So, this is a worm hole I didn't think we'd fall down. You never can tell.
People, these are the sort of topics I thought might arise in a productive discussion;
Three samples were manauka. What was the other? Were the S.I. ones the manuka?
Comments on the blending of manuka. What with? Clover!
Asking tourists to identify and source 'local' honey. Really? What does blended mean, blended by the bees, the beekeeper, or the packer?
For members familiar with the reputed provenance of the sample, local spray regimes, crops etc. Manuka isn't always remote.
Why didn't MPI pick residues up? What are the limits/accuracy of their tests? Someone else has more sophisticated tests? Surely not! Anybody know Karin Kos for the basis of her remarks?
What do you think about the value of EPA's advice and remarks about hive health, given these are systemic insecticides?
Can Mitchell's remarks about persistence of all these compounds in soil and water be substantiated?
He's taken the opportunity to criticise seed coating. Does the study give him any support for doing that? In fact he's taken the opportunity to have a general swipe at neonicotinoids in general. You might think it's maybe justified, but is it appropriate as the lead author to voice the opinion?
Do you think anyone is concerned about consumer perception? What kind of response to that is right, minimise the study or deal with the findings?
Great post that asks the leading questions pertinent to the report. This is how you grow a positive discussion.