Bees Bayer Systemic Pesticide

[Brooke]

How many of those environmentalist are scientists or chemical engineers?

Brooke

[orchidsarefun]

I am not sure why that would be relevant, other than for a pointless yes, but argument. Are we supposed to blindly accept only "scientists and chemical engineers" know what they are talking about ? I am sure it was "scientists and chemical engineers" that gave us now-banned products like DDT and thalidomide, told us tobacco smoking was safe, and a laundry list of other wonderful products.
I believe a non-scientist can reach a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence and the likelihood of problems. Evidently in the minds of some people, not so much. I have asked a couple of times for the research showing these products are SAFE, but its much easier for some just to raise specious comments.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink....

[katrina]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

I believe a non-scientist can reach a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence and the likelihood of problems.

"Likelyhood" is not fact. Nor is it proof of what is going on or what the problems might be.

The scientist nor the non-scientist can come to any one conclusion for CCD. No one has been able to definitely determine the cause of the deaths. Even most beekeepers are at a loss as to what is happening. Most of what I've read/heard/been told...they think it's a combo of issues at hand but no one is exactly sure what is happening. So, with that said, I don't think anyone can say one product or body or products is to blame for the issue.

FWIW...I wish it was just the one group of products that is causing the problem because then we could stop using those and the problem would reverse itself. The reality is...there is still far too much that's unknown and many people (scientist, non-scientist, and beekeepers) think the problem has more than just one root cause.



BTW - my info comes from a beekeeper... My sister is a beekeeper and honey producer...and she's in contact w/many other local beekeepers. She is a small operation but some of her contacts are very large operations. I may not have an scientific link on hand but my info comes from her as well as what her and her local colleagues have discussed as well as some of the article and info she's shared w/me over the past couple/few years.

If you'd like to read more about the other side of the controversy...google it. Just like you can find all the stuff you want when you google your side of this...you can find just as much on the other side.

I will repeat...there is still too much that we need to learn/uncover/figure out. I'm not taking the side of the pesticide but I'm also not ready to jump on the side of those pointing the finger at just pesticides...much less one body of pesticides. Personally, I am very interested to watch what unfolds over the next 2 years in the EU. Very interested.

I seriously hope it shows a complete turn around in the colonies...it would be awesome to find out it's this group of pesticides because then we have an answer. Plus, if it's just the one group of products then it's much easier to remedy than some of the other discussed culprits (malnutrition, climate change, mites, virus, GMO crops, or other pathogens...or a combo of any or all) I would gladly give up imidacloprid (or any other insecticide) to save the bees. Problem is...I just don't believe it's that simple.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by katrina

Problem is...I just don't believe it's that simple.

Nobody said it is. I have pointed out that Bayer ( you know, the manufacturer of the product you currently are defending ! ) itself reformulated its product in Europe to be more "bee-friendly". That fact is on its UK website. The EPA agrees with its European equivalent, and only disagrees on the risk management aspect because of regulatory requirements. Certain - soon to be all, I hope - HD suppliers are removing the chemical group from their insecticides.

Despite the aforegoing actions, certain individuals have issues in NOT buying the product until THEY are 100% satisified. Enough said !!!

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Brooke

and another is touting a new schedule of insecticides that are "considered" to be safe for bees. For me, considered and a fact are a world apart.

Brooke

I never "touted" that at all. I touted that EVEN the manufacturer of the product has made a change . If you followed the thread from the beginning you would know that I go "organic" whenever and wherever possible. You believe the manufacturer when it makes the original product - still for sale in the USA - but all of a sudden have a problem in believing them when they change the product ? Huh ?

[katrina]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

....you know, the manufacturer of the product you currently are defending ! )

Oh, so now I'm defending a company? Really?! Clearly you are going to read into things whatever you feel suits your agenda. The ONLY thing I was defending was caution against finger pointing while the jury is still out.

