The question persists among scientists. PBS may have answered CCD, but science hasn't.
Now, one may say that is only because special interests have corrupted all of science on this issue (you and I might disagree as to whether France is an exception), but that leads only to the well-worn argument as to whether science can be trusted, and I believe it can, at least as well as any other source, on scientific questions. Oh, sure, we need to look at who funds the studies, peer review, et cetera. But, ultimately, science depends upon consensus and, as yet, the scientific literature's consensus is that the causes of CCD remain a matter of some controversy.
As much as I may enjoy the show, FrontLine is ultimately a better source of a gripping story than it is of science.
It's really, really hard to take a stand on a scientific matter in opposition to the consensus of the world scientific community, whether it be on climate change, creationism or CCD, without ultimately having to say "they're all conspiring, corrupt liars". I'm not in the camp that views science this way.