BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:28:49 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (102 lines)
> Some of us were talking last year about getting motions passed at the AHPA
> and ABF meetings to get formic and oxalic approved for use the USA.

As far as formic acid goes the following approvals were obtained:

1) During 1996 through 1999, "For-Mite" obtained various approvals
   from the EPA, including a "tolerance in beeswax and honey".
   It is not known why no product was marketed by the applicant
   after all the effort, but Mann Lake (the applicant) can be assumed
   to have been happier selling CheckMite strips than Formic Acid,
   likely due to liability concerns.

2) Later on, the USDA itself developed Formic Acid Gel, and BetterBee
   took it all the way to a full-bore "Section 3" EPA approval.  Some
   gel-packs were shipped, but they tended to have the same impact on
   dealer warehouse shelves and floors as the green slime that the
   creatures "bleed" in the "Alien" movie series, so back to the drawing
   board.

3) Most recently, the Mite-Away folks have worked with the EPA to get
   what is said to be full "Section 3" approval for their product,
   rumored to be slated for this winter.

If this many approvals can be obtained, clearly "approval" is not
the problem, is it?

Anyway, such resolutions are not worth the paper they aren't printed on.

If a large group of beekeepers want change, they should realize that
1,000 paper letters from 1,000 real beekeepers to their individual
elected representatives would have a lot more impact than anything
from either of the self-proclaimed representatives of all US beekeepers.
Elected officials listen to their constituents more than they listen to
what they view as "trade groups" or "pressure groups".  (From a
practical standpoint, neither group has anywhere near as many attendees
as the Ohio Tri-County meeting each March, so if one wanted to talk about
constituencies, they would both be competing to be #3, as EAS would
clearly be #2 in terms of numbers of beekeeper members.)

Of course, both organizations want to claim to represent more of
the large beekeepers, ignoring the fact that large-scale beekeeping
has about as much in common with small-scale beekeeping as marching
bands have in common with string quartets.

Even if a US Congressperson or Senator agreed that the plight of
beekeepers was severe, "breaking" the system to grant relief
to beekeepers on pesticide regs would be like amending the law
to exempt beekeeper's trucks from all safety inspection and
licensing requirements - indefensible nonsense.

The Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee happens to be
my congressperson, so I know for certain that while such
resolutions would get a polite response, it would not prompt
action that would do more harm than good.  One must think with
care about one's goal before one starts lobbying.  (For example,
ABF's position on bee imports was "just say no".  This was a
childish demand in light of the WTO treaty, which does not allow
"just say no".  The ABF was an embarrassment to those of us who
were trying to make tangible progress towards biosecurity.)

The good news is that the system isn't broken.  Mite-Away sailed
through EPA approval with ease, and is rumored to be due a full
"Section 3" registration just in time for Christmas, clear proof
that anyone who wishes could register anything they wished.

After all, regulators who will approve an organophosphate clearly
have approved something just short of weapons-grade plutonium
in terms of human toxicity.

Would all beekeepers be willing to sign a waiver of liability
indemnifying the manufacturer and dealer of any/all liability
resulting from use or handling of either Formic or Oxalic as
a precondition to buying either?  Somehow I doubt it.

> My perception is that many, if not most, US beekeepers are
> simply not well informed... I was so shocked at the conviction with
> which misinformation about formic and oxalic was presented by people
> I very much respect...

Would YOU admit to being "well-informed" on a technique that would
not only imply at least fines, if not criminal charges, but might
also cause your entire honey crop to be rejected by your buyers
if the story "got out"?  For an object lesson, let's wait and see
what happens to those that are implicated in the sodium cyanide
incident.  I can detect the faint odor of burning woodenware from here.

Did you ever stop to think that otherwise well-informed people
making statements and asking questions so clueless might be
indulging in some deliberate misdirection to give the impression
that they had not even thought about doing something that they
really had been doing for a while?

Beekeepers are a highly creative group of people.
Yeah, "creative" - that's the ticket.


     jim (The worst defense is a bad offense)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2