> [Bring to a] close some of the more hypothetical 
> discussions about rainbows and unicorns and 
> childrens' stories projecting some imaginary 
> 'perfect' world in the minds of some bee beginners 
> and some imaginary composite consumer so we 
> can move on and deal with the hard realities of this one.

This seems an attempt to halt discussion of what would otherwise be a
learning experience for all if not for the arguments against. Clearly the
Europeans have something to teach us about both strict policies, and strict
testing regimens, and I have made it abundantly clear that there's a similar
trend going on here in the USA, like it or not.  

> This clearly debunks the dream of producing pure, 
> ideal and pristine honey in some backyard beehive 
> and exposes the fallacies inherent in believing that 
> higher safety can be found any food obtained from 
> any small area than from a variety of locales.

But where's the actual data to support this flatly-stated claim?

Please see the data here.  It flatly refutes the claim:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/pesticide_2012_06_PX_H4.pdf

This is a full pesticide run by the USDA Gastonia lab done as part of an
attempt to locate the source of a pesticide kill that hit about a dozen
hives in the Park Slope area of Brooklyn NY (near Prospect Park).  I have a
stack of these.

Someone's grandma did a ground drench on her prize-winning roses, but
apparently did not dilute the concentrate at all. Just as soon as the
Basswood bloom was over, the kill started, so it was clearly ornamentals in
bloom, and the kill kept happening, so it had to be a ground drench on
irrigated ornamentals.  So, our goal was to find grandma, and buy her new
reading glasses so as to prevent future kills.

But look at the REST of the report.  "ND" means "Not Detected".  "Except for
the short-term single point-source kill, the foragers read as "clean to the
limit of detection" on every other pesticide they can test for in Gastonia.


Let me admit that this was NOT "producing pure, ideal and pristine honey in
some backyard", as this was a hive on a ROOF, rather than in a backyard.


"But wait, it's a city", one thinks.  "There must be all sorts of nasty
environmental toxins in that stuff!"
One would be wrong.  See this test report:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/Heavy_Metal_Hive.pdf

In this case, a single hive had "Green Honey", and I was curious as to what
was the cause. The bees had likely picked up substantial nectar from weeds
growing in what must be a superfund site, given the massive levels of
Magnesium and Aluminum.  But again, look at all the other things for which
the honey was tested, and found pure.  Pretty impressive, such a clean bill
of purity from a post-mortem on honey that was washed down the drain.  So
again, except for the single-point exceptional incident at issue that
prompted the analysis, the report is definitive about the lack of
contaminants, and this lab tests food for the USDA as a whole.

So, in response to overly-broad statements, I have submitted two sets of
data from the best lab the USDA has to offer.
The data speaks eloquently.  I invite others to take advantage of this
service, and to post their own test results.

My honey label lists "Ingredients" of "Sunshine, Flowers, Rain, and Buzz".
Thanks for the suggestion; maybe I should add "Rainbows".

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html