In message 
<[log in to unmask]>, Brian 
Ames <[log in to unmask]> writes
>To take this logic one step further a beekeeper who wanted to use a 
>homemade mite treatment would just need to make sure the chemicals have 
>no EPA registered use on bees/honey and then can rest assured that no 
>one downstream will be looking!!!!

I think you have the wrong end of the stick there.

Removal of a limit does NOT mean the chemical is not being looked for, 
far from it. What it means is that the new limit is effectively reset to 
zero. There are no permitted uses, so the limit on its presence in the 
product is removed as it should not be there at all.

Direct personal experience of exporting to the USA has shown this to be 
the situation, albeit some time ago, and not in connection with amitraz.

If you are in doubt look at the case of the Chinese honey situation, 
where vanishingly small amounts of a non approved antibiotic resulted in 
bans around the world, as the substance (chloramphenicol) had no limit 
set. No set limit effectively equals a limit of zero.. Also look at 
nitrofurans and Argentine honey.

Now, if you really want to play around with this kind of thing, and the 
chemical is legal in other countries, but has had its limit revoked in 
the USA ( and other places like the EU have similar situations), you 
have a nice little tool for a trade barrier!
-- 
Murray McGregor

             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L