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.
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.
Regarding HFCS as containing neonicotinoids: It is an extrapolation of some facts: GMO foods, such as corn and wheat, have neinicotinoids gentically spliced into them to make them more hardy and pest resistant. Since the substances are there in the GMO foods, then it is only logical that their byproducts would also be higher in those substances.
I will give you the point reference the chemicals found in the Amazon Basin as even the most remote areas are still subjected to diverse chemicals due to hydrology from farmed areas. Such as, here in the PNW the chemicals found in the Salt water is more apt to be highter in chemicals due to the recent and extensive flooding that has occurred.
Chemicals have been so widely dispersed by man that nature has continued to spread that contamination world wide. I would bet that snow and ice samples from the Artic and Antacartic will show increasingly increasing amounts of chemcials over the last 100 years.
To me the whole thing is a red flag. We need to do less chemical farming and increased compost farming. One is a mixed "bleeptail" boost and the other is more natural using what is considered wastes to replenish the soil. As it stands the chemicals are so wide spread that it will take decades without chemcials to restore some sembulance of natural balance, even if we stopped the use of chemicals immediately.
Two, show me the same studies that allow you to claim sugar is untainted.
Can't do that because it would be impossible. Chemical use is just too wide spread. As it stands now, due to pesticides and herbicide use, you can't really find any real truly organic foods either. People can use organic methods to reduce the amount of contamination but they can't remove what is already there.
