> ... on the issue of compliance with government regulatory agencies. In
> my opinion, most of the loud voices of alarm are nothing more than self
> serving efforts to get recognition in the field of investigation that
> the use of  FGMO promises in the near future, feeling that their past
> negative propaganda may deprive them of valuable research funding. ...
> Please keep in (mind) environmental health were my primary concerns
> when I elected to work with Food Grade mineral oil.
 
Hi Bee Friends.
 
FWIW, I just finished editing the exchange between several list members
on the topic of US government registration for FGMO for forwarding to
Best of Bee.  In the process of editing, I routinely snip the snipes and
delete the material that does not directly concern the matter at hand --
particularly I delete personal comments.
 
As I read, I discovered that personalities seem to have become an
issue under this thread.  Nonetheless, after stripping away the politics,
I found that there seems to be little controversy and pretty much
agreement about some questions.
 
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.
 
The debate at this point appears to be taking on the characteristics of a
cultural and religious confrontation between the believers in the
scientific and bureaucratic methods  -- members of two complementary
powerful contemporary ruling classes -- and the believers in common sense.
 It is somewhat amusing to see a turf war developing over who gets to pass
judgement.
 
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
--
Buy, sell, trade, get a job, hire Help, announce a
meeting, advertise a business or publication...
For *beekeeping related* classified ads,
visit http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BeeAds/