Subject: Re: Dyes and Bees

From: [email-masked] (Andy Nachbaur)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 00:39:00 GMT

----------------------------------------
From: "Moote, John M." <[email-masked]>
Date:         Mon, 10 Jul 1995 07:56:10 -0400
Subject:      Re: Dyes and Bees

After I posted to BEE-L about a new pesticide, I have had several
discussions with Jim De Quattro concerning a short summary appearing in
"Inside R & D".  Jim  works for the USDA.  To recap, the article was on a
new dye that is toxic to insects but not to mammals.  My comment was that
"they still don't get it" and that it did not appear that anyone was
concerned with "apis".  I found out two things... 1. The Internet is a much
larger forum than you might imagine and 2. I was probably 180 degrees off
target...  with permission, Jim's comments...
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

     A colleague who subscribes to the list sent me a copy of your
message, since I've written about some aspects of the dye research.  You
correctly noted that Inside R&D's story about fruit fly-killing dyes
addressed the issues of whether the dyes were safe for mammals and
crops--but it ignored bees and beneficials.

     The dye blend mentioned in Inside R&D is SureDye--not a USDA
invention but an experimental product of PhotoDye, Inc., Linthicum, Md.
But, scientists at USDA's Agricultural Research Service have been
testing the dyes against fruit flies for about two years.  [The blend was
developed about 1982 by James Heitz. He is a chemist at Mississippi State
University, and president of PhotoDye. The dye is not a registered
insecticide.]

     Inside R&D chose--probably based on assessing what their own
audience would most likely want to know--not to address bees and
other beneficials.  But the researchers are.  Feel free to follow up
with them about the dye and beneficials. It won't be the first time
they've been asked!

     Against fruit flies, the dye--ASSUMING it passes muster with
researchers and regulatory agencies--MIGHT be used as an aerial spray,
or in bait stations.  According to the scientists, an insect has to
ingest the dye for it to be toxic.  This doesn't mean a bee could not
ingest it, but it apparently wouldn't act as a contact insecticide like
malathion.

     Can something that is imperfect--but better than (or not as
"bad" as) malathion--be an acceptable alternative?  Personally, I think
yes.  Could the dye become an acceptable alternative?  Maybe, but I
don't think enough evidence is in.  I think the researchers would
basically agree with that. Besides, acceptable to whom?

     To contact the ARS research teams: Robert Mangan, Crop Quality &
Fruit Insects Research unit, Weslaco, Texas, phone (510) 565-2647; Nick
Liquido, Tropical Fruit & Vegetable Research Laboratory, Hilo, Hawaii,
phone (808) 959-4300.

 --Jim De Quattro, Writer/editor
  Information Staff, USDA Agricultural Research Service
  Internet [email-masked]
  Phone (301) 344-2756, Fax (301) 344-2311
  6303 Ivy Lane, Room 443, Greenbelt MD 20770