> It is quite clear that the product of fume 
> boards is butyric acid vapor, not the anhydride.

It has already been made "quite clear" that it is butyric anhydride that you
are using in very close contact with honey, regardless of whatever
mislabeling might exist.

From a technical standpoint, vapor pressure alone makes it certain that one
is putting butyric anhydride INTO THE HIVE.
It comes into contact with the combs, and it is in close proximity to capped
honey, and in direct contact with the uncapped honey. 

While the majority of it will break down, and leave only an elevated butyric
acid residue, the use of the product is the adulteration of honey with
something that the EPA revoked the tolerance for way back in 1998.  

What's the typical level of anhydride detectable in honey after some decent
number of days or hours, Jerry?
And what's the level of the butyric acid in honey that is not heated to
within an inch of its life? 
I'd figure in-hive monitors would run across more residues than anything
sampling method.

I'm not sure of the precise criminal and civil penalties that would be
imposed for adulteration with a long-prohibited substance, nor of the
penalties for the attempt to conceal the adulteration by "airing out the
supers", but the combination of the two seems to put one firmly into the
"willful acts" end of the spectrum.  Note that even if one is "successful",
and is able to completely conceal the adulteration, the penalties are the
same.   So, using phenol to pull supers would be no different. 

If one might argue that most of the butyric anhydride would break down into
butyric acid, one must remember the "Ultra-Filtered Honey" trick.  The FDA
knows full well that the ultra-filtration was removing "markers of Chinese
origin" like chloramphenicol, so their position is that they will "refuse
entry" to ultra-filtered honey as they find it.  So even when no
adulteration at all is detectable, the FDA is not so easily fooled. 

But we need not bicker over technical and legal complexities, as this an
ethical issue.

Beekeeping, at its core, is the practice of acting ethically when no one is
looking.
Nearly every decision a beekeeper makes boils down to "ethics".

If one cannot accept that "ethical behavior" includes avoiding overtly
prohibited substances that have been long-prohibited in honey and/or in
close proximity to honey, then I doubt that there is anything I could say
that would prompt the adoption of ethical practices by a suddenly
enlightened soul. 

But please at least cease the ersatz science-y attempts to rationalize or
justify such an unfortunate and unethical choice.  It is exactly this sort
of self-proclaimed expertise combined with a cynical assessment that one
could "probably get away with it" that led to the re-emergence of measles
and whooping cough as diseases to worry about.  





 

             ***********************************************
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