Arthur Harvey posted the following this morning to the Organic Beekeeping list. 
Arthur is an organic blueberry grower and beekeeper in Maine and is also an organic certifier. 

You can also view a conversation between Arthur and Stan Hildebrand (another organic certifier) here:

http://vimeo.com/10211570


"About two years ago the NOSB approved its proposed organic honey standard and
sent it to the NOP (National Organic Program). At that time, the NOP Director,
Miles McEvoy, reacted positively and indicated it would be posted for public
comment soon. That is the way proposals become part of the regulation. That
has not happened, for unexplained reasons. Some of those reasons might be
inferred from the critique I wrote at the time, which is posted here at the end
of this message, and which I wrote at the suggestion of a member of the NOSB.

At any rate, in the absence of any NOP regulation of honey, most certifiers are
using the NOSB recommendation as if it were part of the regulation, and they are
calling it "guidance". For decades, the certifiers have used whatever honey
standards they wished, and even now I suppose they can still do that. It is
also unclear whether a certifier can legally deny certification to a honey
producer who follows a different standard. Because there are so few certified
beekeepers in the US, we may not know the answer to this puzzle for a while, if
ever.

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ORGANIC HONEY STANDARD by Arthur Harvey

The April 17, 2010 NOSB Apiculture recommendation (available at the usda.gov
website, under National Organic Program---NOSB) stimulates me to offer a number
of changes and additions, in no particular order. The Director of the National
Organic Program (NOP) has indicated the NOSB proposal , in some form, is
likely to be posted for public comment. If that comment is favorable, it would
become part of the organic regulation and all honey labeled "Organic" would have
to comply---including making an application, paying a fee, and being inspected.
So beekeepers need to think over carefully the implications of what the NOSB has
proposed. The comments you make during the comment period will greatly
influence your future as an organic honey producer. First, a few general
observations.

ORIGIN OF STANDARDS. There are about eight certified organic honey producers
in the USA, none of whom had control over writing the current proposal.
(Indeed, some of these would be disqualified under the proposal.) Also, there
are several dozen or a few hundred small, qualified but uncertified producers
for whom the cost of certification makes it impossible. They also had no
control. This method of developing organic rules has not been used for other
crops which grew out of existing industries, rather than trying to create an
industry by adopting rules and hoping farmers will comply.

Once USDA made a policy decision to develop honey standards, the job was given
to people whose expertise was in organic livestock, and bees were formally
defined as livestock. That created the assumed need to approach "health care"
and "transition" in ways similar to other livestock standards, rather than
focusing on field crops (and to some extent, processing) which would be
relevant if bees were defined as integrated with field crops.
Health care is where the proposal flounders uncontrollably. For honeybees are
subject to a large variety of pests, viruses, diseases, parasites, contaminants,
etc---some of which remain to be identified. Further, the catalog of specific
problems varies greatly from region to region. The underlying rationale for
livestock health care is based on humanitarian concerns to minimize the
suffering of animals---which is largely or entirely irrelevant to bees since we
cannot observe or evaluate the feelings of a bee. The proposal is silent on
the critical point about health of an apiary---its genetic diversity and
adaptability.

Why then are these rules proposed? I believe it arises from the embarrassment
of having honey on supermarket shelves bearing the "USDA Organic" seal, despite
not having any USDA honey standard, with 99% of organic honey sold coming from
other countries. The result is a proposed standard which is relevant to certain
parts of those other countries, but not relevant to US beekeepers. The
proposal is certifier-driven, not farmer-driven.

PURE FOOD. Honey derives much of its consumer loyalty to the belief that it is
unpolluted compared with other foods. In reality, of course, few agricultural
crops are more exposed to synthetic chemical environnments and adulteration
than conventional honey. Organic honey can assert its relative purity, but
only if it is backed up by systematic testing for chemical residues and other
non-organic substances. (See OFPA, 7USC6506(a)(6). It should be applied to all
honey products including conventional and imported. This will prove what we
already know--- that virtually all honey contains some environmental residues,
but organic


honey has a tiny fraction compared with the rest. Lacking such testing, organic
honey will be ripe for a scandal when independent testing shows residues which
certifiers never suspected, or preferred not to know about.

