Juanse said

>Two way of seeing the same facts<, citing 2 links.

And the truth is that both are right
.
The problem is for the beekeeper stuck in the middle.

He cannot service the GMO-free market if his product is contaminated with 
GMO pollen.

I use that word carefully, because if he hasn't allowed the GMO pollen into 
his honey product intentionally, or by default, then in real terms it is a 
CONTAMINANT, not an INGREDIENT, as defined by the EU court. His only real 
recourse then as I see it, is to sue the farmer(s) responsible for that 
contamination and the losses incurred as a result. The other option of 
redirecting his product into an alternative market that will accept the GMO 
contamination as of no consequence, may also incur losses and therefore 
still result in what is effectively a public liability claim against the 
producers of the GMO crop.

Its time for the beekeepers to stand up for their rights, and a class action 
is probably the best way to do that.

PeterD
in Western Australia, where our government has authorised a trial of GMO 
canola on 6 unnamed properties and thrown our major honey packer into a 
tailspin over the possibility of receiving GMO pollen contamination  into 
its export product. Those trial crops are in flower right now, and have been 
for some weeks.

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