<<So, peer review is now performed by the (aptly named) House of Peers?>>
Oh dear! Is it worth replying to this facetious pleasantrie? To my knowledge the only member state with a house of Peers is the UK and the Peers had no say in the position of the UK minister who seems to have relied entirely on the lobby of the 2 companies who have most to gain and who make significant contributions to the Conservative Party.
The writer has not read my mail or the sources quoted. I said, “The moratorium was based on the science provided by the European Food Safety Authority.” http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/independence.htm
More seriously from Randy:
<<The majority of scientists did not agree. Buckling to the
activists with the 2-yr moratorium was the political way out.>>
Where does this information come from? Scientists prepared the EFSA document, or, if this is a reference to the vote of Member States the majority did agree, 15 out of 27.
<<Not true at all! There are numerous independent and properly controlled field studies from all over the world.>>
If this is true why were Syngenta and Bayer unable to present any to our Minister of Agriculture last year in the time allotted to them to contest his decision?
Finally, it is rather lame to suggest the Ministers were influenced by the lobbies of “activists”. A few beekeepers against the multimillion dollar chemical industries. It’s no contest at all.
Bil, 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
