In Canada the beekeeping industry is leading the push for higher honey house standards. The goal is to improve the quality and traceability of honey. This can then be used as a marketing tool. But it is also hoped it can be used as a trade barrier. In other words you won't be able to sell honey in Canada unless you have a stainless steel toilet in your honey house and reams of records on your beekeeping operation like the rest of us. Sounds like other countries are also following this path. I don't think we can fault governments for wanting to improve food quality and saftey. Many believe the food now on store shelves may be responsible for skyrocketing cancer rates. So consumers want government oversight of our food. However I agree with Richard of Danbury as quoted by Dee Lusby that these requlations should not apply to someone with twenty hives selling honey out their back door. That is exactly what has happened to all livestock producers in Canada. You can no longer legally butcher an animal in your back yard and sell the meat to your neighbour. And our provincial government is warning us that they see the day coming when this will be the case with honey as well. The other down side to higher standards is that it makes it more expensive to get started in commercial beekeeping. This in turn will tend to push smaller operations out of business. I heard a radio program several years ago that discussed trends in agriculture. The program suggested that many North American politicians find rural areas a nuisance. Farmers are always looking for financial help and demanding services. The politicians see a solution in industrial agriculture or factory farms. With this scenario you have very few people living in rural areas (so fewer services needed) and the factory farms actually make a profit so can be taxed. So some governments are actually lowering environmental standards and centralizing land use planning in an attempt to encourage factory farms. But once factory farms are established they don't want government inspectors coming around. Fortunately they are so big they have the political clout to get what they want. I support the move towards all honey houses being government inspected. But I see the possible scenario in beekeeping of the demand for higher standards leading to government inspectors of honey houses, leading to larger operations who then use their political clout to get rid of the government inspectors. I'm not saying this will happen. I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. Something else that I feel will affect the future of North American beekeeping is what happens with the Canada/U.S. border. If the border becomes open to the movement of hives back and forth, large migratory beekeepers north and south of the border will over-winter in the southern U.S.. This will then allow them to do some spring pollination before heading north for a honey crop. Stationary beekeepers will get none of the benefits but all the pests and diseases trucked around the country. If this style of beekeeping becomes the norm it will have an effect on rural areas because beekeepers will no longer have roots in any one community. And I think rural areas need local, permanent residents to maintain a healthy society. It could also be argued that migratory beekeeping uses more fossil fuels and is harder on the environment than stay at home, smaller operations. My point in this little tirade is that bigger isn't always better. Ted P.S. BTW did you know that Canada is bigger than the U.S.? I guess sometimes size really does matter. -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---