I thought that excessive quotes were not allowed on this list but then we get 291 lines of propaganda (Please, look up the word before you dispute its use.) for neonicotinoids.

I think it’s about time people realised that EFSA is a panel of eminent scientists and not a bunch deranged pesticide haters. They are given, by the European Governments, the role of protecting the public and the environment. They were asked to examine the current situation and concluded that in many important areas the manufacturers were unable (or unwilling?) to produce the required documentary evidence.
The French Ministry of Agriculture gave them time to come up with it before our ban was imposed but nothing was handed over.

PLB said,
<<It is about time people learn to think for themselves and evaluate on the basis of merit, not on who does or does not pay for the paper it's printed on.>>
So for those who wish to here is a link to each of the 3 reports. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htm
 
And to quote a little:

“The conclusions laid down in this report were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the studies submitted for the approval of the active substance at EU level and for the authorisation of plant protection products at Member State level, for the uses as seed treatments or granules applied on a variety of crops in Europe. In addition, the EFSA Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (EFSA Journal 2012;10(5):2668), some relevant literature data as well as monitoring data available at national level were also considered in the current evaluation.

Several data gaps were identified with regard to the risk to honey bees from exposure via dust, from consumption of contaminated nectar and pollen, and from exposure via guttation fluid for the authorised uses as seed treatments and granules. Furthermore, the risk assessment for pollinators other than honey bees, the risk assessment following exposure to insect honey dew and the risk assessment from exposure to succeeding
crops could not be finalized on the basis of the available information. A high risk was indicated or could not be excluded in relation to certain aspects of the risk assessment for honey bees for some of the authorised uses. For some exposure routes it was possible to identify a low risk for some of the authorised uses.”

Bil Harley, France

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm