Following, I quote xcerpts from Xerces' new report entitled: "A Review of Research into the Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action" which can be found at: http://www.xerces.org/neonicotinoids-and-bees/

Begin quoted material:

> Although existing research has documented measurable sublethal effects, few field studies have been properly designed or conducted over a long enough period of time to assess the full risks to bees. Nevertheless, the overall evidence points to the fact that neonicotinoids are harming bees. 

> Without clear evidence that they are not causing long-term harm to non-target species such as pollinators, the use of neonicotinoids should be restricted to applications that will not affect these vital insects.

End quoted material

Comments:

I question the first statement that few studies have been conducted, since this problem has been looked at since the link was first proposed, well over ten years ago. Regarding the second statement, how will you prove that something does NOT cause long term harm?

How long is long term? No long term harm (more than ten years) has been observed in vast acreages of canola, yet are we to assume this is not a properly designed field study? Whereas -- the latest hue and cry is over a study involving bumblebees force fed tainted pollen.


- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peter Loring Borst
128 Lieb Road
Spencer, NY  14883
607 280 4253
peterloringborst.com

I take the trouble to protest against these assumptions, because they are not merely harmless fancies, but theories that are apt to paralyse action and encourage scientific indolence. -- James Crichton-Browne	

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm