Bee-gate: European IUCN task force mired in corruption scandal over neonics ban plot

David Zaruk is an environmental-health risk policy analyst specializing in the role of science in policy and societal issues. He blogs under the pseudonym: The Risk-Monger. Last week, Zaruk posted an internal document from the International Union for Conservation of Naturewhich showed how, in 2010, certain activist scientists launched a strategy to run a campaign built around a series of planned “independent” research publications that they hoped would result in the ban of neonicotionids (neonics), claiming that bees faced mortal danger from their use in agriculture. Zaruk's analysis of that document and its implications are detailed in PART I HERE. He continues his investigation in PART II, below:

In the last blog, Part I, I presented a document showing how the IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides (TFSP) was created on a rather unscientific motivation: to advance the campaign to ban neonicotinoid pesticides. This is what I have referred to as activist science – a politically motivated endeavour of putting the conclusions before the evidence for the purpose of advancing an activist campaign. In this blog, I will examine this group of anti-neonic scientists, how they publish and push their work and how they are funded. It will be interesting to see how, with their agenda-driven (and non-transparent) financial sources, they can still consider themselves as free from conflict of interest.

[Note: The Genetic Literacy Project’s Jon Entine uncovered a similar case of possible research corruption in the United States in an investigation of the disputed studies on neonics and bees by Harvard nutritionist and organic activist Chensheng Lu.]

Peer Review?

The IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides has demonstrated how activist scientists can exploit the weaknesses in the peer review process. The group is set up like a private club of like-minded researchers who publish articles citing each other and recommending each other to peer review their papers. See a good example of how they promote themselves (amongst themselves) in a recent contribution by Hank Campbell in Science 2.0 (and read the eye-opening discussion section). If one needs any further proof of how this taskforce confirms their bias among themselves, look at the list of references at the end of the “high-impact” concluding publication. Of the total of 14 sources, 10 were to articles from the same very authors of the report. Was there really so little other credible science out there that they had to keep referencing themselves?

We must keep in mind that the IUCN taskforce has not generated new research, but is merely an extensive literature review (literature reviews are a notoriously subjective process given the volume of articles that could be omitted by the pre-determined selection criteria), so if they are citing each other regularly, then it should not come as a surprise that in any literature review, their own works might take pride of place.

Also in a closed circle of peers, after repeating the same things to each other, it is normal to share a certain confirmation bias. Notice the contributions in the comments sections from the IUCN taskforce scientists who engaged Hank Campbell or my last post – they were regularly inciting the high probability of apocalyptic biodiversity collapse. While I am sure they truly believe that this is a crisis of epic proportions, nobody else in the scientific community is speaking like that. This is a common risk when polarised scientists stay within their comfort silos.

Some curious things about this above-mentioned and long-awaited “high impact” publication.

  • It was sadly neither published in Science nor Nature (as the 2010 anti-neonic strategy document had expected), but instead, the journal of Environmental Science and Pollution Research. Rather than being in the upper echelon of scientific publications, this tepid, dare I say mediocre journal is an open-source, pay-per-publish service (it has an Impact Factor of 2.76 – for comparison, Science has an Impact Factor of 31.48 and Nature has 42.35 – Impact Factor, to simplify, is based on the average number of citations each article receives). Environmental Science and Pollution Research’s publisher, Springer (along with IEEE), recently had to retract 120 articles from open-source journals for being computer-generated gibberish.  Was this high impact paper even subjected to a peer review?
  • The peer review process at Environmental Science and Pollution Research turned this IUCN taskforce paper into a high-impact publication in an eye-popping six days from reception. Sorry, but even the Risk-Monger’s blogs take longer to fact-check (and he is far from high impact!).
  • The conclusions at the end of this scientific publication include such knowledge sharing recommendations as: we must grow more organic food; “educate” farmers that pesticides do not work (no farmers were involved in this research evidently); and use the precautionary principle to ban neonicotinoids. Was this high-impact article even fact-checked?

The sad thing today is that nobody in government agencies or the media read anymore. They just see a series of letters after someone’s name and a long list of publications and they assume that these activist scientists are legitimate enough upon which to base policies and news articles.

Who are the IUCN Taskforce activist scientists?

