> According to many beekeepers that i've personally > spoken to in France, they've had the best honey > production in ten years since Regent and Gaucho > was taken off the market. It is a shame that more research was not done before speaking with the French beekeepers, as follow-up questions could have been asked. The complaints of French beekeepers were never about reduced honey production, but instead, about hive losses. I find it very strange that they don't mention better hive survival rates since the bans, but instead change the subject to production tonnage. I wonder why they avoid the issue now? Could it be that they still have about the same losses as they had before? In regard to honey production, it varies with the weather, all other factors being equal. Too much rain, and the bees don't get to fly enough and the blooms are washed out. Too little rain, and the blooms aren't as extensive, nor do they produce as much nectar. But no one has ever accused a pesticide of reducing honey production before. > Why take risks with our environment The systemics actually protect our environment by both reducing the amount of pesticide required to protect a crop to a tiny amount (as in seed treatments) and by eliminating the need to spray pesticides, which is how they kill bees, get into the groundwater and soil, etc etc. When pesticides don't get airborne, bee kills go to nearly zero. When growers don't apply pesticides themselves at all, bee kills get even closer to zero. And pesticide volume goes way down. The older pesticides that systemics can replace ARE a risk, one that only fools would continue to take. > if we're not > absolutely sure of what these chemicals do. Those who do their homework can assure themselves that we are very sure of what these chemicals do. The problem is that this takes hard work, and math is involved. Not everyone is willing to go to the trouble to understand, some are not even able to do the work. > Thank God for the Precautionary Principle. I feel obligated to point out that God and the Precautionary Principle DO have something in common, in that they are two very rare cases where faith in the face of a complete lack of proof (or even extensive contradictory proof) is openly encouraged, and discussions of proof are often overtly repressed. France also factors in here, as they have a consistent and very long-standing habit of taking such issues of faith to extremes. In regard to religious faith, they invented the Inquisition in 1184. No one expected the Spanish Inquisition because it didn't start until 300 years later. People died, people forgot. **************************************************** * General Information About BEE-L is available at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm * ****************************************************