At 11:52 -0600 2/16/99, Musashi wrote:
>Just a short note on some of the comments of genetics being changed or
>affected
>by what the bees eat.  I think that what was really meant by this statement is
>that the way the genes are expressed--the expression of the genes--can be
>affected by diet.  The genetics are not changed.  The DNA is not changed, but
>how the genes express themselves can change depending on the dietary inputs.
>I think this is what Dr. Stefan was meaning, and it is a logically valid
>point.
>Better diets and nutrition and all animals and plants are better able to
>resist
>diseases and stresses IMHO.
 
EXACTLY! The ball back in the realist's court. If feeding sugar builds a
population of big healthy bees then that's great. No need to wory about any
genetic damage from sugar and other such groundless supposition. The bottom
line in this case is the health and welfare of the bee's and plenty of
people have shared their observations of healthy bees given a jump start or
saved from starvation with late winter sugar feeding.
 
It is certainly true that dead bees that starve have their genetic material
expressed in a form that is different than living healthy bees.
 
On the contrary, we have very little credible evidence to support the sugar
is bad theory. Rather than stand on an nature is good, man is bad soapbox
spouting mindless mantras, let's see some credible evidence about the
negatives of sugar feeding.
 
Paul
 
"Who once knew a natural food store owner that believed when one's diet was
really good, one could coat one's feces in carob sauce and (directly)
recycle them."