BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:07:07 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
Allen asks:
Any ideas what the response will be to naturally ocurring substances like
oxalic acid?

I don't know what the response might be to formic acid also.

I have heard that in certain states bee inspectors are looking the other way
when it comes to formic acid use but the  FDA are the people doing the
looking and not the bee inspectors.

I would guess if oxalic or formic acid could be used without raising the
level over the level normally found in honey the treatment would pass FDA
scrutiny.

The confiscation of the huge volume of honey by the FDA (Texas)by U.S.
marshals should be a wake up call for those using illegal chemicals. Can any
large scale beekeeper afford to lose his/her entire honey crop to
confiscation by the FDA?

The FDA denied the request of a few packers for a tolerance for
chloraphenicol in honey and also selling the chloraphenicol honey "ultra
filtered" as pure honey.

Looks to me like the FDA has caught the attention of packers and after a few
producers get their crops confiscated and destroyed the rest of the
producers will forget about illegal treatments.

Honey will be on the FDA *watch list *for two more full years *and* the
watch can be extended if the FDA feels the watch needs extending.

Bob

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2