Bob Harrison said: > We have got one large coop but some of the largest
honey producers do not
> belong .......

Interesting - can we be told more how well this works for the producers who
are in?  Do they get a better price? Is the market for the USA-labelled
honey more secure against fluctuations - especially against fluctuations
caused by scares on contamination from blending in uncontrolled foriegn
honey? If so, why do smaller producers not start a smaller co-op open to
producers who supply say only 2,000 lbs a year - the UK co-op takes small
amounts.  OK, the smaller scale co-op might have to be based on only one
state or travel could be excessive - but a federation of smaller co-ops
could still have many of the advantages of a large single operation.
The key to protecting market demand for pure honey would be that it would be
the producers who own the co-op and set policy and specs for processing.  It
does not sound as tho the large co-op is under control.
Jim Fischer came up with the curious view that "As it stands now, we consume
more than we produce,
and we had better be nice to our counterparts who fly different flags,
'cause
without them, the supply of honey to the consumer would be about as
dependable
as the supply of spare parts for 1975 Bricklins".
"We " here can only mean some body that is concerned with continuity of
supply to the USA population.  That does not mean honey producers. Surely
the business of honey producers is to only produce pure honey and to sell it
in a way that ensures the product reaches customers in a fit and proper
condition.  If demand for pure USA honey exceeds supply, then the price will
rise until more producers enter the business, when price will level off at
the economic level at which the industry is sustainable.  All evidence seems
to be that customers will pay more for pure honey - the marketing of a mere
low-cost,  sweet-tasting paste can be left to food maufacturers and the
public will learn to distinguish the two provided the brand labels are
distinctive.
My interest in this - as a UK onlooker - stems from my off-sung song that
the true significance of honey is that it is a medicinal product , matured
by bees from the nectar of a wide-range of plants, many of which have been
ascribed medicinal value in earlier times.   Honey can be used specifically
to treat some ailments - but its value thru regular use as a regulator of
bodily heath is supreme. Only few honies have been investigated - but New
Zealand Manuka honey (tested and labelled for bactericidal activity on a
scale 1-10) now sells for many times the price of floral honey, although
work by Dr Rose Cooper at Cardiff University  suggests floral honey can be
just as effective and its medicinal value is simply not recognised.  We -
beekeepers - will only make progress on this when we start to value the
product ourselves and stop supplying it to be mucked about and sold in
competion with foriegn rubbish.

Would not organising a federation of smaller honey co-ops be less work - and
less frustrating - than campaigning for all the legislative changes to
labelling regulations that Bob was wondering about?

Robin Dartington

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::