Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="UTF-8" |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:39:32 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Message-ID: |
|
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>While certainly not harmless by any means, putting all the blame on any pesticide distracts us
from addressing overall human impact upon our ecosystems.
Amen!
The article is a disservice to thoughtful readers, careful beekeepers, well intended growers, committed scientists, and dare I say chemical companies. All I gather from the hub-bub is that conspiracy theorist are not restricted to either side of the political spectrum. I got a link to the article a day before it showed up on BEE-L so it must be spreading like wildfire. It should be roundly rejected. I suppose that climate change, global overpopulation, deforestation, land conversion, sea level rise, flatulence, and the fact that the Mariners are not World Series champions are all due to neonics. My personal opinion is that they are the best of a bad lot. Probably overused and plenty of room for improvement. To think that global agriculture can go without crop protection is naive in the extreme.
I know several of the scientists mentioned and do not for a second question their integrity. It is an insult to suggest so. The notion that all corporate contributions to research are corrupt is a distortion of the facts and would have a huge negative impact on university and private research. The anti neonic side refuse to believe that it is in the chemical companies self interest to improve conditions and populations for pollinators and beneficial insects. To paint them and their scientific collaborators as inherently evil is just another expression of blind prejudges.
Paul Hosticka
Dayton WA
***********************************************
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
|
|
|