This message may only be of interest to US beekeepers.
 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to close an ongoing
review of the use of ethylene oxide they started in the 1970's.  The issue
is the cost (in terms of environmental and employee health concerns) of
using ETO versus the benefit (fumigated spices, beehives, medical products,
cosmetics, etc.).
 
Of the many users of ETO, beekeeping usage is THE smallest and is also the
ONLY group that is being asked to stop using ETO.  To the best of my
knowledge there are only three states that are currently using ETO for
fumigation of bee equipment.  Two of these states have special/local needs
licenses and are being asked to voluntarily withdraw their permits or be
forced to do so by the EPA.  The Maryland bee inspector uses ETO under a
general license by interpreting  bee equipment as inanimate objects, which
is permissible under the general use permit.
 
The EPA has asked ETO suppliers, who have already complied, to change the
label and specifically prohibit the use of ETO as a fumigant for bee
equipment. This action makes bee equipment fumigation illegal under the
general use permit but permissible, for the time being, under the special
needs permit. However, the ability to get a special needs permit is in
question.
 
The bottom line is that the small beekeeping industry has borne the brunt
of the 20 year review of ETO usage.  In the opinion of the EPA, the value
of the fumigation of bee equipment is outweighed by the health risks to the
bee inspector who performs the fumigation.  From what I have been told, the
health risks were calculated by assuming exposure to ETO for 8 hours a day,
40 hours a week, and 50 weeks a year - far more exposure than any bee
inspector has ever had in Maryland.
 
The bottom line is that the EPA will probably dissallow all fumigation of
bee equipment by ETO.  The alternatives are to burn hives, steam autoclave
the boxes, scorch with fire, gamma irradiate, or dip in boiling lye.
 
In my opinion, isn't the EPA supposed to go after the largest users and
hazards first?   Shouldn't the largest user of ETO, the medical industry,
be the ones to lose their permits?  It is the medical industry that could
afford to switch to gamma irradiation more easily than the beekeeping
industry.  Does picking on the bee industry seem like a political and not
regulatory act?  Am I so naive to think that the EPA would go after the big
(ab)users first before the littel guy?
 
Comments appreciated.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David Bernard
EAS Master Beekeeper
President, Maryland State Beekeepers
EAS Director for Maryland
Damascus, MD
USA