Hi to James, Bill and others taking the time to read this mail,

So, like the proposed future regulations dealing with imports of living bee material - the future
importations of previously refused honey is a "time bomb" set certainly to explode - in the faces of
honey producers that are working to expected and accepted quality levels.

Not only is this going to be a slap in the face for those promoting clean material/ produce, but one
that will again totally undermine the proper financial reward for producing such material.

Maybe I shall be proved incorrect

- but it, to say the least seems perverse that we, producers, are charged by controlling authorities
with a work load to ensure that contamination does not occur (correctly in my opinion, via. quality
ensuring programmes and systems, ).
Whilst at the same time the same authorities who have the powers to control and refuse entry into
the food chain of contaminated materials  will most likely allow an obvious cheat of the system to
take place in the near future.

We, as beekeepers are aware of what is likely to be attempted, whilst also knowing that equipment
exists to hinder it. So do the authorities.
Packers also.
It is to our great disadvantage that supply into the market of manipulated honey takes place.
The authorities will cry that they have other priorities (at least until a loud enough noise is
made) and from previous activity, packers will turn a blind eye.
It has been stated that colour of honey is paramount.
I ask why?
It is not necessarily so in Europe - the consumer, for sure moves towards produce attractively
presented - but based not just the colour.
It is a red herring, one generated by the processors of honey - supply white honey as the customer
only buys that. Only the customer is largely supplied with this and has little choice - self
propagating situation. One that is brought about whilst cheap material is presented to the market.

I suggest:
That colour as a premise to quality is bunkum and should be dropped
Facetious descriptions of honey type when not true be hammered in the courts.

Having bought during 2002, honey labeled in the following manner:
a. Pure Honey
b. Pure natural US grade A
c. Canadian Clover

I consider the first statement as of limited acceptability.  PURE honey! - Honey by international
standards has to be pure. It is never labeled impure.
The second, ignoring the first word - fine,
but the latter as a cheat.
Legally correct!, sure (or at least presumed to be) - but on opening and tasting - the only thing
that I could discern was an extremely high percentage of Rape (Canola) honey.
Nothing wrong with the honey, except it was being passed off as Clover.

Other example is one pertaining to Acacia honey - from China, on sale in England.
It was as solid as concrete and as white as a an arctic snow drift.
Need say no more!!

Please do not get me wrong - I have no quarrel with any country and its produce, nor in the manner
it trades such material as long as it is done so in a proper manner
What excites me, is the cheating / deceptive techniques used to sell - especially when it is
detrimental to honest individuals.

Anyway to conclude -

I see a big cheat on the horizon - one that should be avoided.

I suggest that the responsible authorities must be made aware that this will not be tolerated - and
to ensure that this comes about, then much pressure must be placed on the present representatives of
our associations.
The conference season is nearly upon us - insist on discussion and motions to be voted upon.
Stop a likely process that will again reduce all our incomes to a level of subsistence activity -
and one that will allow tainted material to be passed on as "clean as nature"

Packers beware!

Regards
Peter