Honey tainted in England.....Beekeepers to end producing?

[BjornBee]

Yep....I've been harping on the "lets define honey and run out and get standards" in this country.

Seems they now in England define honey as something that contains pollen. Imagine that. Lables may need to clearly state that "contains pollen" be on the label. And since honey contains pollen, it better not be pollen from GMO crops. Can you imagine that on the label? And since the bees travel for miles collecting stuff, even if you tell the bees not too, almost all honey will probably contain some amount of GMO pollen.

Results....Beekeepers put out of business over something they can not control.

Read the story here: http://www.apinews.com/en/component/k2/item/17084

It is slippery slope. Demand government define what is honey as they are doing now, and where will it stop? Have someone sue after standards are in place since they had some medical issue, and that would be the next step in getting a warning on the label warning consumers that "honey contains pollen". Then call for labeling that honey be tested for GMO pollen after the consumers demand full disclosure. Then we are all screwed.

It is happening. And it seems we just can't get there fast enough in this country.

I can see the writing on the wall. I've seen it for some time. And this is but one ramification of what potentially could happen, where testing, licensing, registration fees, and governmental red tape just pushed out beekeepers, especially the small operator.

Honey contains pollen, which then is found to be GMO pollen, and honey is deemed unsafe or even "tainted" by the consumer. Clear enough?

Can't wait for PETA and other beekeeping hate groups get wind of this. One simply test and headlines all across the papers will read "Honey tainted by GMO pollen".

Yep.....keep supporting stricter and stricter standards. I'll let the beekeepers in England know we are right behind them.

But wait......those big operators that can and do, high filter their honey...will still be around. Great that they will be standing. See, those pushing for standards, and ask for hobbyists to bid their deeds in supporting getting standards passed, will be the only one standing in the future. Afterall, they already can produce honey with no pollen, no GMO, and no health benefits. They will simply filter out all pollen, market their honey as "pure" while watching the small guys close up shop.

Now get out there and shoot yourself in the foot. The bee industry is good at it!  :roll:

[Poppi]

Bjorn,  I understand, I think, where you are coming from...   I suppose you are right...  it's just a matter of time before the whole "organic" thing hit's beekeepers.  Some folks in here talk about organic beekeeping...  realistically that is virtually impossible for the simple reason you cannot control where the bees go and you cannot control the changes in the environment the bees choose to forage.  It's all nonsense but I don't think it's PETA that is the concern...  it's consumer advocate groups that push the idea of "people have the right to know what is in their food"  therefor, the push for "organic" and stay away from GMO or geneically modified organisms...  another virtual impossibility unless you isolate yourself from any outside influence.

That said, it won't matter, in the long run the consumer advocate groups with their agenda will gather a mindless, brainless bunch of groupies and use it to stir up a worthless cause...   there really is a simple answer to this whole thing...  if you don't want it, don't buy it!   Buy organic if you want...  if you can truly find "organic honey"....    it's all a ruse...   I wonder what they would say if I let them know I see my bees getting "liquid" off the concrete floor of my Collie's dog run...   oh well, it's probably "organic"...

[gjd]

Isn't the root issue that China (mainly) is filtering out all pollen to either 1) make their honey untraceable to avoid anti-dumping tariffs by illegally shipping through 3rd countries such as India, or 2) facilitate processing and ensure a safe, high quality product at reasonable prices (you decide which is more likely)?   My understanding is that the requirement that honey contain pollen was to stop this, which seems like a good thing.    I can't post links, search for "honey laundering".
Greg

[BjornBee]

No.

The whole pollen, health, benefit angle is a smoke screen at best.

The honey standard has to do with stopping importation of products with such things as rice syrup and other sweeteners. If the honey is mixed with 10% of something other than honey, it can be labled something other than honey for importation. This allows the shipment to be brought in bypassing tariffs and taxes from the likes of the national honey board. It all comes down to taxes and pockets.  The health issue is moot if you understand that most imported honey is used in processed food production, where any health claims is false to begin with.