It may seem strange that the website promoting this IUCN taskforce does not actually present the members of the taskforce.  I contacted the Taskforce Science Coordinator and got a reply (from someone else) that the 30 authors of the high-impact publication are indeed the members of the Taskforce (although in a letter where the Taskforce Chairman requested if his group could join the UN, he mentioned 49 members). Other bee scientists have asked to join this IUCN taskforce but have been informed that it is not open to new members. I suppose trying to present a scientific consensus against neonicotinoids is too important to risk allowing other scientists with opposing views to be involved. So as we are to understand that these 30 members are the best scientists in the field of bee research, it shouldn’t be unexpected that someone should take a look at some of their accreditations, expertise and achievements.

I should begin by noting that many of the scientists on the TFSP are credible researchers who have had a long history of research on bees, bee field trials and studies on various causes of possible bee decline apart from neonicotinoids. But not all of them and not the most apparently active or vocal ones.

The IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides’ Scientific Coordinator is Dr Jeroen van der Sluijs. This might be considered a strange choice for some as Dr van der Sluijs does not have a long history of bee research or field trials. I have to wonder if he has led any field trials. On his Twitter page, he lists his interests as: Post Normal Science, scientific controversy, scientific uncertainty, emerging risks, science & ethics, NUSAP, science policy interface. No bees mentioned at all. In an interview van der Sluijs gave to Friends of the Earth in the Netherlands, he was presented as someone who seems to have done everything – nuclear scientist, expert on climate change, expert on electromagnetic fields, on bees and now he has just moved from Utrecht to Bergen, Norway to become a professor in ethics and science. For someone under the age of 50, his CV is laced with an incredible number of publications, but one has to wonder how deep he has been able to delve into the subject of bee research to become the Scientific Coordinator of a major international taskforce dealing with such a complex subject. That he changes specialisation so often has to be questioned.

Just because the Risk-Monger has a PhD, does not mean that tomorrow he is going to get up and become a brain surgeon. Sorry but if the major IUCN Taskforce publications are to have a lead author, he bloody well better be the best expert in the research field. Dr van der Sluijs has now moved to Norway to specialise in “post-normal science” (worth a blog some day as I am not a precaution-hugger, but post-normal science is essentially trying to broaden the scope of uncertainty considerations to embrace non-scientific aspects within scientific assessments). I suspect that that bees and neonics is just another application of his work on uncertainty and risk and he will soon find something else to challenge him.

Dr Dave Goulson is the honey of the activist bee science community, giving interviews to NGOs and organic food media services wherever and whenever he can. This leads to a lot of crumbs to follow up and many questionable statements, such as how he explained to Friends of the Earth Canada that farmers don’t know what they are doing when they use neonicotinoids (claiming that they don’t work at all) and that farmers need to be properly educated (as a person who grew up on a farm, the Risk-Monger has expressed his views on that in a previous blog). He also recently wrote that if farmers in the UK cannot grow oilseed rape (canola) without using neonicotinoids, then they had better plant something else (note that, until the massive losses this year due to the EU neonic ban, oilseed rape had been the third largest crop in the UK and is a rich source of pollen). Goulson has no doubt expressed his love for bees in his books for the general public, but his lack of understanding of farmers’ concerns and farming in general is highly compromising.

Taskforce member, Vanessa Amaral-Rogers, has been a campaign officer at Buglife for two years. She received her MSc in 2011 in Conservation Biology but does not seem to have any publications on research topics outside of her work on three of the IUCN reports. Buglife is a UK-based NGO that is committed to conservation of invertebrate species. One of the missions of Buglife is: “Assisting in the development of legislation and policy that will ensure the conservation of invertebrates.”  It is unclear what the role of an NGO lobbyist is on the IUCN taskforce, but in any other situation, that would be considered a conflict of interest.

No Conflict of Interest?

Conflict of interest, as a concept, is very simple. If you are paid by an organisation that has a stated agenda or objective, and you then are working in another function where that interest or agenda may influence your decision-making, then you have a conflict of interest. Buglife has an agenda that includes shaping policy (lobbying) so their presence on the TFSP does imply a conflict of interest (if we are to assume that the scientific research would be made available to policymakers in an objective, independent manner). Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against their views (as a vegetarian, I think they should be campaigning harder to stop the trend in insect sources for human dietary protein), but any conflict of interest needs to be declared. If pesticide industry scientists were on a scientific taskforce, so many activist groups would be screaming conflict of interest and demanding their withdrawal.

But a larger question to be asked is whether the funding sources of the IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides implies a wider conflict of interest. Most of the TFSP publications, like the concluding high impact article, include a statement: “The authors declare no conflict of interest”, but then they end with the following acknowledgements:

The work has been funded by the Triodos Foundation’s Support Fund for Independent Research on Bee Decline and Systemic Pesticides. This support fund has been created from donations by Adessium Foundation (The Netherlands), Act Beyond Trust (Japan), Utrecht University (Netherlands), Stichting Triodos Foundation (The Netherlands), Gesellschaft fuer Schmetterlingsschutz (Germany), M.A.O.C. Gravin van Bylandt Stichting (The Netherlands), Zukunft Stiftung Landwirtschaft (Germany), Study Association Storm (Student Association Environmental Sciences Utrecht University), Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund e. V. (Germany), Gemeinschaft der europäischen Buckfastimker e. V. (Germany) and citizens. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

The last line has a familiar ring to it. We often see it at the end of industry-funded studies, and nobody believes that these studies are not in some way conflicted. Such research studies are usually prefaced with the diminishing adjective: “industry-funded”. So why do we not object when activist or agenda-driven groups fund researchers or preface such studies as: “activist financed”. In a world where NGOs are splashing out more money on research to support their campaign, this double standard needs to be addressed. Truth is that in a world where research costs are beyond university budgets and governments have stepped back due to austerity measures, very little research today does not entail some sort of funding carrying an attached or implied conflict of interest. To stand steadfast and insist that one source of funding smells better than the other (because you agree with their campaign more) is just pitiful hypocrisy.

Who is funding the TFSP?

So what are the motives or agenda of the organisations funding the research budget of the IUCN TFSP? It is largely two-fold: promote organic food and farming and reduce the influence of industry and globalisation. Would these funding organisations continue to finance the Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides if the researchers gave neonicotinoids a clean bill of health and found that bee health issues are more related to electromagnetic fields and our use of mobile phones? That money would dry up like a stone.

The initial seed funding came from the Triodos Foundation, a Dutch registered charity tied to the Triodos banking group that has been active in supporting and financing organic food producers and farmers.

Triodos Foundation’s aim is to stimulate national and international initiatives that instigate social renewal, especially in organic farming, development, the environment, sustainable energy, art and culture, education and health care.

But on their Dutch website, they get into more details on how industry lobbying needs to be countered by independent science, justifying having established a capital source for what was to become the IUCN taskforce in order to get these toxic chemicals off the market (See in Dutch).

Triodos started a fund to accept further donations, not just from individuals and clients of the bank, but other large organisations. This is known as the Support Fund for Independent Research on Bee Decline and Systemic Pesticides and it includes other foundations and NGOs with similar agendas. The Adessium Foundation (founded by the Dutch investment banking Van Vliet family) for example, is the main funder of the anti-industry attack group, Corporate Europe Observatory. “act beyond trust” was founded by the former executive director of Greenpeace Japan and is running an anti-neonic campaign. On their website they state that: Given that advocacy campaigning is yet to gain recognition and momentum in the Japanese society, ‘act beyond trust’ focuses on advocacy campaigns and supports them by providing financial help, strategic advice, technical assistance and practical training.  The Zukunft Stiftung Landwirtschaft is a banking foundation (again) supporting organic agriculture and campaigns against Monsanto in Germany.

These groups are obviously giving money for a reason, and the scientists receiving these funds cannot pretend that this does not have an influence on their research objectives. Or perhaps these foundations found the right scientists who would agree with them (explaining why certain other bee scientists were not permitted to join the TFSP).

Transparency and reputation

But how much money have they given to this anti-neonic taskforce? That I do not know because these organisations are not at all transparent. The last IUCN financial statement gave general numbers and did not mention the funding amounts for their taskforces. On the European Transparency Register, Triodos declared that they spend and donate €0.00 on EU lobbying. By creating an umbrella group (the Support Fund), I suppose neither Triodos nor the taskforce have to declare their financial transfers in public under the lax Dutch NGO legislation. Seriously, shouldn’t banks have learnt by now how to be transparent.I have publicly asked a member of the IUCN task force for the details of their funding and have received no reply. Imagine a situation where industry did that? Would we be OK with that or would the complaints reach the highest levels? Once again, double standards.

