# Ban Bee Poison 2,500,000 have signed already!



## camero7

Let's not


----------



## JRG13

What.... pesticides kill bees, that's news to me....


----------



## trance

camero7 said:


> Let's not


why?


----------



## beesohappy

Got my vote. Doesn't hurt to try.


----------



## D Coates

trance said:


> why?


What are they actually going to ban and why (actual scientifically based repeatable findings not inuendos and feelings)? The petition says nothing of this. Without knowing this, this merely means over 2.5 million are willing to be part of a lynch mob. I have no interest in being part of that.


----------



## trance

They are banning Bee poison! 

But seriously. I'm for banning it all, not just because of Bees but all that crap can't be good for anything, water, land, air, animals, people... ALL OF IT is meant to KILL something. It can't be good, the only good it might have is that we eat cheaper food because the insects die from being sprayed and more crop is available but I am willing to bet they could find better ways if they were forced to. IMO.


----------



## hpm08161947

trance said:


> They are banning Bee poison!
> 
> But seriously. I'm for banning it all, not just because of Bees but all that crap can't be good for anything, water, land, air, animals, people... ALL OF IT is meant to KILL something. It can't be good, the only good it might have is that we eat cheaper food because the insects die from being sprayed and more crop is available but I am willing to bet they could find better ways if they were forced to. IMO.


Trance... do a little more background reading. It's more complicated than you think. Most of what we read about the Nics/Imids is all hype... and it becomes pretty obvious when you look deeply into it.


----------



## trance

hpm08161947 said:


> Trance... do a little more background reading. It's more complicated than you think. Most of what we read about the Nics/Imids is all hype... and it becomes pretty obvious when you look deeply into it.


SOmething I can believe... I will thanks

EDIT: But I still don't like it and I still think better ways could be done


----------



## D Coates

trance said:


> They are banning Bee poison!
> 
> But seriously. I'm for banning it all, not just because of Bees but all that crap can't be good for anything, water, land, air, animals, people... ALL OF IT is meant to KILL something. It can't be good, the only good it might have is that we eat cheaper food because the insects die from being sprayed and more crop is available but I am willing to bet they could find better ways if they were forced to. IMO.


Antibiotics are meant to kill something too. Do you want to ban them as well? Logically you're cool with having lice, fleas, ticks, mosquitos, mites, etc (and eventually the diseases they carry) to get rid of all pesticides? You're also cool with crop failures, distribution shortages, and famine because of crop failures when plagues of uncontrolled insects hit regions of production because all pesticides have been banned? 

"It doesn't hurt to try" Easy to say when your belly is full, your family is healthy, and it's not your livelyhood that's at risk.

The road to "heck" is paved with good intentions.


----------



## trance

D Coates said:


> Antibiotics are meant to kill something too. Do you want to ban them as well? Logically you're cool with having lice, fleas, ticks, mosquitos, mites, etc (and eventually the diseases they carry) to get rid of all pesticides? You're also cool with crop failures, distribution shortages, and famine because of crop failures when plagues of uncontrolled insects hit regions of production because all pesticides have been banned?
> 
> "It doesn't hurt to try" Easy to say when your belly is full, your family is healthy, and it's not your livelyhood that's at risk.
> 
> The road to "heck" is paved with good intentions.


No, I am all for finding better ways that don't wreck the environment. 

Ying and Yang. A month ago I started to come down with a sore throat. Instead of grabbing the throat spray, the Meds or whatever I grabbed Honey and some Cinnamon and mixed it together. That relieved my throat for hours and hours. I can't say it helped cure it but after a day or 2 my sore throat went away. Normally my throat gets worse. 

I can kill weeds using Vinegar and not Monsanto's...

All I'm saying is there could be, "could be" other ways but sometimes there is not.

Life has always found a way to survive without us and with us. I for one do not wish death or any hunger on anyone but I also believe in the natural balance of things that man has disrupted. Man has set himself up for failure because he thinks he can do it better and in some cases can but at what cost? (Sometimes there is no costs but...)


----------



## gmcharlie

why do you assume the vinegar is better than Roundup? Both are killing that plant and the stuff around it.....


----------



## hpm08161947

trance said:


> Life has always found a way to survive without us and with us. I for one do not wish death or any hunger on anyone but I also believe in the natural balance of things that man has disrupted. Man has set himself up for failure because he thinks he can do it better and in some cases can but at what cost? (Sometimes there is no costs but...)


