I said: >> I'd guess that handing the standards to a judge and >> mentioning the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th >> amendment... and the "due process" requirement of the >> 5th amendment... James Kilty said: > will you translate this for a non-US person? The two amendments to the US Constitution I cited assure "fair and equal treatment under the law" to all citizens, and assure those with claims of unequal treatment "due process" in the form of review, oversight, censure, whatever. Its the old "level playing field" concept. Its not just a good idea, its the law of the land. (I think we copied the basic idea from British common law, didn't we? Something about the King's Court giving a fair hearing to all?) The organic standards as currently worded appear to amount to nothing less than a wholesale granting of very significant economic advantages to a very small group of producers without recourse. The retail price delta between "organic" and non-organic food can be considerable. (The actual net profits in organic food are not much better in many cases, but an organic farmer will never be left "stuck" with a crop, and will gross a much higher price per unit, so all he must do is control his costs.) In my view, there are a significant number of specific examples that, if briefly explained, would show that the proposed USDA standards for organic honey (as currently worded) make very generalized assumptions about specific types of land uses, and assume, perhaps incorrectly in many cases, that certain land uses in and of themselves render the land unfit for "organic" foraging. I'm not saying that the assumptions made are not accurate or reasonable "in general", but to flatly exclude anyone with a "golf course" near their hives from certifying as organic is silly. I agree that many golf courses are sprayed with so many chemicals that they allow extended playing time after dusk because the turf actually glows in the dark, but this does not imply that all of them are. I guess the extreme case would be a beekeeper with a miniature golf course near his hives. (The "turf" in miniature golf is indoor-outdoor carpeting, which is vacuumed rather than sprayed.) "Golf courses" are just one example of "labels" for land use. It is merely a simple and clear example. As a result, the proposed standards simply pre-select "winners" and "losers" in the marketplace, while doing nothing tangible to assure that even a single drop of the resulting "organic honey" is even uncontaminated, let alone "organic". So, if you keep bees in the middle of nowhere, you can consider "going organic". If you don't, you can't. Never mind the facts of the matter, never mind the specifics. And if you live in the middle of nowhere, you are trusted to exclude yourself from the program if you know of "non-organic" activities within the range of your bees. (Yeah right, and every single bottle of "Pure Sourwood Honey" sold really contains 100% Sourwood honey, uh huh, sure.) I think that the wording will be clarified over time as a result of specific "appeals", but why should mere beekeepers have to spend the time and money to point out such glaring problems to the "experts"? > I like the idea that bees might be selective in what they > bring back to the hive (and perhaps plants are selective in > what they put into nectar). But bees are not "selective" at all! There are constant reports of bees mistaking grain dust for pollen, sawdust for pollen, roof tar for propolis, etc. Heck, just this week I got a "swarm call" from the owner of a store and gas station who was sure he had a swarm in one of his waste cans by the door. This was one of the square types, with four openings covered by a "roof" of sorts, and the bees were certainly coming and going. The bees had stumbled upon the "empty" soft-drink cans in the garbage, each can having a small amount of very high-sugar "nectar" in it. I collected my fee not by removing a swarm, but by fabricating "swinging doors" for the trashcans from cardboard boxes and the beekeeper's universal tool, duct tape. The owner promised to order new can tops with proper "push to open" doors, and patted me on the back when I showed him two bees approach the can, circle, land, get confused, and leave again. (Its nice when a guy smiles while writing you a check for your "bee removal" fee.) > Is there an international comparison of pesticide contaminants > in honey in different countries with different agricultural and > non-agricultural land use practices? I dunno, but I doubt it. Beekeepers tend to be like fly fishermen. Neither wants to reveal his "good spots" to anyone. > Is there any study of changes over, say 40 years, in the mineral > content of honey, given the drastic degradation in nutritional > standards in fruit and veg over this time. Again, I dunno. I was not even aware that there was a "drastic" degradation in fruit and veggies. Offhand, I'd guess that it would be difficult to compare data collected using the techniques of 40 years ago to data collected with modern techniques. Not exactly "apples to apples", even if one were actually comparing apples to apples. jim (Who claims that all honey is "organic" by definition, unless it tests as contaminated, in which case it would no longer be fit to be sold at all.) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::