> European Court of Justice... found that [pollen from]
> biotech plants contained in honey should be considered 
> as food ingredients.

This is a mere political finding, as it does not name a specific tangible
difference between pollen from GMO plants and pollen from non-GMO plants.

> Testing... includes counting and identifying pollen 
> particles in honey and then making assumptions 
> about the percent of biotech crops represented 
> within the population of pollen isolated.

What a joke!  This is not science, this is not even evidence-based.  The
"test" here is a mere ESTIMATE of the percent of biotech crops near the
foraging range of the bee!  The only hard data is going to be sales data
from the seed sold at the farmer's co-ops, and that's considered proprietary
data, I'd guess.  

> In Germany the opponents of biotech welcomed 
> the court's decision as a clear victory for consumer 
> protection and agricultural production without
> biotech.

The sooner that beekeepers realize that these pressure groups are NOT their
friends, the better.  These agenda-pushers will quite happily see the cost
to beekeepers go up to the point that honey becomes unaffordable, if it
achieves their goal of making news, preserving or creating a conflict that
they can fund-raise upon, and seeming to do something "good for people and
the Earth", like imposing "zero tolerance".  Bees and beekeepers as the
pawns of a process that offers no benefits to the beekeepers is
"stewardship" gone mad.

This is the worst form of the "Pollinator Protection Racket" - an impossible
to test-for requirement imposed on honey alone, without an acknowledgement
that beekeepers cannot determine GMO vs non GMO from traces of pollen alone
without the sort of lab that would make us all geneticists working on the
cutting edge of science.  Even if we had a dozen Dr. Evan Skowronskis
willing to do us favors at no charge, and a dozen Aberdeen Proving Ground
bio-weapons labs to do his bidding in their "spare time", would GMO genes be
consistently detectable in pollen at all?  

I'm copying Evan on this, and will post his reply on his behalf.  Evan, see:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=BEE-L;f8086ba9.1
312
for links to the court rulings.

The punchline to this joke is that the Chinese "ultra-filtered" honey, with
no pollen, and with not even the PROTEINS filtered out, would meet or exceed
the requirements of the EU court, as it would contain no pollen at all, not
even the traces of the sub-50 micron pollen grains of wind-borne pollen!
So, the processes used to disguise criminally re-drirected "false-flag
honey" is the only known process that beekeepers can use to comply!

             ***********************************************
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