In article <[log in to unmask]>, Andy
Nachbaur <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>Yeah, and "I am from the government and I am here to help you!" It is far
>too easy to say when a new regulation is in the review process how it is
>meant only for the few and will not harm the majority, but more time then
>not the final law is something quite different, and it is reasonable after
>reviewing this new regulation and looking at the costs stated of doing
>this regulation to think that unless ALL beekeepers/honey producers are
>included it will not be economically feasible as a federal regulation.
Dear All,
I am still reading with interest the unfolding debate on the
organic/food safety issue.
I feel that the point of this is still being missed. It is all about
ensuring that the entire organic food supply is indeed what it claims to
be and that it meets the well established criteria consumers of these
goods require. It is NOT about some cunning plan to extort more taxes
out of all beekeepers. Why anyone should assume that organic criteria
would then be applied to the entire beekeeping industry is quite beyond
me. It is no more likely than having it applied throughout the entire
beef or cereal industries.
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve in his assertion that only those
claiming organic status, who actually are not, would have anything to
fear from this. Those seeking certification and thus access to what they
see as a premium market should have to pay the true cost of their being
audited and approved. This is fair and correct, otherwise you get into a
situation where, through the general taxation system, all end up paying
something towards the cost of such a scheme. If you genuinely believe
that you have a truly organic (in the narrow sense required) product and
can achieve the premium price, then I would have thought the concept of
such a scheme would be in your favour.
I also believe, as one or two respondents indicated, that the market for
organic produce is not as large as might at first be perceived. Any
premium obtainable would be quickly eroded by a change in the balance of
supply and demand if a lot of producers were able to meet reduced
criteria. I am not an organic fan and would have nothing to gain
whatsoever from organic regulation, either in the USA (my products are
sold there) or in the UK. I believe that the market is not sufficiently
large or lucrative at present to even go into the market and buy organic
honey and launch a certified organic line. However, one of the reasons
it is not lucrative enough is the number of honeys purporting, without
any certification, to be organic. Doubtless some of these claims are
valid, but several will be at best dubious and a few will be fraudulent.
Without some scheme to police and approve these products (it need not be
governmental if the organic industry were to get their act together)
there is nothing to tell the ultimate client whose goods are right and
whose are wrong. It must be organic, not beekeeper, led, and it must be
consistent, and it absolutely must have real teeth, otherwise it is of
no value.
This story is the organic industry's baby. It is for them to decide what
criteria they need in the products they buy, and not for us to tell them
what they are going to get. They may find difficulty in getting what
they want, but that is largely their problem.
Food safety issues are an altogether different thing. I would have
thought that the two examples I cited in a previous posting should have
been enough to illustrate the point that real inspections ARE important.
As in the organic debate, those of us doing it right have NOTHING to
fear from checking as to whether we are operating in hygenic conditions
and using safe practices. These cases were in apparently well found
businesses in a reputable country, yet things were a LONG way from well,
and if they had not been caught by inspectors they could have gone on to
do the trade a lot of damage. Imagine the newspaper headlines!
The vast majority will be doing things correctly, or at worst will need
minor changes, but you cannot have it both ways. Either you want the
goods you buy, honey included, to be produced in a food safe environment
or you are not fussy and would rather food premises were unregulated. In
the latter case you cannot then turn round when you are injured in some
way by your food and ask why the authorities had not done something
about it. As I have already stated, the vast majority will be doing it
right, but out there somewhere, claiming to be virtuous, is someone who
is not. Properly empowered authorities can find these people and deal
with them.
HACCP is a good way of looking at things yourself, but as with all
things, if there is no third party auditing how on earth do we know that
good practice is being adhered to. Again it could be industry led, and
from my experience it is usually where industry initiatives have been
insufficient that regulators step in.
The assertions that you cannot trust government servants is most unfair.
There are good people and bad in all walks of life, and treating them
all with hostility is not the way to get the best co-operation out of
those who are genuine in their intentions. Indeed the idea that you can
trust beekeepers better than government servants to do things right is a
somewhat 'off the wall' sentiment probably not reflected in opinion
outside beekeeping circles. Because of all the petty jealousy within the
bee trade we all probably have another local beekeeper(s) right near the
top of our list of least trustworthy people. (Be honest with yourself!).
If you are seeking to avoid the imposition of a regulatory regime an the
risk of having a power hungry beaurocrat breathing down your neck with
religious zeal then I think the hostile tactics are all wrong. The more
vehement your opposition, the more it will look as if you are hiding
something (perhaps some are?), and the closer the scrutiny will get.
Gentle steering, which looks like co-operation from the way it is
presented, will result in your input being much more effective than an
automatic hostile response. A sensible basic set of standards for
packing premises, properly supervised, is fair to all consumers and
responsible producers, only weeding out the unsatisfactory and the unco-
operative.
Murray
--
Murray McGregor
[log in to unmask]
|