But what the standard does, is define what honey is. It clearly states that additives, chemicals, etc., is not allowed. That is good. Honey should be "pure". Sounds good on the surface. Until you get to the point of what they are doing in England, by having honey possibly labled as a product that may contain pollen. Remember, commercial honey can be filtered removing all pollen. So commercial honey can be labled as "pure" whereas the hobbyist does not have the ability to do such high filtering.

So where will that leave the hobbyist or small producer? Imagine having to label your honey as "Contains GMO pollen" as possible in England, or having to pay for processing. And with that comes inspections, registration, and additional costs.

Who will be hurt as we go down this road.....the small time beekeepers. Who will not be hurt.....the big producers who will (and already) remove all the pollen. This may come about by suggesting pollen is an additional product causing concerns from consumers with health issues, or demands that no pollen by allowed that is GMO. Either way, small scale beekeeping will be finished. The big commercial guys will be seen as having a pure product (as having filtered honey with no pollen), and will continue with filtered honey as they do now. And I bet they would just love to get all the local honey promotion and small scale beekeepers out of the way.

And hobbyists will willingly allow this to happen. It is happening as we speak. The big commercial guys are pulling the strings having state bee programs across the country go down this path. It is happening here in Pennsylvania. And as usual, the writing on the wall will not be seen until it is too late.

[iddee]

Well, I guess I'll have to quit selling honey.

Anybody want to buy some pure, all natural bee juice??

I think it's a catch 22. If they do, we're done for. If they don't, all kinds of garbage will be on the market as honey.

[BjornBee]

Stopping mislabeled honey coming into this country is one thing. Defining honey as to what is in it, is another. And I am not suggesting that honey be allowed to have "garbage" as you suggest is one option on the table iddee.

But the motive in honey standards is money, not purity of the product. And those pushing for  honey standards and that will benefit most of any consequences, are the large importers, producers, and packers.

I had just wrote a piece on the price of honey on supermarket shelves.  http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,35776.0.html
In it, I commented on who markets the idea that honey is healthy, etc. And I also asked who selling honey does not. Supermarket honey (Imported or domestic produced) does not boast about enzymes, benefits of pollen, propolis, and other nutrients beneficial to the consumer. All that has been removed or killed. They already sell a "dead" product. And with pollen being called a "foreign" additive to honey, possible damage from GMO pollen, and other claims not yet realized, one group stands ready to take advantage of this situation in the future.

Can we stop this? Will it come to the same ending that is being set up and possible in England? Depends. But I don't need to plant the tree with aspirations that someone told me it will be good for the consumer, while the real reasoning is that when it gets big enough, it will be the tree that eventually hangs me. Don't let anybody blow smoke up your backside telling you it's for your own good.l

As always, good intentioned regulation to protect one thing (in this case commercial interests) usually always come back years later with over regulation, bloated expensive red tape, and results of hurting those that it intended to protect. That scenario has been played out many times. And it seems that it probably will with this too. The anti-GMO crowd will follow the same path as seen in England. Just realize that the big boys will be sitting this out. (For reasons mentioned above)  ;)

[gjd]

I confess I hadn't read the first linked article, assuming it said what I'd read elsewhere.  In fact, it seems to be saying just the opposite.  If I understand correctly, the USA FDA is apparently suggesting that "real" honey must contain pollen, and ultra-filtered, pollen-free honey is not "real" honey.  The EU is saying just the opposite, that honey containing pollen must be labelled as honey also containing pollen- in other words, "real" honey is the stuff other than pollen.

From a "Food Safety News" article easily found by searching the internet (I can't post links):
"The FDA says it has sent a letter to industry stating that the agency does not consider ultra-filtered honey to be honey."
The article goes on to state, however, that the FDA refuses to formalize this in regulations despite pressure, because they do not want to have to enforce the regulations.   So pollen-free, untraceable honey is able to be illegally imported without discovery.

From the first link in this thread:
"Pollen has been deemed an additive by the European Court, instead of an integral part of honey, so Mr Pilbeam says beekeepers will have to relabel their produce and face expensive safety tests."

