>
> >One point I always like to make is it is harder to get a product pulled or
> labels changed than get a product registered.
Perhaps you should back off on that point. A label can be changed or
pulled nearly overnight at no cost. On the other hand, to get a product
registered takes several years and tens or hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
> >Clearly Bayer did not follow
> the rules presenting the required studies to prove the neonics were safe
> for
> bees.
>
Actually did follow the rules. Then the study was later reclassified by
the EPA. This doesn't mean that Bayer broke the rules.
>
> >canola was also used when in the U.S. our concern was for seed treated
> corn.
>
This was based upon European bee research recommendations, since both
nectar AND pollen contain residues in canola, and bees eagerly consume
both. Whereas with corn, bees only consume pollen, and generally don't
like it. So again, everyone was following the rules.
>
>
> >intensive research for TWENTY YEARS. Using 10 years as a figure is pushing
>
> the years for research on the neonics.
>
> Bob, it would really help if you made an effort to stick to facts! From
Wikipedia:
On January 21, 1986 a patent was filed, and granted on May 3, 1988, for
imidacloprid in the United States.
On March 25, 1992, Miles, Inc. (later Bayer CropScience) applied for
registration of imidacloprid in the United States.
On March 10, 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the
registration of imidacloprid.
I don't know about your math Bob, but 2012 minus 1986 = 26 years of
research.
>> I wrote the owner of the hives in the study, which had heavy clothianidin
> dust blown right into the entrances. All colonies recovered fully.
>
> >I will take your word for it but seems hard to believe.
>
Bob, I have never suggested that you take my word for anything. I suggest
that you ask him yourself!
>
>
> >I've previously stated, planting dust is indeed an issue that must be
>> addressed. But that study did little to add to our knowledge.
>>
>
> Until you consider clothiandin dust a problem for bees I will have a hard
> time convincing you about the problems we see in other neonic treated
> plants
> bees visit.
>
Bob, what part of "planting dust is indeed an issue that must be addressed"
don't you understand? I have reviewed every study on planting dust, and
interviewed beekeepers affected by it. It is a problem at times. However,
when I posted the question to Bee-L for anyone to report problems, there
were no responses. The EPA is receiving no incident reports from U.S.
beekeepers. So if there is a problem, PLEASE convince beekeepers to file
incident reports. As I've previously stated, Bayer has quickly responded
when I brought reports to their attention.
>
>
> The EPA has no qualms about revoking a label, as they recently did for
>> clothianidin on cotton.
>
> Please explain to the list why clothianidin was revoked for use on cotton.
>
It was used as a foliar application, and there was a concern that it might
be expressed in the extrafloral nectaries, thus exposing bees working
cotton for such nectar. When the possibility was brought to the EPA's
attention, they quickly yanked the label, as a precaution. The system
worked.
>
> >Cotton was a big crop for bees in Missouri until the government took over
> the ariel spraying. Spraying when bees were in the field was common. Then
> clothianidin .
>
Prior to modern pesticides, massive bee kills of thousands of colonies were
common in cotton. Modern pesticides have greatly reduced bee kills from
historical levels. They are not perfect, but a lot of folk are working
hard to improve the situation.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com
***********************************************
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
|
