> 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.

Harm clearly demonstrated in the lab is 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.

Red herring rhetoric alert.  Let's stick to the topic at hand and avoid
hot button topic mentions.

> Same with neonics, there is no evidence that neonic treated crops
> have harmed colonies storing the nectar.

Lack of evidence is not the same as exoneration.  This sort of evidence
is extremely hard to obtain if the effect is small.  The randomness of
bee colony behaviour makes controlled experiments very approximate,
regardless of how neat the charts we see at meetings may appear.  The
whiskers say otherwise.

If an effect is demonstrated in a lab and can be reasonably extrapolated
to a field situation, it is not unreasonable to assume that it exists.

If the effect is not visible on a colony level in the field, that does
not prove that this effect is not a burden and that compensating for it
is not consuming colony resources and reducing fitness.

Even a 2% burden, although undetectable in field experiments run on any
practical scale, is a significant hit to the bottom line and also may
push colonies below a survival threshold in unusual years such as the
winter we just experienced in Alberta.

A 2% burden integrated (compounded) over a sufficient time period adds up.

> The accidental spray and dust kills are another matter, but these
> have been going on for centuries.

Change of subject?  Don't like this one?

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