Bill writes:  "The jury is still out on if Imid is a problem. Bayer is
working with
beekeeper's even as they clamor for Imid's discontinuance and even while
more and more evidence points to the real culprits. It is a real miracle
that they bother."


     I don’t think it’s a miracle at all, Bill.  I think it’s what we should
expect.  I also think that they should be completely transparent about all
the information they have whether it supports their claims or not.  I think
that they should be required to foot the bill for very comprehensive studies
that are completely controlled by agencies that are completely independent
of them, and those studies, all of them, should be available for anyone to
look at.  Has this happened?  Apparently not.  Does it ever happen?  You
tell me.  
     In the interest of making sure that especially large economic entities
are not impeded in their ability to rake in the dough, the bar has been set
pretty low of late.  You yourself say that the jury is still out on what
hazards imidacloprid may pose for beekeepers.  It is way past time for this
to be the case.  I am not inclined to assume that because there has not been
a proven link between bee losses and imidacloprid that we should let Bayer
off the hook and assume that there is no link.  From what I am reading here,
there is enough reason to suspect there is a link to raise the alarm that
has been raised.  It is Bayer’s responsibility to prove there is no link. 
That may be trying to prove a negative, but that’s the way it is with
potentially hazardous materials and medications.  You have to prove that
they are safe, and in some cases you should have to prove that they are
idiot proof.  I also don’t think that because beekeepers can sometimes be
their own worst enemies or that some of them might be motivated by lawsuits,
that that should let Bayer off the hook either.  Besides, the issue of
lawsuits sounds like a bit of an unfair and maybe cynical assumption in
itself.    
     I agree with you that we should let science reveal the truth.  But in
this case it’s not a matter of innocent until proven guilty.  It’s you prove
your product, that kills living organisms, won’t harm me or keep it away
from me.  I guess that makes me a believer in the precautionary principle.

Steve Noble    

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