Arthur Harvey posted the following this morning to the Organic Beekeeping list. Arthur is an organic blueberry grower and beekeeper in Maine and is also an organic certifier. You can also view a conversation between Arthur and Stan Hildebrand (another organic certifier) here: http://vimeo.com/10211570 "About two years ago the NOSB approved its proposed organic honey standard and sent it to the NOP (National Organic Program). At that time, the NOP Director, Miles McEvoy, reacted positively and indicated it would be posted for public comment soon. That is the way proposals become part of the regulation. That has not happened, for unexplained reasons. Some of those reasons might be inferred from the critique I wrote at the time, which is posted here at the end of this message, and which I wrote at the suggestion of a member of the NOSB. At any rate, in the absence of any NOP regulation of honey, most certifiers are using the NOSB recommendation as if it were part of the regulation, and they are calling it "guidance". For decades, the certifiers have used whatever honey standards they wished, and even now I suppose they can still do that. It is also unclear whether a certifier can legally deny certification to a honey producer who follows a different standard. Because there are so few certified beekeepers in the US, we may not know the answer to this puzzle for a while, if ever. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ORGANIC HONEY STANDARD by Arthur Harvey The April 17, 2010 NOSB Apiculture recommendation (available at the usda.gov website, under National Organic Program---NOSB) stimulates me to offer a number of changes and additions, in no particular order. The Director of the National Organic Program (NOP) has indicated the NOSB proposal , in some form, is likely to be posted for public comment. If that comment is favorable, it would become part of the organic regulation and all honey labeled "Organic" would have to comply---including making an application, paying a fee, and being inspected. So beekeepers need to think over carefully the implications of what the NOSB has proposed. The comments you make during the comment period will greatly influence your future as an organic honey producer. First, a few general observations. ORIGIN OF STANDARDS. There are about eight certified organic honey producers in the USA, none of whom had control over writing the current proposal. (Indeed, some of these would be disqualified under the proposal.) Also, there are several dozen or a few hundred small, qualified but uncertified producers for whom the cost of certification makes it impossible. They also had no control. This method of developing organic rules has not been used for other crops which grew out of existing industries, rather than trying to create an industry by adopting rules and hoping farmers will comply. Once USDA made a policy decision to develop honey standards, the job was given to people whose expertise was in organic livestock, and bees were formally defined as livestock. That created the assumed need to approach "health care" and "transition" in ways similar to other livestock standards, rather than focusing on field crops (and to some extent, processing) which would be relevant if bees were defined as integrated with field crops. Health care is where the proposal flounders uncontrollably. For honeybees are subject to a large variety of pests, viruses, diseases, parasites, contaminants, etc---some of which remain to be identified. Further, the catalog of specific problems varies greatly from region to region. The underlying rationale for livestock health care is based on humanitarian concerns to minimize the suffering of animals---which is largely or entirely irrelevant to bees since we cannot observe or evaluate the feelings of a bee. The proposal is silent on the critical point about health of an apiary---its genetic diversity and adaptability. Why then are these rules proposed? I believe it arises from the embarrassment of having honey on supermarket shelves bearing the "USDA Organic" seal, despite not having any USDA honey standard, with 99% of organic honey sold coming from other countries. The result is a proposed standard which is relevant to certain parts of those other countries, but not relevant to US beekeepers. The proposal is certifier-driven, not farmer-driven. PURE FOOD. Honey derives much of its consumer loyalty to the belief that it is unpolluted compared with other foods. In reality, of course, few agricultural crops are more exposed to synthetic chemical environnments and adulteration than conventional honey. Organic honey can assert its relative purity, but only if it is backed up by systematic testing for chemical residues and other non-organic substances. (See OFPA, 7USC6506(a)(6). It should be applied to all honey products including conventional and imported. This will prove what we already know--- that virtually all honey contains some environmental residues, but organic honey has a tiny fraction compared with the rest. Lacking such testing, organic honey will be ripe for a scandal when independent testing shows residues which certifiers never suspected, or preferred not to know about. In short, "organic" as applied to honey, is about the product just as much as it is about the system of production. And there is another reason to test. At present, we do not know which chemicals persist in honey, and in what amounts. Existing organic standards have assumed that a one, two or three mile radius from the hive is needed to protect it from forbidden substances. Of course, such guesses are better than no standard at all. But no data supports these assumptions. Probably, such fixed radii are too small or too large for certain regions or certain types of pollution. So systematic residue testing over, say, 5 years, could give us a much clearer idea of a workable radius in various regions, that would comply with 205.670-.671---no more than 5% of the legal residue in an organic product. Organic field management should entertain a variety of experimental methods beyond the prescriptions in the NOSB document. It will accomplish little if NOP beekeepers are cut off from other apiculture movements. A review of current apiculture literature, for example the American Bee