BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Robert Mann <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:39:18 +1200
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Joe
>It was Bee Culture, Aug 2001 issue, pg 41.  I quote: " New Zealand law
>prohibits labels claiming natural products have therapeutic value.  Breaches
>can draw a maximum NZ$100,000 fine."


        Our legal system has some quirks, but I resent the suggestion that
it's that stupid.
The 'prohibition' is of course on claims  *without supporting evidence
submitted & adopted according to statute*.   This law applies of course
just as much to synthetic products of Swiss factories as to natural
products.
        The practical solution in the immediate future seems to me just to
leave the promulgation of the claims to word-of-mouth; don't bother to
print on the label any claims for therapeutic effect.

R

ATOM RSS1 RSS2