> Anyone who says that it is not legal to do so is making an unsupported assumption.
Not to seem to appear to criticize the massive amount of effort in any way, but this is far too optimistic a view.
Don't want to dampen the enthusiasm, but the government has never been the farmer's friend, certainly neither the EPA or the FDA.
Silence from the EPA and FDA is not a license to claim that something "is legal". The statement that they have "lawyers" looking at an answer means that the answer is likely NOT going to be "Sure, go ahead, we will not regulate this." It is very hard to get a bureaucrat to resist the instinct to regulate something. (Even I could not avoid this truism - rather than simply correcting the error in the NYC Heath Code inserted by order of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and simply deleting "honey bees" from the list of "dangerous animals" one could not keep outside of a zoo, the very aptly-named "NYC Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene" had to promulgate a REGULATION that would allow them to "control" beekeeping. We negotiated the least onerous regulation ever created for bees, but it still exists, and it is still a "regulation" with which one must "comply". And the fellow representing the Health Dept wanted to get a hive of bees himself for his home out on Long Island, yet he STILL insisted upon having some sort of regulations.)
Another clue is that the usual approach to testing such things is to get a permit, and the fact that an experimental use permit is required clearly implies that such use without the permit would be.... not permitted.
These are the only currently-approved methods to use Oxalic in the USofA:
https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/091266-00001-20150310.pdf
So, using Oxalic in a manner not described on the only approved label would seem to be a violation. Will anyone enforce this? Likely not, as we are far, far more likely to get a visit from the American Express SWAT team ("Your payment is 2 days delinquent - come out with your card held above your head!") than from the State Apiarist's ninja inspectors over how Oxalic is used. Each state enforces things like FIFRA in their own way. Some are more tolerant than others. Some beekeepers are more risk tolerant than others. My personal view is that one should not poke the bear unless one has a manufacturer ready to make a consistent and reliable "controlled release" product, and success in that area took over a decade to iron out for formic acid, with "many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip" along the way.
The term pesticide, as defined in FIFRA section 2(u):
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act
"1) any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest;
2) any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant; and
3) any nitrogen stabilizer"
In 40 CFR section 152.15, a substance is defined as "intended for a pesticidal purpose", and requiring EPA registration, if:
"The person who distributes or sells the substance claims, states, or implies (by labeling or otherwise):
that the substance (either by itself or in combination with any other substance) can or should be used as a pesticide; or
that the substance consists of or contains an active ingredient and that it can be used to manufacture a pesticide; or
the substance consists of or contains one or more active ingredients and has no significant commercially valuable use as distributed or sold other than (1) use for pesticidal purpose (by itself or in combination with any other substance), (2) use for manufacture of a pesticide; or
the person who distributes or sells the substance has actual or constructive knowledge that the substance will be used, or is intended to be used, for pesticidal purpose.
***********************************************
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
|