>In the better research that I'm seeing, the researcher is sorting
>pollen grains by color in order to get a better understanding of the
>pesticide contamination in each plant species.

I'm glad to see that.  This is very much needed.

I guess what annoys a lot of us is that limited or very general and
preliminary work was done and gave various chemicals a pass.  The
reasons are many and I think most of us know that sometimes choices
have to be made before all the final data is in -- if it is ever all in.

That initial work was reassuring, but temporary and sometimes final
approvals were made on the strength (or weakness) of that data
and many people downplayed the the need for further investigation
before the products could be labelled "safe".  Some went so far as to
act condescending to those who require further proof or claim
to see local adverse effects, sometimes using disrespectful language.

The simple fact is that we do not know and have no real way of
knowing what the ultimate consequences of any decision might be,
and blanketing the Earth with neonics is a big decision.

Sometimes we just have to charge ahead with the best info we have,
and choose what appears to be the least of a pack of evils, and that
is what we have done in accepting neonics. 

Nonetheless, there are collateral effects, many of which are only
suspected and/or dimly understood. 

The early work gave us sufficient confidence to accept neonics, but
I am sure newer and hopefully better targeted and more benign
products are already being developed and tested. 

Maybe these products are safe, but it is never safe to assume.

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm