>but read it for yourself and find out. Thanks, Gavin. Long, formal, but excellent and thorough report. For the benefit of those not willing to slog through, I have excerpted appropriate sections. Randy Oliver The studies conducted by Afssa’s Sophia-Antipolis laboratory (see Table 10) have revealed the presence of a variety of contaminating chemical agents (see Table 13), of both exogenous (from the apiary environment) and endogenous origin (apiary treatments against bee diseases, particularly varroasis) in all of the bee matrices analyses (living and dead bees, pollen, honey and wax). It is important to note that, during these “prospective” follow-up studies, bee mortality was negligible while bee colony mortality correlated with the presence of biological pathogens. The apiaries followed up in this type of study were chosen at random and not following a declared incident. ■ Although Coumaphos is less toxic than imidacloprid and fipronil (see Table 14, comparison of LD50s (25)), the average amount of Coumaphos found per living bee (5% of oral LD50) is closer to a toxic dose than the average amount of the other two insecticides (3.24% and 1.125% of oral LD50 respectively) (see last column in table). • the traces of these chemical residues found in the bee matrices, revealing the chronic exposure of bees to these molecules, does not correlate with the abnormal mortality rates of bee colonies in the apiaries studied. ■ the effects of a potential synergy between the chronic paralysis virus and the presence of active molecules such as imidacloprid, fipronil and coumaphos in the feed of adult bees under test conditions (Ribière, 2002; Ribière, 2004). The results of this study have not been published due to a lack of reproducibility, and did not confirm the hypothesis of there being a potential synergy between the sub-chronic intake of these active molecules in adult bee food and the chronic paralysis virus; Several studies have proved the harmful effect of low doses of pesticides on proboscis extension, for example (Devillers et al., 2003; Decourtye et al., 2004; Decourtye et al., 2005), or on the return flight to the hive (Colin et al., 2004). However, these studies are still sporadic and it is still not possible as yet to extrapolate these effects, revealed at the individual level under test conditions, to the whole colony under natural conditions. The only environmental findings available are on farming areas. These findings highlight an increase in single crop farming (maize, sunflower, cereals, rape) to the detriment of grassland. The disappearance of mixed farms lies at the heart of the transformation of the French farming countryside. The investigations and field work conducted to date do not lead to any conclusion that pesticides are a major cause of die-off of bee colonies in 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 Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at: http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm