Lloyd Spear said:

>> Virginia has a law (regulation?) requiring that if a
>> honey label states a source, no less than 51% of the contents must be
>> from that source.  Moreover, upon request they are willing to test the honey
>> and order honey removed from shelves if it does not meet the minimum
>> requirements.

>> They test the honey by examining the pollen grains.

and David L. Green said:

> That is hardly an equivalent ratio. Some plants are good pollen sources,
> but poor nectar sources, and vice versa.  I.e., 51% of the pollen being
> blackberry pollen, does not necessarily translate to 51% of the nectar being
> from blackberry.

As a Virginia beekeeper, I am subject to the law at issue. I was at the
same meeting as Lloyd, and took detailed notes on the same talk.
The law (and the regulators) are MUCH less draconian than they might
appear at first glance:

a)  The requirement of "51%" is very tolerant, when you think about it.
     I took away the impression that the regulators were telling beekeepers
     that they were fools to put MORE than just over half of the desirable
     honey in their bottles labeled by variety of nectar source.  In my view,
     this was a bad move for everyone except the makers of big stainless
     steel mixing tanks.

b)  The verification by pollen analysis would be done simply to verify that
     ANY pollen of the claimed nectar source is in the honey at all.
     Beekeepers were being asked to keep some simple records of supering
     to "prove" their claims in the event of a question or dispute over varietal
     honey claims.  Pollen analysis was offered as an alternative way that a
     beekeeper could prove his claims without keeping records.

c)  The study that prompted the regulatory move found some "honey" with no
     pollen at all.  Zero.  None.  Impossible, given that no beekeeper or honey
     handlers in VA have the sort of flash-heat and micro-filtration set-up
     that would be capable of filtering out even the larger pollen grains.  It was
     tough to sit in a meeting and hear that there were thieves among us.
     (Of course, one is forced to wonder why the presentation was made to the
     50 or so beekeepers responsible enough to belong to the state association
     and come to meetings, out of an unknown total.  Virginia has a reasonable
     number of beekeepers, but very low membership at both local and state
     levels, and dismal meeting attendance, perhaps due to the lack of an "open bar".)

d)  There was more than ample cause for some form of control being
     imposed.  There have been some shenanigans going on with "Sourwood"
     honey, which is highly desired, commands top dollar, and is often sold
     to tourists who often know nothing more than the name "Sourwood".

The worst example was a packer selling "Sourwood Honey", using "Sourwood"
as a sort of brand name or apiary name.  The honey clearly was not Sourwood
honey at all (by taste, appearance, smell, and pollen).  The packer tried to use
the lame excuse of a "brand name" only after being confronted.

The law as it stands is a "restraint of trade/equal treatment" lawsuit just waiting
to happen.  The State is happy to impose a new law against Virginia beekeepers
and packers, but cannot seem to understand that existing laws have not been
enforced against the multinational robber-baron conglomerates that sell the majority
of honey bought by the Virginia consumers that they are charged with protecting:

a)  The "Target" chain of stores has a store brand called "American Pride".  They
     sell honey called "American Pride Honey".  Do I need to tell you where the
     honey in the jar comes from?  I thought not.  Not only do they have no pride,
     they have no shame.

b)  The laws on the books say that if the word "Honey" appears in the name of
     a product, that honey must be the primary sweetener used in the product.
     There is a long list of "national brand-name" products that have "Honey" in
     their names, but use only a tiny amount of honey, and a large amount of
     corn syrup.

I could go on with more examples, but I am sure that the members of this list
could make longer lists than I could.

I'm sure that the regulators are nice fellows who are not "targeting" beekeepers,
but they need to call their proctologists, and ask for assistance in locating their
heads.

        jim

        farmageddon (Where we eat all the honey we can, and sell the rest.)