I sometimes wonder what the IUCN thinks of all of this. They had previously been a respectable organisation with a high degree of due diligence and impartiality. Reading an article on this topic in Forbes, the journalist, Paul Rodgers, received the following statement from the IUCN:

The IUCN insisted last night that it had not taken a position on neonicotinoids and said that the conversation reported in the memo was based on existing scientific evidence at the time.

Given the 2010 strategy document, the conflicts of interest with the nature of the funders, the issues around how the reports were published and some of the scientists involved, I think it is wise that the IUCN is taking a step back to protect its reputation.

I agree with Matt Ridley, who in his recent comment on what is becoming known as Bee-gate, acknowledged that an overwhelming majority of researchers are doing good, credible science and that we, as a society, benefit from their work. But because the few can do so much damage to the reputation of the many, there is a strong need to protect the public trust in credible science. The Risk-Monger would like urge the bee science community (many of whom contacted me this last week) to stand up and prevent activist scientists from taking the lead in dictating what the science on bee issues is or is not. They are not only discrediting the work of credible scientists, but also further damaging the reputation of science in the public mind. By targeting their focus on one potential part of a complex issue, and then campaigning relentlessly, they are also not helping the situation of the bees. This is the most shameful part – that activists have succeeded in banning these pesticides in the EU, leaving clueless officials in Brussels feeling confident that they have solved the bee problem.

It should not come down to some blogger living in a village outside of Brussels to point out the obvious limitations and intentions present in this IUCN taskforce. It is not enough to shout these activists down at conferences or run circles around them in journal discussions. If this group, backed by activist cash and PR machines, can achieve a perception of scientific leadership, it would not be surprising to find some of these activist scientists sitting on government working groups and writing risk assessments that find their way into policy that affects farmers, the environment and the direction of further bee research.

That, regrettably, will be the sorry subject of the third and final blog on this topic (to be published in the next week).

… To be continued.

This article originally appeared HERE on BlogActiv.Eu, and is reposted at the Genetic Literacy Project at the request of the author.

  • NeoNick

    Heaven forbid scientists getting active! …maybe we should just leave that to the industry backed mouthpieces like the “Genetic Literacy Project” and “Science 2.0” …

    • Jon

      Having industry backed public voices that read through good and bad research papers to find the best science to support a viewpoint is completely different from having industry backed scientists pre-declaring research venues, methods, and publication… then giving those results to an industry funded public mouthpiece.

    • The GLP is not “industry backed”…it’s funding is from independent foundations with no connections to seed or agricultural industry. Can’t speak for Science 2.0, but I’m almost certain they get zero from industry. Regardless, the reports stand on their own.

    • battleshiphips

      The only active these scientists were getting was actively dishonest in order to suck in more donation dollars so they can give themselves a raise.

    • Chris Mungall

      I don’t think GLP is industry-backed, it’s good source of information. However, I think I agree with your point, this article and the previous one has an unhealthy preoccupation with ‘activist scientists’, a dangerous concept with a whiff of McCarthyism.

    • Sb_2014

      How do you know “Genetic Literacy Project” is backed by industry? Do you have proof? Why do SO many people like you love to open their mouths without backing their own claims?

    • First Officer

      This not a, “wow, my research and others is strongly indicating neonics are killing bees in the wild and we’re being ignored. How can we get our message out?”


      “We know in our hearts that neonics must be killing bees. Lets search for evidence that this is so and when, not if, we find it, however weak it may be, amplify it to make it look as important as possible.”

    • Physics Police

      Activism and bias of all kinds are rightly forbidden in scientific journals.

      • NeoNick

        I know this…and rightly so. But I don’t see a group of scientists familiar with a topic and concerned over the ecological ramifications deciding to do a review paper of over 800 scientific articles as ‘activism’ …review papers are most often undertaken because researchers see a pattern of cause-effect emerging from published literature and seek to provide a synthesis…when the conclusions affect the health of people or the environment I would hope they would want their review to make it in front of policymakers…we’ve all applauded these efforts when revelations about impacts affect human health…but of course they have to suffer the slings and arrows of the affected industry to do so…tobacco anyone?

