Thanks, James Fischer, for pointing out the link to the abstract
"Exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola has no long-term
 impact on honey bees."  What struck me immediately was:
"Colonies were placed in the middle of 1-ha clothianidin seed-treated
 or control canola fields for 3 wk during bloom, and thereafter they
 were moved to a fall apiary. There were four treated and four control
 fields, and four colonies per field, giving 32 colonies total."

Why would the experimenters set up the experiment like this when
there would be little or no extra cost to have the real life situation 
where hives are in the middle of hundreds of ha of canola?  1 ha
is only a tiny fraction of the foraging area of the hives.  I have emailed
one of the authors to ask this question and to request a reprint of the
paper.

As far as the rant and hyperbole part of your article I would like
to say that I agree wholeheartedly with all your comments about the
effects of lack of controls on movement of foodstuffs around the
world.  But as you yourself pointed out, the information submitted
to EPA, or in Canada the PMRA to support a pesticide registration
is considered *proprietary information* because the company has
paid for it.  Now in this case, the paper was published.  But in the
case of for example the study on soil persistence of imidacloprid on
PEI, the study was commissioned by Bayer through a third party
company and submitted to PMRA, but it was never published.  So
unless David Fischer gets permission to release it, and I hope he
will, it has never faced "peer scrutiny".  Nor, can I access the data
on my hives that crashed in canola fields.  It is not a matter of 
"asking politely" as you put it, because not only have I asked nicely
for over four years, but I freely made my beehives available to the
researchers for several years.  When the data was positive (from a
company point of view) they were quick to take the data to the
 PMRA and the Canadian Honey Council and CAPA.   Why isn't 
the data available from the last study (where I know that residues
were showing up in New Brunswick under similar conditions)?  
The development of a product involves proprietary
information,   and a product itself can be patented.  But the
information supplied to support registration is given to our
government representatives (therefore theoretically to us) and
should be accessible.

I find it interesting that you keep saying how you prefer the
systemic neonicotinoid insecticides over the old foliar sprays. 
Although I agree that the chances of operator misuse are higher
with foliar sprays,  the chances of beekeeper farmer cooperation
are also higher.  If I know when and what someone is spraying
I might be able to deal with it.  The systemics have such a long
persistence that is no option.  And it is the persistence that is so
worrying to the people at EPA and PMRA.  You can see that
in their fact sheets and I have been told that in personal 
communication.  I have never had any dealings with the EPA, 
but if they are anything like the PMRA then I think they are 
public servants trying to do their job and they are really 
hampered by present system of "proprietary information" and
company funded research in support of product registration.
Maybe they would welcome a lawsuit that might change that.

Regards
Stan 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************