In article <01bd08b3$cc4e65a0$4708f4cf@default>, Frank & Phronsie
Humphrey <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I have been following some of this thread and some people
>seem to think that beekeeping is a large market for the drug
>companies.  It is not and we are lucky to have the ones that
>we do have.  Even Terrimicin was developed for another
>purpose altogether.  There are however some dedicated
>scientist who are also beekeepers trying to develop controls
>for pest which affect our bees.  If you don't like these
>chemicals don't use them.  I think you will be out of
>business quickly
>
>As for other chemicals used in agriculture, the problems
>arose from misuse rather than use mostly.  When DDT was in
>wide use, people said "Its bad don't use It".  The farmers
>begged for an alternative but none was forthcoming.  When
>Agribusiness became the majority of farming acreage, they
>developed the safer chemicals for use on crops.  We now have
>chemicals that can be sprayed on crops, do their job and
>break down within 12 to 24 hours.
>
>I am not a defender of the drug companies but someone is
>doing something right.  Life expectancy before drugs and
>chemicals in the 1800s was 35 to 40.  The latest figure I
>heard in 1997 was 73 for men and 82 for women.
>
>Frank & Phronsie Humphrey
>[log in to unmask]
 
In many ways this posting says pretty well what I was getting at.
 
The sum total of the profits which are there to be made out of the
beekeeping industry is barely sufficient (especially in the UK) for the
pharmaceutical companies to devote the millions of dollars required to
firstly find, then research and develop, then test for a plethora of
potential snags, then trial for efficacy, then seek state approvals
(very, very expensive!), and finally actively market, any new substance
for treating mites. Then to risk all this investment, and immense
amounts in potential damages claims, by deliberately and callously lying
about the nature of the substance, to make (relatively) modest profits
would seem to make no commercial sense to me, even in the world of the
most vicious profiteers. (Which is how some respondents seem to regard
these companies.)
 
You are relatively lucky in the USA insofar as you have a larger bee
industry to make it more viable for these developments to take place. In
the UK we only legally have Bayvarol. Even Apistan is not yet registered
for legal use here. The costs of getting these approvals alone, without
any consideration for other cost factors, means that it is almost
impossible to bring a new treatment profitably to market here.
 
If you have problem with these treatments that is your concern, their
use is not compulsory. However, I don't think anyone should be
encouraging others, some of whom may be easily swayed by unsubstantiated
alarming statements, to leap, lemming-like, off the 'no treatment for
varroa' cliff. I don't greatly care what treatment you use, just use any
EFFECTIVE one which suits you.
 
Also, please remember, you probably have a neighbour. They will not
really want the precious gift of all your mites when your colonies
collapse, just as you would not want theirs.
--
Murray McGregor