AMS Seeks Standard For Honey

[BeeMaster2]

Just received this email from Kim Flottum. I am posting it here for anyone who wants to respond.

AMS Seeks Standard For Honey, Finally. But First Wants To Find Out If They Need One?
The Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking comments on how a federal standard of identity for honey would be in the interest of consumers, the honey industry, and U.S. agriculture.
A document published in the Federal Register on Wednesday says comments must be received within 390 days.
The 2014 Farm Bill charged Agriculture Secretary Vilsack with developing a report describing the advantages of a federal standard of identity for honey.
Back in 2006, members of the honey producing, packing, and importing industries petitioned the Food and Drug Administration, the agency responsible for developing a standard of identity for commodities, to develop such a standard for honey.
The petitioners contended "the proposed standard will promote honesty and fair dealing not only in the interest of consumers, but in the interest of the honey industry as well." The petitioners also stated that "a compositional standard for honey will serve as a tool to help combat the economic adulteration of honey."
But in 2011, the FDA denied the petition concluding that no standard of identity for honey was necessary. Earlier this year it published draft guidance for industry on proper labeling of honey and honey products.
It again stated that the petitioner's goals can be achieved by FDA's existing authorities and that a standard of identity for honey would not promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.
The Federal Register notice says there now are several standards for the inspection and grading of honey. The U.S. Standards for Grades of Extracted Honey, effective date May 23, 1985, and the U.S. Standards for Grades of Comb Honey, effective date May 24, 1967, are voluntary U.S. grade standards issued under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.
"To provide an acceptable amount of guidance to help prevent the economic adulteration of honey at some level, many states have adopted, and/or are proposing to adopt, state-level standards of identity for honey," AMS Associate Administrator Rex A. Barnes says.
"While some are following the 2006 honey industry petition and using an amended version of the Codex Standard for Honey, CODEX standard 12-1981, Rev.2 (2001), variations in the state standards of identity for honey are inevitable. The end result could lead to an assortment of standards that vary from state to state and impede interstate commerce."
AMS is seeking comments on the petitioner's request for a standard of identity for honey and, specifically, the adoption of deviations as defined in the petitioner's request, and draft proposal.
"This notice provides for a 30 day period for interested parties to comment on the petitioner's request, and on how an appropriate federal standard for the identity of honey would be in the interest of consumers, the honey industry, and United States agriculture," Barnes says.
Jim

[flyboy]

Good heavens, why would anyone want the FDA to be involved with anything. The FDA is a governmental arm of both "big business" and specifically "Big Pharma".

Look at what they have done with food labelling, definitions of pure, organic, medicine, etc..

They generally are set up to knock small PPL out of business, regardless of anything.

I am a Canadian, but we have our promoter of big agriculture, big pharma and big business in general, "Health" Canada which frequently rolls over and goes with what the FDA dreamed up. Usually it's not what the FDA has dreamed up, but instead is what the lobbyists in the big business pay the politicos to implement.

I wouldn't let these characters have anything to do with anything. They are bad news.

[Hops Brewster]

While I don't disagree that to "promote honesty and fair dealing" is an admirable goal, I doubt very much that the Federales will be able to accomplish it with bales of red tape.  The honey industry has been more or less self-policing for generations.  Most honey is produced locally and I believe local producers should be locally regulated (or unregulated), as always.  Sure, there a some bad apples, and we can side together and make it too hot for them to continue their wicked ways but for the large part, most producers make a clean, pure product and should not be micromanaged by a very non-benign monster.  Why let the Feds get their sticky fingers on my honey?  All they'll do is make a mess of it.  :jail:  :brian:

I vote NO!

[Dallasbeek]

By the time they get through making regulations, in order to label a jar as containing honey, you'd have testing, grading, etc. out the kazoo that would drive most small beekeepers out of the marketplace.  Well, isn't that what the petitioners want.  HELL NO is my vote! :hissyfit: :piano:

[BeeMaster2]

I don't disagree but if that is what you think then tell them that you don't wants them sticking their hands in your honey. They do not see your posts that are on this site.
Jim

[sc-bee]

First of all you would have to dumb the above down for me to understand :-D  But I think I get the jest of it. More money for the government. How would they enforce or test the honey to prove it is pure. Whose honey, when, where, how. Who pays for the testing---- I bet I know. If not tested the already dishonest just fakes more paperwork.

Can you see the big guy being able to get testing and you not able to afford it as a hobby beekeeper? Or how will it affect the hobby/sideliner? I am sure I am going way overboard....... or am I  :?

Honestly Jim do you think we (the small guy) would even have a voice in this? I imagine it is a done deal for whatever side can grease the palms!

[nella]

While I don't disagree that to "promote honesty and fair dealing" is an admirable goal, I doubt very much that the Federales will be able to accomplish it with bales of red tape.  The honey industry has been more or less self-policing for generations.  Most honey is produced locally and I believe local producers should be locally regulated (or unregulated), as always.  Sure, there a some bad apples, and we can side together and make it too hot for them to continue their wicked ways but for the large part, most producers make a clean, pure product and should not be micromanaged by a very non-benign monster.  Why let the Feds get their sticky fingers on my honey?  All they'll do is make a mess of it.  :jail:  :brian:

I vote NO!
[/quote



I'm from the government and I am here to help you!      I vote NO

[Dallasbeek]

I don't disagree but if that is what you think then tell them that you don't wants them sticking their hands in your honey. They do not see your posts that are on this site.
Jim

Jim, try Googling the quote above.  It almost surely will show a link to this forum.  Nothing is private anymore except maybe your real name and exact geographic coordinates.  Try it.  Not to promote paranoia here, but the only way to have privacy on the internet is by encryption, and even then I'm not too sure.  The bad guys are using pretty sophisticated encryption and the good guys can still read their mail if they really want to.  Our only protection is that we aren't important enough for them to want to read our mail.  Now I'll Google what I just wrote and I'll bet I come right back to this forum -- actually, give it a couple of hours for the "crawlers" Google uses to find this.

