3 ms·
That's an insinuation, not an accusation of anything specific at all. There are lots of reasons that in that particular year neonicotinoids were under-represent
by yuliyp 2y ago
That's an insinuation, not an accusation of anything specific at all. There are lots of reasons that in that particular year neonicotinoids were under-represented at the conference. The article basically presents one possible hand-wavy explanation as if it must be the explanation, and then offers no evidence of a link at all. Yes those companies sponsor the organizers of the conference, and yes the topic in question was under-represented relative to the article's expectations. No there is not necessarily a causal link between those statements.
- gerdesj 2y agoA lot of arguments are hand wavy these days but neonics are nasty in my opinion. I live in a UK county that is quite rural and there is a lot of farming here. It was also a testing ground for blasting badgers into the middle of next week 'cause bovine TB. Yay, go: Somerset (we also bring you the Glastonbury music festy and Chedder cheese and possibly "England" if you squint hard enough - that's a D Trump grade assertion!) We can debate cause and effect but I suspect if I suggested you sniff a neonic, you might politely refuse on health grounds. They are not nice compounds and there is damn good evidence that neonics damage insects and may cause damage further up the food chain. This conference should discuss all interested issues, regardless of sponsors. It didn't and you and I both know why not. There is no if or but.