To be effective any law must be enforceable, perceived as just, and have the ability to change. The reasons for regulation that criminalises the conduct of the ordinary beekeeper, conduct that would not otherwise be viewed as intrinsically wrong or criminal, should be very clear, precise and set out in a manner that encourages scrutiny and debate of the issues.
Yes, law works when we accept the benefit of it for all - seatbelts, traffic lights - but consensus is lost and the law disregarded when no communal benefit is seen to be gained.
For example, it remains illegal to
beat a rug in front of a property before 8am, or deface legal money (Currency & Banknotes Act 1928) but though the latter makes me a criminal - in about 1980 I achieved momentary glory backstage at Wembley Arena when Carl Perkins autographed a £5 note - it would be hard to argue that anyone would benefit from the waste of time enforcing such backwater rules.
The VMD may argue that there
is a benefit of safety for beekeepers and consumers by limiting options for use of OA or other treatments, but I doubt they'd expose their reasoning. What went through the VMD mind when it approved ApiBioxal, knowing that prior sensible EU research would avoid the need entirely? Money, presumably, rather than the public good.
If, as Philip claims,
we all produce honey that is not contaminated with anything else, it's reasonable to accept good legislation that protects that purity of product, especially as there exist
criminal beekeepers eager to fool the public. Plainly, UK OA legislation is seen as bad legislation because OA occurs naturally in honey, recedes rapidly when introduced into a hive or honey, and because research accepted by the EU showed that the risk is not worth the bother.
As Philip outlined above, the UK had the chance to join EU beekeepers and support work to obtain exemption from EU MRL legislation.
The story in the link is worth reading in full because what stands out is the absence of UK interest in the initiative. Where was the BBKA? Seems they preferred short-sighted stupidity and supported the VMD route, when they should have seen the bigger picture and worked with sensible European partners for the benefit of all beekeepers. The murky money reasons are predictable; would an FOI request flush out the truth?
Mint Bee's plan is more positiv
e: There is a route to getting a license based on prior use and published data. A trustee of the BBKA asked me about this a few years ago in response to a previous thread on the subject, but it all went quiet. Biggest cost of the license is to write it up. If someone with the appropriate experience did this FOC then application and maintenance fees would be only major expenses. Could you sell enough at a reasonable cost to cover these expenses. I don't know.
This route may have legs; will someone come forward to take on the job to explore it?