Have I got this right?

[BjornBee]

Honey standards define what is honey. It does not define what should be "IN" honey. there is a difference.

This from  a press release..
"Under terms of the new regulation, honey containing anything other than the "natural food product resulting from the harvest of nectar by honeybees" is considered an adulterated or mislabeled product. Such products are subject to a "stop sale" order in which a manufacturer, processor or merchant would be served with an order prohibiting the product's sale. Repeat offenders would face fines of up to $500 per violation."

It's not about enforcing what has to be in honey. It is about enforcing what can not be in honey.

With that said, The honey industry here, wants (or wanted) to make sure pollen is (was) in honey, if it is imported honey. That is for tracking and enforcement issues. It would be easy (and expensive) to test each shipment and identify where it came from by pollen identification. But that was shot down.

The honey standard basically is about keeping honey from being "cut" with sugar, water, and other ingredients. That is what was passed.

It was interesting that it was a beekeeper who brought this whole "Honey has GMO pollen in it" which opened peoples eyes up in England. The beekeeper thought (as I read it) it would be slick to prove that honey was being tainted by GMO crops, and seemingly thought that this would be a good position to have GMO crops possibly removed.

But once the public, and certain groups found out that honey contains such things as pollen collected from miles around, and that it could be GMO pollen, the writing was on the wall.

Think we will get all chemicals off the market? Think we will get all GMO crops removed? No way! But keep defining what should be allowed in honey, and we will no doubt go down the same path.

It seems that different groups want different things as to how honey is to be defined or controlled. The definition and good will of any law, is about how it could potentially be used by connecting the dots.

Some statements like that from the FDA "stating ultra filtered honey is not honey" was very quickly shot down. Hmmm I wonder why? Perhaps they did not understand what the honey industry wanted in ways to stop "clean" honey from entering the country, and what would harm the honey industry here. I think that whole idea of not calling anything without pollen "honey" was shot down behind the scenes faster you could ever think.  :roll: The honey industry quickly found out that what they were asking for, was not going to be a good thing. I don't ever expect the honey industry to EVER ask again in defining honey as something that is not to be highly filtered.  :-D  

Would GMO pollen be considered "natural food product" as mentioned in the above statement? It would only take one person claiming she did not know pollen was in honey to have label discussions started. Throw in groups then suggesting it would be in the best interest to disclose "GMO pollen" and that can of worms would never stop.

The can of worms is a can of worms, due to the possible scenarios, the agenda driving one definition over another, the eventual outcomes and harm, and going down a path we never did prior.

[AliciaH]

Maybe the information could be used to educate people about the extent of GMO crops?  I don't think most folks really think about what they are buying at the grocery store and, therefore, don't realize they are consuming something they would otherwise (possibly) choose not to eat.

Since we need the bees to pollinate the crops, the public has to come to terms with eating GMO foods or realize they are eating more of it than previously known.  I don't think the crop growers really want that kind of attention.  And I think they probably have more pull than the honey producers.

Everything hinges on the general public either being happy, or not, with what they are eating.

[rober]

 problems with GMO seeds run deeper than their general usage. GMO seeds are polluting the heritage seed base. deep in central mexico locals have been saving portions of their native corn crops for planting for centuries. one area was approached by salespeople for monsanto GMO corn seed. the locals declined. the next year monsanto GMO corn was found growing in road ditches & small wild patches in the area. the local seed was polluted by GMO pollen. no one in the area had bought the GMO seed so just how did it get there.
many u.s. farmers in the states have unknowingly had their crop polluted by neighbors GMO pollen & then savrd seed for replanting. monsanto reps have trespassed on their farms to gather corn samples for genetic analasys without permission or warrants. when the corn was found to have GMO dna monsanto sued those farmers for copyright infringement. i've not researched it but while i'd prefer non GMO food sources, I'm not sure GMO based grains are a health threat. i do have concerns tho about seeds that have systemic pesticides in them. consider the consequences if corporations like monsanto gain total control of our food supply ( they're already well on their way ). next will be water. $5.00 per gallon gas sound bad? if push comes to shove you can do without gas. not so with water.

