>She and Pierre Mineau, a former senior research scientist at Environment Canada, that country's environmental agency, reviewed about 200 independent studies of neonicotinoids in the USA, Canada and Europe, and thousands of pages of EPA documents they obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

I have not focused on the bird aspect (mostly since a few on the list said no worries) but even reviewing a couple hundred *independent* studies would take a huge amount of time. So i do take their opinions serious.


I always wonder why it takes going through the Freedom of information act to see certain research?

>They concluded that the EPA has "greatly underestimated this risk, using scientifically unsound, outdated methodology that has more to do with a game of chance than with a rigorous scientific process."..

Simply put the EPA lacks funding (on purpose?) to make informed discussions in my opinion in many areas. 

>My reading of this is that seeds contaminated with neonics are only a small part of the problem. Ted 

I agree! distinguished researchers are now looking at the neonics. The keynote speaker at the 2013  ABF convention said in her presentation over sixty studies were presented directed at CCD in 2012. it seems now the in thing is to write an article or do a study on the neonics.

bob

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