The abstract below shows there exists a sensitive method to measure
fluvalinate (active ingr of Apistan® varroa treatment) in beeswax.
        The eqpt mentioned is not widespread, requiring $10^5 - $10^6
capital and skilled technical help.
        That is the easy part.  Assessing the biological significance of
whatever gets measured entails much larger uncertainties.
        If things go true to prior form, the history of this issue will be
essentially:

        1   Ignore
        2   When concern has been expressed by enough citizens who think it
matters, deny; mock concerned scientists & medicos
        3   Without conceding any potential harm, agree to monitor; use
word 'perception' liberally
        4   Delay  a year or so
        5   Rig media coverage to show concern only from ignorant
hysterical politicians rather than scientists capable of discussing the
matter; convert it into a WimminsLib issue if at all possible
        6   Steer funding to compliant scientists who are willing to select
samples so the levels are expected to be relatively low
        7   Try to get employers to sack any independent experts who
suggest not all is OK
        7   If measured levels turn out to be 'low', trumpet the
announcement as "proof of harmlessness"; if 'high', suppress if possible,
or alternatively slip out quietly thru media stooges who will make nothing
of them.
        8  Neglect alternative responses to the problem which use less
toxic natural materials or different husbandry methods.


        I have seen this modus operandi applied (with variations) to many
chemicals.

        I have no reason to believe actual levels of fluvalinate in beeswax
matter much; I have no opinion on the matter, as we are around only Stage
1.5 in this case.  But it is certainly not too soon to underline item (8).
        Also, I have been trying to point out that from now on we can
expect a further step in the official routine:
        (9)  Pretend that gene-tampering is a promising approach to the
problem, and divert most of the funding to gene-jiggering projects which
have almost no chance of helping (and may themselves do novel harm to bees
or other organisms).

R


The analysis of fluvalinate in beeswax using GC/MS
_ Food Research International_
Volume 32, Issue 1, January 1999, Pages 35-41
Suzanne Frison, Walter Breitkreitz, Robert Currie, Don Nelson and Peter Sporns

Abstract

A method for quantitation of the synthetic pyrethroid fluvalinate in
beeswax has
 been developed.
The method uses the internal standard permethrin added in the first
acetonitrile
 extraction step.
Subsequent cleanup involves partitioning into ether and use of a florisil
column.  The final gas chromatography was performed on a capillary column
with selected ion monitoring
detection using a mass spectrometer.  The presence of fluvalinate was
confirmed by the retention
times of two identical peaks which had a 75:25 area ratio of the peaks at
m/z of 250:252 (ion
 contains chlorine).
Fluvalinate recovery of 108 and 97% were obtained at the 0.52 and 1.04 ppm
spike
 level (respectively) using peak area calculations.
 The detection limit was determined to be 0.05 ppm.


Author Keywords: Permethrin; Acaride; Residue; Synthetic pyrethroid; Mite
control