Bob said:

> A beekeeper from Australia Warren Taylor says 2500 tons of Chinese
> honey was illegally shipped through Australia in his letter to the
> American Bee Journal editor (August 2003 pg. 592).

Old news.  A much more complete account can be found in the archives
of the "Catch The Buzz" e-mail "wire service"
http://www.beeculture.com/beeculture/buzz/index.html
(scroll down to the heading "Honey Laundering").

> If the FDA confiscated 266,000 pounds on contaminated Chinese
> honey what happened to the rest?

This is clearly a rhetorical question, as Bob is sure to have
a pretty good idea "what happened".  Honey, like matter, is
"neither created nor destroyed by man".  Since the levels of
contamination were low, the obvious tactic that someone "stuck"
with this honey would take would be to blend it with sufficient
uncontaminated honey to bring it below the limits of detection.
(Yes, unethical as heck, and likely illegal, but the alternative
might be bankruptcy, so expect desperate people to take desperate
measures, and remember that there but for the grace of God go you.)

It would be nice to think that everyone could demand a refund
and get their money back, but this would be naive.  Why do you
THINK the usual form of payment for international commodity
shipments is called an "irrevocable letter of credit"?

But let's not jump to the conclusion that all of the honey
shipped from Australia during that timeframe was laced with
either Chinese honey, or contaminated Chinese honey.

Let's also admit that some of the Chinese honey shipped during
this period could have been uncontaminated.

But let's not tar all Australian packer/exporters with this brush.
From the report, it appears that only a small number of people were
involved in the transshipments and relabeling scheme.  The bulk of
the exporters in Oz are very likely to emerge untainted by even a
hint of scandal once the usual extensive audits are completed by the
usual government functionaries. (Scandals mean that honest people
bear the cost of an audit, along with the all the negative press.)

> The Australia / Chinese honey should be easy to trace through
> bill of ladings.

Sure, but what recourse does an honest buyer have when discovering
that his supplier is suddenly a wanted criminal?  What liability
should the honest buyer face when the fraud is discovered long after
the fact?  Anyway, the honey that was shipped in 2001 and 2002 has
likely been eaten by now.  Even a "recall" would be pointless.

> Should not the tariffs on Chinese honey be collected from the
> Australian packers ?

Sure, and drug dealers, when caught, should also be
held liable for sales taxes on the drugs they sold.  :)

Get real - the money is long gone, and the honey is long gone. If
the conspirators in the scheme had any brains, they have long since
fled Australia for parts unknown on phony passports, as they would
be clearly aware that any scam has a beginning, middle, and end.

The good news is that the odds of showing symptoms of a health problem
from consuming the honey are slim to none for all but a tiny percentage
of the population, and to date, no one has reported even a single
illness or problem linked to honey.  We all dodged a bullet.

And please - let's not fire a round directly into our own collective
foot by over-reacting to the simple fact that criminals can get into
ANY business at any time.

   (Ask me sometime to tell you the story of "Computers for Castro",
   a scam run out of Miami FL in the early 80s that turned out to be
   the perfect way for me to profitably dispose of several thousand
   extremely defective Olivetti-made PCs ("AT&T PC6300s") while
   assisting the authorities in their efforts.  I even got a bonus
   from AT&T Bell Labs as a "reward".  When you rip-off a crook and
   pocket a wad of cash, who's the REAL crook?  Sometimes the only
   difference is whose flag you fly when you are not flying the
   Jolly Roger.  The Italians ripped off AT&T, AT&T ripped off
   Castro's front men, and Castro?  You don't wanna know how he
   gets hard currencies like US dollars.  No one was eithical.)

> Is it not time to quit letting packers use a blanket label with
> half a dozen countries as possible sources on their jars and be
> more specific?

Sure, but when it comes down to it, packers and agro-corporate
users of bulk low-grade honey donate more money to politicians than
beekeepers do.  The very recent history of Country-of-Origin Label
("COOL") laws for meat in the US House of Representatives is instructive.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Country+of+Origin+label

  In brief, meat packers launched a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt)
  campaign against the proposal, and even scared (or bullied) some
  number of producers into opposing the labeling.  This sort of
  outcome makes me either laugh or cry, depending upon the relative
  levels of single-malt in the bottle versus in me.

  Every survey done shows that consumers prefer local food.  The more
  local, the better.  Consumers in the US also feel (perhaps rightly)
  that food produced in the US is inherently safer given the draconian
  regulations, inspections, and controls placed upon each step in the
  food supply chain.  (Note that I said "draconian", rather than "silly",
  as the patent on silly food laws belongs to the European Economic
  Community, and I don't want anyone to confuse the two.)

  Instead of standing firm on knowledge that labels would result in
  additional unique demand for US-produced meat, some US producers
  folded under pressure from the packers, and parroted the "FUD" message.

What can one say to these producers, except "Form a co-op, you morons."?
What can one say to ANY producer, except "Form a co-op, you morons."?

What can one do but grudgingly admire the effectiveness of the packers'
maneuver, and long for the day when honey producers can turn on a dime,
pass, catch, play a zone defense, and do something as effective?

> Should not the label contain the amount of foreign honey in each blend?

These would be labels with levels of detail never before
required for any food product.  :)

If you want to be "a protectionist", first you have to have a market to
"protect", so FIRST solve the underlying problem of meeting the US demand
for honey with US honey.  As it stands now, we consume more than we produce,
and we had better be nice to our counterparts who fly different flags, 'cause
without them, the supply of honey to the consumer would be about as dependable
as the supply of spare parts for 1975 Bricklins.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi/keyz/images/spotcar.jpg


                        jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::