> 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   *
****************************************************