It was recently said:
> to legally use it as a varroacide,
> you must use a registered PRODUCT
This is absolutely 100% correct, but it presumes a specific intent on the
part of the beekeeper.
That said, it is no ethical lapse to comply with the plain meaning of a
regulation "strictly as worded". The recent OA exemption is a very good
object lesson. If one does not "intend to use it as a varroacide", one need
not buy/use the product with the restrictive EPA label. FIFRA only applies
if OA is used "as a pesticide", as it is present in a wide range of foods
(see below), so OA literally "is a food substance".
Compare to powdered sugar. Years ago, there was very enthusiastic support,
even on this forum, for powdered sugar as a mite control, even though Jamie
Ellis, and several other conclusive studies repeatedly pointed out that it
would not make any difference with statistics to prove it. So, where was
the EPA-labeled powdered sugar? The issue never arose, as powdered sugar
is... food, and sucrose is already found in honey. So, the very different
approach to Oxalic Acid, both already food, and already found in honey,
seems indefensible if anyone were to challenge the restrictions. The
problem is that a bureaucrat will never turn down an opportunity to exert
control.
The US government takes a very adversarial stance, be it in collecting
fed/state/city taxes at confiscatory levels, OSHA enforcement, whatever.
So, one is perfectly within one's rights to interpret their regulations
"aggressively" in one's own favor, as regulations "say what they say", and
have "plain meaning". So, what is the actual pragmatic situation with FIFRA,
the EPA and the FDA (as opposed to the idealistic rainbows and unicorns
theoretical situation)?
The language exempting OA ascribes intent - "when oxalic acid is used as a
miticide", but this is simply unknowable, as honey is a very fungible
commodity, and "blending" honey is common.
The "intent of the beekeeper" is simply impossible to ascertain. The path
of least resistance is to avoid the question of "use as a miticide" as was
commonly done without any raised eyebrows prior to the registration of a
propriety OA miticide, and during the period where the sole registrant had
gone bankrupt, and no official source existed. The intent of the beekeeper
is already made ambiguous by the years of open sales of both OA and
vaporizers, and no one is going to fault a beekeeper for following the
suggestion of their beekeeping supply company, or the ads in their
beekeeping magazine.
So, is a beekeeper's INTENT to "kill mites"? This is the sole basis for
regulating the beekeeper's actions, per the plain meaning of the
regulations.
One cannot assign intent to someone else, no matter how "obvious" someone's
motivation may seem to you.
In the US at least, one cannot compel statements, so beekeepers are going to
have to do something very difficult - shut up. Can they?
Oxalic is far, far more an "OSHA Issue" for worker safety than a "FIFRA
Issue" for food safety.
USDA Measured OA levels in foods (circa 1984):
https://web.archive.org/web/20090306211806/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/food
comp/Data/Other/oxalic.html
https://tinyurl.com/7udjtzsa
***********************************************
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
|