Dear All,
To put it in a typically British way - We beekeepers who use pesticides
to control some of our problems are to say the least "on a sticky
wicket".

As mentioned in the mail sent by Dick Allen, many pesticides interrupt
neural transmission, often using mimic compounds that lock into natural
sites - and eventually causing damage or death to the treated
individual. Other molecules manipulate or disrupt different bio-chemical
pathways.

We worry or complain when these chemicals are applied by third parties
and effect our bees.
We kick up a fuss ( with many different levels of response) and
indignantly point fingers at other members of agricultural industry when
we see or think that improper uses of pesticides are the norm.
Often the response is, "there is no alternative", or "we have the proof
that it causes no problem" - "go away and prove that there is a problem"
through to "tough, our activity has more economic clout than yours".

Yet, put in a similar situation to that of the average farmer - when we
have a pest - the first type of strategy that is reached for by most
beekeepers is that of " poison the pest out of existence" using very
often the same chemicals or related molecules that in other scenarios we
are against.
Often, we have recall on the same companies to supply us with the remedy
who then supply compounds to others which kill our bees - and if the
money is in the market, they are willing to supply.

So, in this modern world of agriculture - do we come clean, accept that
we need these substances for the survival of beekeeping - at least for
the time being.
Or, does the beekeeping fraternity accept that these chemicals should be
totally rejected!
The consumer will possibly react to the addition of chemicals to our
historically pure produce (still viewed as such by the greater % of the
population).
At the moment we appear to be sitting nicely on the fence and demanding
the advantage from both sides.
MPOV is moving to where we as a collective body need to press for
strategies - often termed "alternative" due to lack of heavy weight
research.
Regarding V.d. I presume little may be done to alleviate our dependence
on novel molecules - we are too far gone in the story.

We have already seen potential problems arising with antibiotic
resistance. This should surly be taken as a warning and a strategy
developed to head off the inevitable.
Before I am classed as a raving "bio" fanatic - not so, depending on the
accepted remedies. BUT I do feel extremely hypocritical and can see the
futility of the system in place.

Complicating the situation is as touched upon earlier - if we as an a
group of producers are forced to acknowledge our polluting and
contaminating methods by such bodies as the European Union, EPA, Codex
A. etc. (as for the limits for antibiotic residue in honey for example),
the responsible bodies controlling the use/ production and marketing of
substances damaging to OUR productivity must realize their
responsibility.
They to cannot continue to "sit on the fence " and reap from both sides
when it suits.

Peter