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