Journal, will reveal more than one approach based on "no treatment" beekeeping, and these are already commercially viable. It is misleading to focus entirely on the individual colony. Prof. Hoopingarner and others have shown that drift among colonies in an apiary can reach 40%, and occurs even between hives 1/4 mile apart. Some states forbid placing a new apiary within 2 miles of an existing one. At any rate, the standard should define the apiary as the unit of production, as the flock or the field is, elsewhere. Colony-specific audit and record-keeping systems would impose a heavy and ultimately pointless burden. Many beekeepers routinely move frames of brood and honey between hives to maintain and control vigor, and to prepare for winter. Apiary records should be limited to: 1) Number of colonies , plus date and source of additions or deletions (e.g., divisions) 2) Materials applied, with dates and reasons, including feeding 3) Dates and quantities of harvests 4) Dates and results of inspections, by producer, state inspector and certifier inspector 5) Maps showing all locations used throught the year Inspectors and certifiers need apicultural qualifications which are quite rare in the NOP system. Two sources exist where such qualifications may be found: 1) State bee inspectors 2) The community of self-styled organic beekeepers, whether certified or not. Lacking a many-fold increase in expertise, administration of the proposed Rule will result in such variations among certifiers as to cause confusion and anger. (I might observe that USDA would be well advised to avoid such anger which beekeepers are adept at expressing to their representatives.) The following sections are particularly prone to variable interpretations: 205.240(e)(1) + 205.240(g) + 205.240(b)(2), (3), (5) + 205.204(a)(2) Most of these problems can be avoided by a system described under the detailed comments below on 205.240(b) FORAGE AND SURVEILLANCE ZONE. Does one size fit all? Bees have been known to fly more than 5 miles for nectar and pollen. We also know that they will not fly further than necessary to meet their needs. And, hive denisty in any situation would have to include existing hives of other beekeepers. Such information is often closely guarded (although the state bee inspector would know). And we know that the normal foraging area of most hives is 5 square miles, or a radius of 1.25 miles. But normal conditions are often not present, due to droughts, floods, crop failures, etc, etc, etc. A forage and surveillance zone serves partly as a buffer, to restrict bees from bringing forbidden materials to the hive. Buffers used for other organic crops are site-specific, and the same should apply to bees. Buffers do not provide 100% purity to an organic crop, and organic honey should not promise that. It is enough that 205.670-.671 is met. The proposed standard attempts to achieve what amounts to a zero tolerance for contaminants. That is not applied to other organic crops which are often affected by GMO or ther environmental con- tamination while still being certified organic. And processed organic products need only 95% organic content, not 100%. The bottom line here, is that one size does not fit all. An apiary in the southwest desert will need a much larger area than 1.8 or 4.0 mile radius, plus twice the usual store of honey to outlast dearth periods and still produce a commercial crop. Hives in parts of Hawaii and .many other lushly-vegetated places may never forage beyond 1/2 mile. The US is too diverse in terms of climate and vegetation to have a single foraging standard for bees. The NOSB & NOP recently spent about five years to develop a pasture forage standard for dairy cows. The final result is designed to allow organic dairy farms in every state. To impose a honey standard that effectively excludes several states, and the majority of counties in the US, would reverse the policy underlying the grazing standard. GENERAL SUMMARY. There are two reasons to delay national standards at this time. 1) Lack of data to support foraging distances. Research in this area has been deterred by the fear of finding too many chemical residues in (conventional) honey. Until we know where and how the limits of 205.670-.671 are likely to be exceeded, we cannot go beyond guesswork in setting radii. As it happens, Pennsylvania State University has commenced the type of research that will begin to answer our needs in a few years. 2) Lack of qualified inspectors, especially specific to the conditions in a given state or region. DETAILED REMARKS, BY SECTION 205.2 Definitions, Replacement bees. After "catastrophic", add "or normal". 205.240(a)(1) In two places, change "one year" to "60 days". Comment: Transition would apply to nucs or package bees which are practical only during the active season when worker bees do not live beyond 50 days. This indicates at most a 60 day transition. The rationale for one year of transition is to give the beekeeper a learning curve over a longer period. However, A) for no other organic crop is an extended transition imposed for the purpose of training the farmer; B) Beekeepers, especially organic ones, will be learning for several years, if not for the rest of their lives---unless, of course, they are too busy with their other crops to pay much attention to the finer points of apiary management. Anyhow, farmer expertise is not required under the NOP Rule, or OFPA. A one year transition is wildly inconsistent with existing livestock transition periods already in the NOP Rule and OFPA. Organic milk and organic eggs require less than one complete generation as transition from conventional to organic. The proposed honey standard would require ten times as long---six or more generations of worker bees. No reason is given which is related to the sustainability or health of the bees. 205.240(a)(2) The 25% limit creates confusion and negative incentives. If based on "previous honey flow", does that refer to a late season minor flow, or only to the principal flow of the year? Next, (i) appears to create a conflict between "going into winter" and "present in the previous honey flow". Next, "previous honey flow" creates an incentive to split more colonies than would otherwise be advisable, for the purpose of making more replacements. Next, "going into winter" creates a counter incentive against combining weak hives, which would be advisable to help them survive. SUGGESTION: A uniform 60 day transition would eliminate these perverse results, and 205.240(a)(2) can be omitted. 