[AliciaH]

But that was what I was wondering about.  Most people don't know how fast the GMO crops are hybridizing with other crops.  It would be an ugly battle, but if GMO pollen is scrutinized in honey, then people should be asking where it is coming from.  Once people realize they don't have much choice anymore about eating GMO crops because they are either being planted directly or they are hybridizing, then they are going to have to choose to fight that, or come to an equilibrium about eating the stuff.

[edward]

GMO I won´t get into that discussion.

One of the strengths and positive aspects of beeing a small scale or hobby beekeeper is that we can offer a product that is uneven in taste and is full of pollen.

Witch i worse honey with no pollen or honey with pollen , some of witch is gmo ?

Let the big guys have there sterile honey , all the better for the small scale honey farmers that can provide " honey with pollen " = a mark of quality and locally produced honey that tastes of the neighborhood it was created in .

Pollen in honey is a mark of quality !

mvh edward  :-P

[derekm]

Yep....I've been harping on the "lets define honey and run out and get standards" in this country.

Seems they now in England define honey as something that contains pollen. Imagine that. Lables may need to clearly state that "contains pollen" be on the label. And since honey contains pollen, it better not be pollen from GMO crops. Can you imagine that on the label? And since the bees travel for miles collecting stuff, even if you tell the bees not too, almost all honey will probably contain some amount of GMO pollen.

Results....Beekeepers put out of business over something they can not control.

Read the story here: http://www.apinews.com/en/component/k2/item/17084

It is slippery slope. Demand government define what is honey as they are doing now, and where will it stop? Have someone sue after standards are in place since they had some medical issue, and that would be the next step in getting a warning on the label warning consumers that "honey contains pollen". Then call for labeling that honey be tested for GMO pollen after the consumers demand full disclosure. Then we are all screwed.

It is happening. And it seems we just can't get there fast enough in this country.

I can see the writing on the wall. I've seen it for some time. And this is but one ramification of what potentially could happen, where testing, licensing, registration fees, and governmental red tape just pushed out beekeepers, especially the small operator.

Honey contains pollen, which then is found to be GMO pollen, and honey is deemed unsafe or even "tainted" by the consumer. Clear enough?

Can't wait for PETA and other beekeeping hate groups get wind of this. One simply test and headlines all across the papers will read "Honey tainted by GMO pollen".

Yep.....keep supporting stricter and stricter standards. I'll let the beekeepers in England know we are right behind them.

But wait......those big operators that can and do, high filter their honey...will still be around. Great that they will be standing. See, those pushing for standards, and ask for hobbyists to bid their deeds in supporting getting standards passed, will be the only one standing in the future. Afterall, they already can produce honey with no pollen, no GMO, and no health benefits. They will simply filter out all pollen, market their honey as "pure" while watching the small guys close up shop.

Now get out there and shoot yourself in the foot. The bee industry is good at it!  :roll:

Stop outrageously  hyping up a  English story and then bending to to be about GM when its about labelling... The GM issue is German and is not Germaine. Morphing it into a republican election campaign issue is not cricket.  Our manipulation of the contents of the Whitehouse with American politics went out of style in 1812.

I'd rather have the "contains pollen" than have our shops contain the untraceable glop that is on 75% of U.S. mainstream retail shelves.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/
in fact I think we should ban U.S. Honey from the UK and the EU cos it aint honey unless it is proven to contain pollen added by bees.

British Bee keeper, English and citizen of the United kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

[derekm]

ANOTHER THING STOP SAYING ENGLISH HONEY IS TAINTED WITHOUT PROOF!
SHOUTING INTENTIONAL

[kingbee]

Isn't the root issue that China... is filtering out all pollen to ...make their honey untraceable [or] avoid anti-dumping tariffs...

