BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bil Harley <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:45:51 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
<<Thanks to GreenPeace and the pseudo beekeeper that are using bees to oppose
biotechnology.>> 

I really do not understand the above comment. Greenpeace has nothing to do with the matter and what is a pseudo  beekeeper, do they even exist? Neither were present at the crucial debate and vote.

<<I am amazed how beekeeper are willing to sacrify the bees, honey and the
trade in the pursuit of an ideology
http://www.biodlingsforetagarna.nu/files/Beekeepers_JointPosition_HoneyDirectiveModification_012013.pdf
well if they were able to sacrify human life, what else to expect from them.>>

A beekeeper willing to sacrifice bees, honey, and the trade would be committing financial suicide, what does this mean? And I doubt that anywhere in the annals of beekeeping is there mention of human sacrifice. The link is to a document from all the leading Beekeeping associations in Europe and their position is that to consider that pollen a constituent would remove the protection from beekeepers and favour honey importers. This is sound commercial sense not “sacrifice”.
 
<<The Bablok case start on French definition of honey where pollen is an 
ingredient. French regulations does not allow to filter the honey more than 80 microns.>> 

Bablok has nothing to do with “French definitions” or “French Regulations”. It was considered by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, the ruling dates from 6 September 2011. The court defined honey as an ingredient.  
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, ruled in 2001 against filtering more than 80 microns. Filtered honey is on a par with baker's honey and has a low commercial value.
 
<<If that is the case, could it lead to the disguising of honeys e.g. Chinese
by adding the ingredient -pollen --from N.Am sources to their "filtered"
honey>>

This is already done, frequently.

It seems that there is a permanent battle to contest any action, decision, or directive made in Europe. The EU is bigger than you, learn to live with it. (P.S. monofloral honey is allowed)

Bil, France

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2