        • Physics Police

          David Zaruk rightfully accused the TFSP of masquerading activism as science. You excuse their “getting active” as good because activism is good. This is a blatantly anti-science argument. It actually matters whether neonicotinoids cause CCD. You can’t start off by assuming it does. We know they cannot be the sole contributor [1] and alternative insecticides organophosphates and pyrethroids [2] are far more dangerous to bees. Which 800 articles are you talking about? This issue has nothing to do with tobacco.


          • NeoNick

            Funny how bees coped with organophosphates and pyrethroids for decades (and varroa since the 80’s) but then began suffering reduced overwinter survival (CCD) with a year or 2 of the approval of neonicotinoid seed treatments in 2003-04. And neonics CAN be the ultimate (sole contributor) cause versus proximate cause (varroa, nosema, etc.) if they weaken the bees immune and grooming defense systems as shown by USDA’s Bee Research Laboratory
            And thanks for pointing me to Jon Entine’s Forbes article…that’s a bit circular don’t you think…

          • Actually, Nick, Varroa wiped out about 40% of the bee population in the 80s, and the problem was exacerbated by the use of deadly organophosphates and pyrehtoids. Neonics were approved for use in the 1990s. The first sign of any problem of note came in 2006 with CCD, but only in the US; Canada had zero problems until the cold winter of 2012. It’s interesting that you link to a Pettis/vanEnglesdorp article as both believe the the neonic-bee death connection is wildly overstated, and than organophasphates and pyrhethoids are a dangerous replacement. Here is some more background, if facts matter to you: Bee Experts Dismantle Touted ‘Harvard’ Neonics-Colony Collapse Disorder Study As ‘Activist Science’

          • NeoNick

            Geez, Jon, maybe you should start looking at real information and not Huffington Post articles. Canada had major overwinter loss problems appearing at EXACTLY the same time as the US (2006) as documented here:,%20Pernal%20and%20Guzman%202010%20Honeybee%20colony%20loses%20in%20Canada.pdf

            Further, despite first being approved for use in the 1990’s (imidacloprid), they only became widespread when they were approved as seed treatments in 2003-04 (clothianidin and thiamethoxam)…the USGS has a nice tool to track their use in time and space here:

            And just for good measure, read this before you claim agricultural apocalypse in the EU because of the ban there:

            My previous comments about communicating science stand.

          • NeoNick, why don’t you identify yourself, or are you just a troll from yet another anti-science group? Know the answer already.

            You are way over your head on the neonic issue. I’ve been writing about chemicals for years. My HuffPo article is one of about 15 I’ve written on the bee issue. The interviews are with THE top entomologists in the world, including the woman heading up the President’s pollinator task force. Your views are just plain wrong.

            You, like Chensheng Lu, clearly have no clue as to the difference between CCD and over winter losses. CCD is a unique phenomenon that has never shown up in Canada, and has only been frequently over the last century, and has no relationship at all to neonics. This report from Health Canada came out just last month: There was a blip with the ultra cold winter in 2006, but no sign of CCD. Then a blip again in 2011-2013, and we are now back to record levels of bees in Canada.

            There is no correlation, let alone causation, with neonic use and bee health problems. They are used extensively in western Canada to no ill effect. They are used across Australia to no ill effect. In fact they protect against Nosema. You might have to find another anti-science cause.

            Please reveal your identity in your posts. It’s not appropriate to post propaganda without at least acknowledging that you are a troll.

          • Physics Police

            First of all, Nick, that account of history is astoundingly incorrect. Well-documented outbreak of colony losses 1906.

            Neonicotinoids can *NOT* be the sole contributor or ultimate cause of CCD because CCD happens in regions they aren’t used, and they’re extensively used in some regions free of CCD. In fact, there’s no spatial correlation whatsoever [1, 2]! Even if your misrepresentation of history did show temporal correlation, the lack of spatial correlation alone falsifies your hypothesis that neonicotinoids are the sole contributor to CCD.


  • The first-listed funder, Triodos, is not just fond of organic agriculture, but was actually founded as an “ethical” bank committed to Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophy cult. As such, its heritage and most of its directorship embrace some lunatic & magical notions that would seem excessively fantastical in Lord of the Rings, including “biodynamic” agriculture which is organic plus a good slosh of plant-bat-wings-under-a-full-moon mysticism. There is also some disturbingly racist mythology in the core of Steinerism & anthroposophy. Risk Monger is absolutely right to call out the double standards at work here.

