BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 6 Mar 2015 06:43:40 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
Wow, great discussion!

As a non farmer and non toxicologist who has taken time to deeply
investigate these issues I will confirm Charlie's on-the-ground assessment
of the situation, which I've found to be supported by biologists and
beekeepers all over the country.  The new plant protection chemistries
indeed appear to be improvements over the old.  The EPA risk assessors are
far from stupid.

Re the commonly misunderstood statement that some of the neonic degradates
can be more toxic than the parent compound, one should keep in mind that
the end toxicity of the degradates in general does not exceed the beginning
toxicity of the parent compound.  There is not a multiplier effect.

Re testing for residues in soil and water, a number of studies have
recently been completed, some paid for by the registrants, some by
independent university researchers (most are openly available).  To my
surprise, the findings indicate that there is little buildup of the neonics
in soils, and not too much in waters.

There are of course exceptions, with a small percentage of surface water
samples containing unacceptable levels of neonic (or other chemical
residues).  That said, to most organisms, the neonic residues would be
preferable to say organophosphate residues.

Bottom line, as Charlie points out, is that the U.S. consumer expects the
1% of the U.S. population who actually produce our food to do it at
ridiculously low cost.  By doing so, we literally force farmers to use
pesticides to remain competitive.  If we were to put our money where our
mouths are, we could change the system overnight (as with Starbucks and BSH
milk).  But most consumers aren't willing to increase our food bill by
half.

We need to stop criticizing and penalizing farmers and their supportive
industries, and instead start rewarding them for practicing improved
environmental stewardship. Rewarding will cost consumers and/or taxpayers
money.  I suggest that our activism should be positive rather than negative.

-- 
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2