Thank you for your unwavering honesty expressed in your Bayer defense.  
Frankly, I believe everything you say.

>really appreciate the open exchange of opinions [on Bee-L regarding 
chemical issues].  

Realizing the importance of 360 degree “transparency,” I too am convinced  
that you too are being transparent in you defense because you care about 
the bees and sustainable environment  more than corporate greed and myopic 
stop-gap measures, and furthermore a person cannot say he enjoys something 
yet does not practice the same himself, right?

>Actually, Bayer’s research does address sub-lethal effects. Same is true 
of much non-Bayer sponsored research.  Several summary papers by Bayer 
scientists have appeared over the years that discussed no observed adverse 
effect levels.  These NOAELs are all based on sub-lethal effects.  See 
Schmuck et al. (2001. Pest Manag Sci 57:225-238) and Maus et al. (2003, 
Bulletin of Insectology 56 (1): 51-58). 

Of course, not.  Not a single research done by tobacco industry has found 
its product either being harmful or addictive—till recently under mounting 
pressure from independent researches. 

>Bayer has a full time beekeeper on staff and owns many hives.  We’ve had 
this in-house bee research capacity since before I joined the company 21 
years ago. We thoroughly research the bee safety of every product we 
develop. 

Surely, you and your in-house bee research attest that you are one of us, 
indeed, just as tobacco industry nowadays even admits how its product is 
no good while pushing it deceptively and judiciously through unscrupulous 
under-handed advertisement to minors.  They too are one of us, good guys, 
although they must make a sale to pay the rent.

> Sub-lethal endpoints that have been evaluated include foraging behavior, 
fecundity. . . In every case, no adverse effects were observed.  Not even 
once.  

Agreed.  Not a single tobacco research has found any ill effect although 
the “semi-field study” was done inside a tent, a real life scenario.  

>Another bit of relevant research on “sub-lethal effects” was presented at 
the 2006 EurBee meeting and the abstract was posted to this list by Randy 
Oliver on 30 September 2007.  This study tested whether exposure to 
imidacloprid in combination with other stressors including Varroa and 
Nosema ceranae, caused effects greater than those of the individuals 
stressors alone.  Here again is the title, author list and conclusion.  
The full abstract is in the BEE-L archives (and also obtainable from 
EurBee.org).

Ditto.  Low tar cigarettes will significantly reduce the seeming ill 
effects, too.  It is just one of the many stressors, your spouse being the 
number one, if you must find something else to blame.

>The “sub-lethal” adverse effects that are commonly mentioned as being of 
concern are (1) disorientation (foragers not returning to the hive) and 
(2) suppression of the immune system with the result that the hive 
succumbs to common pathogens.  If either of these effects occurred, one 
should see a dwindling of the population of imidacloprid-exposed hives.  
This has been looked for in 30 experiments and field studies and it has 
NEVER happened.  That’s pretty compelling 
evidence this hypothesis is not correct.

Compelling, indeed.  Who/what/when/how/where/why/ did this study under 
whose *funding*? The study must have been transparent all around.  Your 
strong word choice “never” makes it even more compelling and scientific 
and convincing.   

>Bayer has never been asked to contribute funds to any of the Penn State 
work.  When they were first getting started, they asked for analytical 
standards and advice on analytical methodology which we provided.   

What a great research when an impartial corporation spoon-feeds what to 
look for, where to look for, and how to look at the data!   I agree that 
all the researches should be done this way; sure, why not provide 
analytical methodology from an independent private research team that has 
no vested interest in the experiment? 

>We do however stand behind our labels as we have extensive research that 
shows our products are safe when used as directed.

Sure, why change labels?  The tobacco industry too stood by their labels 
for centuries, it has done extensive “researches,” and every one of them 
claimed that its products were and are safe when used as directed, and non-
addictive.  

When the tobacco executives testified before the Congress, I believed 
every one of them.

Yoon

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************