I'm not sure who Randy Oliver works for, or what his bias is, but this is mostly a load of bunk. I've spent the day reviewing the reports that you have quoted here.
The Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Europe "studies" were nothing more than studies to see if enough pesticides had accumulated in the hives to be testable. None of those "studies" had any intention of showing any link to colony collapse, and if anything are being used completely out of context in order to "prove" that there's "no evidence." The fact that countries that haven't seen CCD in the numbers we have in the U.S. (many of these countries having already banned many of the pesticides and fungicides that we still have legalized in the U.S.) means that these studies mean absolutely zilch. That Randy Oliver is quoting them as any sort of "proof" or lack thereof is not only incredibly bad "science" but on the verge of outright falsification of information.
Let's then take a look at the three that actually came from studies in the United States:
The first study (found here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006481) is my favorite.
The quote by Mr. Oliver taken from the study is as follows: "This study found no evidence that the presence or amount of any individual pesticide occurred more frequently or abundantly in affected apiaries or colonies." A carefully worded statement to be sure, but the truth is, it didn't even need to be that carefully worded. By looking at the pesticides that were
tested for (found in Table 9.) you'll see that, curiously, the very pesticides that are getting the finger pointed at them (neonicotinoids) are suspiciously
absent. Let me make this very clear. They did not even TEST for the pesticides that are the most likely culprit for CCD. They did, however, confirm what other tests have shown, that the bees (having had their immune systems weakened by "something") show an increase in viral or bacterial infection.
This becomes even more ****ing (for Mr. Oliver) with the "USA (2012 CCD Progress Report)" quote, which is taken completely out of context of the actual report (which can be read here:
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/presentations/usda_ccdprogressreport2012.pdf.
The quote SEEMS to indicate that the pyrethroids are a "larger threat" than the neonicotinoids when in fact, this is a case of "look at my left hand so you can ignore what my right hand is doing." While they are finding higher CONCENTRATIONS of the medications that the bee keepers apply directly to their hives (um... duh?) than they are of the pesticides used on crops, this has absolutely zero indication that this means the neonicotinoids are somehow "safer." Let me show you another quote from this
very same report: "In particular, exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust from abrasion of certain pesticide-treated seed (e.g., corn) during spring plantings appears to have negative effects on individual honey bees in experimental (laboratory and field) settings." Despite this report having been put together by the USDA and the EPA, two groups that (call me a conspiracy theorist) have a history of suspect practices anyway, from allowing Monsanto and its untested GMOs to run wild, to the EPA who is even listed in the lawsuit - they still had to admit that testing had shown that the pesticides from "pesticide-treated seed" (this is most likely the neonicotinoid coated seeds from the marriage of Monsanto and Bayer being referenced)
did, in fact, show negative effects. Yet Mr. Oliver chose to ignore THIS quote, and instead take one that paited a rosier picture out of context.
Finally, there's the "USA (Stationary Hive Project)" (found here:
http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/DrummondCAPcolumnDec2012.pdf)
To say that this study was "bad science" would be the understatement of the year. It appears to be a project that was put on by a bunch of fifth graders. (They claim to be from a college, but I really hope this isn't what's passing for "science" now days.) No controls, no blind studies, HUNDREDS of confounding variables, NO actual "colony collapse disorder" indicators, and a grand total of 210 hives studied in 7 locations. (a total of 30 hives per site over the span of 3 years). The bees were dumped in as packages in 2009, and then they just watched them die out as they did nothing *at all* to treat/prevent ANY sort of parasites. All the while having the amateur students do the "inspections" of the hives, even in the middle of winter! Then when the vast majority of the hives didn't survive the winter, they tried to use this as a datapoint? There's not even a mention in the "study" as to whether or not they harvested honey from the bees, or how much they had going into the winter! Quoting this "study" at all makes me seriously question Randy Oliver's motives.
Particularly in the light of two REAL studies being done that HAVE shown a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and CCD, (
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/29/10921493-neonicotinoid-pesticides-tied-to-crashing-bee-populations-2-studies-find?lite) I have to seriously, seriously question whether or not one Mr. Randy Oliver doesn't have a reason for his incredible bias. "Science" and synthetic treatment is not the solution here, it's the problem. Yet on his website he repeatedly touts his "experiments" as showing that we need to synthetically screw with something as natural as the honey bee. This is precisely
how we got here in the first place.
Randy's going to have to do better than quoting "studies" that show pesticide rates in comb in other countries that don't have our same collapse problems, and either pulling quotes out of context from U.S. studies, or quoting really, really, REALLY bad "studies" done by a bunch of kids without so much as a control to be seen to convince me that the real studies that HAVE found a correlation aren't on to something.