Residues of veterinary drugs and other (environmental) contaminants in apicultural products have in Europe over the past few years been systematically monitored and reported through the RASFF. It appears from these reports that residues are still an issue in honey (and in many other food products for that matter), particularly, when imported into the EU from Asia (notably China). Also indigenously produced honey still contains these, albeit in markedly fewer samples (European Commission 2009b). Annually an approximate 50 notifications of antibiotics residues are reported for honey, and significantly more of pesticides (e.g. 180 notifications in 2007) (RASFF 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). The most recent report (RASFF 2008) indicates that nitrofurane (metabolites) still represent the most notified hazard, that sulphonamide residues are found less than before, and that other substances (notably erythromycin) are on the rise. Giovanni Formato & Frans J.M. Smulders (2011): Risk management in primary apicultural production. Part 1: bee health and disease prevention and associated best practices, Veterinary Quarterly, 31:1, 29-47 Most beekeepers in Asia, the USA, South America and Canada rely on the use of substances with antimicrobial activity, such as tetracycline antibiotics, sulpha drugs, chloramphenicol and tylosine (Edder et al. 2002, Reybroeck 2003; Ortelli et al. 2004; Lopez et al. 2008, Formato and Smulders 2011). The European apicultural sector [as represented by the COPA-COGECA Honey Working Party and the European Federation of Honey Packers and Distributors (FEEDM)] is against the registration of any antimicrobial substance for bees so as to protect the consumers’ image of honey as being a ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’ product, and proposes establishing reference points of action for imported honey, that should only take into account environmental contamination, and decidedly not residues of antibiotics used to combat bee diseases (Bruneau et al. 2009; FEEDM/COPACOGECA 2009). As combating bacterial (American or European foulbrood) or fungal diseases (nosemosis) without being able to rely on antibiotics is more difficult, less responsible European beekeepers still rely on their illicit use. Giovanni Formato & Frans J.M. Smulders (2011):Risk management in primary apicultural production. Part 2: a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point approach to assuring the safety of unprocessed honey Veterinary Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2011, 87–97 *********************************************** 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 Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at: http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm