> how and why would the EPA have a darn thing to do with this?  
> Its not a pesticide, 

It may be surprising, but it is a pesticide.  It was EPA registered
pesticide 77705. It is still a pesticide, it is simply no longer legal to
use, as the registration has been revoked. Before it was used in beekeeping,
I think it was a generic insect repellent used in animal feed.

The EPA allowed its use in beekeeping, and exempted honey from the
requirement for a "tolerance" (a maximum residue limit).
Note that the exemption would not have been required, nor would it have been
written into the law by the EPA if there were no residues of that chemical
left in honey.  The EPA would not have wasted its time in that manner.

Also note that I just today enjoyed reading a post that tried to "prove"
that Butyric would never get into honey by presuming to "explain chemistry",
but neglecting to consider the simple physics of a liquid dripping off a
fume board onto the combs.

There is also the very powerful odor of Butyric Anhydride, much stronger
(and "sharper" in a foulbrood-odor sort of way) than that of Butyric Acid.
This odor must be "aired out of supers" over a period of several days at
elevated temperature.  If none of it ever got into the honey, then why must
the supers be aired out?  Why does it take so long to air out the supers?
Why must one burn one's clothing at the far end of the farm if one gets even
a drop of the stuff on yourself?  Clearly, the odor DOES persist in the
"anhydride" form, and anyone with a nose can refute the claim that it does
not persist.  Butyric acid smells much less disgusting.

So, common sense shows us that there is something far more stinky than mere
butyric acid after one uses butyric anhydride, and the EPA approved 40 CFR
180.1034, which said:

"Butanoic anhydride; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
The insect repellant butanoic anhydride is exempted from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues in the
raw agricultural commodities honey and beeswax, when present therein as a
result of its application in an 
absorbent pad over the hive to repel bees during the harvesting of honey."
("butanoic" is a synonym for "butyric")

This was the sole legislation that "legalized" the chemical for use in
beekeeping.  Without it, it is no longer legal.

> heck its barely an irritant to bees leave them on and in a hour or two
they ignore them.   

The bees can fan, and at some point, disperse the worst of the fumes, and
the bees, like the beekeeper, eventually seem to acclimate.  But why would
anyone leave any fume board on for more than a few minutes, at most?  

> Wouldn't this be a FDA issues as its done in the handling of
food/preparation?  
> Food prep and adulteration are FDA and local health department issues, not
EPA.

Yes, exactly - it is the FDA rules that now apply.  They have applied since
1998, when the EPA revoked the "exemption from the requirement for a
tolerance" by deleting 40 CFR 180.1034 from the EPA regs.  The EPA was under
the impression that the chemical was no longer being used at all, as the
manufacturer did not renew their registration.  The EPA said "the existing
stocks of the chemicals are presumed to have been exhausted more than a year
ago, giving ample time for any treated food to clear trade channels."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030528155501/http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PE
ST/1998/January/Day-21/p1356.htm
http://tinyurl.com/zzrhtoe

But no one stopped selling the chemical to beekeepers, and the EPA and FDA
simply have not noticed.  It is not illegal to make the chemical, but it
does seem to me that it would be illegal to continue to put instructions on
the bottles that tell people to use it in close proximity to honey.

If the FDA was funded well enough to bother with such insignificant matters
as beekeeping, they'd likely enforce the law, but does anyone want to live
in a world where the FDA prosecutes beekeepers for the civil and criminal
penalties associated with "food adulteration"?  I honestly don't think there
would be enough jackboots to provide every thug with a pair.

> Has the FDA approved or  declined the use of either of these processes in
food prep?  

They have overtly not approved any "food use" for butyric anhydride.
Without an overt approval, it is forbidden.

> I am not familiar with the process but assume you have gotten approval for
the bee quick?

Don't need it.  Bee-Quick is distilled from food that is "fit for human
consumption".  (I have several trough-parabolic tracking solar collectors
that super-heat a thermal-transfer fluid to drive the stills, so pollution
is zero, and my energy bill is near zero, but my liability insurance premium
is breathtaking, as running a semi-automated, self-designed, self-built
"live steam boiler" within the city limits of NYC is something that evokes
"latent concern" from the FDNY, the NYPD, the Dept of Homeland Security, the
steamfitters union, and so on.  We have a get-together once a year to test
all the relief valves and admire the explosion-proof walls built inside a
very non-descript warehouse building.)

 Given that it is made from food, there is no question that it may come into
"close contact with food".  The good news is that it is also approved for
use in Certified Organic Beekeeping by multiple certification agencies who
do the certification work under USDA authorization.  I did actually sit down
with the EPA here in the US, Health Canada, and about 100 other countries'
regulators so far, as it is simple courtesy to present one's case, and allow
them to decide for themselves on their own local laws.  For example, I don't
sell to Australia, or allow any of my dealers to sell to Australia, out of
respect for the wishes of the beekeeping associations there.  It is not the
law, it is just complying with their stated preference.  (There's at least
one [toxic, synthetic] knock-off of Bee-Quick that claims to sell in
Australia, so I patiently await reports of the delivery of a crate full of
Australian crocodiles, giant spiders, and such to his doorstep.)

> also where can I get a MSDS?  

MSDSes are so last decade. You want the new "SDSs" - Safety Data Sheets. But
google "MSDS" or "SDS" followed by the chemical name, and you'll get dozens.
The OSHA guys want you to get one from your actual suppliers, but for this
chemical, they are all copies of the original Kodak version.  (Yeah, Kodak -
they make the bulk of the Butyric Anhydride in the USA.  No idea why.)

> With more than 2 employees I am required to keep a copy (Yes I have been
very lax at that) 
> but figured it would have answered my question at least a little.

And the employee-safety aspects of such things are why a responsible
beekeeper follows the law strictly, as an accident likely means both a
workers comp claim AND a personal-injury lawsuit from the injured employee,
and the first question asked is going to be "Is that chemical legally
permitted in your operation?"   The answer is no - it is no more legal than
cyanide, it is just less lethal.

In the days when I designed CPUs that were the size of several
refrigerators, many computer companies, mine included persisted in using
carbon tetrachloride to clean the flux off circuit boards in the wave
soldering machines that swept molten solder over the bottom of the boards,
and soldered everything in one pass.  Carbon tet was nasty stuff. Heat it up
hot enough, and you get phosgene gas - the chemical weapon of choice in WWI.
It was banned, but it took from the 1940s until the late 1970s to convince
all the people who presumed to "know better", to take the ban seriously.
Even the boys who worked the day shift at the idea factory had to be ordered
to stop using it, as it cleaned those circuit boards so well.

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