Lloyd, Thank you for your comments. Relating to label instructions: I suggest that label instructions attached to biocides are there for diverse purposes. To guide the end user into a more responsible mode of application, thus reducing the possible negative impact of novel molecules on the biosphere. To reduce the chance of legal complications falling upon the head(s) of the manufacturer(s). To limit the possible hazards a user opens themselves to during use of such products. Problem is, as you elude to, humans are involved. Instructions are not followed, understood or are ignored. Treated cereal seed with clear instructions to destroy packaging are left in fields, as are pesticide containers. The seed itself according to instructions must be buried to specified depth - only to be viewed in redundant piles again in areas where spill has occurred. Look into the multitude of "land tips" on private farm land - they are littered with various types of container leaching material into the local aquifers. One could continue "ad infinitum" with historical and present day gaffs. This jaundices my trust for the future when statements such as " things are better controlled nowadays" are flown. Especially if such statements are backed up with " .....as far as present day knowledge indicates.......". Being truly applied, this is possibly the ultimate let out clause. Beekeepers - use Checkmite (Coumaphos), then do what with the used strips. There is no organised method of recycling to ensure proper disposal after use. Historically the answer to disposal included dependence on natural dilution of toxic matter. That or destruction into some other form that was / is considered less harmful that the original material. The planetary condition is witness to the consequences. As you mention - tightening of regulations and procedures has reduced some problems that occurred in the past. I suggest that this has only occurred in jurisdictions that are tightly constrained - in many other regions this is not the case. Cash and profit have a loud voice. Once the molecules are released into free for all environment - we find it most difficult just to follow where they go, never mind attempting to follow the web of metabolite activity. Therefore regulations with built in safety factors may sound convincing but are often sitting upon the quicksand of vast unknowns. So, do we let the poor die? Where is the change? - its being happening for millennium. Taking Malaria bearing mosquitos as an example - it is not really believed is it, that they are going to be eventually wiped out! I suggest not - and after resistance appears, we will be left with an even more contaminated world with an increasing malarial problem. A gain of a number of years. Hindsight is laughing at human effort. It was known that dependence on toxic molecules was doomed to failure via. the ever present enemy of resistance. So, why not put more into novel techniques of approach (and my let out: Don't ask me what they would be because if I did I would not be sitting here doing this). Beekeeping is running the same historical line regarding control of AFB, Varroa for two simple examples. Keep on upping the dose, toxicity to fight the evil? Even that is running out on us. My opinion is that as a species we cannot go on polluting our home and something has to give. Yikes, this could get involved .........better stop here. Regards, Peter PS: Lloyd your mails are always read, thoughts and opinions respected. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---