In short, "organic" as applied to honey, is about the product just as much as
it is about the system of production. And there is another reason to test. At
present, we do not know which chemicals persist in honey, and in what amounts.
Existing organic standards have assumed that a one, two or three mile radius
from the hive is needed to protect it from forbidden substances. Of course,
such guesses are better than no standard at all. But no data supports these
assumptions. Probably, such fixed radii are too small or too large for certain
regions or certain types of pollution. So systematic residue testing over, say,
5 years, could give us a much clearer idea of a workable radius in various
regions, that would comply with 205.670-.671---no more than 5% of the legal
residue in an organic product.

Organic field management should entertain a variety of experimental methods
beyond the prescriptions in the NOSB document. It will accomplish little if NOP
beekeepers are cut off from other apiculture movements. A review of current
apiculture literature, for example the American Bee Journal, will reveal more
than one approach based on "no treatment" beekeeping, and these are already
commercially viable.

It is misleading to focus entirely on the individual colony. Prof. Hoopingarner
and others have shown that drift among colonies in an apiary can reach 40%, and
occurs even between hives 1/4 mile apart. Some states forbid placing a new
apiary within 2 miles of an existing one. At any rate, the standard should
define the apiary as the unit of production, as the flock or the field is,
elsewhere. Colony-specific audit and record-keeping systems would impose a
heavy and ultimately pointless burden. Many beekeepers routinely move frames
of brood and honey between hives to maintain and control vigor, and to prepare
for winter.

Apiary records should be limited to:
1) Number of colonies , plus date and source of additions or deletions (e.g.,
divisions)
2) Materials applied, with dates and reasons, including feeding
3) Dates and quantities of harvests
4) Dates and results of inspections, by producer, state inspector and certifier
inspector
5) Maps showing all locations used throught the year

Inspectors and certifiers need apicultural qualifications which are quite rare
in the NOP system. Two sources exist where such qualifications may be found:
1) State bee inspectors
2) The community of self-styled organic beekeepers, whether certified or not.

Lacking a many-fold increase in expertise, administration of the proposed Rule
will result in such variations among certifiers as to cause confusion and anger.
(I might observe that USDA would be well advised to avoid such anger which
beekeepers are adept at expressing to their representatives.) The following
sections are particularly prone to variable interpretations: 205.240(e)(1) +
205.240(g) + 205.240(b)(2), (3), (5) + 205.204(a)(2)
Most of these problems can be avoided by a system described under the
detailed comments below on 205.240(b)

FORAGE AND SURVEILLANCE ZONE. Does one size fit all? Bees have been known to
fly more than 5 miles for nectar and pollen. We also know that they will not
fly further than necessary to meet their needs. And, hive denisty in any
situation would have to include existing hives of other beekeepers. Such
information is often closely guarded (although the state bee inspector would
know). And we know that the normal foraging area of most hives is 5 square
miles, or a radius of 1.25 miles. But normal conditions are often not present,
due to droughts, floods, crop failures, etc, etc, etc.

A forage and surveillance zone serves partly as a buffer, to restrict bees from
bringing forbidden materials to the hive. Buffers used for other organic crops
are site-specific, and the same should apply to bees. Buffers do not provide
100% purity to an organic crop, and organic honey should not promise that. It
is enough that 205.670-.671 is met. The proposed standard attempts to achieve
what amounts to a zero tolerance for contaminants. That is not applied to
other organic crops which are often affected by GMO or ther environmental con-
tamination while still being certified organic. And processed organic products
need only 95% organic content, not 100%.

