhaps chemical contamination ( perhaps not) was the cause of the
"disappearing disease"  or as many feel the disappearing disease began to
disappear and research went in other directions without fully resolving the
issue.

The French problem resembles the old "disappearing disease". I remember the
problem myself and puzzled many nights over the problem. Certain yards were
effected while others were not. Deadouts were picked up and bees replaced.
Comb was never found to be the problem but when hives were sent into certain
areas the hives dwindled. To be honest beekeepers  always suspected a
chemical problem but researchers could not detect a *high* enough toxic
problem so they looked for a different problem.

A couple comments on the Mark Winston article by members of the U.S.
beekeepers involved in the Imidacloprid lawsuit speaking through me.

Bayer cancelled the meeting and not the U.S. beekeepers. The beekeepers
wanted the meeting. Mark left out or did not make clear in his article.

Mark did say he has research funded by Bayer :" we have some funding from
the company " in a general setting.

I do think Mark referring to the U.S. beekeepers which have lost many
thousand of hives to the problem and suing Bayer as the "gang of 13" as a
poor choice of words and will come back to haunt him.

Such comments will only alienate the commercial beekeepers from Mark. Those
beekeepers which I have talked to truly believe Imidacloprid is a threat to
the beekeeping industry (as do the French beekeepers) and the lawsuit will
not only produce compensation but permanently remove imidacloprid from the
market.

Either way they are entitled to their day in court  under U.S. laws and
entitled to due respect.

I agree with most of Mark's point of view but as always we differ on a
couple points such as the above.

I am on the outside looking in and have no direct involvement but hopefully
the problem will be solved before the widespread loss of hives spreads even
farther. I do not receive funding from Bayer (but would not refuse funding
for my projects) and am not involved in the pending lawsuit.

Bob

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::