> They clearly take the concept that neonics "have been implicated",
> which they have, and proceed to study the effect of neonics, which
> are known to harm insects. Let's reinvent the wheel.

> Science demands replication, repetition, and testing of any hypothesis or previous discovery.

Yes, but it has been shown _over and over_ that neonics and other insecticides harm insects in the lab. If people want to make a case for a ban, they have to show that they cause harm in the field. Not hypothetical harm. 

Following the "precautionary principle" no one would do anything new. For example, people were afraid of GM food. There is no evidence that GM food has harmed anybody consuming it. 

Same with neonics, there is no evidence that neonic treated crops have harmed colonies storing the nectar. The accidental spray and dust kills are another matter, but these have been going on for centuries.

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