I have found a Good report about the current situation of Biotechnology in Germany, with a chapter about The Honey Case http://www.thebioenergysite.com/reports/?id=626 The Honey Case A European Court of Justice ruling in September 2011 (Case C – 442/09, Karl Heinz Bablok and Others versus Freistaat Bayern<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:311:FULL:EN:PDF>) found that biotech plants contained in honey should be considered as food ingredients. As such, pollen containing traces of MON 810 corn requires an authorization. (Monsanto's original application for authorization to cultivate MON 810 did not include pollen.) [Note1] The decision created uncertainty because an EU directive (Council Directive 2001/110/EC<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:010:0047:0052:EN:PDF>) says that pollen is a natural constituent of honey, an opinion shared by other international standard setting bodies. The European Commission asserts that the judgment cannot be appealed. Testing is very technically challenging and includes counting and identifying pollen particles in honey and then making assumptions about the percent of biotech crops represented within the population of pollen isolated. There is no standardized test at the German or EU level but the Laender of Lower Saxony has nonetheless pressed ahead with its own method. In Germany the opponents of biotech welcomed the court's decision as a clear victory for consumer protection and agricultural production without biotech. Environmental and organic groups also stress that the decision has confirmed the zero tolerance level of non-approved biotech in the EU. Many in the honey trade, however, view the decision as counter to the facts (pollen is a natural part of honey) and unworkable. The German Beekeepers Association advocates for a ten-kilometer separation between biotech field trials and beehives. Honey demand in Germany exceeds domestic supply. About 80 % of the consumed honey is imported. Most of it comes from Argentine, Mexico, Chile and Brazil, where biotech crops are common. With the court's decision, this honey is no longer marketable if it contains many types of biotech pollen. To resolve the administrative problems associated with the case, and to avoid trade disruptions, the Commission could amend a Directive relating to honey to clarify that pollen is a natural constituent of honey and not an ingredient. Such an amendment would require the agreement of both the Council and the Parliament. Note1: This changed end of November 2013 http://www.eurofoodlaw.com/food-technology/genetic-modification/eu-approval-for-mon810-maize-pollen--1.htm When searching a source for my Note 1 I also found this: http://www.eurofoodlaw.com/food-technology/genetic-modification/meps-vote-for-gm-labelling-to-apply-to-pollen-in-honey--1.htm Agriculture Committee backed Commission However, the Greens will have an uphill struggle getting the whole Parliament on board. The vote in ENVI goes against the position that the Agriculture Committee adopted in a secondary opinion where it backed the Commission’s view that pollen is a constituent not an ingredient of honey. The opinion, by Bulgarian Christian Democrat, Mariya Gabriel, flagged up the negative impact that considering pollen an ingredient could have on beekeepers, “Honey is regarded as a natural, healthy product. For that reason, if there is a possibility that honey may be labelled as containing GM pollen as an ingredient, its reputation as a natural product will clearly suffer. If pollen is described as an ingredient, consumers may get the - entirely wrong - idea that pollen is a separate product which is added to honey.” Gabriel further underlined the costs that the proposal would bring, particularly to small producers. “Classifying pollen as an ingredient would increase significantly the cost of the tests which have to be carried out in order to obtain the information needed for labelling purposes. That cost might even exceed current production costs per hive. The impact will be felt much more keenly by amateur beekeepers, who produce small amounts of honey, than by professionals, who produce much larger quantities and who, simply by virtue of effects of scale, will be better able to bear the additional costs. It may even be that the introduction of the new requirements will prompt some amateur beekeepers to stop making honey,” the Bulgarian MEP wrote, adding that these increased production costs would also push retail prices up. *********************************************** 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