Richard Drutchas <[log in to unmask]> queried about proposed changes
to the National Honey Board in: "More money for the honey board".  I
agree with his goal, "to encourage some discussion..." because frankly,
I don't know where I stand on the issues.  However, I can offer a bit
more of the background.
 
There are conflicting opinions from the American Beekeepers Federation
and the American Honey Producers Association regarding appropriate
action from and to the National Honey Board.  Excerpts from the Southern
Adirondack Beekeepers Association newsletter reporting on the fall
meeting of the Empire State Honey Producers Association follow.  I hope
everyone can follow this alphabet soup of associations, federations
and boards.
 
" ...
 Differing views for needed changes to the National Honey
 Board were presented by Dave Hackenberg, V.P. of American
 Beekeeping Federation and Jerry Stroope, President of the
 American Honey Producers Association.  The following back-
 ground information regarding the NHB was taken from the NHB
 Home Page on the World Wide Web: "In 1986 the Honey Re-
 search, Promotion and Consumer Information Order was ap-
 proved by a referendum of honey producers and importers,
 leading to the establishment of a program for generic honey
 research, advertising and promotion.  The NHB was subse-
 quently created by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to ad-
 minister the Order."  Currently the NHB consists of 13
 elected members including packers, importers/exporters and
 representatives of the general public.  A penny per pound
 assessment is paid by packers and producers for both domes-
 tic and imported honey to help fund NHB's budget.
 
 Resolutions were presented to ESHPA for consideration re-
 garding proposed changes to the NHB make up and assessments.
 Dave Hackenberg's proposal was to increase the per pound as-
 sessment by a penny to increase the pool of money available
 to award "universities and federal researchers who show the
 greatest promise of solving the highest priority problems
 (confronting apiculture)" as determined by "a beekeeper com-
 mittee" and to implement a quality assurance program to en-
 sure that no adulterated honey (either imported or domestic)
 enter the US market.  There are estimates that as much as
 10% of all honey sold in the US contains some added cheaper
 sweetener.  Removing adulterated honey from the market will
 lower the supply of pure honey and help keep prices up.  In-
 cluded in this proposal was a suggestion to change the NHB
 to include two additional packers and remove the public rep-
 resentative.  This would increase the NHB by one member.
 
 Jerry Stroope's proposal would have removed assessments for
 imported honey and would have removed all non-producers from
 the NHB.  Included in Jerry's proposal was a redirection of
 the impetus of promoting honey by the NHB to the promotion
 of domestically produced honey.  Due to the broad changes
 proposed to the NHB in either resolution, a consensus was
 not achieved and neither was adopted by ESHPA.
 
 Bill Gamber from Dutch Gold offered a packer's perspective
 to the proposed resolutions as well as some insight to the
 world honey market.  More and more these days one hears ref-
 erences to the global economy and Bill echoed the global ef-
 fect of Argentine honey on domestic prices.  Going for the
 higher prices offered in the states, producers/exporters in
 Argentina have shifted exports from Germany and Europe to
 the US at a time when domestic producers were holding out
 for even higher prices.  This led to lower prices for domes-
 tic honey and full warehouses of Argentine honey.  In a com-
 modities market it is never clear where prices will go, but
 it was interesting to see the effects of unsure or unknown
 harvests on market prices.  I was left wondering if perhaps
 beekeepers might be their own worst enemies when it comes to
 marketing their wares.
 
 Unfortunately, no consensus of opinion was reached.  Con-
 cerns that the NHB is being (or has already been) taken over
 by packers leaving producers poorly represented conflicted
 with concerns that foreign honey and producers would reap
 the benefits of the NHB while paying nothing for the ser-
 vice.  It seemed that both resolutions had some good ideas
 regarding removal of adulterated honey and promoting domes-
 tic honey, but the associated changes tacked onto either re-
 solution regarding proposed changes to the NHB make up was
 the stumbling block that prevented a consensus and unfortu-
 nately, neither resolution was adopted.  I was thankful to
 leave politics and world markets behind to enjoy the re-
 searchers that followed...."
 
I cannot offer more insight to the politics and disagreement between ABF
and AHPA, it eludes me.  I don't believe at this time that any action
has been taken although changes are in the wind.  If readers have an
opinion or care to formulate one, time is short and steps should be
taken to come up to speed on the issues and contact representation in
Washington, DC.
 
Richard stated, "call me a fool and explain why I should gladly vote
this extra penny in."  I would hardly call anyone trying to understand
the issues a fool.  And I will be thankful to anyone who can explain
to me why goals such as increasing funds for research, promoting
domestic honey and removing adulterated honey from the marketplace have
to be prerequisite to changes to a board created "for generic honey
research, advertising and promotion."
 
Aaron Morris - thinking this one's gonna heat up quick!