This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemicals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Toxicology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

An anon editor has recently added info gathered from the recent European Food Safety Authority statement. I cannot find confirmation that EFSA suggests that deliberate misrepresentation was used. It was a lot of reading and I could have missed it... Please quote the info or it will need to be deleted. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 15:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The anon has not replied. I will remove the info from this article and if that does not bring any reply I will remove it from the other pesticide related articles. Also, I have not been able to find the exact quote that is used. As yet there is little discussion on the net, though I did find this: [1] It may need to be removed as well. I am sorry that I did not question the work of an anon editor. :=( Gandydancer ( talk) 15:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, that opinion should have been attributed to Science neonicotinoid and bee study author David Goulson, not the EFSA. [2] ("Goulson said the report contained 'not a shred' of serious evidence.")

Gandydancer, could I ask your opinion on this BBC report from four years ago concerning Bayer making a large donation to the British Beekeeping Association shortly before they released a statement in support of neonicotinoids? Do you think it should be included; if so, in which article(s)? 71.208.1.51 ( talk) 18:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Anon, please understand that we must be very careful to not put any misinformation in any of these articles. Thanks for the further information and I am happy that you have entered into this discussion. Like most of us who are not paid to edit, my time is limited but I plan to devote all of my time to this and related articles for a few days to get a grip on this new information. I'm not sure how connected you are to this problem, but this may be the first time that any serious move has been made to question the safety of these pesticides. Supposedly the U.S. continues to "study" the problem, but then that's been going on for years and seemingly will go on forever with no action taken... Some people believe that the US EPA and Bayer are just as thick as thieves when it comes to an honest assessment of just exactly what part neonicotinoids may play in CCD. Anyone that doubts that need only to reed this talk page and the arguments that I have had with the paid editor from the EPA, "USEPA James"--only my opinion, of course. I will take some time to read the new source and anything else I can find...

Re the BBC report: Actually I remember that and thought more than once that it should be included somewhere. I have not re-read it right now and do not remember why I didn't get around to doing it as it seems to be worth a mention. Thanks for bringing it up again. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Gandydancer ( talk) 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Many countries have suspended various neonics going back to 2003, according to Imidacloprid_effects_on_bees#Events_in_the_decline_of_bees. I'm not connected at all to the problem: I'm neither a beekeeper nor a farmer; nor do I have any interests in any pesticide company or affiliations with any of the sources on either side. My interest is that there is plenty of evidence that Bayer has been tossing money right and left to associations and government agencies trying to influence them, and very little of that has been showing up in the articles. I appreciate your help. 71.208.1.51 ( talk) 19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Do we have any of the Goulson studies? [3] Gandydancer ( talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

[4] is his Science paper, which was the first to measure queen production as far as I know. That's probably an important aspect of CCD. 71.208.1.51 ( talk) 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I just came across this article and noticed the "deception" charge in the lead (attributed to the EFSA report) and later, attributed to the UK scientist David Goulson in an interview in the Guardian. Neither source says that. I deleted both references to deception. The science on the role of neonicotinoids in colony collapse disorder is looking pretty solid. There is no reason to undermine that by making misrepresentations. Jytdog ( talk) 10:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Gandy I just checked out the page stats and you have done the most work on this article by a mile. It is really good! Thanks for your hard work. Jytdog ( talk) 13:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clothianidin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204045731/http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2008/bees-act.htm to http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2008/bees-act.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clothianidin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014181637/http://www.anses.fr/Documents/SANT-Ra-MortaliteAbeillesEN.pdf to http://www.anses.fr/Documents/SANT-Ra-MortaliteAbeillesEN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014181637/http://www.anses.fr/Documents/SANT-Ra-MortaliteAbeillesEN.pdf to http://www.anses.fr/Documents/SANT-Ra-MortaliteAbeillesEN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014181637/http://www.anses.fr/Documents/SANT-Ra-MortaliteAbeillesEN.pdf to http://www.anses.fr/Documents/SANT-Ra-MortaliteAbeillesEN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply