> I don't see how they can bury this. Some final reports on CCD 
> will be out soon I suspect, and its likely that the data on 
> self contamination could make it into a NY Times article or 
> similar major media. 

Well, gee, thanks so much for making the accusation without any
supporting data at all on a listserv with a web-based archive 
that is publicly accessible and indexed by all the search engines!  

I'm certain that your posting alone will prompt some number of 
people who lack basic understanding to misinterpret the data 
to the point that brood chamber comb levels will be misreported 
as "honey contamination levels".  Again, thanks sooo much.  :)

Not to worry though, your concerns are groundless in terms of
facts, educated interpretation, and expert data analysis.
The samples have all been from brood chambers, so of course 
the numbers will be much higher than in honey supers, and 
not at all relevant to the issue of honey super combs or honey.

Regardless, how much of the honey consumed in the US was produced 
in the US?  Five percent?  Ten?  Check the USDA import numbers 
versus the USDA US production numbers, and note that a significant 
chunk of US-produced honey is exported to other countries where
the quality is valued.  Any "scare story" will always be about 
what the US public eats, which is mostly a blend of honey from 
any one of or all of China, Argentina, and Canada.

The basic problem has always been that the US public is willing
to pay a premium to "buy local", but has not yet extended this 
habit to their honey purchasing.

> Imagine if the findings also implicate the self contaminates 
> as a contributing cause of CCD? 

But that's been known to be completely wrong for more than 
a year - early on it was wondered if off-label mite treatments 
were a contributing cause or the proximate cause of CCD, and 
it was quickly found that there was no correlation at all to 
any specific miticide, class of miticide, or other treatment 
or management methodology.

> Wow beekeepers helped cause CCD, a newsworthy story as 
> sensational as CCD itself. 

Nope, "the beekeeper" was "accused and tried" early on, 
and found to be not just innocent, but not even indictable.

But that does not and will not stop the loonies.
Every crackpot on the planet wants to blame their pet peeve 
as the cause of CCD.  There is a group of people who call
themselves "biodynamic beekeepers" (they follow practices
suggested by a self-proclaimed clairvoyant from the late
1800s named Rudolf Steiner who never gardened or kept
bees) who are openly blaming CCD on things like use of
foundation, feeding bees, AI queens, and Langstroth hives.
Apparently these willfully ignorant people think that bees 
kept in skeps by beekeepers who "honor the true nature of
their bees" would somehow be immune to the exotic invasive 
pathogens that are clearly the actual cause of this disease 
with clear symptoms of being a disease.  (One can almost
have one's stomach once again turned by the cloying
smell of the scent of patchouli oil worn to cover up
the scent of fear and naiveté.)

I wrote over a year ago in "Bee Culture":

"...special-interest groups trying to leverage 
CCD as 'proof' that their pre-existing pet peeve 
is worthy of attention and your donations. 'See, 
the bees are dying, we were right all along!' 
say the anti-this and anti-that groups. 
The 'Cause of CCD' has become a virus itself, 
affecting beekeepers, whose minds risk being 
hijacked by fringe thinking. Victims are 
infected via e-mail forwarding."

Nothing much has changed in the year that has 
transpired, I'm sorry to say.  Time was wasted 
chasing a "new virus" that turned out to have 
been here for nearly a decade without causing 
any tangible problems or symptoms at all.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************