> This is an unfortunate distortion of the term "positive".
> The report you cite is spinning the data.

Accusing the USDA, 50 states, an entire industry and their independent
auditors of fraud and lying implies a vast conspiracy that has somehow
escaped exposure despite the immense fortunes at stake.
We beekeepers should refrain from throwing stones at the dairy guys.
They have their act together, we don't.
They are also subjected to intense scrutiny, which would tend to
quickly expose such a fraud, if it existed.

> Here is an example of how the term positive is used in the literature:
> [Cited] "Occurrence of flunixin residues in bovine milk samples from the USA."

The quotes gave the impression of a paper documenting widespread
routine antibiotic contamination in milk.

But the following crucial lines were omitted, which significantly
change (reverse) the conclusion a reasonable person would take away.
No need to slog through the whole paper, all this was in the abstract,
along with the incomplete quotes:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19440049.2013.803604#preview
or
http://tinyurl.com/mpmocxv

"The results of this study indicate that flunixin residues in milk are
possible."
So no one knew that flunixin residues in milk were possible at all until now.

"Regulatory agencies should be aware that such residues can occur..."
Regulatory agencies were also not aware that such residues could even occur.

"...and should consider incorporating or expanding flunixin screening
tests as part of routine drug monitoring in milk."
Because no one was even TESTING for flunixin at all.
That's why the paper suggests that they should "consider" it.

"Larger studies are needed to determine the true prevalence of
flunixin residues in milk"
So they aren't sure what the scope of the issue is yet, as it is a new
discovery.

By omitting the crucial quotes, the impression left was the exact
OPPOSITE of the paper's intent and findings.  The paper was calling
for new tests to keep milk pure, and the impression given by the post
to Bee-L was
that antibiotics are routinely found in milk, even after the tests
done by farmers and dairies.

The issue of Limits of Detection always exists, of course, as any
measurement has a minimum resolution.

Milk is a real side-issue here, and I don't know why there is such a
fierce denial of such a large and well-documented dataset as the
milk-testing database I cited.
If the intent is to claim that antibiotic residues are common in milk,
an thereby, unavoidable in honey, I'm going to have to repeat that
clear and compelling proof is required to contradict the consistent
statements of the dairymen, their co-ops, the milk database, the USDA,
the state-level regulators.  The industry has truly brought the
problem down to "the noise level", where the inherent error rate of
the tests used is the largest risk factor.

In specific regard to honey, there are several countries that have
implement antibiotic "bans" for beekeepers, and to date, everyone
seems happy in those countries..
So, I still don't understand the fierce reaction to my mere suggestion
that people might chose to do partial burns and shaking of bees onto
fresh equipment where they might otherwise chose to use antibiotics.

             ***********************************************
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