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:
peter dillon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:31:12 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Having spent much time(several years) investigating and debating the
pros. and cons. that were to make up the recent "European Union
Directive on Honey", it became apparent that even the definition of
honey was difficult enough to get agreement on!
Labeling was a nightmare, esp. once the argument over honey filtration
and to what degree the filter size could possibly be (Once pollen has
been removed is it still possible to define the product as honey, state
its floral origin, state its geographical origin etc.)
Taking the above as a selected example - One then enters into debate who
wants what and for why - Producers against Conditioners.
Have a read at the Directive and see what you think - there are some
good points and bad ones as far as giving the customer the truth about
what is in the final pot.
Please note that the cited examples are only the tip of the iceberg when
dealing with "heated vs non" etc.
A basic lobby became apparent in the recent negotiations of CODEX A.
regulations  when dealing with Ultra Filtration of Honeys - the
conditioning Countries such as Germany, U.S. and U.K to name a few
pushed for it to be included  whereas the producer countries were very
much against its inclusion.

Peter

ATOM RSS1 RSS2