The article clearly states that the stuff kills bees. No one argues that. So, rather than debate for two years exactly how many bees are killed by these pestici

The article clearly states that the stuff kills bees. No one argues that. So, rather than debate for two years exactly how many bees are killed by these pesticides, why not all agree that there is a serious die off issue that doesn't need to be exacerbated and ban the stuff. If bees completely rebound, then great. If not, then there's one less thing making the problem worse. This is purely an economic issue for the companies involved. The first pesticide of this type was registered with the EPA in 1994, with others registered as recently as 2003, and several others still undergoing review. So, these are all relatively recent to market and our food production is not dependent upon their use. Those arguments are simply a red herring. The chemical companies are interested in recouping their research investment and protecting this relatively new market. Nothing wrong with that goal on its face, but the question is, at what cost?