>In Europe the precautionary principle goes about not allowing something

> until it is proved 'save' enough for non-targets.
>

For any pesticide to gain registration, it must, in the judgement of the
regulators, have been demonstrated (nothing can be proven) to have greater
benefit than risk, to both humans and nontarget species.  Once brought into
use, then adverse effects reports are expected, and the labeling is then
fine-tuned, or the registration is revoked.  I have detailed the adverse
effects that I've heard of in my articles.  I feel strongly that those
should be addressed.

This is not a matter of stupidity--that sort of talk will get you nowhere.
 The studies that you keep referring to are mainly lab studies, then
extrapolated upon the supposition that something could become a problem.

But in every single real-life field study that I've seen (and there have
been plenty), no measurable adverse effects were found with proper seed
treatment.  The experience of beekeepers in the many areas that I've
visited supports that conclusion.

So unless you can cite actual field studies in which neonic seed treatment
is causing demonstrable problems, this discussion is largely rhetorical,
rather than practical.


-- 
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