I said: >> A "lack of a tolerance" means that the tolerance is zero. Chris Slade said: > Does this mean that US standards are tighter than those of the EU? Technically yes, but not on purpose. The "Section 18" process allows "Emergency Use" of a pesticide. Only the "Section 3" ("Full Registration") process includes the setting of residue limits ("tolerances") in various crops and foods. The usual path is that a pesticide moves from "Section 18" status to "Section 3" status. But the rest of agriculture has been moving away from organophosphates, and the EPA wants to reduce their use, so there is simply no way that coumophos will ever get a "Section 3" approval for beekeeping. So while it is true that the US standards appear "tighter", it is only because the "Emergency Use" approval process has been used for years longer than anyone intended. The net result is a statement about "zero tolerance" when it is easy to find residues. Look at MaryAnn's results for pollen and wax here: http://tinyurl.com/6x4j5l or http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/CCDPpt/WhatPesticidesToDoWithItJune08ABJ.pdf And while reading, note that the word "honey" does not appear once in the article. That's not because there is no data for honey, it is merely proof that MaryAnn and her team are not suicidal. ******************************************************* * Search the BEE-L archives at: * * http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l * *******************************************************