>
>   We certainly have little hope of finding a safer product if we deflect
> and stifle criticism with tales of bee-kills past.
>
> Straw man and cheap shot since I know of no one on this list that supports
that, including me.

The 10% you say is fairly high was for bees which are not affected by the
neonics. Can you imagine the number of bumblebees and native pollinators
that were wiped out completely. Not have their egg laying reduced or
disoriented but dead. The past is a good instructor and should not be
brushed away.

My point remains, that the neonics have achieved the status of  Godzilla
while some pesticides that will replace them are much more destructive. So
let us put the same testing on the neonics replacements that we have to the
neonics. The results will bring things into perspective.

Beware of what you wish for. You may get it.

One last repeat of my position. I practice organic farming and helped for a
while trialing seeds for FEDCO as well as worked with the Scientific
Advisor for Maine Organic Farmers and Growers Association, one of the most
powerful Organic groups in the US. I practice IPM when I use pesticides,
mainly for my fruit trees and mostly to control Brown Tail Moth and I use a
pesticide that is fairly benign for bees. I have never used the neonics and
probably never will.

But bad science does get me disconcerted and grabbing for Dulcinea, oops, I
mean my spear.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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