Relating to materials being produced, investigated and then in some cases being found in honey
(regardless of quantities and associated toxicity levels).
The individuals involved in the above mentioned activities are scientists.
In general, they are normal humans going about an activity which pleases, intrigues and advances
their career. We should be able to trust their conclusions.
The situation that is worrying many, is the increased dependence of these individuals on finance
from bodies that have direct interest in the topics in which they are investigating.
If an individual is employed by a company to research into a novel compound, is the scientific ethic
of accuracy and honest reporting being put under pressure?
If the person is working for an independent Gov't agency - is honesty in conclusive documents a
result?

History supports the following - that both the above statements have been proven to have negative
responses.

Relate these comments to the problem of materials being placed onto the market.
Legalized BUT selective investigations have been allowed to take place. Questions that should have
been investigated have not. This being so since the requirement to do so was not present.
As suggested, in countries where legal requirements are lax in comparison to European, U.S.
circumstances, products are used in less than ideal conditions - with the supplying companies having
full knowledge that this is the case.

If scientists were always allowed to report freely the knowledge gained, then one major handicap
would have been removed. The public would then maybe have less suspicion regarding scientific
matters.
It would then be a clear choice of whether to use, apply materials that pollute honey - but at least
it would be purely on economic grounds, ones not confused with the worry of wondering whether we
have all the known facts.
Peter