Dave Green said:

> There's nothing wrong with noting Mr. Cherubini's agenda.

There is something very wrong with accusing someone of having
an "agenda" (selling pesticides) when that person is pointing out a
textbook example of an IPM program that has clearly reduced both
the amount of pesticides used and the frequency with which they
are used.

Anything that reduces the amount of pesticides used is a good thing
for bees and other pollinators, without qualification or exception.

I'm not saying that pesticide vendors are suddenly the beekeeper's best
friend, but I am saying that they want to make a buck, and have figured
out that IPM is a good business.  Most pesticides are cutthroat
commodity products, and IPM support is a high-profit value-added service.
The chemical companies know that they can make more profit selling
less pesticides and more IPM consulting.  Good for them!  Good for
farmers.  Good for us.

> ...I eventually came to the conclusion that many of the supposedly
> impartial advisors, including the extension service, were also pesticide
> salesmen. The system linked them together so that even if one human
> link had doubts, once could not extricate oneself. The chemical companies
> got a lock on the whole system of pest control. It was lucrative.

I am not paranoid enough to see gunmen behind every grassy knoll,
but even if one were to accept the statement above as an accurate
historical analysis, it seems intuitively obvious that chemical company
advocacy of participation in IPM programs would be proof of a major
change in their posture, and a significant move away from the errors
of the past.

> Malathion on cotton is one of these issues. The losses both of domestic
> honeybees and wild pollinators has so far been pretty easy to keep
> under wraps, so it can be ignored.

But what's in your closets?  Can you put your wardrobe where your
mouth is on this issue, or are you suffering from "cotton mouth"?      :)

Come to think of it, the internet uses lots of electricity, much of which
is generated from dirty, high-sulfur coal.  It follows that even participating
in this mailing list has a negative impact on the climate, air quality, and
survival of pollinating insects.  Ironic, isn't it?  (I wonder if one could work
out a rough number on CO2 and SO2 per megabyte.)

> The more pesticides are used, the more they are needed. It is an endless
> circle, with an ever more sterile environment and ever increasing profits
> for pesticide manufacturers.

Then IPM programs are your best friend, because they reduce pesticide
use to as low a level as possible, and can lead to a near elimination
of the use of the most toxic types.

> The losses of pollinators from the use of malathion and other
> insecticides on cotton, or for mosquito control, been called to Mr.
> Chrubini's attention several times,

Blaming the manufacturers of chemicals for the misdeeds of our
own government in "mosquito control" is about as appropriate as
blaming auto makers for road rage incidents.

The chem manufacturers clearly label their products with instructions
that are intended to protect bees and other pollinating insects.  Offhand,
I'd suggest that the makers of the chemicals would be potential allies
in an effort to get state and local governments to stop ignoring pesticide
labels.  No one likes the bad press that results when one's products are
misused.

> Do you think the boll weevil extermination program complied with the
> bee protection label directions?  Not a chance!

That's a serious accusation.  A felony, to be precise.  I would hope that
anyone with proof of such crimes would report them, and insist upon
prosecution.  Failing that, I would expect the media would be interested.

> I don't know how some specific situations could be dealt with without
> pesticides...

I don't either, so I feel that IPM programs are a good way to work towards
a steady reduction in the amount of pesticides used.  Pesticides cost
serious money and cost even more to apply, so farmers who invest the
effort in IPM see a direct impact on their bottom line.

> I'm already convinced that, if pesticide users were to become competent in
> understanding the pests, usage could be cut 90%. What I see is that there is
> now little incentive to do so, despite all the shibboleths of the industry.

Then you should be buying Mr. Cherubini a beer, and patting him on the back
for seeing the light, and starting down the path you would like to see him walk.
Who better to advocate IPM programs than the pesticide salesmen?

Remember, even Darth Vader turned out to be someone's dad.   :)

        jim