>No, it is the crop-protection product that I was speaking of.  The promise

> of a future bee-related product seems to be the bright shiny object to
> distract from the money-making crop-protection product before the EPA,
> which
> has a far shorter history.
>

I am in agreement with Jim on this point (although I'm not sure that the
history is "far" shorter), as detailed in my comments to EPA, which did not
concern the development of RNAi antiviral or antivarroa products, for which
I have little concern.  My concern is about the products to be introduced
into plants (or topically applied).  Such products have far greater
potential to cause unintended adverse effects to bees (I am less concerned
about effects upon humans, for a few reasons).

>Something to be deployed so widely might need more than cursory attention,
in my view.

Again, I'm in complete agreement.  This attention to detail should be open
and transparent in order to assure a fearful public, so as to avoid the
sort of backlash that is now occurring against other genetically engineered
crops.  The regulators must keep in mind that they are not doing their job
as public servants if they have lost the trust of those who pay their
salaries.


-- 
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