In message <[log in to unmask]>, Peter Borst
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Recently I said:
>some of the treatments mentioned on this list: they're illegal.
>
>Mike Rowbottom countered:
>Legal/illegal varies from Country to Country; I believe this is an
>International list, so subscribers, please treat scattergun comments
>on 'legality' with care.
>
>Response:
>I wonder what people think when they're using a treatment that's
>legal in their country and banned elsewhere. Does that mean it's safe
>in their country and not in others? Wouldn't it be wise to err on the
>side of caution?

This is a sound principle, but there is a need for the definers of
legality to justify their position.  In the case of relatively modern
chemicals, and organo-phospates come readily to mind, considerable
caution is in order.  There is initially little experience of the
effects on human health, and such evidence needs to be established,
verified and understood before general use is sanctioned.  On the other
hand, the substances that Bill Truesdell was discussing have all been in
use for long periods in foodstuffs, and are not known to be any threat
to human health, especially at the low levels in which they will appear
in honey.  In this case a ban on their use appears to me to be crossing
from 'reasonable caution' to 'the Nanny state', in which legislators set
such low levels of risk that their credibility is undermined.

Incidentally I apologise for the use of the word 'scattergun'.  This
added nothing to the point and was capable of causing unnecessary
irritation.

>
>I also said:
>if you inadvertently contaminate the honey, you will be liable for
>the harm you cause

I tried to make clear that this is precisely the UK position with the
unlicenced 'non-medicinal curative substances'.  Use non-licensed
veterinary medicines at your peril.


Regards,
--
Mike Rowbottom

HARROGATE
North Yorkshire
UK