Orchid Whisperer - not to belabour the point, but I have tried to point out that you appear to have accepted the use of Bayer without the same rigour you now expect of the anti-Bayer crowd. Did you require scientific proof of its safety before you started using it ? If so, I have asked a couple of times to see evidence. Bit of a double standard ?
There is power in numbers. If, for arguments sake, 750,000 people use this insecticide 1x per month in gardens, greenhouses and indoors, then ANY reduction can only be a good thing. Are you saying that its a bad thing to try and limit the use of chemicals? No-one is saying that people can't buy whatever they like or prefer. I am saying however that it should be after careful review, organic or non-organic.
With the EU considered action, what is the downside to stop using Bayer ? there are plenty of alternatives ? If, after 2 years they lift the ban, then everyone can start using it again if they want to ? Would you have been put in undue hardship by not using it for 2 years ? There is an expression "better safe than sorry" and I always err on the side of safe. Action by the consumer always leads to an improvement - there are numerous examples, frying oil at McDonalds, this new thing at Subway and so on. If enough consumers react, then companies do innovate. I thank the Europeans for this as they seem to be far ahead of us in terms of trying to ensure environmental safety.
|