e use of unapproved and
 
WP>From: Walter Patton <[log in to unmask]>
  >Date:         Sat, 6 Apr 1996 22:47:25 -1000
  >Subject:      honey testing
 
WP>Regarding multiple recent postings about the use of unapproved and
  >experimental chemicals on U S and Canadian honeybees, the confusion about
  >bee feed supplements , and the abuse of approved honeybee medications the
  >question arises WHO is protecting the health of the U S consumer from
  >contaminated honey?
 
Hi Walter,
 
 Yes, it is bad but beekeepers who live in glass hives should not throw
stones. The USA and the USDA try as hard as they can with the
resources we allow them to set the high standards for Honey Inspection
as we know it, but not based on a police state mentality as some food
fanatics would have it, or have it such as in Great Britannic now going
through the Mad Cow disaster because some old information was
misinterpreted by the press, public, and politicians. We should be buying
up all that beef in GB and open a Mad Cow Hamburger Heaven in the US and
clean up, we could kill two birds with one stone, help save the GB
cattle industry and provide cheep beef to the American's who are
starving for another fast food palace. We would have to buy a lot of
fat, I got a friend who owns a tallow works, because that stringy grass
fed beef in GB makes poor hamburger. But of course we can't because of
laws, the same as they can't buy our beef because of their laws. And
we send our tallow to Europe because we would not think of using it
here, and there are laws, who knows what killed the cows it's from,
anyway it can find its way back in find imported cookies, you know the
kind that melts in your mouth at Christmas time.
 
  The quality and safety of US honey begins at the beeyard and it is
true that a few American beekeepers do use methods and chemicals not
approved by the US government. These producers risk it for themselves's
and the industry as a whole. Many more have tried chemicals like
amitraz to control v. mites, in fact just about any of the common
farm chemicals will indeed give some v. mite control if used carefully.
And many are in use in other countries where they may or may not be
legal.
 
From the beeyard most of the honey produced commercially moves into the
honey packing industry pipeline. Again some test and some don't, the
one's that do such as SUE BEE, (a US beekeeper cooperative), have
rejected honey that does not pass the standards set by the US government
or other governments if they are selling honey for export. I can tell
you from personal experience that having a load or a crop rejected is
a good way to change how things are done back in the beeyard. Some honey
packers have harder standards then what the law calls for. The FDA level
for EDB and mandatory notification to FDA was/is 30ppb, at the same
time SUE BEE was rejecting honey with 10ppb and testing 16 lots per day.
I believe they have "0"ppb, but don't quote me on that. For SUGAR Syrup
Adulteration SUE BEE is testing 10 samples every two days, as it takes
two days to run the samples and then suspicious samples are sent to a
private lab for testing. Amitraz found in SUE BEE members honey at
levels over 200ppb, (may be 0 today as I have not checked in awhile),
are rejected, 16 samples are tested at one time and it takes 3 days to
complete the tests. Any material of any kind that could be considered
contamination is the responsibility of the member who shipped it to the
co-op and he is responsible for reimbursing the co-op for all damages
caused by that contamination. All honey delivered to SUE BEE is tested
on a random basis, with the exception of any producer with a history of
contamination. A few other honey packers have similar labs and testing
policies, or send honey out to be tested. Most of the smaller packers do
not have labs but do send out suspicious samples to be tested for
adulteration. You can be sure with a dollar a pound market more honey
will be tested in 1996 then ever before as packers know all beekeepers
are crooks, the same as any beekeeper would tell you that the honey
packers are a bunch of thief's and for sure some do have a history of
being real cheep at the least.
 
  >        What are the testing standards of this imported honey ? What are the
  >testing standards of U S honey ?Who regulates the health and safety of
  >American citzens as they eat their honey daily ?Does the U S D A or the F D
 
The standards are the same for honey imported into the US as they are
for the honey produced here. The USDA can sample the honey at the port,
but this is not the norm. Most adulteration and contamination is reported
to them by beekeepers, consumers, or packers. Honey rejected at the
ports is not normally destroyed so it does find it's way into the food
chain at a lower price mostly.<G> The USDA also has a market basket
study that looks at a few samples of honey each year. Occasional studies
over the years also look at honey.
 
  ? Does anyone have some answers ?  NO one has the answers, it's buyer
beeware the same as it is for much of our food. Honey is in a class by
itself because honey represents the environment the bees were kept
in for miles around the bee yard, that of the beekeepers honey house and
the packers bottling line. With the tests we have today that can split
the hairs on a bee's rear end and tell you who the father was you can
imagine that anything that is considered bad in the environment can be
found at some level in honey and that includes the honey from the
highest mountains in Hawaii which was tested with other honey's from the
North America and found to have some of the same containments. We are
lucky that much of what goes into honey is lost by time and processing
and what is left and found in honey is no different that what is found
in the air we breath or any other food. If having chlorinated
hydrocarbons or other chemicals in honey at .001ppt is a worry then we
should be worried about the air and water from just about any place in
the world.
 
  >           It seems that a multi national panel should be assembled under
  >peer review to determine whats is and what is not approved regarding the use
  >of chemicals with honeybees in the production of honey for human
  >consumption and then testing must be implemented to insure compliance with
  >the findings.
 
  >           Come on U S D A give us some answers .
 
You must have missed the USDA answers on prior bee problems. On bee's
lost in the US from Varroa Mites it's B-PMS. Before varroa mites it was
the acarine mite, before acarine it was something else. They are on top
of it just ask them or go to one of their canned talks put on to
entertain the beekeepers at bee meeting. Now after years of quarantines,
bee killing's, and forced chemical use to control varroa mites using
the one and only chemical they happened to approve they are looking for
bees that have never been treated, I had some but they died. Actually
I had 500 hives never treated with anything but they were stolen, the
same thing as dead as I bet if they have been treated are all dead
by now.
 
  Yes, we could work hard all our lives, save all our money and
spend it all to make Pure Honey the standard for all other foods to
follow, but I fear in the end we would be in the same place as the
Cattle Industry in Great Britain, at the end of a long "green" rope.
  As for peer review, we are all peer's here in the US, and I can tell
you that our peer's are reviewing some of the natural food additives, a
few mentioned here and in other places on a scale that exceeds anything
that all the government agencies of the world could do in several
decade's. That may seem horrible to someone who has never had a sick
hive or watched hundreds of them die and could do nothing but watch,
but that's the American Way and I hope it never changes. When my peers
find something that looks real good you can bet I will let you know if
they don't first and the USDA too, and then we can do some real bee
research.
                       ttul Andy-
 
 
(c) Permission is granted to freely copy this document
in any form, or to print for any use. If you leave my name
off I won't know the difference and think you are really
smart if I run into it some day.
 
(w)Opinions are not necessarily facts. Use at own risk.
 
---
 ~ QMPro 1.53 ~ ... To sway its silent chimes, else must the bee,