> normally I love your writing,  but this one is 
> cherry picking that would make Lu envious.   
> First off the chart you reference  convientely
> stops in 2012,  with no 2013 data available.

I do not know if more recent data is available as yet.  The government is
often slow to publish new data.  But one is welcome to query the dataset, so
I must reject the claim that I am "cherry picking" by merely citing the
entire multi-year database of a watchdog group.

> Don't distort things so far we doubt your credibility..

I merely pointed to the dataset, and pointed out a main bullet point on the
intro page.
How can that be "distortion"?  I have merely pointed you to a credible
source of accurate data.

The study shows that things may not be as rosy as we have been told, but the
impact would be on the beneficial insects that attempt live in the
set-asides, as once the crop is done blooming, there will be no other
choices of forage other than the wildflowers, which one presumes would have
their usual longer aggregate bloom period than the crop.  

Honeybees would be moved off the crop when they were done pollinating, and
as the study made clear, the honeybees worked both the crop and the
wildflowers, reducing the impact of the apparent pesticide residues on the
wildflowers.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html