Dear Andy,
You were right to state at the end, that your opinions expressed may not be
facts.
You refer to a "sweet deal" between Sandoz and the EPA; both organisations would
take serious afront to this accusation as it is clearly untrue.
Apistan is the only product registered for use against Varroa in the USA
currently, solely because Sandoz/Zoecon was and remains the only body willing to
put up the money to do years of serious research into Varroa control and to
produce a high quality treatment. If the toxicological, pharmaceutical, residue
and efficacy data were not of a high standard, Apistan would not have been
accepted for registration in the USA; it's precisely because Sandoz has
generated this data that Apistan is registered as a Veterinary Drug in most
countries around the world.
In short, there was no "deal" between Sandoz/Zoecon and the EPA; what the EPA
did do was to respond to pressure from beekeeping groups throughout the USA who
asked for help to combat a menace which would otherwise have wiped out their
colonies, their hobby, and more importantly in many cases, their entire
livlihood.
Don't blame one company for trying to help - and yes of course making some
money, eventually - that's what business is all about. (Shouldn't need to tell
Americans that!).
However, just because one product is registered it does not prevent someone else
from generating similar data and getting another 2, 3, or however many products
registered and on the open market. But on the other hand, you cannot expect a
national regulatory body to accept poor data on safety, residue and other
aspects, especially where the end product, following treatment, is a food for
human consumption.
In Europe, other products are often used on a small scale by hobbyists - such as
formic acid, lactic acid etc; Sandoz actually recommends the use of such
alternatives to rotate with Apistan where it is legal and practical to do so. No
one product is a panacea for all ills - none are perfect but you have to make a
rational choice given the experience with and performance of such products,
together with the legality of use.
Noone is being forced to use Apistan. It's there as a useful tool if you want to
use it but everyone is free to use whatever they want - or not. It depends on
what results you want.
Max
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: More Mavrik pontification!
Author: [log in to unmask] at INTERNET1
Date: 10/8/96 2:51 AM
AM>From: Aaron Morris <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:47:44 EDT
>Subject: More Mavrik pontification!
AM>That is PRECISELY! the concern. If/when one of the hordes of lab
>technicians blats to the media that they discovered traces of pesticide
Hello Aaron,
Now what bee technician worth his salt would damage the bee industry by
selling his story for a few pieces of silver....don't answer that as
there has been dozens of papers and almost daily lab work that indicates
what pesticides and other chemicals are or have been found in honey
that could be used by others to damage the image of Honey, but then
maybe she ain't so pure anyway. Maybe we have been just lucky but honey
continues to bee a very valuable commodity traded on a world market and
much comes to the US for our own consumption from countries that are not
as enlightened on chemical use as we think we are. Should it be that if
we don't allow the same chemical to be used here in our bee hives we
should not allow honey from areas that do to enter our markets? Some
countries fear our bees and will not allow them to be imported, why
should we not fear what may be in their honey if they can treat their
bees with pesticides we can not use?
Then Honey itself is 2nd only to Pollen as an indicator as to what
dirt is in our environment and it all gets into the bees food chain.
Lucky for us most of it is not thought to be in harmful amounts and
much can not be detected after time and normal handling. That does not
mean it is not there, it may be just not detectable and for sure most of
us can not afford the cost of looking even on a cooperative level.
>at an acceptable profit!!! The only way to prevent that dismal day is
>to use available products conscientiously, following the label directions
>and keeping potential contaminates out of our hives!!!
It's true in a perfect world we would not see the need to use chemicals,
but the fact is we don't live in a perfect world and the US bee industry
is now "trapped on the chemical merry go around" just like those nasty
farmers who treat their crops, they say to protect them from a perceived
threat.
Beekeepers treat their hives because someone has told and convinced them
of a perceived threat and the US bee regulator scientists worked out a
sweet deal with one chemical formulator for a permitted use of a
regulated chemical in now what is a "one shot use product" leaving
them with NO market competition and NO choice for the beekeeper. It
matters not that there may be hundreds of other chemicals and natural
substances that may be as good or better then the one approved, and
don't expect anything to change even as a few have a closer look and
find a promise of good alternatives. There is no money in marketing a
natural or even a man made product to beekeepers that would cost them
only a few pennies to treat each hive with a product they could buy at
the local Walmart.. The chemical regulation business runs on money, and
not on the best use of our own money or even the best materials one
would want to use. In today's regulatory environment in the US we
beekeepers are lucky to have any materials registered for our use at all
because of the small amount of money in total we spend on such products
which leaves little monetary incentive for any new or old product to run
the gauntlet of US registration so it can be legally used by beekeepers.
