In article <[log in to unmask]>, Bill Truesdell <mister- [log in to unmask]> writes >Don't disagree. But this is a US government standard. I worked in the US >government >and know that regulations can take on a life of their own. Plus, you do not know >the power that obscure GS-11's like to exert when backed by some new regulation. >And they never die (the reg, not the GS-11.). But they do expand (both this >time- >need more GS-11s to enforce the expanded regulation). I agree that you could have a problem when some little megalomaniac behind a desk, armed with a new piece of legislation, decides to carve out a little empire for him/her self. However, it is an inescapable fact that the organic brigade are a specialised niche market all of their own. They are prepared to pay to have food which is of the purity level they require, and produced under the conditions they require and using the methods they require. These consumers are really the people setting the agenda here. They are not just buying a product, more subscribing to an entire lifestyle and production system. As such the purity of the product almost becomes secondary to the ethos behind its production. Just like you and I, they are entitled to get what they require if they are prepared to pay what it takes to get it. Enough organically produced honey (properly certified) is available from countries like Swaziland to meet current demand from that market sector, all properly audited and produced in the manner the organic lobby require. The fact that your honey or mine does not meet with their approval is largely irrelevant to them, as sufficient product CAN be obtained without lowering their expectations. Quality is not the primary issue, or much of the organic honey would not readily find a market, but the production circumstances most certainly are. Our honey, and I dare say that of almost every subscriber, is a lovely pure clean product in which there will be no worse a contamination problem than in most organic honey. Nonetheless it is NOT organic, and as such is not what these customers demand. Dilution of the criteria to meet producers interests will simply not be acceptable to these people, and explanations which say that 'we label it as organic because it is as good as organic' just won't wash. As a fringe group, for that is what as beekeepers we are, have special desires, interests and needs all of our own. We expect support from governmental bodies, and attempt to have changes made which are compatible with our interests. The organic set are no different. If there is no framework in place to prevent unscrupulous operators misusing the term organic on produce they will undoubtedly feel vulnerable, and feel that this legislation is necessary to protect them. Only those operators seeking to exploit the organic market, but whose products and methods do not meet the requirements, would have anything to fear from these rules. Remember, what we consider draconian and impossible to comply with may be exactly the standard these people want. It is their right to demand it and it is NOT our right to have the rules relaxed to imply that we meet it. If you don't want the state or its employees to have any part in this you need an effective monitoring body NOW! I'm sure, however, that a body set up and run by the organic trade to meet their needs would be no easier, and probably worse, to deal with than any state run scheme. Murray -- Murray McGregor