Dr. R.
The problem I have with the use of FGMO vrs PGMO (in addition to cost) is
that it is probably inappropriate for use in the hive unless you maintain
the same "clean" conditions required to maintain FGMO's classification as
food grade. Just as soon as you put it on a frame, it is no longer "food
grade" and becomes less pure than unapplied PGMO.
I understand that we want to have a pure substance in the hive, but
beekeepers put crisco, terra, formic acid, menthol,  apistan, and a host of
other things into their hives, follow directions and the honey is considered
pure and safe. Most of those things you would not want to eat. Bees track in
every kind of substance, including dirt, pesticides, and pollen. Bits and
pieces of bees end up in cells along with dead mites and honey. With all
this hive contamination, we are saying that we have to use FGMO because it
is food grade. Yet all this trash comes in contact with honey and always
has.
I understand  FGMO is used in machinery which will contact foods. Every
effort is made, under those conditions, to maintain a clean environment.
The hive does not meet those conditions, so I agree with the oil sales rep
that we are in overkill if we  use FGMO. PGMO is a very pure oil - you can
drink it, though not recommended (along with FGMO) because of the end result
(there is a pun in there somewhere).
I guess the best analogy is washing your hands with a strong antiseptic soap
or plain soap before you go out and dig up carrots in the garden. Your hands
are clean enough for the job with plain soap because the environment (dirt
in garden) brings either treatment to the same level of contamination.
I would like to know how anyone can tell the difference between FGMO and
PGMO after it is applied. Both are exactly the same chemically. Both then
have the same level of contamination. The hive is an unclean environment.
I would hate to see the community find that MO does work but be locked into
FGMO because of what I consider to be over caution (it is food grade so it
must be the only thing we can use).  I know that I am on the hard side of
this discussion because I am arguing a lesser standard, but I think more
practical.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME
As an aside, two of us will be trying MO this summer, so I am not against MO
and I appreciate your work.
 
\Dr. Pedro P. Rodriguez wrote:
 
> Hello to All:
>        Although the question has not been addressed to me, I thought
> that perhaps I should answer being that I am the "father of the
> creature."  Yes, I am very much aware of the existence of PGMO.  Those
> who read my files will notice tht I describe the reason for selecting
> FGMO with abundace of detail.  For those of you who may have missed it,
> please let me state it again.  FGMO is approved by the federal
> government (hence also
> state governments) in the USA for use in food handling operations.
> While PGMO might be slightly priced below the cost of FGMO, PGMO does
> not have approval from the government as a substance that can be applied
> to the "tools" for food handling.  Since honey is food, I think that the
> reason should be clear to everyone especially with the possibility of
> honey being subject to regulatory procedures in the near future.  With a
> lifetime experience in food hygiene, I would never advocate the use of a
> substance that does not meet hygienic standards.  Perhaps when the use
> of mineral oil as a bee miticide (as I have not doubt that it will
> become!), beekeepers and honey packers will lobby the government for
> approval of PGMO as an accepted substance that can be utilized in honey
> handling operations.
>      I would also like to emphasize for those of you who may have missed
> my post.  A few days back I posted to Bee-L the names of two major
> distributors of mineral oil in the United States including their
> telephone numbers; (one of them  is a free  call:    1-800-245-3952).
>       Good luck to all of you in the coming beekeeping season.
> Best regards.
> Dr. Rodriguez
> Virginia Beach, VA