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:
allen dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:54:23 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
> If they try to persecut with such argument
> they will lose the case in court.

CFIA has already scared off a Canadian supplier of oxalic evaporators who
was advertising in the web (and by SPAM).  They forced him to take all
references to Canada off his site.  He sells evaporators to the US and
Europe, but not Canada.  See http://www.members.shaw.ca/orioleln/

> I already had this discussion with a provincial
> representativ here.

 I don't know if things are different in Quebec.

> Most of the work is done, if not all. It does not cost
> 30 000$ for a bibliographic review and obtaining
> documents from Europeans.

Well, translation costs money, ($15,00 to translate into French, then
another $15,000 to translate it back into English <G>) as does lobbying,
travel, phone calls, and wages or per diems, not to mention possible
research and lab work to confirm some of the material to local standards.

> We currently use others
> works to develop laws and by-laws, particulary in
> Canada. I could multiply examples in the
> pharmaceutical sector with Healt Canada. Most HC
> pharmaceutic guides are essentially copied from an
> American/European/Japanese harmonization committee.

I'll bet that the process costs money, though.  The quicker you want
approval, too, the more it costs.

> The risk exist as well with approuved products with
> official recommandations. If they publish
> recommandations, the best. If they do not, they have
> to assume the resposabilities for this lack of
> diligent action. OA is officialy in use for several
> years in many european countries now. Diligent is a
> sweet euphemism, and I do not want to know if it is a
> provincial or federal jurisdiction. They just have to
> do it.

I agree.  There is little excuse not to proceed, but being obviously right
does not guarantee results.  For example, Alberta reportedly spent $10,000
recently on a meeting in Kelowna to deal with the issue of queen
importations and yet the matter is still hung up.  The case is crystal
clear, yet the authorities do not act.  Last year, there was a hang-up in
the same process over translation to French, apparently.  It takes very
little to keep things in limbo.

What seems obvious to you and me becomes less obvious once it enters the
bizarre and distorted realm of politics, the regulators, and the
beaurocracy, where normal laws of logic and even physics do not seem to
apply consistently.  The status quo has amazing inertia, and, oftentimes,
all it takes is a few loud and illogical objectors to stall even the most
beneficial change.

BTW, (totally off topic -- or maybe not) if you want something to ponder
over your supper, read the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031229.wxcow1229/BNStory/Front
(watch the wrap)

allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2