> Perhaps we have not explained the science clearly 
> enough for the benefit of the non chemists in the group. 
> Application of butyric anhydride to a fume board would 
> not mean that it would leave residues of the anhydride 
> in the honey.

> The physical reason is that due to its low vapor pressure, 
> little anhydride would ever evaporate from the fume board.

No, this is verification that it would remain a liquid, and drip down from
the fume board onto the combs!
This is what the FDA and EPA call "close contact with food", as there is a
significant chance that some of the stuff will get into food, and it really
does not matter what excuses or rationalizations someone wants to make,
using such stuff in even close proximity to food is simply not allowed.
Even if "misuse" is the only scenario for contamination, if the FDA does not
overly allow it, it is illegal.

Thus endth the "chemistry lesson".

> Thus, this would make any requirement for a maximum residue limit moot.

The above confuses EPA "tolerances", which set a maximum allowed limit for
pesticides and such in food with the distinct LACK of tolerance for the mere
use of anything not on the "Generally Accepted as Safe" (GRAS) list anywhere
near food.

I'll say it again - what part of the phrase "NO FOOD USE" for Butyric
Anhydride is unclear?  :)

I can't believe that this argument has continued past the clarification of
the law as it stands in regard to food safety.

	

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