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:
Ted Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:33:08 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (131 lines)
This message may only be of interest to Canadian producer/packers.

Several beekeepers, including myself, have been boycotting the annual bar
code fee levied by the Electronic Commerce Council of Canada (ECCC). We
also started a letter writing campaign outlining our reasons for this
boycott (see copy of letter below).

Someone out there may find themselves in a similar situation, so I will
give a brief history of my dealings with the ECCC. I purchased a bar code
from them in the summer of 2000. To get my code I paid a one time fee of
$245.00 plus a yearly fee of $550.00. On January 1, 2001, the ECCC sent me
an invoice for another yearly fee but had raised it to $650.00. This I did
not pay, nor have I paid them anything since.

In 2004 I was contacted by a collection agency to collect money owing to
the ECCC. They said this debt would be erased if I agreed to give up my
bar code. By Christmas of 2004 I was getting letters from the collection
agency threatening to ruin my credit rating and take me to court if I
didn't pay up or give up the code. So just before Christmas I sent off the
paper work agreeing to stop using my bar code, but added a note saying
once again that I felt the yearly fee was unaffordable, unfair and
unjustified.

The collection agency then called me saying they wanted to make it clear
that they had not forced me to do anything I didn't want to do. I replied
that this was an odd statement coming from them when they had spent the
last twelve months doing exactly that. They then hung up on me which was a
change because usually it was me hanging up on them.

Then, on January 2, 2005, I recieved a call from the ECCC saying I didn't
need to give up my bar code if we could come to an agreement. They offered
to lower my yearly fee to $395.00/yr if I could prove I had sales less
than $50,000.00/yr and sold ten or fewer different products. I pointed out
that many beekeepers make a significant portion of their income through
the sale of package bees, nucs, queens and pollination services. Since
these activities do not benefit from the use of  bar codes, they should
not be considered part of a our total income when purchasing a bar code. I
suggested a more workable figure for their new catagory would be total
sales of $200,000.00. I also stated that I felt $395.00 was still too high
but said I could live with a yearly fee of $200.00/yr. They said they'd
get back to me and I'm still waiting.

If you agree that these yearly fees are too high I urge you to write your
provincial and federal politicians. You can also write:

Mr. Nigel Wood, Director of Industry Relations, Electronic Commerce
Council of Canada, 885 Don Mills Road, Suite 301, Toronto, Ontario, M3C 1V9

Thanks for your time,

Ted




Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to ask for your support in demanding that the Electronic
Commerce Council of Canada(ECCC) reduce the prohibitive cost of Universal
Product Codes (UPC). The high cost of these codes is effectively excluding
many small businesses from the retail market. I believe the government
should play a role in ensuring that all sectors of our economy can
continue to participate in this marketplace.

In 1997 the ECCC was formed by several large retailers with a goal of
administering the bar code system. The ECCC promotes itself as a not-for-
profit organization, but it has initiated a system of yearly fees for any
business wishing to obtain a bar code. Those businesses with annual sales
under $5 million pay an annual fee of $650.00 + GST, while those with
annual sales over $5 million pay an annual fee of $895.00 + GST. These
fees are subject to increase without notice and are in addition to a one
time fee of $245.00 + GST. Businesses who obtained a bar code before 1997
pay no yearly fee.

This new policy affects many small primary producers who want to sell in
the retail market. Many of these business have annual sales of $20,000.00
to $100,000.00 and so find these annual fees extreme and onerous.

Many honey producers are in this category of annual sales. Our national
organization, the Canadian Honey Council, has lobbied the ECCC on our
behalf, asking that they create a category for smaller businesses like
ours with a much lower fee schedule. The ECCC has refused. Similar
complaints to the Universal Code Council (UCC) which assigns bar codes in
the United States have produced some changes. The UCC now have a catagory
for business with annual sales under $300,000.00 for which the annual fee
is $150.00.

The end result of all this is that new suppliers to the Canadian market
are in effect paying a new tax. They cannot pass it on to the consumer
because the tax does not apply to their competitors who obtained codes
before 1997. And the lower fees in the U.S. leave competition from that
country with a clear advantage.

UPCs were developed by the grocery industry and first used on a pack of
Juicy Fruit gum in 1973. Until 1997 the codes were assigned to retail
suppliers for free or for a minimal charge. This is because bar codes save
the retail industry a lot of money. In her article "Breaking the bar code:
what all those lines and numbers really mean", from the April 2002 edition
of the National Post Business Journal, Diane Peters reports," Currently,
there are five types of bar codes, which are used in 23 industries by more
than 250,000 companies in 141 countries. About five billion UPC codes are
scanned everyday worldwide. The savings in the U.S. grocery-store industry
alone, UPC codes save about U.S. $17 billion a year. What accounts for
most of it? The use of the bar code, according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers
in it's glowing report "17 Billion Reasons to Say Thanks," has allowed the
industry to shed full-time jobs, cut back on training costs, dramatically
decrease mistakes at checkouts and greatly increase accuracy with
coupons." This is confirmed in a Canadian Press Newswire article
titled "Product bar codes targeted for overhaul to align with European
system", which was published August 19, 2002. It states "The ECCC
estimates that by eliminating typing errors and making the checkout
process more efficient, UPC's save the food industry alone $17 billion a
year". If the retail industry saves such enormous sums through the use of
these codes, why do they need to charge any fee at all?

I am also concerned about future developments in bar code technology. The
retail industry is now developing a more complicated traditional bar code
as well as an electronic chip that can replace bar codes. If the ECCC is
allowed to maintain it's monopoly over access to these new technologies, I
believe it will have a serious negative impact on our economy.

Canadian suppliers should not be forced to pay fees that clearly put them
at a competative disadvantage. Such a policy is not in Canadian consumers'
interests and weakens our economy. Therefore I am urging you to address
this situation so that all Canadian producers and manufacturers can
participate fully in our economy.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2