Thanks to all of you who expressed understanding of what I was trying to
say, and I do respect the views of those who feel different.  I want to add
a story that is related.

About 6 years ago beeswax in the US was selling at very low prices,
while European beeswax was commanding much higher prices.  Beeswax from
China was selling at prices comparable to US prices.  I have a customer in
Europe who uses tens of thousands of pounds of beeswax a year to make
foundation.  He thought he would get some nice publicity by buying US
beeswax to make foundation, while his competitors were using beeswax from
China.  He asked me to locate a source for 40,000 lbs, which is what will
fit into a container.

I got a quick lesson in the large scale US beeswax market.  Not very liquid
(in financial terms), which surprised me.  But I found the wax, which was
held by someone that many of you know and who is very well respected.  My
customer had asked me to tell potential sellers that the wax would have to
be tested and could not have more than negligible levels of coumaphous and
fluvalinate.  Less than 10 parts a million for each, as I recall.  This was
to meet European standards.  So, I did, and asked for a sample which I
passed onto my customer.

The seller told us that the wax would test positive for fluvalinate, but at
low levels, and would have no coumaphous.

My customer got the results from his lab, and they were 400-500 parts a
million (as I recall) for *each*.   I was shocked.  The seller said "I guess
the guy I bought the wax from lied to me", and "I wonder if the frog got
these results to get a lower price for the beeswax".  (The latter really
irritated me.)  My customer went on to use beeswax from China, he would not
purchase this at any price.

I was real curious if these results could possibly be accurate.  I had kept
a chunk of the beeswax and sent it to Calif. to the same lab the NHB was
then using to check the contamination levels.  I spent $200 out of my own
pocket, and the results were exactly as reported from Europe.

On a no-name basis, a researcher at the USDA was contacted and the level of
contamination was disclosed.  The questions were "are you guys aware of this
level of contamination" and "is this doing harm to brood being produced".
The answers were "yep", and "we don't know, but probably".

I'd hate to think of what those levels would be today, just with the passage
of time and continuing annual treatments.

Let's face it, the use of these chemicals (and tylosin, but that is another
subject for another time) has been approved principally for the 5% of US
beekeepers who produce 80%+ of the honey and virtually all of the
pollination.  And if the US had retail petroleum prices on a level of most
of the rest of the world, migratory beekeeping (as we know the industry
today) would not exist.  Another example of the (unintended?) effects of our
misguided petroleum practices, and the political forces that keep them in
place.

And we should sit back and wait for 'the government' to tell us what to do?
Go figure.

And this is coming from a person whom some consider to the right of
Attilla!

-- 
Lloyd Spear
Owner Ross Rounds, Inc.
Manufacture of equipment for round comb honey sections,
Sundance Pollen Traps, and producer of Sundance custom labels.
Contact your dealer or www.RossRounds.com

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************