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:
Andy Nachbaur <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 28 Jul 1996 16:28:00 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
RC>We were told at our association meeting that EPA was holding up the
  >approval of formic acid and would require many months before approval.  I
  >wrote to my congressman, he wrote to EPA, & they responded that the
  >approved producer (will look up the name after EAS next week, if anyone
  >wants it -- think it is Mann Lake) had not yet submitted a proposal.  I
  >called the producer, and was told that they had submitted two proposals,
  >both rejected (EPA doesn't recognize rejected proposals), and that a third
  >proposal was imminent.  When asked if we might look for approval by this
  >fall, the answer was: don't count on it.
 
  >Dick Chapin
  >Montrose, PA
  >Susquehanna Beekeepers' Assn.
 
RC>  (\
  > {|||8-
  >  (/
 
This really illustrates the failure of our EPA and chemical regulatory
system and is one item that should be changed.
 
Registration for a material like this should not need the support of any
sales origination or chemical company which will do no more then add to
the retail cost of it like the strips now used which contain a few
cents worth of material that any other farmer could buy and apply
without a problem.
 
There is no reason formic acid could not be sponsored for minor use by
any research agency of a university or the USDA themselves or even a
local beekeeping group. It is not a new chemical, or one with
inherent dangers to the public or the beekeeper, only a new use of a
old natural occurring chemical, and one at that which has been approved
in other countries. Not to have it available for use in the US puts the
US beekeeper at a competitive disadvantage to other beekeepers in more
enlightened countries.
 
If the chemical has been documented and demonstrated to bee safe and
effective it should be allowed and all beekeepers and beekeeper groups
in the US should do what your group has done and make contact with there
political representatives and follow up on these. We all should look to
our neighbors to the north and see what government process they use to
protect their small farmers in situations like this and work to see
the US process is changed as this is only one of hopefully a large
number of old natural materials that beekeepers in the US may want
to use in the near future or face the loss of a large part of the
beekeeping industry to match what some are reporting from the feral
honeybees.
 
All one has to do is go to your local grocery, drug, or hardware store
and you will find hundreds of hard chemicals being sold to anyone who
has the cash without any common sense training like most of us receive
daily on the bee farm. Why should we expect less and we should demand no
less for the treatments we need to keep our bees healthy for beekeepers
with one hive or tens of thousands.
 
                        ttul Andy-
 
 
(c) Permission is granted to freely copy this document
in an form, or to print for any use.
 
(w)Opinions are not necessarily facts. Use at own risk.
 
---
 ~ QMPro 1.53 ~ Honey is sweeter than wine. Spreads on bread better too!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2