In a message dated 9/20/00 11:01:32 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<<The introduction of foreign pollen type may result in the production of
a seed containing the wrong " fatty acids", "genetic components","lower
yield" etc..
Greenhouse growing with proper covers on vents and entryways is the only way
to control with any certainty against pollination contamination in this
scenario.

<<in some cases actually would be considered as a pest
 Hence, the argument goes, keep the pesticides and get rid of the need for
the bees(and at the same time, the annoying individuals collectively termed
Beekeepers- that is in polite circles.) >>
   I can't believe you are fairly stating this argument, because it would
require designating a vast number of insects as "pests" besides honeybees,
since there is a great diversity of pollinating animals (mostly insects).
Perhaps somebody was trying to "get a rise out of you" because they knew you
were a beekeeper.
   I can't see somebody credibly advancing the idea that large areas of
open-grown crop can be nearly completely denuded of animal life to an extent
and with a consistency that cross-pollination contamination would be
minimized.
   Spraying on purpose to target pollinators is probably illegal where there
are rare or endangered insects (in North America and Europe at least), and in
any event, would draw a lot of negative publicity from activist groups that
are good at getting media attention. I've been wrong before though, so here's
a question for the list: Is anybody aware of an agricultural practice
anywhere where pollinators are considered pests, and are targeted with a
pesticide-spraying campaign?
   More likely, the growers would self-regulate (or convince the state to
regulate) what could be grown in the area to avoid contamination from
undesirable pollen. This is why a woman who developed a variety of colored
cotton was pushed out of California. Growers feared cross-pollination
contamination would ruin their harvest of snow-white cotton lint.