There is no such thing as a perfect scientific study - they all have their limitations and weaknesses - and this applies to studies on bees and pesticides as much as it does to any other area of interest.
Yet this fact has been conveniently overlooked by some, following the publication last week of the European Food Safety Authorities' review of the UK government study. In some quarters, EFSA's findings have been spun to create another easy anti-pesticide story.
It is no surprise the guilty parties include some mainstream journalists, but it is much more concerning when the less than even-handed approach appears to be used by EFSA itself - the organisation that promotes itself of the basis that it provides independent scientific advice and clear communication.
Earlier in the year we had concerns that EFSA press office was misrepresenting the conclusions of reports produced by their scientists, when they started talking about uses of neonicotinoids which were ‘acceptable’ (and by direct implication, uses that were ‘unacceptable’) in their press release about neonicotinoid reports in which the clear-cut word ‘acceptable’ did not even appear.
This week, in response to a 20-page report by EFSA scientists reviewing the Defra-funded field study that found no impacts of neonicotinoids on bumblebees, the EFSA press office issued a damning press release - ‘Bumble bee study does not affect neonicotinoid conclusions, EFSA says’ - highlighting several weaknesses in the study.
Compare the language and tone of that press release to one last year - EFSA reviews studies on some pesticides and bee health - where EFSA highlighted flaws in three studies that found harmful impacts of neonicotinoids on bees.
It is a concern that EFSA press office appear to have forgotten about the organisation's earlier work, which clearly and unsurprisingly shows that all studies on bees and neonicotinoids have their limitations and flaws.
It is also a concern that, while assessing studies finding harmful impacts of neonicotinoids on bees it is balanced in its judgements, it appears to take a much more mercenary and combative approach when assessing studies that have failed to find harmful impacts of neonicotinoids on bees.
Dr Chris Hartfield, NFU horticultural adviser