Authors response on Schick et al. 2017 "An experiment of the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honey bees; the value of a formal analysis of the data". Environ Sci Eur (2017).
Whilst a formal statistical analysis of any experimental data is always preferable in principle, in the case of Pilling et al. (PLoS ONE 8:e77193, 2013), it is hard to see how the results of any formal analysis-including those provided by Schick et al.-could be considered reliable. Regardless of the issue of statistical analysis, there was a wealth of valuable and novel biological and chemical residue data generated under field conditions of use in Pilling et al., which when taken into consideration alongside other relevant available published data and information (i.e. expert judgement) demonstrated a low risk to honeybees from thiamethoxam when used as a seed treatment on oilseed rape. Indeed, similar conclusions have been reported in subsequent published honeybee field studies using thiamethoxam seed-treated oilseed rape, thus supporting the original conclusions of Pilling et al.
Jealotts Hill International Research Centre, Syngenta, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY UK.
Peter
P
Campbell
Jealotts Hill International Research Centre, Syngenta, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY UK.
Mike
M
Coulson
Jealotts Hill International Research Centre, Syngenta, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY UK.
Keith
K
Ward
Critical review; Field studies; Honeybee; Statistical analysis; Thiamethoxam