neonic's tied to immune system response

[tomofreno]

Neonic's were shown to affect immune response:

http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/24/key-molecule-links-neonicoinoids-to-bee-viruses/

[rwlaw]

Thanks for the post, and yet another link to neonics being as being a nasty insecticide!
And the big two will say the usual blather like, we cannot find a connection tied to bee deaths and our product. And the EPA believes them, and the soiling of the big blue marble goes on.

[D Coates]

Of course it's nasty.  It's designed to kill.  However, it's less nasty than the insecticides that proceeded it.  Until the bee deaths can be replicated in a scientifically accepted manner that directly links them to products "the big two" produce they are well with within their right to claim innocence.  Innocent until proven guilty right?

If it was so easy to prove what you believe environmental lawyers would have them eaten them alive in court correct?  All types of claims are made but until they are established, replicated, and direct links shown it's not fact.

[tjc1]

Well, that sure looked like some pretty real science to me... Yes, innocence is assumed generally speaking and rightly so, but I don't accept that without reservation or condition - especially when the evidence builds up that you are only innocent because you haven't been caught out yet, and are blowing smoke  - or using your lawyers - to cover yourself... At some point you have to consider whether the 'innocent' party is trustworthy and how much more rope you're going to give them without at least putting on some brakes before irreparable harm is done. This is the approach the European countries have taken in the face of the mounting evidence.

[D Coates]

Europe is also "guilty until proven innocent."  What many in the US who have this axe to grind have resorted to (because they can't prove the claims) is trying to shift public perception.  It's the shift of public perception and the guilty until proven innocent mindset that got the product(s) banned (exploratory) for 2 years.  Imagine you or your company being on the whipping end of that stick.  Proving a negative..., good luck with keeping your business doors open with that.  You'll go broke trying to disproving claims that your enemies keep leveling.  That is the real goal of many anti-neonic folks.  Put "Big Ag" out of business.  Truth is secondary to tertiary in this nasty scenario.

There are teams of top notch high dollar environmental lawyers who would love nothing more than to make billions to bring "Big Ag" down.  Why don't they?  There's no real scientifically accepted, repeatable proof of the claims.  There are plenty who are trying to find evidence but until they do so in a scientifically accepted and repeatable fashion "innocent until proven guilty" carries the day.

[tjc1]

I think that it ought to be up to the producer to prove that their products are safe (via an uninterested third party, not from their own studies), not for everyone else to prove that it isn't. These companies have a lot to gain and to lose, and of course, they will do their best to obfuscate, deny and block. This is true of corporations generally speaking, whose aim it is to maximize profits and pass on costs elsewhere whenever possible. It is in the nature of how corporations are set up - this is just a neutral observation of the way tings work - the question is, is this the way that we want things to work. I think that it is going to come back and bite us in the future is all.

[10framer]

I think that it ought to be up to the producer to prove that their products are safe (via an uninterested third party, not from their own studies), not for everyone else to prove that it isn't. These companies have a lot to gain and to lose, and of course, they will do their best to obfuscate, deny and block. This is true of corporations generally speaking, whose aim it is to maximize profits and pass on costs elsewhere whenever possible. It is in the nature of how corporations are set up - this is just a neutral observation of the way tings work - the question is, is this the way that we want things to work. I think that it is going to come back and bite us in the future is all.

and the people that oppose them will only believe data that backs their argument.  one side is as blind as the other.  find a third party to do a study and the side that loses will cry foul. this is a reflection of the division of our country as a whole.  people on the fringe spread as much or more disinformation as they do good information to keep the masses that would rather believe what they're told than think for themselves scared of what the other guy is doing or is going to do.  can you honestly say that if a study came out that said neonics are harmless to honeybees you'd believe the findings?

[tjc1]

Yes I would, and I would absolutely prefer that it was done by a third party and that the results were confirmed by independent scientists in that field of inquiry. I don't doubt that there are scientists concerned about the general issue of how science plays out in the real world outside the confines of the lab, and who realize the potential danger of unintended consequences from otherwise well-intentioned inventions. By the way, I don't see myself as on any fringe, and I don't think that to take interest in and have concerns about these kinds of things and how they may affect us, the bees, and the world we live in in general is or should be seen as a 'fringe' activity. I think that having a healthy skepticism about the activities and motives of large powerful entities, be they corporations or governments (and anymore, IMHO, the corporations are outstripping even governments) is the duty of an informed and engaged citizenry.   
.

[10framer]

i'm not saying that being concerned means you are on the fringe.  i'm saying that most of the information you see is provided by people on the fringe with an agenda (both sides).  honestly, your answer was levelheaded enough that i believe you would listen with an open mind.  most people have made their minds up or have had them made up for them and believe that anything contrary to what they now believe can't possibly be true.  believe me, i'm all about questioning our government, these days more than ever.  also in the real world i work for a BIG corporation and i'm aware that the only worth big brother sees in me is my ability to make him more money.  but, big brother pays me well for making it so i toil away with the hopes that in a few more years i won't have to. 

[buzzbee]

Yes I would, and I would absolutely prefer that it was done by a third party and that the results were confirmed by independent scientists in that field of inquiry. I don't doubt that there are scientists concerned about the general issue of how science plays out in the real world outside the confines of the lab, and who realize the potential danger of unintended consequences from otherwise well-intentioned inventions. By the way, I don't see myself as on any fringe, and I don't think that to take interest in and have concerns about these kinds of things and how they may affect us, the bees, and the world we live in in general is or should be seen as a 'fringe' activity. I think that having a healthy skepticism about the activities and motives of large powerful entities, be they corporations or governments (and anymore, IMHO, the corporations are outstripping even governments) is the duty of an informed and engaged citizenry.  
.

Now you as a producer of honey, are you willing to have a third party make sure "your" honey is safe for the market? How would I know, other than take your word for it, that you did not treat your hives with something that should not be around food products? It can be a two edged sword, if you know what I mean.
Over the years, a lot of wax has been tested for chemicals, and guess what, most of the nastiest were put there by beekeepers. Like camaphous. Highly reactive with the central nervous system.