What they publish is a summary of their decision. They say, “These are the things we've seen and this is how much weight we give each part, so we're concluding that the risks are acceptable.” They don't give us easy access to the actual studies. They don't tell us what studies or how they have looked at each of those studies.
I'm not the best-qualified person to discuss this, but I spent the afternoon on the phone with a Ph.D. who wanted me to point out that their approach is not a modern approach. It's not a systemic approach that looks down the whole chain. Without being able to look closely at those studies to see when someone did a study if half the mice died or if three-quarters of them lost weight, and which is the most important aspect.... If only half of them died, that's a lethal dose, and we don't need to count.
Where they've really fallen down is on what are the sublethal impacts and what are the impacts of the derivatives. Once these neonicotinoids are in the soil, they break down into other things that are very persistent, and they can combine with other things in the soil and create new problems.