In that case - reducing the population of the earth down to a sustainable level might be the most efficaceous use of your time.


----------



## hpm08161947

gmcharlie said:


> why do you assume the vinegar is better than Roundup? Both are killing that plant and the stuff around it.....


IMHO... Vinegar has a far longer term impact on the soil and it's microorganisms than Glyphosphate.... after all you are pouring Acetic Acid on the soil.


----------



## orthoman

I am new to this site, but I have to say, Trance, people like you scare me to death. 

One way or another, chemicals -- in one form or another, antibiotics, soap, medications, fertilizer, etc., are the reason we have thrived and prospered.

I would agree that we should try to find better ways, and as we continue to learn and understand our environement and the chemicals we use, we might -- but in no way would we be able to feed ourselves and the world without pesticides.

As suggested by others, I would strongly recommend you educate yourself and read about the subject -- maybe starting at scientificbeekeeping.com

To run around signing petitions, when you don't have clue about what you signing for, makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## BlueDiamond

This coming summer if Trance hopped on a flight to Minneapolis and drove 75 miles west out into the vast monocultures of corn and soybeans he might be surprised to see all the thriving bumblebees, honeybees and butterflies that can be found along the margins of the corn and soybean fields that were planted using neonicotinoid treated seed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE


----------



## trance

I'm not that freaking extreme. I believe in less Chemicals, do we need them, sure. Do we need all of them and so much, probably not. Heck we treat so much IMO we are doing more harm than good IMO. Look at all the drug resistant organisms that are now immune to penicillin. Isn't the same going on with Varroa mites? We just keep jumping to the next strongest stuff but in some cases we can't as that would do more harm to what we are trying to help/fix. 

I'll ignore the assuming of other comments made towards me and supposedly my other beliefs and what I stand for and don't. You don't know me and you assume because I feel one way about something I must feel that way about other things. Kind of rude. I've never bashed anyone on here or slammed them, even if I didn't agree with them. For those who want to to sign the above , that's up to them. If they don't fine. I'm not here to fight over who is right and who is wrong. I did ask why just incase I over looked something. Thanks for the reply. And have a good day!


----------



## trance

BlueDiamond said:


> This coming summer if Trance hopped on a flight to Minneapolis and drove 75 miles west out into the vast monocultures of corn and soybeans he might be surprised to see all the thriving bumblebees, honeybees and butterflies that can be found along the margins of the corn and soybean fields that were planted using neonicotinoid treated seed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE


Watched some of the that video, thanks.


----------



## BlueDiamond

trance said:


> I'm not that freaking extreme. I believe in less Chemicals


You are promoting a total ban on neonicotinoids, not just "less chemicals". Neonics Like 
PONCHO (clothianidin) are used on corn at the rate of only about one ounce per acre. 
So the amount of chemical used is very small.


----------



## trance

orthoman said:


> As suggested by others, I would strongly recommend you educate yourself and read about the subject -- maybe starting at scientificbeekeeping.com



Just looked some of it over and will continue reading. Thanks.


----------



## squarepeg

trance, here is oliver's latest paper on colony losses in general including a review on what is know about neonics as it relates to bees:

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/5fd2b1..._Happened_to_the_Bees_This_Spring2013_opt.pdf

i find oliver's objectivity refreshing. some have questioned his objectivity as being suspect since he receives research dollars from big companies. here's how he responds to that (quoted with permission):

"I've personally wrestled with this aspect of publicity of proprietary data.

In the case of Bayer Cropscience, Bayer set up a dedicated website for the members of the original Bayer-Beekeeper Dialog Group set up by Jerry Bromenshenk and David Fischer of Bayer. The only limitation placed upon us what that we couldn't copy and forward the actual data to their competitors, who could have then used that data to register competing products. I commend Bayer on their openness. I have yet to find Bayer to withhold any information that I have ever requested, even when such information may appear to involve potential negative aspects of their products.

I recently asked the manufacturer of Dimilin insecticide to review their proprietary data, and was granted a conference call a few days ago with their lead scientists in Europe. The plan is for me to sign an NDA and be given access to that data, so that I can summarize the results for the benefit of the beekeeping community (I will work in conjunction with Drs Eric Mussen and Reed Johnson).

Trickier is when I get paid to run a field trial for a company with a product to sell to beekeepers. My agreement with Beeologics was that I would be free to publish the results of the trials, good, bad, or indifferent--which I have or are in the process of. Luckily for them, the product was clearly effective!

