>
> >> Then the study was later reclassified by the EPA.  This doesn't mean
> that Bayer broke the rules.
> >Your opinion. There was a time period when the study was to be presented
> to the EPA
> Was not done.
>
> Bob, I have checked the details of your claim above, since it is a strong
accusation.  I have been in regular correspondence with both EPA and Bayer
of late.   It might be good to get the facts straight at this time.  I
would hate to think that the Informed Discussion Group were propagating an
urban legend!

For the benefit of the List, could you please explain *exactly*  which
*required* study you think "was not done" by Bayer?  If this is true, I'd
like to know.  If it is not true, I'd like to see the claim stop being
repeated.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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