Bob said: > A beekeeper from Australia Warren Taylor says 2500 tons of Chinese > honey was illegally shipped through Australia in his letter to the > American Bee Journal editor (August 2003 pg. 592). Old news. A much more complete account can be found in the archives of the "Catch The Buzz" e-mail "wire service" http://www.beeculture.com/beeculture/buzz/index.html (scroll down to the heading "Honey Laundering"). > If the FDA confiscated 266,000 pounds on contaminated Chinese > honey what happened to the rest? This is clearly a rhetorical question, as Bob is sure to have a pretty good idea "what happened". Honey, like matter, is "neither created nor destroyed by man". Since the levels of contamination were low, the obvious tactic that someone "stuck" with this honey would take would be to blend it with sufficient uncontaminated honey to bring it below the limits of detection. (Yes, unethical as heck, and likely illegal, but the alternative might be bankruptcy, so expect desperate people to take desperate measures, and remember that there but for the grace of God go you.) It would be nice to think that everyone could demand a refund and get their money back, but this would be naive. Why do you THINK the usual form of payment for international commodity shipments is called an "irrevocable letter of credit"? But let's not jump to the conclusion that all of the honey shipped from Australia during that timeframe was laced with either Chinese honey, or contaminated Chinese honey. Let's also admit that some of the Chinese honey shipped during this period could have been uncontaminated. But let's not tar all Australian packer/exporters with this brush. From the report, it appears that only a small number of people were involved in the transshipments and relabeling scheme. The bulk of the exporters in Oz are very likely to emerge untainted by even a hint of scandal once the usual extensive audits are completed by the usual government functionaries. (Scandals mean that honest people bear the cost of an audit, along with the all the negative press.) > The Australia / Chinese honey should be easy to trace through > bill of ladings. Sure, but what recourse does an honest buyer have when discovering that his supplier is suddenly a wanted criminal? What liability should the honest buyer face when the fraud is discovered long after the fact? Anyway, the honey that was shipped in 2001 and 2002 has likely been eaten by now. Even a "recall" would be pointless. > Should not the tariffs on Chinese honey be collected from the > Australian packers ? Sure, and drug dealers, when caught, should also be held liable for sales taxes on the drugs they sold. :) Get real - the money is long gone, and the honey is long gone. If the conspirators in the scheme had any brains, they have long since fled Australia for parts unknown on phony passports, as they would be clearly aware that any scam has a beginning, middle, and end. The good news is that the odds of showing symptoms of a health problem from consuming the honey are slim to none for all but a tiny percentage of the population, and to date, no one has reported even a single illness or problem linked to honey. We all dodged a bullet. And please - let's not fire a round directly into our own collective foot by over-reacting to the simple fact that criminals can get into ANY business at any time. (Ask me sometime to tell you the story of "Computers for Castro", a scam run out of Miami FL in the early 80s that turned out to be the perfect way for me to profitably dispose of several thousand extremely defective Olivetti-made PCs ("AT&T PC6300s") while assisting the authorities in their efforts. I even got a bonus from AT&T Bell Labs as a "reward". When you rip-off a crook and pocket a wad of cash, who's the REAL crook? Sometimes the only difference is whose flag you fly when you are not flying the Jolly Roger. The Italians ripped off AT&T, AT&T ripped off Castro's front men, and Castro? You don't wanna know how he gets hard currencies like US dollars. No one was eithical.) > Is it not time to quit letting packers use a blanket label with > half a dozen countries as possible sources on their jars and be > more specific? Sure, but when it comes down to it, packers and agro-corporate users of bulk low-grade honey donate more money to politicians than beekeepers do. The very recent history of Country-of-Origin Label ("COOL") laws for meat in the US House of Representatives is instructive. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Country+of+Origin+label In brief, meat packers launched a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) campaign against the proposal, and even scared (or bullied) some number of producers into opposing the labeling. This sort of outcome makes me either laugh or cry, depending upon the relative levels of single-malt in the bottle versus in me. Every survey done shows that consumers prefer local food. The more local, the better. Consumers in the US also feel (perhaps rightly) that food produced in the US is inherently safer given the draconian regulations, inspections, and controls placed upon each step in the food supply chain. (Note that I said "draconian", rather than "silly", as the patent on silly food laws belongs to the European Economic Community, and I don't want anyone to confuse the two.) Instead of standing firm on knowledge that labels would result in additional unique demand for US-produced meat, some US producers folded under pressure from the packers, and parroted the "FUD" message. What can one say to these producers, except "Form a co-op, you morons."? What can one say to ANY producer, except "Form a co-op, you morons."? What can one do but grudgingly admire the effectiveness of the packers' maneuver, and long for the day when honey producers can turn on a dime, pass, catch, play a zone defense, and do something as effective? > Should not the label contain the amount of foreign honey in each blend? These would be labels with levels of detail never before required for any food product. :) If you want to be "a protectionist", first you have to have a market to "protect", so FIRST solve the underlying problem of meeting the US demand for honey with US honey. As it stands now, we consume more than we produce, and we had better be nice to our counterparts who fly different flags, 'cause without them, the supply of honey to the consumer would be about as dependable as the supply of spare parts for 1975 Bricklins. http://www.angelfire.com/hi/keyz/images/spotcar.jpg jim :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::