Me: But one does not need a degree (or six) to know that government intervention ... almost always benefits the largest players at the expense of competition, and of the consumer.
Mr Ash: So a simplistic and naive view trumps education, complexity and understanding?   I am GUESSING that you have no evidence or proof of the above statement....

My response: The obvious example is a honey law that keeps all but the largest beekeepers from selling their honey in stores by requiring it to be extracted and bottled in a full commercial kitchen that most of us cannot afford. One commercial beekeeper posted to this group several years ago that every time he found a new local competitor’s product in one of his retail outlets he would call his buddy at the health department to check them out, and usually within a few days their product would be off the shelves. We “free market” folks call that “crony capitalism”.
Another example that affects us is that of sugar subsidies, which protect a small number of producers from foreign competition while punishing all consumers – including beekeepers - with higher prices, and at the same time driving candy and cookie manufacturers (most recently Oreo) out of the country or out of business. What I consider “naïve” is for politicians to violate basic laws of supply and demand and then react in shock and anger when suppliers and/or demanders change their behavior as a result.

Me: The Missouri health department of course trotted out scary scenarios of adulteration and harmful chemicals ... but admitted to me in writing that they had "no records showing honey as the cause of any food-borne illness" in Missouri.
Mr. Ash: Adulteration and harmful chemical in honey is not the same thing as a food born illness.  sounds like a pretty good prior record and you hope your newer program will improve on this record?  of course we have had 'food born illness' (and death) from a very local and well know maker of ice cream maker here (they are highly supportive of the bee club down in Brenham, TX.

My response: E.T., I think you missed my point: Since the health department was not even checking for adulteration or chemical residues, and since neither is in any way related to a commercial kitchen requirement, their suggestion that taking away that requirement would lead to those scenarios was doubly dishonest. But even the health department folks did not suggest that deregulating honey would somehow lead to deaths from tainted ice cream! Furthermore, the fact that Missouri's previous honey regs went largely unenforced before 2014, with ZERO reports of health problems, was a compelling argument that they were unnecessary.

Me: Accurate, transparent labeling - pure honey vs some other blend, and yes, country of origin - is in my view necessary for consumers to make an informed decision. But I think it is then incumbent upon our industry to explain to those consumers why they should buy our product rather than someone else's.
Mr. Ash: with no one in charge how is any of the above going to go from idea to implementation to enforcement? it would seem by the above paragraph that Mr Markovec want to have it both ways since his newer and improved state law will not allow for any of the above.

My response: I’m sorry, but this statement is demonstrably false. The new law removed only a required statement that my product was not inspected, and left all other labeling requirements in place, with the same people “in charge” of enforcing them.

Eugene Makovec

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html