Peter Dillon said:

> Why are such techniques investigated, researched and developed,
> if they are not put into use to defend against illegal activities such
> as honey dilution?

Well, first one must admit that such scrutiny is justified, and the recent
"Chinese Honey" incidents may provide sufficient evidence that it is
to a rational person.

But this is not all that is required - it just is not that simple.

Second, one must admit that "science" is not optional, and must be given equal
weight to "commerce", even in commerce.  While this may seem obvious, the gang
currently in possession of the White House tried to eliminate most bee-related
federal research this year.  We still wait for Congress to vote on the dozen or
so government budget bills that fund operations, and we hope that the hard-won
restoration of funding for existing research programs remains in place.  Sadly, it
appears that the funding bills will not be voted upon until a newly-elected Republican
majority is seated, and Republicans love to make a great show of "cutting spending"
for anything that is not intended to explode.   So there is still a risk that we may soon
not have much "science" to toss at subjects like "bees" or "honey".

> If the responsible authorities...

Sadly, there is no proof to support the claim that the gang currently in possession
are actual "authorities" on anything.

There's also no proof to support any contention that they are "responsible" in any way.
There is much evidence to contradict the claim.
More every day, it seems.

> have the tools - and problems continue to exist - the lack in man
> power or low priority rating suggests an unwillingness to sort the problem.

Here is the problem in a nutshell:

1)  Anyone suggesting that such testing is required would be dismissed
    as a "protectionist producer".  Since domestic producers of honey in
    any country are the only voices that attempt to defend the "purity",
    "healthy image", and "bio-security" of honey, the critique would be strictly
    correct - they CAN be accurately described as "producers" (i.e. beekeepers).
    If one asked importer/packers about the issue, they would object to such
    additional scrutiny as "a de-facto tariff on imported honey, costly, and illegal".

2)  Even if the costs of such testing were borne by the federal government,
     thus eliminating the "tariff" complaint, the packer/importers would
     (quite rightly) demand that similar testing be applied to domestic honey
     at government expense, so as to create a "level playing field" for honey.
     Producers would (stupidly) object to this.  Fights would break out in bars.
     Thoughtful pieces would be written in newsletters.  At some point, some
     "impartial" party would drag out the usual propaganda about "the free
     market" being the best solution to all problems, and the game would end.
     Everyone would go home, no winner would be declared, and all would be
     exhausted from the effort of playing the game.

3)  Due to a lack of adequate science education, there is, at best, about 2% of
     the US population who can even SPELL things like "infrared spectroscopy"
     or "Fast Fourier Transform".  No one knows how many might be capable of
     learning how to use the expensive toys required to do the tests, but anyone
     already capable would not be happy with civil servant pay, let alone want to
     work the night shift at some dockside "customs shed".

4)  No matter what beekeepers might do, the US will continue to import honey,
     since the total demand exceeds domestic production.  Even if domestic
     production were somehow ramped up to equal US consumption, there
     would still be a large bulk of honey being sold in the US that could only
     be described as "the cheapest honey possible", which means honey of
     often marginal quality from other countries.  The importer/packers are decent
     people, not criminals, but they certainly do not want their profits endangered
     by concern over problems that they would (perhaps rightly) claim are too rare
     to bother worrying about, and too tiny to be a valid "health concern".

At some point in the future, the "Wal-Mart-ing" of the US may be complete,
and one will be forced to choose between buying well-crafted artifacts of a prior
age purely for their practical value at antique stores and second-hand shops, buying
the work of local cottage-industry artisans, or buying things made as cheaply as
possible in places like China.  (Wal-Mart does not want to merely be the leading
retailer in the US, they want to be the ONLY retailer.)

At that point, beekeepers will find themselves "outside" the "traditional" economy,
selling direct to consumers rather than through wholesale and/or retail.

Shortly thereafter, consumers will realize that in order to BE consumers, they must
first produce something to make money with which to consume.  But by then, it will
likely be too late.  We won't have any "industrial capacity" to speak of for anything
but high-tech weapons.  We will have to learn all over again how to be "producers".
Perhaps at that point "producers" will be viewed as other than "protectionists", but not before.

What happens at that point is best described in the book "The Cave" by Jose Saramago.
I'd suggest everyone give it a read, but here is a synopsis for those who can't
be bothered.  (OK, so he says he's a "communist", but he still writes a good story.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1114/p19s01-bogn.html


> Lobby, lobby and lobby - the only way to get things moved in present political conditions.

Sadly, "lobbying" is not a skill that has been demonstrated by US beekeepers to date.
Skill with social insects is not a traditional "social skill".
Professional lobbyists are beyond the budgets of most beekeeping groups, and
the largest groups are set up as "charities", which cannot lobby and still remain
(untaxed) charities.

Unlike the French beekeepers, who appear en masse at their nation's capital in full bee
gear, with signs protesting against "Gaucho", US beekeepers apparently cannot even
be bothered to attend public hearings to which they are INVITED.

Recently, a series of hearings were held in Hawaii, California, and Washington DC,
and beekeepers were invited and asked to express and listen to various views on "imports".
I went to the hearings in DC, and found that ONE other beekeeper had shown up.
I'd guess that at least 500 beekeepers were within an hour's drive of the meeting.

So, there were two beekeepers standing against the combined forces of the US
government, international World Trade, Australia, and New Zealand.  It was sad.

It wasn't even fair.

We mopped the floor with them in straight sets.
Finished them off in time for lunch.  :)