# Neonics again



## MNbees (May 27, 2013)

not really. seems like they are looking in the wrong direction. The fact that they won an award for debating a topic like this is not impressive. The big picture says neonics are terrible and this does not help that fact.


----------



## xphoney (Nov 7, 2014)

It is a good article. It clearly outlines the pro vs con arguments. The debate centered around that they are not "terrible" and are a step in the right direction. Improvements can be made but to eliminate them would be worse for bees and other insects than going forward.

The losing side argued a knee jerk reaction and lost. This is a positive.


----------



## BHMack (Oct 6, 2014)

MNbees said:


> not really. seems like they are looking in the wrong direction. The fact that they won an award for debating a topic like this is not impressive. The big picture says neonics are terrible and this does not help that fact.


It seems common sense would say that eating something engineered to kill something is not the thing to do......


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

BHMack said:


> It seems common sense would say that eating something engineered to kill something is not the thing to do......


And which food has that?


----------



## BHMack (Oct 6, 2014)

camero7 said:


> And which food has that?


I don't know man, tomatoes that get their first neurotoxin _drenching_ 7-10 days prior to shipping......

http://www.dupont.com/products-and-...ction/articles/tomato-disease-management.html

A body that metabolizes the neonicotinoid breakdown product Desnitro-imidacloprid after eating a Bayer tomato sandwich is worse off than one that had the roast beef. Even if DI has only _proven_ to be toxic to mice and the roast beef is ordered with three slices of processed cheese product.


----------

