Jim mentions many reasonable comments on why honey imports would not be tested at site of entry.
1) Anyone suggesting that such testing is required would be dismissed
as a "protectionist producer"......
This might be the case that is placed at the front of a counter argument against enforcement of
existing procedures.
But, law is law, and there are legal requirements in place to protect the consumer. It is not just
the producers who should be demanding protection. As far as I know, there is no legal support for
the trading of adulterated materials.
U.N Codex al. has tried to define what is internationally proper, as has the E.U. - not perfect,
but far better than nothing.
Added to the problem, is that many beekeepers are fearful of exposing what is being traded. For some
reason they expect by being silent, the problem will go away, with the consumer never being the
wiser. False!
2) Even if the costs of such testing were borne by the federal government,
thus eliminating the "tariff" complaint....
It is on to the responsible - (by this I mean, individuals/ associations who have taken it upon
themselves to serve the rest) falls the duty to ensure that the correct message is delivered to
their associates.
The need to protect a product is not on that rests at national level - but one that needs
international co-operation. In our case, beekeepers for eg. in the States must realise that
apiculturalists supplying proper material have a right to the so called open market. If the honey
arrives at a french, british port, the same. (taking any health issues into account! - yes I sent a
mail!).
If a consignment of adulterated material arrived in France, then I would expect the support of
others from wherever to halt the trade.
International pressure should be on the authorities to ensure that all available techniques were
applied towards this end.
3) Due to a lack of adequate science education, there is, at best, about 2% of
the US population who can even SPELL things like "infrared spectroscopy"....
Obvious reply - sort out the this domestic problem by educating to required levels needed in the
workplace. Pay! - can' t go into that on such a list.
4) Agreed, to become auto sufficient would be difficult - and possibly an unwise move.
But then to equate the resulting importation of honey as also an acceptance of poor quality -
meaning contaminated , is totally wrong.
Cheaper, no doubt, but below legal requirements - NO.
How far the customer is going to tolerate generic produce?
- not for me to guess - as I can't, but in Europe there is a wide movement insisting on local
produce being available at the side of imported. People are demanding choice.
Not only that, but how it is produced, where, and what it contains.
Lobby - any person can put their point forward - might be a little ineffective. But that is what the
competition wants the opposition to think.
Again, join associations, demand those in position represent. If they are unable to then again group
up until an effective mass is achieved.
If it is thought that getting the vocal french beekeepers to act together was a piece of cake - come
over here and see the efforts required to fight our corner.
If the US beekeepers (taking your example) are a little laid back - then they should accept
gracefully what lands in their laps at a later date.
As far as I can perceive - it is a general fault in the average beekeeper, that they too readily
moan but accept what happens.
In previous mails, I have suggested that there is a need to plan for the future, then organise.
Easy to say I know - but IMHO, that's what our representatives are put in place to do.
Regards
Peter
|
