Hello,

Speaking from my experience as a long-time anti-pesticide activist, it will
be a long haul to get rid of imidacloprid in Canada.  Canada does not have
a history of banning individual pesticides unless the US does so first.  We
rely on American research, as well as possible trade repercussions from
using pesticides banned in the US.

And finding evidence of harm does not mean a pesticide will be banned
immediately or even in years to come.  Take carbofuran for example
(manufactured by Bayer, by the way).  It's an insecticide that every major
ornithological association in North America wants banned because it kills
birds.  Environment Canada (similar to the US EPA) has a scientist
considered 'the' expert on this insecticide.  He has research proving
beyond a shadow of a doubt that this stuff kills birds by the millions.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service does too, and has called for a ban for
years. They have lobbied the federal governments in both countries and made
presentations to government at the regular re-registration reviews for
carbofuran.  National and local environmental groups have also campaigned
hard against this insecticide.  After years and years the granular form is
finally banned but the spray is still allowed and is not any less harmful.

Here are a few facts about human exposure in the US:

- a federal study (1988-1994) sampled 900 adult volunteers from all over
the country.  Farm families were not specifically examined.  Only one dozen
pesticdes that readily metabolize and are eliminated in urine could be
measured. Metabolites of 1 organophosphate insecticide were detected in 82%
of the people, and metabolites of another OP insecticide detected in 42% of
them.  Pentachlorophenol, a wood preservative, was detected in 64% of the
people.  A metabolite of a carcinogenic pesticide used in mothballs and
toilet deodorizers was detected in 98% of the people.

There are other studies showing our blood and urine contain agricultural
pesticides. But these pesticides continue to be used. The US maintains a
list of pesticides known to cause cancer - they're still on the market.
Collecting evidence is one thing - and not an easy or inexpensive thing.
But banning an individual pesticide?  You have to be prepared for a long
battle.

The way the game works is after years of campaigning by environmental
groups and others,  the pesticides are eventually banned. This is happening
now in the US with a review of many 'older' pesticides - they're being
phased out.  But they're being replaced by what the pesticide companies
advertise as 'low-dose, safer' pesticides - like imidacloprid.  So the game
continues.  We fight and protest and attempt to gather evidence for many
more years and then we see some more bans.  Meanwhile the pesticide
industry brings a new and 'even more safe' generation of poisons on the
market.

The answer, of course, is to fight for organic agriculture and the
elimination of pesticides entirely.  The US and Canada lag far behind other
countries - like New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and many in Europe  - in
this regard.

Beekeepers should find allies.  In the US, the North-West Coaltion for
Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pesticide Action Network (PANNA)
would be good. PANNA has already included an article about the 'Forgotten
Pollinators Campaign' in their monthly publication (December 1996).
Beekeepers should encourage them to cover the imidacloprid and bees issue.
The latest issue of NCAP's magazine has a chemical profile on imidacloprid.
 They cover a different pesticde in each issue. Beekeeprs should contact
the Forgotten Pollinators people (Gary Nabhan and Stephen Buchmann)at the
Arizon-Sonora Desert Museum in Tuscon, Arizona.

Seek out local environmental and organic food/agriculture groups and make
presentations to them.  Find graduate students looking to do some research
and tell them about the opportunities around bees and imidacloprid.  Get
the media involved.

Find out how to make other people care. Honey bees won't be at the top of
everyone's list of worries so combine different angles:  loss of native
pollinators is a big one (read Our Forgotten Pollinators) because of
wide-reaching ecological repercussions, groundwater contaimation, soil
contamination, stream pollution from runoff, the systemic nature of the
insecticide and potential for food residues.  This is where coalitions come
in handy - you can fight the thing on many levels so that just about
everyone will have a reason to care.

Emphasize the Precautionary Principle which says it isn't necessary to have
all the scientific evidence in, in order to stop a practice or product when
there is some limited evidence of harm.  Don't let people tell you that you
must have irrefutable proof. In a court of law that proof may never be
enough when up against the corporations and government.

Sharon