This is like banging my head against a wall. A big, dense, wall. Done.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by katrina

I seriously hope it shows a complete turn around in the colonies...it would be awesome to find out it's this group of pesticides because then we have an answer. Plus, if it's just the one group of products then it's much easier to remedy than some of the other discussed culprits (malnutrition, climate change, mites, virus, GMO crops, or other pathogens...or a combo of any or all) I would gladly give up imidacloprid (or any other insecticide) to save the bees. Problem is...I just don't believe it's that simple.

that is your full quote.
In reply this is what I said
"Nobody said it is. I have pointed out that Bayer ( you know, the manufacturer of the product you currently are defending ! ) itself reformulated its product in Europe to be more "bee-friendly". That fact is on its UK website. The EPA agrees with its European equivalent, and only disagrees on the risk management aspect because of regulatory requirements. Certain - soon to be all, I hope - HD suppliers are removing the chemical group from their insecticides.

Despite the aforegoing actions, certain individuals have issues in NOT buying the product until THEY are 100% satisified. Enough said !!!"

I think I have the same problem that NYCorchidman has with you. There is a serious disconnect between what you say and what you claim to mean. You are posting on a thread that is discussing the issues with "Bees Bayer Systemic Pesticide". If you are not going to stop buying the product because you don't believe "its that simple" - then you don't seem to comprehend the concept of INACTION vs ACTION !!!!

You also conveniently do not address what the EPA, the Europeans and the manufacturer of the product are doing and have done.

[katrina]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

I think I have the same problem that NYCorchidman has with you. There is a serious disconnect between what you say and what you claim to mean.

You see it this way...because I'm not jumping on your bandwagon of thought. I'm not willing to blame the big bad chemical company because too much is still unknown regarding the subject...so, naturally, you're seeing a disconnect.

I've been very clear...more than one culprit...jury still out...too much unknown...many things still need to be figured...yada, yada, yada. There's no disconnect in anything I've typed other than it's not connecting w/what you want to believe. I'm sorry...I don't agree w/playing the blame game when even that power that be aren't sure.

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

You also conveniently do not address what the EPA, the Europeans and the manufacturer of the product are doing and have done.

As for what is going on in the EU...my comment was it'll be interesting to see what happens. I don't think I'm qualified to make any more of a statement than that. Unlike some people...I don't pretend to be smarter than the people tasked w/figuring out this very unfortunate problem.

As for why the EPA are doing it. I also don't try to pretend I know those reasons...and perhaps you shouldn't either. If you had any idea about the politics involved in some of what the EPA does...you likely would step down off that soapbox of yours very quickly. It's not always about the science or the environment. So, no, I'm not going to try and guess why they are doing what they are doing.

As for why Bayer is doing it...use your head! Bayer stands to lose a lot of money if they aren't selling an entire line of products in an entire geographical region. A LOT of money. So, naturally they are going to come up w/an alternative to something they are temporarily (for now) unable to sell. That is simply good business...not an admission of trouble/guilt/or anything else. Like I said...you read into things that which suits your agenda.

OK...I'm done here. I realize even my typing right now is nothing more than wasted energy because you will likely twist my words AGAIN. Like I said, big, dense, wall. I won't be responding to any more comments...it's not admission to anything on part (I feel compelled to explain my future absence for fear of you making up some crazy explanation that blends in w/your train of thought) except that I am done trying to bring balance to the conversation. I was hoping balance would keep things in perspective...but, no, it's just clearly gone off the rails and I suspect the only thing I've accomplished is to frustrate myself. Head. against. wall. bang. bang. bang.

[Note to self - add this genre of discussion into the mix w/religion and politics....off limits on an orchid forum.

[NYCorchidman]

Originally Posted by Brooke

How many of those environmentalist are scientists or chemical engineers?

Brooke

This is really an irrelevant and dumb question if you think about it.

Like only what scientists and chemical engineers claim matters.

First off, science is not perfect. It just a way for people to understand things based on limited methods.

Scientists can come up with any results depending on who's funding what.

Many of the big chemical companies only cares about money, or to be nicer, money is the first and most important thing, which is not bad, but that means they don't care about the consequence of their products as much. Simple as that.

The approving agency of the government isn't any better, but that's a long story and I don't want to get into that here.

Chemical engineers make stuff up to come up with unwanted product. They don't weigh all the effects of what their products might have on the world.

They just have to get their products approved by the final authority to get them out on the market.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

Katrina- Science is not a fact, either.