>The government says it accepts the EU ban on the use of some pesticides linked to bee deaths, but it rejects the science behind the moratorium.
>The Committee says they are disappointed with this approach.
>But the National Farmers Union says the government view is "balanced and sensible".
What an odd position for the government to take. It seems to me that the scientific division is more about neonicotinoids being the lesser evil in the choice pesticides (and therefore worth supporting its continued use) rather than any great disagreement about the results of the studies themselves:
>"We have never argued about the science, what we have been upset about is how that research has been put into policy. Because when you repeat it with real bees, real colonies in real fields, you don't see any effect."
I don't like seeing the phrase 'rejecting the science' when what the government actually seems to be doing is hedging its agricultural interests. To blame faulty scientific study when it's really a difference of opinion on policy is a tactic also used within the badger culling issue, which again seemed more about assuaging farmers than whether it could be proven if culling did lower the rate of bovine TB.
I'm not as scientifically informed as I'd like to be, but I do usually afford a greater benefit of the doubt to those who aren't protecting their own/monied interests. What do you think, /lab/?
I've posted this in /lab/ as I'm really looking to talk about the science of this rather than party politics. There's always /pol/ for that.
I hope bees swarm Westminster and sting everyone to death. I hate seeing how we're destroying nature so people can make more imaginary bits of paper which themselves are worth imaginary gold.
>>3355 >so people can make more imaginary bits of paper which themselves are worth imaginary gold.
Don't do that; it's entirely disingenuous and you know it.