Allen,
Like you more or less said in your comments, an issue for one side is - does
FGMO need EPA registration if it works?  If it does need registration, like
dormant oil spray, then what?
If we say, "forget it, let common sense prevail", and proceed without EPA
approval, I doubt if much will happen unless it turns up in honey. So far
Crisco has not and I doubt if FGMO will either.
If FGMO works, and a cheap application method is developed, it will be a
primary varroa treatment.
Then all you  need is some normally zealous EPA bureaucrat to start imposing
fines and making a big deal that "Beekeepers are using a non registered
pesticide in their hives!" .  If no studies have been performed, who is to say
that FGMO is benign in a hive environment? Common sense? Dealing with the EPA,
that is a non-starter. (I would be interested to hear from Dr. R if MO used in
mite treatment for horses, which gave him the idea, is registered as a
miticide with the EPA. May make most of the discussion moot, if it is not.)
So, if FGMO works (which has to be proved independently) and it becomes a
primary varroa treatment, then scientific studies confirming its safety should
be made. And I doubt if they would need be very extensive because of FGMO's
present uses wiyh food.
As an aside, I thought the same thing about all the other stuff in a hive that
are no-no's when you talk food safety- like paint, iron nails, wood-, but that
seems  FDA not EPA, because none of them are being used as a pesticide.
Also, I would not try to determine "who is the winner" in the discussion
unless we get an impartial referee, which few of us are.  But if asked, I put
it even.
I will be using MO this year, trialing it on a couple of my hives. I am sure
it will work, but will be happy when I see the kinds of studies that showed
that Crisco did work and why (even though I was using it years before Diane
S's excellent study came out). It is interesting that there are no studies on
Crisco's impact on honey's food safety that I know of. Probably because the
main thing the bees do with both Crisco and FGMO is try to get it out of the
hive.
Wonder how that fits in with everything?
Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME
 
 
Allen Dick wrote in part:
 
> As I see it, everyone thinks that *if* FGMO actually works -- and there is
> healthy scientific scepticism about this -- that it would be wise to
> ensure that there are no regulatory impediments to its use, or unforseen
> deleterious side effects on either the bees or the consumers of the hive
> products.
>
> At this point there is debate as to whether FGMO use is obviously safe and
> indisputably harmless because we rub it on babies, take it by the
> teaspoonful as a laxative, and permit it to be used on food machinery (in
> moderation), or whether there may some subtle unforseen interaction
> between FGMO and other things in the hive or environment that could lead
> to problems.
>
> Traditionally beekeeping remedies have been developed on a 'seat of the
> pants' basis.  I think this is somewhat true even of things like Crisco
> patties.  Yes, there has been some though put into checking for possible
> dangers and side effects, but somehow, I just don't think that millions
> of dollars -- or even tens of thousands for that matter -- went into
> proving safety.  As it stands, you can still put pretty much anything you
> want into a beehive, other than obvious poisons and pesticides.  That
> includes using paint or linseed oil on the interior, iron nails, and wood
> -- the bane of food handlers.  And, to keep things in perspective, not
> all beehives are used to produce food for humans.  There are large
> beekeepers who do not own an extarctor.
>
> There are many fans on BEE-L of increasingly strict and explicit
> governmental regulation for just about everything.  I guess it is the sign
> of a very rich society that we can spend time and money on things that are
> the equivalent -- in another time and religious era -- of counting how
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
>
> What do I think?  Obviously I was brought up believing in the scientific
> method, nonetheless, I have to side with the common sense crowd on this
> one.  I think this is a no-brainer.  This ain't rocket science.  Dr. R
> chose FGMO because he wisely forsaw this teapot tempest coming from
> afar and did not want to get embroiled in controversy that would impair
> the usefulness of his work.
>
> All hair splitting aside, I don't think there is any reason for most
> people to waste time wondering if FGMO is somehow dangerous to the
> environment or health of consumers (although I am always grateful that
> there are some who will).  The real question is whether FGMO works, and I
> have to say that I have amazingly not seen one piece of evidence that it
> does not. Of course the lack of evidence is not proof that FGMO does work,
> but I should think that this lack of supporting evidence for the belief
> that FGMO may not work is a challenge to the skeptics to get to work and
> quit writing what amounts to vain speculation and congratulating one
> another.
>
> Dr Pedro has taken a few licks here on BEE-L as well as received some
> compliments.  So far he is the (only?) one who is doing something about
> his hypothesis.  Some may criticize his approach, his science, or his
> personality, but so far no one has been able to disprove his assertions as
> to the safety and efficacy of FGMO.  Words don't count.
>
> The ball is in his detractors' court.  So far, I think the score is:
> Pedro 10, Detractors, 0
>
> Allen