> The *misuse* increase the velocity of the process.
 
Thanks for the support, and the explanation.
 
I still think though that it has not been adequately *proven* that misuse
accelerated the development of resistance.  Repetition of a theory by many
people and publications does not make it any more proven, only more
popular.  And any student of history is well aware of the bizarre things
people have believed and continue to believe en masse and worldwide.
 
*Perhaps* misuse did accelerate resistance -- but has this actually been
proven?  Or is it just a guess?  (and a convenient guess that lets the
regulators, researchers and chemical companies off the hook, but blames
the beekeepers for the inevitable?  Granted, unapproved uses did occur,
but is there *any* real; proof that they were involved in the resistance
process, or were they just "first at the scene of the crime"?  Or "in the
neighbourhood at the time"?
 
I've heard it said that it was known from the start by researchers that
fluvalinate would have a probable maximum useful life as a varroa control
of around ten years before resistance could be expected to appear if it
were employed widely.  According to that line of thought, that known fact
was one reason why Apistan was marketed at such amazingly high prices
compared to actual material cost.  The convenience and reliability
features of the product justified the high cost to enough buyers to get a
quick payback -- and hopefully a profit -- for the manufacturer during
the projected short product life, but it was known from the start that it
also would unavoidably encourage alternate home-made formulations to be
used.  It was a trade-off: the best possible under the circumstances.
 
If the marketer had confidence in the longevity of the product and the
ultimate long term profit stream and there was a real, rather than stated,
 threat of loss of product effectiveness from alternate fluvalinate use, a
pricing more competitive with the raw chemical used could have removed
the incentive to make home treatments.
 
Whether this is just a convenient interpretation of the facts or actual
history is pretty well impossible to prove, and I guess -- as in most
things -- people will choose their preferred explanation amongst the
equally plausible ones according to personal taste.  Personally, I assume
that chemical companies and their marketing people behave rationally, and
this explanation fits.
 
Moreover, it suggests that 1.) either the chemical company could not
achieve a price sufficiently low to effectively eliminate the incentive to
make alternate home formulations,  or 2.) that they knew such formulations
were not a real threat and that their commercial product would be dead in
a bit more than ten years regardless of what anyone did.  (The only
other move on the board would have been to provide an alternate chemical
treatment and schedule for alternating applications, perhaps even making
and distributing completely different strips in alternating years -- and
that was a tall order).
 
If it were not a difficult enough problem to come up with a product that
worked, the marketer and the beekeepers were hamstrung by a system
that makes licencing a product risky and very costly in the name of
consumer and environmental protection.  Moreover, the civil legal system
in some countries strongly discourages participation in anything but very
safe or very profitable products, so marketing economical alternate
treatments, although technically quite feasible was not attractive.
 
Anyhow, back to the issue here:  it is very interesting that resistance is
appearing simultaneously and independantly at widely separated locales
after about ten years of use -- if I've gotten this right.   I guess we
have to ask:  is this phenomenon originating only in beehives where
alternate fluvalinate formulations were used?  If so, *when* were they
used?  Were these hives ones that were among the very first to use
fluvalinate?  Is cause and effect actually proven here _or only inferred_?
 
I lack the detailed information to make a conclusion.  Maybe the facts
have been independantly researched and are known.  Maybe a scientific
study of the ocurrance has been made, reviewed,  and published. If so,
then I'd like to know about it.  If not, I presume it is like many news
stories: inadequately researched., sensational, lacking depth, and
serving an agenda.
 
I think that it is far from properly established that the resistance is
due to unapproved use, or 'abuse' as some like to term it.  But maybe I am
just short on facts.  If so, please fill me in.
 
Allen