When Beeologics was acquired by Monsanto, I only agreed to continue if they agreed in writing to give me access to the data from the control group--again potentially to the great benefit of the bee scientific community.

I've also run trials for products in development. In this case, I feel that the data can remain proprietary, since the product is not on the market. Trust me, if it later came to market and I knew something negative about it, I would then run my own independent trial, funded by donations to my website, to bring that fact to the beekeeping community's attention!

The situation is different for products on the market. I do not want to be put into the position of finding that a product is mere snake oil (or harmful to colonies) and not be able to say so! I am currently in negotiation with a company to run an expensive year-long trial of their product, which is already on the market. We are currently working out whether they will accept my condition of freedom to publish the results should they be negative.

The beauty of my position is that I don't care about the money, since I make more from the hives if I don't engage them in trials. Running a proper field trial is a real pain, and finding time for data collection this week when my other hives cry for attention has forced us to work long hours six or seven days a week--who looks forward to weighing and grading
150 hives in a trial when the rest of your colonies are about to swarm!

So no manufacturer has any leverage over me, since I have no financial interest. The only reason that I run field trials is for the benefit of beekeepers who trust in my to give them accurate information. I take that trust very seriously."

he has earned my trust, and i value the contribution he has made to beekeeping.


----------



## trance

SqPeg. Thanks. That's what I started reading just a bit ago thanks to Orthoman and you for that link. I'm a bit skeptical to be honest but that is my nature. I guess I am frustrated about things I have no control over to a point. I have started a garden, early stages... I can't control everything but I can control some things. If I could raise my own cows and chickens I would but mostly for the fun of doing so.


----------



## squarepeg

understood trance, i think a lot of us feel the same way.

i'm not a very politcal person and i don't have any agendas. i would like to think i have an open mind on this issue and try to consider the facts as they are known for now.

i do get a little perturbed when i read comments here about neonics being responsible for this and that, and i have pretty much pulled myself out of the discussion. 

i hope i don't sound arrogant when i say that i think the petition for a ban seems kinda foolish.

i commend you for asking good questions and searching for the answers.


----------



## jim lyon

Nice post SP. Randy's paper is certainly worth a read and is pretty much spot on with my thinking as well. I well remember the foliar spraying that went on years ago and regularly decimated our bees particularly on alfalfa seed and sunflowers. It's easy to just take a stand against poisons in general. To do it, though, without considering the economic problems that insects cause and how best to deal with them is simply to ignore the complexity of the situation. We run well over 100 locations in areas that have seen dramatic increases in corn and soybean plantings and have not seen any corresponding degradation in bee health. If neonics are actually causing some bee health problems then in my mind they are of secondary significance and far behind the most obvious and prominent issues of loss of forage, varroa, viruses, fungicides and the many other pesticides still in use particularly on sunflowers. Though I dont question the motives of beekeepers who are quite passionate in their beliefs I really believe that the beekeeper has become a logical and believable face to be employed at the forefront of a much larger ongoing battle that has raged for quite some time between environmental movements and large agribusinesses such as Monsanto and Bayer.


----------



## Spark

BlueDiamond please post pictures of you working your hives or actually hives that you own so we can at least make sure your a beekeeper :waiting:


----------



## BeeManiac

D Coates said:


> What are they actually going to ban and why (actual scientifically based repeatable findings not inuendos and feelings)? The petition says nothing of this. Without knowing this, this merely means over 2.5 million are willing to be part of a lynch mob. I have no interest in being part of that.


Someone with a brian this day and age, good man!


----------



## BeeManiac

God gave man emotions but wants us to use clear thinking and logic. Remember that and remember that honey bees have no interest in corn and most soybeans. So ask yourself how does that bother our bees? I would however be ok with banning it on certain crops. If we ban it on corn and soybeans everyone will pay for it. 

Just like if these idiots in washington put the new tax on sugar. Its going to hurt us all. Please stop looking at yourself and think big picture. Please use your heads and take your emotion out of it.


----------



## wildbranch2007

gmcharlie said:


> Can we start a petition to withdraw the petition?
> 
> Only 2.5 million in that MoB,,, bet half are Obama twitter followers (read fakes)


I'll sign your petition to withdraw the other gladly


----------



## wildbranch2007

Spark said:


> BlueDiamond please post pictures of you working your hives or actually hives that you own so we can at least make sure your a beekeeper :waiting:


what difference does it make if they have hives or not? I come here for information, they have a side to present.


