Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:09:42 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 6-Dec-13, at 5:08 AM, Bil Harley wrote:
Hi Bil and all
>
>
>
> The problem is all about labelling. The percentage of pollen is
> calculated differently according to whether pollen is an ingredient
> or a constituent of honey.
My problem is understanding this process. My dictionary says
"Ingredient - noun - an element in a mixture, constituent, the
ingredients of a cake", "Constituent - adjective - forming a basic
part of a whole, flour is a constituent element of bread". I guess I
have the same problem as Marie Antoinette who said "let them eat
cake" when told that the people had no bread. The EU should hire a
translator who understands my english as I don't understand theirs.
> If it contains pollen as an ingredient The label must say so and
> if some of the pollen is GM pollen that would have to be stated on
> the label. The problem then is that GM pollen is not recognized as
> being fit for human consumption and that was the essence of the
> Bablok case.
I understand that Canadian canola honey is very popular in Germany
and other ingredients/constituents of Europe. Canola is GM n'est pas!
>
Bob Darrell
Caledon Ontario
Canada
44N80W
***********************************************
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
|
|
|