The bottom line here, is that one size does not fit all. An apiary in the
southwest desert will need a much larger area than 1.8 or 4.0 mile radius, plus
twice the usual store of honey to outlast dearth periods and still produce a
commercial crop. Hives in parts of Hawaii and .many other lushly-vegetated
places may never forage beyond 1/2 mile. The US is too diverse in terms of
climate and vegetation to have a single foraging standard for bees.

The NOSB & NOP recently spent about five years to develop a pasture forage
standard for dairy cows. The final result is designed to allow organic dairy
farms in every state. To impose a honey standard that effectively excludes
several states, and the majority of counties in the US, would reverse the
policy underlying the grazing standard.


GENERAL SUMMARY. There are two reasons to delay national standards at this
time.

1) Lack of data to support foraging distances. Research in this area has been
deterred by the fear of finding too many chemical residues in (conventional)
honey. Until we know where and how the limits of 205.670-.671 are likely to be
exceeded, we cannot go beyond guesswork in setting radii. As it happens,
Pennsylvania State University has commenced the type of research that will begin
to answer our needs in a few years.

2) Lack of qualified inspectors, especially specific to the conditions in a
given state or region.



DETAILED REMARKS, BY SECTION

205.2 Definitions, Replacement bees. After "catastrophic", add "or normal".



205.240(a)(1) In two places, change "one year" to "60 days". Comment:
Transition would apply to nucs or package bees which are practical only during
the active season when worker bees do not live beyond 50 days. This indicates
at most a 60 day transition. The rationale for one year of transition is to
give the beekeeper a learning curve over a longer period. However, A) for no
other organic crop is an extended transition imposed for the purpose of training
the farmer; B) Beekeepers, especially organic ones, will be learning for
several years, if not for the rest of their lives---unless, of course, they are
too busy with their other crops to pay much attention to the finer points of
apiary management. Anyhow, farmer expertise is not required under the NOP Rule,
or OFPA.

A one year transition is wildly inconsistent with existing livestock transition
periods already in the NOP Rule and OFPA. Organic milk and organic eggs require
less than one complete generation as transition from conventional to organic.
The proposed honey standard would require ten times as long---six or more
generations of worker bees. No reason is given which is related to the
sustainability or health of the bees.

205.240(a)(2) The 25% limit creates confusion and negative incentives. If
based on "previous honey flow", does that refer to a late season minor flow, or
only to the principal flow of the year?
Next, (i) appears to create a conflict between "going into winter" and
"present in the previous honey flow". Next, "previous honey flow" creates an
incentive to split more colonies than would otherwise be advisable, for the
purpose of making more replacements. Next, "going into winter" creates a
counter incentive against combining weak hives, which would be advisable to help
them survive. SUGGESTION: A uniform 60 day transition would eliminate these
perverse results, and 205.240(a)(2) can be omitted.

205.240(b) (1,2,3) Human housing is defined as a high risk activity which
apparently means an organic apiary must be at least four miles from human
housing. This may or may not forbid placing hives on an organic homestead, but
a strict application will result in no organic hives in several states, and
confine beekeeping to very remote wildernesses. The same is true for "land to
which prohibited materials are applied". A producer could not "provide a
description" of "any sources of potential contamination" unless the NOP can
furnish a complete list of such sources.
Consider an organic farm located on a public road, 4 miles from conventional
farms, golf courses, etc. But the municipality uses herbicides along some parts
of the road, and a few homes use chemicals on their lawns. Is organic
beekeeping forbidden on such farms? So long as the proposed Rule does that, I
predict it will not survive the comment process.

SUGGESTION: Remove most of the above subsections. Data will be developed
showing what contamination exists in honey from various parts of the US. Then,
the location of a forage and surveillance zone, and the maximum number of hives
allowed for each organic apiary, shall be approved by the state apiarist,
subject to annual review. During the years in which this program is being
developed, the NOP will educate and train state apiarists regarding provisions
of the Rule and OFPA. This is critically important because some of them
currently regard organic honey as either impossible or a sham. Where a state
has no bee inspector, the closest inspector from adjoining states could serve.


