In Canada the beekeeping industry is leading the push for higher honey 
house standards. The goal is to improve the quality and traceability of 
honey. This can then be used as a marketing tool. But it is also hoped it 
can be used as a trade barrier. In other words you won't be able to sell 
honey in Canada unless you have a stainless steel toilet in your honey 
house and reams of records on your beekeeping operation like the rest of 
us. Sounds like other countries are also following this path.

I don't think we can fault governments for wanting to improve food quality 
and saftey. Many believe the food now on store shelves may be responsible 
for skyrocketing cancer rates. So consumers want government oversight of 
our food. However I agree with Richard of Danbury as quoted by Dee Lusby 
that these requlations should not apply to someone with twenty hives 
selling honey out their back door. That is exactly what has happened to 
all livestock producers in Canada. You can no longer legally butcher an 
animal in your back yard and sell the meat to your neighbour. And our 
provincial government is warning us that they see the day coming when this 
will be the case with honey as well.

The other down side to higher standards is that it makes it more expensive 
to get started in commercial beekeeping. This in turn will tend to push 
smaller operations out of business.

I heard a radio program several years ago that discussed trends in 
agriculture. The program suggested that many North American politicians 
find rural areas a nuisance. Farmers are always looking for financial help 
and demanding services. The politicians see a solution in industrial 
agriculture or factory farms. With this scenario you have very few people 
living in rural areas (so fewer services needed) and the factory farms 
actually make a profit so can be taxed. So some governments are actually 
lowering environmental standards and centralizing land use planning in an 
attempt to encourage factory farms. But once factory farms are established 
they don't want government inspectors coming around. Fortunately they are 
so big they have the political clout to get what they want. 

I support the move towards all honey houses being government inspected. 
But I see the possible scenario in beekeeping of the demand for higher 
standards leading to government inspectors of honey houses, leading to 
larger operations who then use their political clout to get rid of the 
government inspectors. I'm not saying this will happen. I'm just throwing 
it out there for discussion.

Something else that I feel will affect the future of North American 
beekeeping is what happens with the Canada/U.S. border. If the border 
becomes open to the movement of hives back and forth, large migratory 
beekeepers north and south of the border will over-winter in the southern 
U.S.. This will then allow them to do some spring pollination before 
heading north for a honey crop. Stationary beekeepers will get none of the 
benefits but all the pests and diseases trucked around the country. 

If this style of beekeeping becomes the norm it will have an effect on 
rural areas because beekeepers will no longer have roots in any one 
community. And I think rural areas need local, permanent residents to 
maintain a healthy society. It could also be argued that migratory 
beekeeping uses more fossil fuels and is harder on the environment than 
stay at home, smaller operations. My point in this little tirade is that 
bigger isn't always better.

Ted

P.S. BTW did you know that Canada is bigger than the U.S.? I guess 
sometimes size really does matter. 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---