I have found a Good report about the current situation of Biotechnology in
Germany, with a chapter about The Honey Case
http://www.thebioenergysite.com/reports/?id=626
The Honey Case
A European Court of Justice ruling in September 2011 (Case C – 442/09, Karl
Heinz Bablok and Others versus Freistaat
Bayern<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:311:FULL:EN:PDF>)
found that biotech plants contained in honey should be considered as food
ingredients. As such, pollen containing traces of MON 810 corn requires an
authorization. (Monsanto's original application for authorization to
cultivate MON 810 did not include pollen.) [Note1] The decision created
uncertainty because an EU directive (Council Directive
2001/110/EC<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:010:0047:0052:EN:PDF>)
says that pollen is a natural constituent of honey, an opinion shared by
other international standard setting bodies. The European Commission
asserts that the judgment cannot be appealed.
Testing is very technically challenging and includes counting and
identifying pollen particles in honey and then making assumptions about the
percent of biotech crops represented within the population of pollen
isolated. There is no standardized test at the German or EU level but the
Laender of Lower Saxony has nonetheless pressed ahead with its own method.
In Germany the opponents of biotech welcomed the court's decision as a
clear victory for consumer protection and agricultural production without
biotech. Environmental and organic groups also stress that the decision has
confirmed the zero tolerance level of non-approved biotech in the EU. Many
in the honey trade, however, view the decision as counter to the facts
(pollen is a natural part of honey) and unworkable. The German Beekeepers
Association advocates for a ten-kilometer separation between biotech field
trials and beehives.
Honey demand in Germany exceeds domestic supply. About 80 % of the consumed
honey is imported. Most of it comes from Argentine, Mexico, Chile and
Brazil, where biotech crops are common. With the court's decision, this
honey is no longer marketable if it contains many types of biotech pollen.
To resolve the administrative problems associated with the case, and to
avoid trade disruptions, the Commission could amend a Directive relating to
honey to clarify that pollen is a natural constituent of honey and not an
ingredient. Such an amendment would require the agreement of both the
Council and the Parliament.
Note1: This changed end of November 2013
http://www.eurofoodlaw.com/food-technology/genetic-modification/eu-approval-for-mon810-maize-pollen--1.htm
When searching a source for my Note 1 I also found this:
http://www.eurofoodlaw.com/food-technology/genetic-modification/meps-vote-for-gm-labelling-to-apply-to-pollen-in-honey--1.htm
Agriculture Committee backed Commission
However, the Greens will have an uphill struggle getting the whole
Parliament on board. The vote in ENVI goes against the position that the
Agriculture Committee adopted in a secondary opinion where it backed the
Commission’s view that pollen is a constituent not an ingredient of honey.
The opinion, by Bulgarian Christian Democrat, Mariya Gabriel, flagged up
the negative impact that considering pollen an ingredient could have on
beekeepers, “Honey is regarded as a natural, healthy product. For that
reason, if there is a possibility that honey may be labelled as containing
GM pollen as an ingredient, its reputation as a natural product will
clearly suffer. If pollen is described as an ingredient, consumers may get
the - entirely wrong - idea that pollen is a separate product which is
added to honey.”
Gabriel further underlined the costs that the proposal would bring,
particularly to small producers. “Classifying pollen as an ingredient would
increase significantly the cost of the tests which have to be carried out
in order to obtain the information needed for labelling purposes. That cost
might even exceed current production costs per hive. The impact will be
felt much more keenly by amateur beekeepers, who produce small amounts of
honey, than by professionals, who produce much larger quantities and who,
simply by virtue of effects of scale, will be better able to bear the
additional costs. It may even be that the introduction of the new
requirements will prompt some amateur beekeepers to stop making honey,” the
Bulgarian MEP wrote, adding that these increased production costs would
also push retail prices up.
***********************************************
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
|