No Greg, I don't think so. Do you remember the story of Goldie Locks and the Three Bears?  This is about them, well the moral is anyway.  

Commercial (industrial sized) honey bottlers blend honey from every part of America (and the world) to create a product that is uniform in both color, and taste, from one batch to another and from year to year. Oneway they do this is by filtering out pollen that may change the taste or color.  This means that you the customer already knows what kind of quality to expect when you screw the lid off a jar of commercially bottled honey, just like you already know that you are getting the same Big Mac today in Chicago that you enjoyed in Chattanooga last month.  Well the same is true with commercially bottled honey.   Where the honey comes from has no bearing, to say it does is a smoke screen.  

Now a breaking and entering, trespasser named Goldie Locks entrees the picture.  Little Miss Goldie Locks is either in the form of Comrades PETA or Dr. Oz (The Wizard of.)  The Wizard of and PETA plants ideas in the mushy minds of mushy brained people and convinces them that if the mushy brain crowd will only send their spare pocket change in to Comrades PETA or Dr. Oz the Wizard of every day that the Comrades will guarantee that every bowl of porridge that the mushy brained crowd eats for the rest of their pitiful lives will be the Baby Bear's bowl of porridge.  If you remember the Goldie Locks and the Three Bears saga, the Baby Bear's bowl of redistributed porridge was always the bowl that was "JUST RIGHT." Chinese honey, GMOs, or a healthy spoonfull of honey has nothing to do with it. Overthrowing the current system is the long term goal.  Capiche?

[BjornBee]

1812, republicans, white house and politics...not about GM,....a labeling issue.....75% of honey on shelves.....angry shouting, denigrating others, demanding others from expressing their opinion.  :idunno:

Hey Yo! moderators.....anybody! I must not be getting all the posts. Cause I certainly must be missing some of the posts.  :shock: Where did all this come from?

;)

I'm guessing alcohol is involved.  :-D

[BjornBee]

Can we...those willing to without shouting, perhaps discuss this one point at a time?

The article says the court ruling has deemed "Pollen to be an additive to honey". Of course if someone is suing a farm that has GMO crops, you would certainly need to have the court deem it as "foreign" material and not normal in honey. I guess since some of my post was a comparison of where this might lead to, and to which I don't think it is "hyping"...anyone want to comment? I'm just going by what the article states....that GMO pollen was found, pollen has been found by a court to be foreign to honey, and beekeepers may need to label their bottles as possibly containing pollen (or GMO pollen), or do extensive filtering. Oh wait....that would mean their honey....and our honey....would be the same.  :lau:

I for one am shocked that a court (even if it was in wacky England) would find that pollen is considered a "foreign" material in honey. And if that is true, as mentioned in the article, what would be the consequences?

[kingbee]

u.s. farmers... have unknowingly had their crop polluted by neighbors GMO pollen & then savrd seed for replanting. ...when the corn was found to have GMO dna monsanto sued those farmers for copyright infringement... i've not researched it...

You have indeed not researched Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34.  The farmer you mentioned did indeed save Round Up Ready canola seeds from his fields.  That is after he had either planted or discovered Round Up Ready canola in his fields.  At any rate he sprayed his cross breed canola crop with Round Up so it would kill the plants that had NOT inherited the Round Up Ready DNA before they made seed, therebuy concentrating the Round Up Ready DNA in his remaining plants.  He then harvested ONLY the Round Up Ready canola seeds he had created or else isolated and only held these seeds back for planting.  Regardless of what the rest of the facts are, either way Schmeiser highly valued Round Up Ready canola, he just didn't want to pay for the seeds and he took multiple elaborate steps to avoid doing so.

[kingbee]

:lau:  BjornBee, what is this I am reading about GMO crickets?  :lau:

Now entering Larry the Cable Guy mode, "Forgive me Lord I couldn't help myself."

[kingbee]

...Our manipulation of ...American politics went out of style in 1812... [/quote]

derekm, don't go away or get mad.  The way things are going after only 200 years, means we may need your army overhere soon. :-D