----------



## trance

It's definitely a confusing battle. I honestly must have read everything bad. The only good I ever read was from the Horses mouth that I never believe just for the simple fact no company is going to slam themselves. Everyones comments has opened my eyes a bit. I'm still not a fan of things that are meant to kill in our food or the impact it has on the environment (some better than others). As I said, it's sort of like an awaking and refreshing that other people (Bee keepers at that) have a different view of some of these products. That doesn't mean I have changed sides just like that but it has opened the door for me to read and study these newer products a bit more.

Having said that, I'm stepping away from this conversation.


----------



## Spark

wildbranch2007 said:


> what difference does it make if they have hives or not? I come here for information, they have a side to present.


Which side is that WB ... a one sided view and a one sided view only. It is one thing to have a beekeeper express his experience with a for or against opinion on what seems to be a divided view on pesticides here on a beekeepers forum. Bluediamond doesn't post views he likes to tear down peoples statements against beekeepers dislike for pesticides. Maybe this should just become a pesticide forum for non beekeepers.

There are plenty of well informed beekeepers here both pro and con that have provided many threads to get a reasonable view of both sides not just one side.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Spark said:


> Bluediamond doesn't post views he likes to tear down peoples statements against beekeepers dislike for pesticides. Maybe this should just become a pesticide forum for non beekeepers.


I am a beekeeper, and I appreciate reading _BlueDiamond's_ comments. I have a "dislike for pesticides" particularly when those pesticides are _broad spectrum pesticides _being used *inappropriately. *There are pleny of appropriate uses for pesticides, and we would be significantly worse off without them. Not all of _BlueDiamond's _posts are pesticide related. Here is a thread regarding bees in big box store garden centers, including some videos contributed by _BlueDiamond,_ made at his/her local Home Depot store:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?269472-Absence-of-honey-bees-at-garden-centers


Without pesticides even once crops have been harvested there would be significant spoilage due to pests in food storage facilities such as grain elevators. I prefer to have as little _rat poop_ in my food as possible! 

I even used some glyphosate (generic Roundup) in spot treatments (1 gallon handpump sprayer) on my gravel driveway the other day. Wet weeds coming thru the gravel make it slippery to drive up the hill.

:ws:


.


----------



## hpm08161947

Back in the day... before the advent of systemic pesticides the beekeeper never knew for sure what was going to happen, with farmers running up and down the fields spraying all kind of pesticides on all kind of little worms and bugs. Now the only real worry is those aerial applications and you will usually get significant notification about them. I just don't understand why if these nics/imids are as vile as some say they are, I have not seen any major bee kills. It begins to smell of politics and not science...


----------



## mac

orthoman said:


> but in no way would we be able to feed ourselves and the world without pesticides.
> 
> As suggested by others, I would strongly recommend you educate yourself and read about the subject -- maybe starting at scientificbeekeeping.com


 I suggest you do some research you might learn something more about organics Sumant Kumar, a farmer in Nalanda district of India’s poorest state Bihar,used only farmyard manure without any herbicides and has grown an astonishing 22.4 tons of rice on one 2.5 acres of land. Rice is the staple food of more than half the world’s population of seven billion and Kumar's accomplishment is a world record. It beat not just the 19.4 tons achieved by the Chinese agricultural scientist Yuan Longping, but also the World Bank-funded scientists at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, and anything achieved by the largest European and American seed and GM companies. http://www.examiner.com/article/ind...d-world-record-yields-of-organic-rice-potatoe For 30 years the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) has been tracking the performance of organically grown grain crops (such as corn and soybeans) and conventional, chemical-reliant grain crops. Following the three years when the fields were being transitioned to organic production, the organic corn fields produced just as much food as the conventional fields. And while conventional growers are battling herbicide-resistant superweeds with bigger, bad-er chemicals, the FST organic crops hold their own against weeds producing just as much food as the conventional fields without the assistance of herbicide. http://rodaleinstitute.org/2012/the-strength-to-feed-the-world/


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mac said:


> I suggest you do some research you might learn something more about organics ...... ....


You seem to be recommending "organics" for _other _people, yet you use pesticides in your own hives. :scratch:

In a thread on fogging hives you posted:


mac said:


> In the video fatbeeman says “ if you fog once a week you ain’t going to have any mites” but ya only need to do it once every 3 weeks to break the mite/ brood cycle. Not sure if he uses sbb *when I did *a lot of the fog came out the bottom.