[GSF]

Dallas, I've done something like that before. I was looking for an answer to a unique question. Then several minutes later I googled it and was brought back to my question.

At one time a list of words that triggered gov't looking in to your correspondence was going around my email circles. The list was sent to everyone in my address book telling them not to use those words or you will become a "person of interest". They in turn done the same with their email contacts.

[Dallasbeek]

And it's there forever!. The cost of a gigabyte os storage these days, it's cheaper to store something until the end of time than to pay somebody to erase it.

[capt44]

I say keep the government out of it.

[BeeMaster2]

Dallas,
You're right, it comes right back to your quote of my statement.
Jim

[derekm]

While I don't disagree that to "promote honesty and fair dealing" is an admirable goal, I doubt very much that the Federales will be able to accomplish it with bales of red tape.  The honey industry has been more or less self-policing for generations.  Most honey is produced locally and I believe local producers should be locally regulated (or unregulated), as always.  Sure, there a some bad apples, and we can side together and make it too hot for them to continue their wicked ways but for the large part, most producers make a clean, pure product and should not be micromanaged by a very non-benign monster.  Why let the Feds get their sticky fingers on my honey?  All they'll do is make a mess of it.  :jail:  :brian:

I vote NO!

U.S. production is only 34% of consumption... http://www.apinews.com/en/news/item/12976-usa-honey-consumption-per-inhabitant-is-growing-and-the-production-figures-are-going-down.
  Going to take the Chinese and India regulations and eforcement as "fit for purpose" ?

but then the National Honey board ( supposed the "industry" not the "government" ) says honey without pollen is still honey...
I'm suspicious of any body that says removing all the tracelability from a product is a good thing. Honey is a product that can tell you when and where it comes from. Your National Honeyboard thinks its ok to remove that.

[BeeMaster2]

I say keep the government out of it.

I agree, everytime the Feds get involved, it costs more and they gain more power/control over us. This is to the point that they have forced most of our companies to move overseas. Look at Berger King.
Jim

[Hops Brewster]

« Reply #12 on: Today at 08:58:37 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote 



Quote from: Hops Brewster on August 20, 2014, 04:20:21 PM

While I don't disagree that to "promote honesty and fair dealing" is an admirable goal, I doubt very much that the Federales will be able to accomplish it with bales of red tape.  The honey industry has been more or less self-policing for generations.  Most honey is produced locally and I believe local producers should be locally regulated (or unregulated), as always.  Sure, there a some bad apples, and we can side together and make it too hot for them to continue their wicked ways but for the large part, most producers make a clean, pure product and should not be micromanaged by a very non-benign monster.  Why let the Feds get their sticky fingers on my honey?  All they'll do is make a mess of it.  jail  Brian

I vote NO!


"U.S. production is only 34% of consumption... http://www.apinews.com/en/news/item/12976-usa-honey-consumption-per-inhabitant-is-growing-and-the-production-figures-are-going-down.
   Going to take the Chinese and India regulations and eforcement as "fit for purpose" ?

but then the National Honey board ( supposed the "industry" not the "government" ) says honey without pollen is still honey...
I'm suspicious of any body that says removing all the tracelability from a product is a good thing. Honey is a product that can tell you when and where it comes from. Your National Honeyboard thinks its ok to remove that. "

I stand corrected.  So that makes it an even more nefarious proposition.  The local producers would be smothered in regulation, the importers would (as always) have a different set of rules in order to get their product in cheap.

[woodchopper]

[/quote]

but then the National Honey board ( supposed the "industry" not the "government" ) says honey without pollen is still honey...
I'm suspicious of any body that says removing all the tracelability from a product is a good thing. Honey is a product that can tell you when and where it comes from. Your National Honeyboard thinks its ok to remove that.
[/quote] I was hoping someone else was going to bring this up. You don't think the National Honey Board's opinion on this might be a little biased do you ?  :-D

[Dallasbeek]

All we have to do is hire some of those former members of Congress who go to K Street in DC and set up shop as lobbyists.  They don't just "lobby" legislators, you know. The real power in guvmint is in the regulatory boards.  We pay them a lot of money and they get the regulations we want -- unless somebody else hires more powerful lobbyists and pays more money, in which case they get what they want and we get whatever is left.  Your guvmint at work, see?  I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that every 200 years (or whatever you think is reasonable) we start over.  New capital city -- I think Denver would be good (see how long it takes to pollute that mountain air).   Nobody in office today can be in office tomorrow.  We start all over making new laws, and no statute can be longer than the Gettysburg Address.  All commissions, boards, administrations, agencies and commitees are dissolved.  The Federal Register gets burned.  Start fresh.  Members of the news guvmint gets nothing the rest of us don't have and all laws apply equally to everybody, with no exceptions. 

Okay, it's not going to happen, but we can wish.  Wishes are still free last time I looked at my law books.

Gary

[Dallasbeek]

Oh, yeah, I forgot the emoticons or whatever they're called.  :piano: :soapbox: :devilbanana: :yippiechick: :whip: :cheer: :cheer:

[flyboy]

Maybe instead of right in Denver... say on top of one of the surrounding mountains.

[GSF]

I was thinking Alaska, at least if we can't punish them then the weather can.