On Wed, 2 May 2007 18:12:13 -0500, Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Despite all the crying foul against U.S. commercial beekeeping practices
>there has not been one case of chemical contamination from U.S. beekeepers!
>Many thought the three year honey watch put in place by the FDA would find
>many problems but was not the case.  Instead of U.S. problems the watch
>turned up problems with China and Argentine imported honey.



Guess it depends on what one defines as contamination.  Its widely known that the EPA levels for 
Amitraz, Fluvalinate and Comaphous are high enough most beekeepers can skate by. Does that 
mean then the honey is not contaminated? 

My point is simple that many beekeeper practices have been flying under the radar until CCD came 
along and beekeeping is everywhere in the media. Yesterdays AP wire story on CCD as of this 
morning was picked up by 320 newspapers around the USA. 

I beleive that the American public will not be impressed when they learn of the typical formulation 
of Big Honey and the fact that the "typical" beehive in the USA is full of antibitotics and miticides 
wether its legal levels or not. We all know that better practices are possible as many are doing it. 
The problem is what is the overall perception of the public going to be? Sure there are plenty of 
examples of keepers using more restraint and utlizing soft treatments etc. But that does not 
represent the majority of the hives in the USA under management. 

Almost every major researchers statements about CCD include references to hive inputs and 
stressful practices as a source of concern. How then do we have people defending the OVERALL 
commercial beekeeping practices as if they were sustainable? If the overall commercial beekeeping 
picture is so bright and rosy when then have the losses been going on for years? Sounds like 
denial to me.  


Front page of LA TIMES today 5/3/07

Cleaning up China's honey
An entrepreneur meets resistance in changing unhealthful practices.
By Don Lee, Times Staff Writer
May 3, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chinahoney3may03,0,2147834.story?coll=la-home-
headlines


"Wang knew that chloramphenicol was illegal, but he said he had no idea that penicillin was 
another type of antibiotic and that its use also had been restricted. He says he stores the honey he 
collects in iron and plastic containers.

The government doesn't care what we do," he said, squatting under a tree as the sun was setting 
over the hills of Fufeng, an area redolent of apples and peppers where residents say the annual 
per capita income is about $400.

Wang says he sells his honey to dealers who make their rounds in the woodlands. Some of these 
traders will bring antibiotics for the keepers, but it's just as easy for beekeepers to call a local 
drugstore and have someone deliver chloramphenicol or other medicines they request.

"The reason these farmers use antibiotics is simple. It is very cheap and effective," said Wang 
Fengzhong, an expert on China's honey industry at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences 
in Beijing.

No one knows what percentage of Chinese beekeepers still use antibiotics. In recent years, more 
farmers have switched to herbal medicines, said Li Chaohui, vice general manager of Huakang 
Foreign Trade Honey Product Co. in Fufeng. Li says his company collects honey from local farmers 
and sells it to factories along China's coast, which are supposed to test for contaminants, filter the 
honey and package and label it for export.

Li thinks 30% of Chinese honey comes from bees treated with antibiotics, but Sun Baoli believes 
the figure is as high as 70%."

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************