>> Is it true that Canadian honey is not being sold in Europe because
>> it is contaminated with GM pollen?

Not really.  It is just that selling any food crop to any EU buyer
has a much higher "gamesmanship" factor than when selling to buyers
in other places. In general, one does business in the usual manner,
but one's crop is disparaged upon receipt, and one is then faced
with a lower price than had been quoted.  Note that the EU buyer is
still willing to purchase the commodity, so it should be clear that
the whole "contamination" issue is not an actual health concern, but
is merely a negotiating ploy to offer a lower price upon arrival of
the shipment than the one quoted based upon samples sent prior to
shipment.  Here is the USA, there is a term for such activities -
"breech of contract".

> It should be noted that there is huge antagonism to GM crops and
> anything derived from them here in the EU.

Exactly which WTO SPS guideline do the UK and the EU cite in regard to
this stance?

> ...arguments against include environmental, economic and cultural factors

But no actual health or biosecurity factors?
I thought not.

> there is an increasing resistance to the attempt by a few huge businesses
> to dominate world food production

I think it would be more accurate to say that the UK and EU have
simply stumbled upon a purely emotional/political stance which serves
as a basis for attempting to restrict imports and thereby protect
domestic producers without the need for all that boring and expensive
"testing". As nothing more than an accusation thrown at entire countries
is required, it is a uniquely low-cost non-tariff barrier to trade, as
it requires no tangible evidence, no proof that any health risk exists,
and does not even require a coherent explanation of the specific risk
in quantitative terms.

> which reduces our freedom of choice to grow crops organically and
> purchase them.

Even ignoring the obvious (that only a tiny fraction of the UK's and
EU's crops could be called "organic" in any sense of the term) what
about actual "Certified Organic" producers?

> Honey from bees which are within 6 miles of a GM crop such as OSR and I
> imagine maize (whose pollen is taken) is not purchased for resale as the
> public demand no GM contamination of honey.

While the 6-mile limit is an admirable standard, it ignores the basic concept
of plant blooming sequences, where placing hives within 6 miles of a GM crop
that is not in bloom, and removing them from that area before the GM crop is
in bloom can result in honey that cannot be contaminated by "GM pollen" in the
least.

> Our supermarkets won't stock GM food or any food which knowingly has a
> GM component.

This is a basic point.  To block the imports of an entire country simply
because some of the imports MIGHT have been unknowingly "tainted" by
something that is mostly filtered out before it is shipped on the grounds
that it is "GM Food" is a highly creative approach to honoring trade
agreements.

> Since a recent study showed that 75% of US seed from crops with a
> GM cousin are contaminated by 1-2%.

So, now we are applying statistical estimates to entire continents?
Hey, that's a neat trick!  Its not good science (in fact, it is not
even science at all), but it sure stirs up the general public with
yet more fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

This would create a basis for the UK and EU to attempt to block imports
of just about everything from just about everywhere, wouldn't it?

But whoops, the same exact problem exists in the UK!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/753679.stm

So even a 6-mile limit won't help when even the farmer does not
really know when his seed might be contaminated by GM seed.

The only logical conclusion would have to be that no honey
at all will be consumed in the UK ever again.  Sad.

Meanwhile, the UK group chartered to protect the public health is too
busy trying to counter scare-mongering in the press to come up with
some quantitative tests to at least detect actual cases of contamination
when and if they might ummm, "crop up":

  http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice19.htm

And these same defenders of the public health remain bemused by the highly
creative idea that terms like "contamination" can be applied to such cases,
when even the "detection" is dismissed as "not quantitative".

> This may have a serious long term affect on trade, once even "non-GM"
> crops are banned because of this contamination.

The serious long-term effect on trade will not be what the UK and the
EU expect.  The WTO sanctions that will result from such a stance will
mean that the UK and the EU will be unable to export as much as a
paperclip to anyone but each other.

I wonder if the UK and EU can produce enough food to be self-sufficient?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::