205.240(b) (1,2,3) Human housing is defined as a high risk activity which apparently means an organic apiary must be at least four miles from human housing. This may or may not forbid placing hives on an organic homestead, but a strict application will result in no organic hives in several states, and confine beekeeping to very remote wildernesses. The same is true for "land to which prohibited materials are applied". A producer could not "provide a description" of "any sources of potential contamination" unless the NOP can furnish a complete list of such sources. Consider an organic farm located on a public road, 4 miles from conventional farms, golf courses, etc. But the municipality uses herbicides along some parts of the road, and a few homes use chemicals on their lawns. Is organic beekeeping forbidden on such farms? So long as the proposed Rule does that, I predict it will not survive the comment process. SUGGESTION: Remove most of the above subsections. Data will be developed showing what contamination exists in honey from various parts of the US. Then, the location of a forage and surveillance zone, and the maximum number of hives allowed for each organic apiary, shall be approved by the state apiarist, subject to annual review. During the years in which this program is being developed, the NOP will educate and train state apiarists regarding provisions of the Rule and OFPA. This is critically important because some of them currently regard organic honey as either impossible or a sham. Where a state has no bee inspector, the closest inspector from adjoining states could serve. The cost of inspections (if done thoroughly) under the Rule as proposed, would be so great as to sink either the certifier or the honey producer if the costs were passed on. To verify 50 square miles as being free of "high risk activity" would require several days of study by inspectors who lack any particular expertise in the matter. On the other hand, A state bee inspector could make a well-educated estimate of the area with only a cursory look at it. The state inspector already knows where the conventional hives are---both permanent and migratory, and this information may not be available to anyone else. State inspectors are paid a small fraction of what organic inspectors get (up to $95 per hour plus travel), and their qualifications are infinitely superior to USDA or certifier inspectors. 205.240(b)(4) Insert "closest" before "water". 205.240(b)(5) Drifting cannot be prevented. Professor Hoopingarner and others have shown that drift within an apiary can reachy 40%, and be significant even 1/4 mile apart. If split operations are allowed (and perhaps they should not be), then drift can be eliminated by a two mile separation, as already required in some states. 205.240(c)(1) Instead of "flowering time of the various plants", it should say "identify the most important known flowering plants"---although this may be infeasible in some areas such as wetlands. 205.240(c)(2) Affidavits for a 10 square mile area suitable for an apiary, would be impossible in many or most locations. Observation of the area will usually be sufficient if done by a qualified apiarist. 205.240(c4) "date of last use"---by whom? If by all landowners within 10 square miles, probably unknowable. 205.240(c5&8) Identifying and tracking individual hives is not feasible unless switching frames and fortifying weaker hives is banned. 205.240(c12) "Estimated" should be "hoped-for". 205.240(d) Apparently, "transportation activities" refers to moving hives for pollination service. Any such activity requires detailed rules. Failing that, this could become a giant loophole whereby organic hives make most of their honey from temporary locations outside the organic plan. 205.240(e)(1) Generally, it will be impossible to manage 10 square miles of surrounding land. 205.240(e2) Define "minimal risk to organic integrity". 205.240(f) The Rule should place more emphasis on leaving more honey in the hive to avoid feeding sugar. Bees will store sugar in one frame and later move it to production frames. "15 days" should be "45 days". 205.240(g) Define "significant risk". 205.240(h)(1) What reason is there to prohibit plastic hive bodies? 205.240(h)(3) Bees apply a coating of propolis to all cells; hence dipping plastic in beeswax is unnecessary. 205.240(i)(4) Most bees and hives can be considered "contaminated" with pests and diseases, which are more or less constant in hives, although not out of control. Bees manage such things with coatings of propolis and hygienic behavior. It is not useful to ask the beekeeper to destroy equipment and bees unless the state inspector requires such. 205.240(i)(6&7) "The producer must.....Use of therapeutic applications of non-synthetic materials....Use of therapeutic applications of synthetic materials....allowed under 205.603." These subsections appear to contradict each other by referring to therapeutic materials as "preventive". More important, it suggests that no-treatment beekeepers will be unable to achieve certification. This would exclude a large proportion of beekeepers who currently consider themselves organic. The problem can be corrected by adding the word "optional" to (6) & (7). 205.240(j)(1) Add: "This may include a strategy and plan based on culling of weak hives and division of survivors, with queens naturally mated, for the purpose of strengthening the genetic pool." 205.240(j)(7) Delete "annually". 205.240(j)(9) This is a critically important part of the Rule. It should be developed as a goal which organic honey is intended to achieve. Of course, not every jar of honey can be tested, and variations throughout the season will cause fluctuating test results. But the foraging radius used by inspectors and certifiers should be increased whenever testing reveals the 5% level is approached in any state." Arthur Harvey, 1197 Main Street, Hartford, Maine 04220 207 388 2860 *********************************************** 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