It is handy to have all those links in one document but it could not fairly be called 'The State of the Science' It is a collection of papers selectively interpreted to lend weight to the case linking pesticides to bee health issues. In fairness she does acknowledge what side of the fence Panna sits on but the goes on to claim that Panna is promoting 'non partizan, scientifically literate public discourse.'

Non partizan. Really?

For example, there is a huge section which attempts to link neonicotinoid pesticides to bee health problems but when the Mullin et al study on the prevalence of miticides and agrochemicals in US apiaries is discussed, she fails to mention that the highest levels of pesticides found in bee colonies were from mite treatments put there by the beekeeper and that neonicotinoids were barely showing up in the samples. And so on throughout the document. Cherrypicking.

Mullin et al state: over 47% (of colonies) had both in-hive acaricides fluvalinate and coumaphos

The author of this report states: Pyrethroids,a group of widely used pesticides that are toxic to bees were the dominant class of insecticides.
found in all samples.

Why leave out the part which makes clear that this is due to mite treatment rather than agrochemicals?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009754

And this line from the introduction carries unnecessary innuendo against scientists.

'Two increasingly intractable sides have emerged in this controversy: beekeepers and environmental health advocates vs. pesticide companies and then scientists supported by them.'

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