Lets be real, the system is broken and if a new use for an old or new
product becomes a reality and/or a problem then you can expect that
something will be done, maybe...Beekeepers must be careful of what they
add to their hives approved or not.
It is interesting that it was the same sweet people who also have sold
us on the perceived threat with NO evidence in the case of the Vampire
mite demonstrating that any level of infestation could be equated with
the death of any one hive or if a beekeeper should treat at any
particular level of infestation. Even today the few who are our
regulators continue to search for the cause of death of our hives as
beekeepers spend millions on the cure for what they are looking for, and
we continue to lose hives. This year was the "year of the decline of the
feral honeybee", if you believe what has been printed, will next year be
"the year of decline of the hive bees"?
>using Mavrik or leaving Apistan strips in year round, follow the advice
>of Bob Dole, "Just don't do it!"
I did not do it and all my hives died, or I did do it and all my hives
died anyway, which ever fits. I guess it may be just as important as
who you do it with as it is what you use for protection when you do it.
But if we want to follow the example of our highest political leader it
would be more appropriate to say "do it, just don't get caught", and "if
you do get caught, lie about it."<G> I do hope we have some leadership
change at the highest level, but expect no change at this end of the
food chain as far as beekeeping goes no matter who occupies the hot
seat...beekeepers have not enough friends in congress on any side of
the isle to expect any real help, unless you want to close down some
federal bee program and then you find lots of friends.
What ever you use to treat a hive if it does not kill the hive and all
the pests you targeted then you have a sub lethal residue problem.
NO claims have been allowed or made that the one permitted material when
used as directed would give a 100% control of mites from the day one
because when used as advertised it does not kill 100% of the bees or
mites, so leaving the strips in is really academic problem and just
fodder for contention between beekeepers, and bee regulators who are not
that much better then beekeepers when it comes to removing the strips
which is not a productive labor or use of time, but it could have been
with a "return the used strip for a TWENTY-FIVE CENTS refund on the next
one." This would have killed two birds with one refund, the strips would
have been removed sooner or later from the hives and the strips would
have been given a proper disposal, what ever that means, maybe recycled
into new strips.<G> This could have been made part of the law just as
the use reporting was, but then who has bothered to ask how much is
being used anyway?
>Mississippi or Maryland about residues showing up in honey, and
>beekeepers EVERYWHERE will pay the price for the few beekeepers who are
>trying to cut corners by using pesticides produced for uses other than
>mite control in bee hives. We'll all pay for the "frugality" of a few.
>Please, for the sake of MY profits and the sake of our industry as a
>whole, play by the rules!!!
The truth is that what we do in the US in our bee yards is determined
more by the politics of the day then the science of the day. There is no
place in this world that residues of man made and natural chemicals can
not be found at some level in honey. People are free to point that out
to the public and have done so many times and I would expect to hear it
all again and again in the future. NO honey is 100% free of things we
would rather not find in it, but no evidence exists that these small
residues are nothing more then interesting and are more reflections of
our own environment today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
The beekeeper in SA who covers his hives with tomato vines to control
mites is adding the same ingredients to the hives environment as can be
found in man made products just from a different source and for certain
not registered or recommended for use to control mites in the US in a
natural or artificial form.
In the US we all accept the fact we can not use Carbolic Acid to drive
our bees from the full supers of honey, yet how many would like to use
Thymol to kill the mites would want to know that in the one product the
chemical that effects the mites may be the same that caused the other to
be banned.
Because one chemical is permitted and small residues from that use is
allowed is no great difference from all the chemicals that are not
allowed and can be detected, we just don't live in a Zero tolerance
world and never did, it's just today we have better instruments to
measure things with and more people to complain on issues they/we really
don't understand.
ttul Andy-
(c) Permission is granted to freely copy this document
in any form, or to print for any use.
(w)Opinions are not necessarily facts. Use at own risk.
---
~ QMPro 1.53 ~ ... When all candles bee out, all cats be gray.
|