- and -


mac said:


> No this is effective in killing adults. One side of the cardboard is removed so the corrugation is exposed; the checkmite is stapled to this side and placed with the checkmit down. The beetles hide under the cardboard and are *killed by contact with the checkmite. *


Your stance on organics seems to change when your own direct interests are at stake.

:lpf:


----------



## hpm08161947

mac said:


> Sumant Kumar, a farmer in Nalanda district of India’s poorest state Bihar,used only farmyard manure without any herbicides and has grown an astonishing 22.4 tons of rice on one 2.5 acres of land. Rice is the staple food of more than half the world’s population of seven billion and Kumar's accomplishment is a world record. It beat not just the


Kumar did a great job on 2.5 acres.... now he needs to step up 2500 acres of soybeans. It's gonna take more than his communities night soil to fertilize that... and just wait till those bean beetles hit.... guess we need about 1000 kumars per farm.....


----------



## wildbranch2007

I think mac is stuck in a loop.


----------



## squarepeg

well if anybody wants it here is my humble opinion on the matter:

it's another case of 'it depends'.

humans started chemistry experiments when they learned how to control fire.

humans started environmental experiments when they started clearing the forests and other wild lands.

when it comes to using chemicals human's synthesize (pesticides and others), it's not an either/or but rather a both/and proposition.

the proposition is not that either the chemicals are greatest thing since sliced bread or that the chemicals are the curse of the land,

but instead it's a little of both.

it depends on your point of view which is shaped by your objectives.

for one person sliced bread never had any appeal anyway, and for the another that sliced bread looks pretty good.

part of me wishes that all i have to do is stand in solidarity with enough like-minded people and we can make the risks associated with standard practices (not perfect but the best we have right now) disappear.

but my other side knows that it's just a pipe dream, because eliminating the risk has the greater likelihood of bringing on even greater challenges, and i'm not sure we as a species have that choice anyway.

it's a matter of coming up with an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, and that's hard to agree on as a society, especially when each person has a right to their opinion of risk and to their opinion of benefit.

but it make for good forum fodder. (that's ff beepro)


----------



## mac

gmcharlie said:


> why do you assume the vinegar is better than Roundup? Both are killing that plant and the stuff around it.....


 I wouldn't put round up on a salad. Would you??


----------



## mac

Rader Sidetrack said:


> You seem to be recommending "organics" for _other _people, yet you use pesticides in your own hives. :scratch:Your stance on organics seems to change when your own direct interests are at stake.:lpf:


 FGMO isn't a pesticide. Check mite was used 13 years ago. Some of us learn a better way and make changes


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Vinegar has a MSDS sheet. You can read the whole document here:
http://images.pcmac.org/Uploads/Ons.../DocumentsSubCategories/Documents/Vinegar.pdf

Part of that MSDS sheet says:


> V. HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
> 
> SKIN CONTACT: Contact may cause *mild injury and burns* from vinegars of 11% acetic acid and greater. Dilute solutions may cause dermatitis in some individuals.
> 
> EYE CONTACT: May cause *severe burns and permanent corneal injury* from concentrated vinegars. May be followed by blindness. High vapor concentrations may result in conjunctivitis.
> 
> INGESTION: Concentrated vinegars may cause *pain, irritation and burns in mouth, gullet and stomach.*
> 
> .....
> 
> SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Water may be used to dilute spills and reduce flammability.
> UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: *Toxic gasses* and vapors may be released in a fire involving concentrated vinegar.


  


I hope you don't mind if I just stick to _ranch _salad dressing!
:lookout:


----------



## mac

hpm08161947 said:


> Kumar did a great job on 2.5 acres.... now he needs to step up 2500 acres of soybeans.


It's scalable Wonder how the Amish do it? [/QUOTE]


hpm08161947 said:


> It's gonna take more than his communities night soil to fertilize that... and just wait till those bean beetles hit.... guess we need about 1000 kumars per farm.....


 Should solve the unemployment problem.


----------



## mac

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Vinegar has a MSDS sheet. You can read the whole document here:
> http://images.pcmac.org/Uploads/Ons.../DocumentsSubCategories/Documents/Vinegar.pdf
> 
> Part of that MSDS sheet says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you don't mind if I just stick to _ranch _salad dressing!
> :lookout:


 Ranch dressing contains vinegar. Store bought vinegar is at 5% all the references stated are concentrated. Some folks use vinegar in bee feed don't know anyone using round up in their bee feed.


