> On Oct 11, 2014, at 4:11 PM, randy oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> The consumer looks
> the other way.


While I keep hearing many of you claim that the activists and their agendas are driving this war on Neonics, I have to think that that maybe the consumers are starting to use some of their common sense about what we are putting into our bodies and what we have been allowing to be dumped into our environment by corporations such as: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Daniels_Midland

We both know that there is a little more going on than just simply the consumer driving the market. I'm not convinced that we Americans asked for sugar to be added to over 80% of our commercial food products. 
http://www.rodalenews.com/sugar-health-effects

Just as the tobacco companies glamorized smoking without disclosing known health risks, the commercial food producers play the same games of deception. Pesticide registrants included. Big money games are played everyday and I'm not referring to sports. They pale in comparison.

Marketing campaigns (including lobbying) play a big role here, which leads us back to the original post of "Let Us Spray". We clearly do not have all of the scientific data supporting the safe use of Neonics. Would you agree with this statement? 25 years of neonic use and we still don't know what long term effects they will have, nor can we agree on what they are doing to our bees? 

Seems to me that legislative reform seems the only viable mechanism to holding US EPA and CDPR to their respective intended tasks, although after just having read "Pesticide Risk Assessment for Pollinators" by David Fischer and Thomas Moriarty, it seems that they believe that they are doing their respective jobs to protect us all.



Todd A. Bebb

             ***********************************************
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