Hi Bill,

The USDA agricultural handbook No. 496, “Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants” by S. E. McGregor, issued July 1976, quotes all the same statistics that you have (on page 50) and then concludes,
 
“All indications point to an annual loss by the (beekeeping) industry in the neighbourhood of 10 percent caused by pesticides alone. Few industries can tolerate such losses and survive.”

10 percent doesn’t sound quite as bad as 500,000 hives lost in 1967, but I agree, it is still a massive loss.

I assume the aim of this thread is to suggest that things were a lot worse for bees and beekeepers before neonics came along. That may still be debatable but let’s assume you are correct.
  
I do not understand how this trip down memory lane is relevant.  I can understand arguments about the ‘need to make a living’ and the ‘need to feed the world’ overriding the negative effects of neonics. But highlighting pesticide bee kills of the past does not address the problems created by neonics now.

During the multi-year debate over the pros and cons of neonics, the pro-neonic advocates have evolved from proclaiming, ‘ Shoot that messenger!’, to, ‘Ok. Neonics might kill a broad spectrum of beneficial insects and persist in the environment, but things could be worse!’. How does either of these arguments address the problem at hand?  They seem to assume improvements in pest control are neither possible nor desirable.

Beekeepers have also argued that we need to support landowners. Since landowners need neonics, we should not criticize their use. I agree there is nothing wrong with wanting to see your neighbours get ahead in life and we have all benefited from this noble human trait. But there comes a point in any debate when we are morally obligated to voice an opinion.  When the manufacture of an insecticide has admitted it is toxic to bees and other beneficial insects should we still argue it is safe? 

In his handbook, McGregor reviews the history of pesticides that have come and gone in agriculture over the years. Farmers in the past, as now, have often been reluctant to stop using chemicals that effectively killed pests. Yet time and again, products have been pulled from market when the negative effects have become known.

Are neonics a serious factor in the current state of honey bee health? We certainly have little hope of finding a safer product if we deflect and stifle criticism with tales of bee-kills past.   

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