Defenders of Wildlife sent email to ban clothianidin

[newbee816]

What is everyones thougt on this subject?

I received this from Defenders of wildlife on my facebook today.


Stop the pesticide that's killing bees.

www.act.credoaction.com

Honey bees have been dying at alarming rates in the last few years. Recently leaked evidence shows that the E.P.A. ignored critical information when approving a chemical linked to the bee die-off. Sign the petition telling the E.P.A. to ban clothianidin today...
see this article on

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/.../?rc=fb_share4

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Eileen

[lighto]

Baby corn. Bees Die from dew, that has been excreted from the leafs..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Nsn...eature=related

[sqkcrk]

See Thread already in discussion about this. You will find there a number of opinions about clothiianidin and jumping on the "ban" wagon.

[ACBEES]

we enjoy cheap food prices because of chemicals. The US is a major contributor to the world food markets because of chemicals. Therefore, the US is a very lucritive market for the chemical companies. Ban one chemical and the giants like Bayer Crop Science and Monsanto will develop another. When you are talking about profits in the billions of dollars...it ain't ever going to go away.

I don't like the idea of poisoning our planet any more than the other folks on this forum. But until chemical use becomes unprofitable, it ain't going away. Trying to regulate chemical giants like Monsanto who have an army of well funded lobbyists in DC is like.....well down here in TX we have a saying......"like tryin to piss up a rope in a windstorm."

Maybe we should be trying to figure out how to get rid of lobbyists first.

[sqkcrk]

Including lobbyist beekeepers?

[greengecko]

We enjoy cheap food prices because of chemicals.

The price only seems cheap because the true cost of the consequences of the chemicals are unknown or ignored.

But until chemical use becomes unprofitable, it ain't going away.

When chemical companies and users are held financial responsible for the affects of their chemicals through the entire life cycle the profits shrink rather quickly!

THE BEEKEEPING LOBBYIST

[ACBEES]

All true greengecko....but so far nobody has been able to make the problem go away or even put a dent in it....because of the huge anmounts of profits involved.

Chemical company lobbyists throw huge sums of money at the politicians who in turn use their power/influence to protect the chemical companies. A fine here and a fine there....a chemical banned here and a chemical banned there is just window dressing. We are talking about a multi-billion dollar industry supporting a food production system with worldwide political influence.

Look at the hit the cigarette companies have taken...it hasn't made a dent in their multi-billion dollar industry. They keep chuggin along.

[NDnewbeek]

The price only seems cheap because the true cost of the consequences of the chemicals are unknown or ignored.

No, the chemicals are used and the price is cheap because people won't pay $15 for a box of cereal - no matter how 'pure' its production has been.

When chemical companies and users are held financial responsible for the affects of their chemicals through the entire life cycle the profits shrink rather quickly!

Again, no - they will just pass the costs of those financial losses on to consumers through price increases OR stop providing the service all together.

Making doing business more expensive doesn't change the way business is done, it just raises consumer prices or makes (now) expensive products unavailable.

As an example only and not to start a holy war, many insurance companies have now stopped offering health insurance for children with pre-existing conditions because the new law has made that type of insurance more expensive. Insurers weren't incentivized to offer 'affordable' health insurance to that market - they were just incentivized to not absorb the new costs.

The tobacco lawsuits were another great example. The tobacco companies were fined millions upon millions of dollars. A few months after the suits were settled, they just raised the prices of their products. The only people 'hurt' by the government action were smokers and tobacco users - and they continue to be hurt by it. As ACBEES pointed out - the cigarette companies are still in business, and probably making more money than ever now - thanks to the governments involvement.

[Scrapfe]

... Making doing business more expensive doesn't change the way business is done, it just raises... prices... tobacco lawsuits were another... example. The tobacco companies were fined millions upon millions of dollars... they just raised the prices of their products...

I am not aiming this at you NDnewbeek, but me thinks we need to re figure our amounts. Only ONE lawyer who sued the tobacco companies, (the owner of the Baltimore Major League B Ball team I think it was) received a structured settlement from the tobacco companies to cover only HIS legal services for suing on the behalf of smokers of 35 Billion dollars, to be payed out over 25 years!!!

the question is or else the question should be, would you bank rupture a tobacco company, or Bayer, if Bayer owed you Thirty-five-thousand million dollars? LOL YEA, I thought not, and neither will anyone else especially DOWL. IMHO Defenders of Wildlife only wishes to "draw the water from the well" during any future legal feeding frenzy, after which DOWL will become Bayer's bosom buddy, and you by the way will become much much poorer, very hungry, homeless, and cold to boot. Because for DOWL to keep speaking out about Bayer's products, after reaching a legal settlement or agreement with Bayer, would violate any consent decree Bayer would ever agree to sign, resulting in voiding the "verdict" or agreement and thus the loss of all the treasure these modern day pirates managed to steal. Allowing Bayer to go their merry way. DOWL knows on which side their bread is buttered, and there ain't no honey on it either.

Oh how simple it all looks when your standing on a soap box and looking at the world through rose colored glasses.

[NDnewbeek]

ONE[/B] lawyer who sued the tobacco companies, (the owner of the Baltimore Major League B Ball team I think it was) received a structured settlement from the tobacco companies to cover only HIS legal services for suing on the behalf of smokers of 35 Billion dollars, to be payed out over 25 years!!!

No offense taken. This is the lawsuit/settlement that I was referring to in my previous post:

From Investor's Business Daily: "The $246 billion tobacco settlement, reached by 46 state attorneys general and the tobacco industry."

The settlement was reached in 1998, it was reached between the four largest US tobacco companies and 46 state attorneys general. The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related health care costs, and also exempted the companies from private tort liability regarding harm caused by tobacco use. In exchange, the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses. The money also funds a new anti-smoking advocacy group, called the American Legacy Foundation, that is responsible for such campaigns as The Truth.

This from the University of Dayton breaks down the payment schedule:

Up-front Payments ($12.742 billion)
Annual Payments ($183.177 billion)
Strategic Contribution Fund ($8.61 billion)
National Foundation ($250 million over 10 years)
National Public Education Fund ($1.45 billion over the next 5 years)
Attorney General Enforcement Fund ($50 million - one-time payment in 1999)
Payments to the National Association of Attorneys General ($1.5 million/10 years)

What mechanisms are available to the tobacco companies to recoup this 246 billion dollar loss? They are still selling smokes - only they are much more expensive now. Whenever the government attempts to punish industry (even for the most noble purposes), consumers ultimately bear the costs, typically in an indirect way.

[D Coates]

What mechanisms are available to the tobacco companies to recoup this 246 billion dollar loss? They are still selling smokes - only they are much more expensive now. Whenever the government attempts to punish industry (even for the most noble purposes), consumers ultimately bear the costs, typically in an indirect way.

Here, here! This is not about stopping smoking because is unhealthy (personally I don't care if you smoke, it's your life, and right to choose but it's not healthy) it's about lawyers making money. This clothiandin is a different facet on the same jewel, (that's assuming it can be proven clothiandin it the evil that is claimed). The end users are always the ones to bear the resulting price increases. To me it's legal theivery, and I've got a brother who's a med-mal attorney. (Now, crawling off my soap-box)

[Barry]

This discussion is wondering into territory reserved for Tailgater.