>we need to strike a balance between nature and science

Yoon, I tossed and turned last night about your statement above, and I
understand that it isn't exactly what you meant.  However, I think
that we should clarify.

There isn't a choice between science and nature, since science is
merely a way of trying to understand nature.

The most sincere and knowledgeable environmentalists that I know are scientists.

I think that what you meant was the choices between nature and
technology or policy.

For example, the neonics are likely far more ecofriendly insecticides
than arsenic, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and organophosphates.  The
science was good.

The problem is in application--if they were only registered for a few
crops, they could be of great benefit, and cause few problems.  They
would also likely remain effective for generations, since they could
be relabeled for different crops (and the associated pests) from time
to time.

Unfortunately, due to policy, the patent expires in 15 years, so the
company needs to sell as much as possible quickly to recoup their
investment.  Thus, the insecticide gets registered for far more crops
than is ecolologically justifiable, and the environment gets flooded
with it.

Randy Oliver

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