Peter Bray stated:
"Current high prices in the World will end
up sending the wrong signals to the wrong people and result in extended and increased pain in the
long run.  IMHO."

This then suggests that:
Current high prices in the World will end up sending the right signals to the right people and
result in extended and decreased pain in the long run.

AND are not the right people those that should be ensuring that agreed standards of honey are
arriving onto the market!

May I now suggest that:

the term "high prices" should be replaced with " realistic prices"

Over the medium term, beekeepers in regions, countries who at present apply technical short cuts to
maintain health in bee colonies will "see" increases in their labour costs - this being due to
increased time spent with IPM and the like.
These producers will respond to the market if they really wish to supply it, with acceptable
material.

I suggest that sub-standard material is present on the market due to one major reason - that is, it
is considered possible to pass such material on to the consumer.
In this day and age - this requires the complicity of the packers!
They have the ability to test, accept or reject honey.

It has been suggested that voluntary procedures or regulations in the near future will ensure
complete tractability of honey taken by packers from producing beekeepers in countries/economic
blocks such as US, Canada, E.U. etc.
Without this record keeping and proof of such, sellers of honey originating in these areas will not
find buyers.
Fine, in total accord with this stance; but then the imposing authorities will have to prove that
ALL material coming into such markets reaches the same standard.

To ensure this takes place may require beekeeping groups to buy in controlled conditions honey
present on supermarket shelves. It then being tested and any problem material being highlighted as
such in the public domain.

Industrial honey will need to be tightly controlled by the relevant bodies - and again if need by
pressurised into doing so.

No doubt, honey from so called developing countries will continue to be less expensive to deliver -
but at least the traded materials will be equivalent in the domain of minimum standards.

Try and place a substandard vehicle onto the market - the resulting "noise" is understandable, is it
not!
Well, lets protect our produce in the same manner - ensure that substandard honey arriving on to the
market is rejected as "unsafe".

Please remember that it is not just a problem afflicting US producers, it is not easy elsewhere!

During relatively recent debates on what and how honey was to be defined, and consequently how it
could be prepared for the market, exposed a gulf between producers and conditioners.
The latter insisted on the removal of evidence that allowed for tractability in honey. i.e. the
filtering out of such materials as pollen - to ensure so called ability to produce "bright honey".
The problem is that this allows for manipulation in the final bottled material.

This type of material is "demanded by the customer" - so we are told (continuously!)

Equivalent arguments were used by the mass brewers in Britain during the early '70's - who were at
the time attempting to sell a standardised carbonated brown liquid - they had to change tack once
the clientele became educated!

Moral of mail:

It is our role to educate customers so that they are aware of what constitutes real honey!
It is the role of the regulating authorities to ensure that these customers are protected from false
and adulterated honey!

Both require that it is sold at a realistic price!

Peter le simplistique!