> Whether your grandfather lived on bread and water or caviare and chips you may > inherit his red hair or his bad temper but you will not inherit his wooden leg > unless he leaves it to you in his will. > Chris Slade Chris, Now why couldn't I have thought to say that? Well done. (And so concise.) Lets not forget, however, that the overall success of a species as a whole will depend on individual systems metabolizing the food source available. If an organism develops a dependency on a food source that excludes the previous metabolic byproducts, the organism may still survive, but the byproduct, though not required for survival, may be lost. I think that ultimately, this is what Stefan is eluding to. The honey bee may survive, but if we are feeding, or introducing into its environment, that which will prevent or impede the production of previously useful benefits to mankind... have we lost? The honey bee will survive and adjust. Will we have lost in our exchange for production? Stefan still has a point that has not been negated, despite the questions arising regarding genetic inheritance. The fact which gives me most comfort in this debate, however, is that in no case are we talking about year round replacement of the natural diet. The honey bees that survive on cane sugar for a couple of months out of the year, and still metabolize and utilize nectar, pollen, and honey for the remainder will remain essentially unchanged. The products that we derive from the bee will remain unchanged. The part of the debate that goes more to the heart of the matter is this: Will we, by introduction of chemicals fed to honey bees, change the chemical composition of the by-products of the bee despite the survival of the species? If those chemical changes are passed along to us, will they impact the effects that we desire as a consuming species? This question baits research on a case by case basis, as I doubt that debate will answer the questions considering our limited present knowledge. The point should be well taken on both sides. Smoke is a carcinogen. Are trace amounts of carcinogenic substances present in the by-products of the bee? Essential oils contain toxins and carcinogens as well. Are they going to show up? The final question is then: if these trace elements show up in bee products, will they be at a level that is significantly detrimental to us? Or will our very adaptive body chemistries be capable of filtering, isolating, and storing or passing them out without costing us an additional day of mortality? Alas, there is no financial profit to be had in answering these questions. We will likely never definitively know the answers. But I refer back to my previous post: we need the realists and idealists alike to keep the dynamics of progress flowing. I detest the logic that tells us that whatever equates to increased production is good. Good in a financial sense perhaps. But we have enough antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides and such in our food! I also detest the logic that says, "whatever the planet originally supplied for an organism, is all that we may allow into its environment." That way lies starvation and disease for a planet burgeoning with humans. And finally, I detest people who always take both sides of an issue. But, then I guess some things about life (and myself) are just like that. Yours... on the fence. Steve -- Steve Andison <BR>Alaska Resource Economic Development (ARED) <BR>(907) 790-2111 <BR>Fax: 907-790-1929 </BODY> </HTML>