    More on Triodos, from the excellent skeptical campaigner Andy Lewis:

  • Sterling Ericsson

    Is this being reported by major news outlets? We should see if we can get some coverage of this elsewhere. Think NPR would go for it?

  • Chris Mungall

    OK, I think I know the reason why ‘bee-gate’ isn’t being picked up the the major outlets. There’s no story here. I’ve read this post and the last, as well as the ‘leaked’ document. Summary: some scientists ‘conspired’ to get their research published in a high impact factor glamor mag and ended up publishing in a more specialized journal. Yawn. (It’s cute that if you think all good science gets published exclusively in Nature or Science, and that you have such a high regard for Impact Factor). The leaked document shows there was some political jostling over authorship — pretty standard for consortium/working group-type papers (thankfully more journals are now requesting individual contributions are listed). You say the editorial summarizing the other WIA publications had a short submission-acceptance interval — perhaps, but it’s an editorial, and the main articles had a more typical turnaround. You say “Of the total of 14 sources, 10 were to articles from the same very authors of the report” – what do you expect? it’s an editorial summarizing those articles.

    Ultimately what’s important is not the authors’ perceived motives , or whether they are part of some imagined ‘activist’ conspiracy. What’s important is whether the papers are any good. When the Seralini GMO feeding study was published, there was a robust response from the scientific community highlighting the multiple flaws (sample sizes too small, conclusions did not match data, poor study design, misleading omission of pictures of controls etc). It was an unfortunate failure of peer review that the paper was published in the first place. I’m not seeing the same thing here. Given that the tagline of the GLP is “where science trumps ideology”, I expect to see more science and less ideology.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      The cited studies they used are largely nonsense. They either made speculative statements like “Well, we don’t really know enough, so its possible for it to be dangerous this way even though we don’t know” or they were experiments done in unrealistic ways, such as topical application of neonicotinoids to bees. When discussing the effects of pesticides on insects, no one is arguing that spraying them directly with pesticides isn’t harmful. What is being discussed is whether residues on plants and pollen is dangerous and the cited studies do not look at that. The studies that have looked at that, which are not cited herein by the IUCN, have found little to no effect on bees, even at unrealistically high exposures.

      • Chris Mungall

        Well, if it’s true that the WIA reviews neglected to cite key published studies, then you already have a more substantive criticism than ridiculing the authors for publishing open access rather than Science/Nature. Sounds like peer review failure and a valid reason to criticize the journal (rather than attacking its IF, or guilt-by-association based on completely unrelated journals published by Springer). Can you point me at any criticisms of the WIA studies along the lines you mention above (i.e. the science, not the scientists)?

        • Sterling Ericsson

          Of this editorial specifically?

          I don’t know of any off-hand. It seems to have been largely ignored because it’s not really presenting any science or anything of consequence to the field of study. The issue is that the IUCN is using this specific editorial to send to politicians to convince them of things.

          I mean, the editorial itself appears to only have been cited 4 times and those were by later publications by individual authors involved in it. Self-referential referencing, basically. All tied up in a knot.

          • Chris Mungall

            Well, editorials don’t tend to get cited (I admit the categorization of the summary piece as an ‘editorial’ is a bit odd).

            If the issue is that politicians are making decisions based on bad science or flawed publications (whether an editorial, review or primary research) then point out the bad science, and I’m with you. But this article and the preceding one doesn’t talk about the science, it’s full of conspiratorial thinking, questions the motives of the scientists and contains disturbing calls to ostracize ‘activist’ scientists and ban them from journals.

    • First Officer

      Was even Seralini picked up by the major outlets much? In spite of Maher and the occasional jab from Colbert, with their huge audiences, including moi, you just don’t see much about the entire subject of gmo farming in the major outlets. I think Nathanael Johnson of Grist has it right. Interest may be broad but very shallow.

    • NeoNick

      Nicely said, Chris…Alas, I suspect Mr. Zaruk and Mr. Entine are a bit too ‘invested’ in their Bee-Gate storyline…

  • NeoNick
  • canobs

    TSOSP or Task Force on Systemic Pesticides _ Dying Bees bee-gate__ Neonecotinoids _ As dangerous as DDT was.

Send this to a friend