I remember a report on a low-quality "feed" HFCS that was looked at for neonicotinoids. But beyond that, can someone direct me to any report that consistently or shows across the board that all HFCS is tainted with neonicotinoids.
I would also be interested in finding out where the studies are that show NO chemicals in white sugar.
And interesting article in Bee Culture Jan 09 issue about some work J. Berry is doing. In her article called "Pesticides, Bees and Wax" she was seeking some clean comb. Ended up going all the way to the "supposed" organic center of the universe, in Brazil for comb, where no beekeepers use chemicals for mites. So what happens when she brought it back and tested it? Stuff may not of had beekeeper standard chemicals, but was so loaded with other chemicals and pesticides, it made the study useless for any research purposes.
So I'll ask two simple questions for those "red flag" wavers, about HFCS. One, show me your studies that you could across the board claim it is tainted with neonicotinoids. Two, show me the same studies that allow you to claim sugar is untainted.
Almost all food products are allowed to carry a certain amount of pesticides and chemical tainting. And I'm not here to say that it's OK. But I'll bet my next paycheck, that for every person claiming HFCS is bad, that the same is probably true in regards to the alternative that you push as a replacement.
And don't give me some article about 8 parts per billion, and no actual research to back it up, when the same studies of CCD hives show astronomical levels of every day chemicals numbering dozens of types, that the bees pick up.
Yeah, like the thing you need to worry about is HFCS. Commercial queens probably are tainted way beyond that based on research.