----------



## squarepeg

mac said:


> FGMO isn't a pesticide....


it depends who you ask and on what the definition of 'is' is.

here's another one:

'synthesized'

from miriam-webster:

"1.Make (something) by synthesis, esp. chemically.
2.Combine (a number of things) into a coherent whole."

technically everything we eat including honey is synthesized, either by nature or by humans (but aren't humans part of nature?)

an atom doesn't care how it finds it's way into a molecule, nor does any target mind how that molecule found itself interacting with it.

bee hive biochemistry is best left to nature, but bee husbandry is a human pursuit into nature.

we introduce our hands, we remove resources, we manipulate the cavitiy size, we direct comb building.

the informed use of substances can aid the beekeeper in husbandry, and vice versa.


----------



## mac

squarepeg said:


> it depends who you ask and on what the definition of 'is' is.


 O.K. So FGMO was not 'synthesized' as a pesticide however it is used as one but is not Classified as one.


----------



## squarepeg

it's only semantics mac.

miriam-webster on 'pesticide':

"A substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals."

not sure if fmgo 'destroys' mites, does it?


----------



## mac

squarepeg said:


> it's only semantics mac.
> 
> miriam-webster on 'pesticide':
> 
> "A substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals."
> 
> not sure if fmgo 'destroys' mites, does it?


As I stated above it is used as one but is not classified as one. You can use a hammer to kill insects but I doubt anyone would call it an insecticide. Would you? And what’s your point anyway. You seem to beeeee tilting at windmills.


----------



## squarepeg

no big deal mac, i guess i was just reinforcing what i had already pointed out that it seems arbitrary to me to look at some 'chemicals' as good and others as bad. whether 'synthesized' or not, it makes more sense to look at risks/benefits instead. sorry for getting repetitive.

"and that's all i have to say about that" forest, forest gump


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mac said:


> You can use a hammer to kill insects but I doubt anyone would call it an insecticide.


Well, you are not using a hammer. You are using _mineral oil_, formulated from petroleum distillates, and applied with a fogger, in an attempt to kill varroa. And if you apply too much, you will also kill the bees as well. How can that not be called an *insecticide*? :scratch:

If you want to see it in print, check out this label for mineral oil:

http://www.kellysolutions.com/erene..._Oil_Spray__0019492__5_21_2012_2_29_27_PM.pdf

A part of the label is reproduced here. Note the only active ingredient is "Mineral Oil" and comprises 98.8% of the product:


> Lesco Horticultural Oil *Insecticide*
> 
> ACTIVE INGREDIENTS: Mineral Oil* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.80%





> Pests Controlled
> 
> This product controls listed *mite *and insect pests in the egg stage, including: spider mites, eriophyid mites, armored scales, soft scales, mealybugs, psyllids, whiteflies, aphids, leafrollers, leaftiers, webworms, cankerworms, plant bugs, leafhoppers, and adelgids. This product will also kill other immature forms if the spray covers the insect.


Of course, the label does not list specifically varroa mites as a target pest.



mac said:


> You seem to beeeee tilting at windmills.


You claim that mineral oil applied to kill mites is *not *an _insecticide_. What then, in your view, is it called? _Salad dressing_? Who is _really _tilting at windmills here? 

:digging:

.


----------



## mac

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, you are not using a hammer.


 What you supplied IS an insectcide it is not FGMO Apples and oranges
Cosmetics
Mineral oil is a common ingredient in baby lotions, cold creams, ointments and cosmetics. It is a lightweight inexpensive oil that is odorless and tasteless. It can be used on eyelashes to prevent brittleness and breaking and, in cold cream, is also used to remove creme make-up and temporary tattoos. One of the common concerns regarding the use of mineral oil is its presence on several lists of comedogenic substances. These lists of comedogenic substances were developed many years ago and are frequently quoted in the dermatological literature.
A study reported in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2005) found that the type of highly refined and purified mineral oil found in cosmetic and skincare products is noncomedogenic (does not clog pores).[7] it is occasionally used in the food industry, particularly for candy. In this application, it is typically used for the glossy effect it produces, and to prevent the candy pieces from adhering to each other. It has been discouraged for use in children's foods,[13] though it is still found in many candies, including Swedish Fish.[14] The use of food grade mineral oil is self-limiting because of its laxative effect. The maximum daily intake is calculated to be about 100 mg, of which some 80 mg are contributed from its use on machines in the baking industry.[15]
It is sometimes used as a lubricant in enema preparations, because most of the ingested material is excreted in the stool rather than being absorbed by the body.[15]


----------

