Juanse, I still feel that you are missing my point!

You stated: " can we trust the business ethics or research conducted by the
major companies putting agrichemicals into the marketplace?"

What I was saying was that was a silly rhetorical question--of course we
cannot "trust" any entity where money is involved.  Heck, I don't trust
half the beekeepers if money is involved!  It is a given that legislation
and power are influenced by money, few are naive about that.

The point that I was trying to make was that beekeepers should fund their
own research, as well as focusing upon making sure that our regulators are
doing the job that we pay them to do.  There is no need to demonize private
companies who are trying to turn a profit by providing a wanted product or
service.

The game is that in any political system there will be corruption.  But our
system in the US is such that the voters have absolute power.  So it is up
to us to make the system work, and no need to "trust" any private company.

That said, do you really think that Bayer wants to be party to one of their
products turning into a thalidomide event?  So even without trust, we can
assume that Bayer will do everything they can to avoid putting a product on
the market that will lead to massive lawsuits and negative publicity.
 Plus, they are well aware that if they are caught cheating, that that will
have serious ramifications with future registration of any of their
products.

So even without "trust" we can assume that Bayer will generally act
responsibly.  Do you really think that Bayer corporate policy could
suppress whistle blowing by every single one of their researchers (most of
whom have families and children) if they were really doing something
nefarious?

I find this whole conspiracy theory that our regulators and the pesticide
companies are up to evil behind our backs as being disingenuous and
counterproductive.

My friend Bob says: "Because Randy Oliver says ... it does little to change
> many of our opinions."
>

Bob, I would never want anything that I said to be responsible for changing
your opinions.  I would rather see your opinions changed by you
understanding the facts, and applying logic, rather than superstition and
fear.  I certainly do not want to tell you how to think!

On the other hand, talk is cheap, and you talk a great deal without giving
us any actual facts or evidence to back up your opinions.  How about
putting some facts where your mouth is?

People are lazy, and adverse to making the effort of actually educating
themselves on the facts.  This forum is a good place to be educated, if one
is willing to listen and then follow up by reading the studies cited.
 However, it is far easier to simply be a "pot stirrer" to use your own
words.

There was a recent petition sent to EPA by PANNA, signed by a few
beekeepers.  I seriously doubt that those beekeepers actually read the
entire petition, and also the full papers and articles cited as evidence in
the petition.  I did--many of them were no better than jokes.

There are no facts or evidence in the petition that the EPA is not already
well aware of.  The petition is full of exaggerations, mistakes, and
misunderstandings of the actual regulatory process.  So the only thing to
come of it, is that the EPA will have even less respect for the "opinions"
of those beekeepers who signed on.

Bob notes that: "Many people believe the EPA needs changed. Big ag would
abolish the EPA."

Big Ag has six million families, all of whom vote.  Now that beekeepers
have signed on with PANNA, those ag families may well lump all beekeepers
with radical environmentalists, rather than considering us as members of
the agricultural community.  I personally do not want the folk upon whose
land I place bees to see me as "the enemy."  I feel that it is a dangerous
political game for beekeepers align themselves with certain environmental
groups!

As Stan points out, there are clear legitimate questions about the systemic
pesticides.  Fresh data on buildup from multi-year use in canola will soon
be published.  Other data needs to be collected.  No one at the regulatory
agencies is ignoring this.

There is a major problem here that some on the List (I'm intentionally not
mentioning Bob's name) want polarize everything, as in "either you are with
me, or you are against me."  The real world is not that black or white.
 The pesticide issue is far too complex to take and then hold fixed
positions.

I'm for this List being what it's name states--an informed discussion group.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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