>  Juanse said > A catch 22 situation. That is the problem when you force a situation by
> the judiciary system. No methodology to test what the demanding people
> want. No other solution than to change the Directive to state that pollen
> is part of honey.<

An unenforceable law is a bad law as it brings law keeping in general into disrespect. So with a Directive. But to state that pollen is not an ingredient of honey would be to propagate a falsehood.  Honey is manufactured from nectar - by bees - honey does not exist in nature. Bees inadvertently add the pollen sticking to their bodies when depositing nectar in cells. So, within the definitions, trace pollen IS an ingredient of the finished honey. So, to be honest and consistent, the definitions need adjustment to accommodate the specific and unusual circumstances under which honey is manufactured by bees and the trace pollen added by Bees should be exempted from controls on ingredients in other foods. 

The adjusted definitions should NOT let deliberate fraud slip by, when the original pollen is filtered out and other pollen is added by man to misrepresent the origin of the honey. 

I stick to the view that inadvertent addition of pollen stored as bee bread, when centrifuging,  does not occur and is not an issue. Reference to centrifuged pollen should be deleted as an error.  Or does someone still think centrifuging does increase trace pollen?  It would be simple to check samples of centrifuged honey against samples  of drained honey from the same combs. 

How can beekeepers get this reviewed?  Does anyone have an inside route to a Euro MP? 

Robin 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html