> Whats disturbing to me is a LOT of biased research and studies aimed at bashing AG in general, and specifics.  Its astounding to me how some great minds can tell themselves intellectual lies in order to get grant money. (no one particular in mind)  We as Americans and humans are NOT going back to the primitive forest of the turn of the century,  and yet many propose that kind of thing. 

I think you are over-reacting. I have found three separate studies now that point to multi-use land as more nutritious for pollinators than mono-cropped or other single sourced forage. This is logical, a balanced diet includes good food as well as a variety which may contain trace or rare elements. 

These studies are not trying to make a case, they are trying to see what kinds of land use enhance bee survivorship. Nobody is advocating at this point, other than to recognize that there are good and bad situations for bee health, related to forage variety, availability, and quite possibly, pesticide contamination. 

Contamination by chemicals can occur in non-ag situations, of course. Forests are sprayed for pests, urban areas emit harmful pollution, etc. Before anyone can advocate for this that or the other, one has to find out what the facts are. It may lead to setting aside land for pollinator forage, or opening up public lands to pollinators.

PLB

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