The cost of inspections (if done thoroughly) under the Rule as proposed, would
be so great as to sink either the certifier or the honey producer if the costs
were passed on. To verify 50 square miles as being free of "high risk
activity" would require several days of study by inspectors who lack any
particular expertise in the matter. On the other hand, A state bee inspector
could make a well-educated estimate of the area with only a cursory look at it.
The state inspector already knows where the conventional hives are---both
permanent and migratory, and this information may not be available to anyone
else. State inspectors are paid a small fraction of what organic inspectors
get (up to $95 per hour plus travel), and their qualifications are infinitely
superior to USDA or certifier inspectors.

205.240(b)(4) Insert "closest" before "water".

205.240(b)(5) Drifting cannot be prevented. Professor Hoopingarner and others
have shown that drift within an apiary can reachy 40%, and be significant even
1/4 mile apart. If split operations are allowed (and perhaps they should not
be), then drift can be eliminated by a two mile separation, as already required
in some states.

205.240(c)(1) Instead of "flowering time of the various plants", it should say
"identify the most important known flowering plants"---although this may be
infeasible in some areas such as wetlands.

205.240(c)(2) Affidavits for a 10 square mile area suitable for an apiary,
would be impossible in many or most locations. Observation of the area will
usually be sufficient if done by a qualified apiarist.


205.240(c4) "date of last use"---by whom? If by all landowners within 10
square miles, probably unknowable.

205.240(c5&8) Identifying and tracking individual hives is not feasible unless
switching frames and fortifying weaker hives is banned.

205.240(c12) "Estimated" should be "hoped-for".

205.240(d) Apparently, "transportation activities" refers to moving hives for
pollination service. Any such activity requires detailed rules. Failing that,
this could become a giant loophole whereby organic hives make most of their
honey from temporary locations outside the organic plan.

205.240(e)(1) Generally, it will be impossible to manage 10 square miles of
surrounding land.

205.240(e2) Define "minimal risk to organic integrity".

205.240(f) The Rule should place more emphasis on leaving more honey in the
hive to avoid feeding sugar. Bees will store sugar in one frame and later move
it to production frames. "15 days" should be "45 days".

205.240(g) Define "significant risk".

205.240(h)(1) What reason is there to prohibit plastic hive bodies?

205.240(h)(3) Bees apply a coating of propolis to all cells; hence dipping
plastic in beeswax is unnecessary.

205.240(i)(4) Most bees and hives can be considered "contaminated" with pests
and diseases, which are more or less constant in hives, although not out of
control. Bees manage such things with coatings of propolis and hygienic
behavior. It is not useful to ask the beekeeper to destroy equipment and bees
unless the state inspector requires such.

205.240(i)(6&7) "The producer must.....Use of therapeutic applications of
non-synthetic materials....Use of therapeutic applications of synthetic
materials....allowed under 205.603."
These subsections appear to contradict each other by referring to therapeutic
materials as "preventive". More important, it suggests that no-treatment
beekeepers will be unable to achieve certification. This would exclude a large
proportion of beekeepers who currently consider themselves organic. The problem
can be corrected by adding the word "optional" to (6) & (7).

205.240(j)(1) Add: "This may include a strategy and plan based on culling of
weak hives and division of survivors, with queens naturally mated, for the
purpose of strengthening the genetic pool."

205.240(j)(7) Delete "annually".

205.240(j)(9) This is a critically important part of the Rule. It should be
developed as a goal which organic honey is intended to achieve. Of course, not
every jar of honey can be tested, and variations throughout the season will
cause fluctuating test results. But the foraging radius used by inspectors and
certifiers should be increased whenever testing reveals the 5% level is
approached in any state."

Arthur Harvey, 1197 Main Street, Hartford, Maine 04220 207 388 2860

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm