usual Euro b.....s

[For want of a better word]

May be high expectations but honey producers in the West Country seem to be getting £10 per kilo... but of course do not have the overheads of a large marketing company and pay far more for jars, lids, and labels.

£5.13 per kilo would surely hardly cover the costs of running a commercial bee / honey producer, let alone cover the cost of minimum wage for laborers.

In the 90s Surrey farmers were coming out of supplying milk to the supermarkets as the price they were getting for their milk was minimal, as they turned grass over to growing lupins and even planting trees for subsidies, they also sold of the dairy laborers tied cottages as they were "made redundant" by the score.
The laborers were moved into social housing and the quaint little cottages knocked about and extended and sold of to city rich for weekend bolt holes. Barns were converted into luxury pads, duck ponds filled in and built over.
Local shops closed, Pubs suffered from lack of weekday trade, the farmers supplies businesses closed their doors.. the only businesses benefiting were the likes of mine fitting security systems to premises full of valuable possessions empty most of the time!
At least tractors never slowed the traffic, you were more likely to be cut up by a Porsche!
I am not complaining... just attempting to make the point that suppliers of food are and have been subsidising the market... surely this can not be sustainable?

 

[Chris B]

Regarding bulk honey prices. Honey is one of the favourite candidates for "loss leaders" with the large multiples, completely distorting any cost breakdown. Unfortunately/fortunately (depending on your viewpoint), the loss leader honey is always imported, making UK honey seem expensive. This inevitably creates a downward pressure on everyone's prices, including Rowse's. Ultimately it's the supermarkets who drive prices - look at what's happened to dairy farming for example.

 

[For want of a better word]

Regarding bulk honey prices. Honey is one of the favourite candidates for "loss leaders" with the large multiples, completely distorting any cost breakdown. Unfortunately/fortunately (depending on your viewpoint), the loss leader honey is always imported, making UK honey seem expensive. This inevitably creates a downward pressure on everyone's prices, including Rowse's. Ultimately it's the supermarkets who drive prices - look at what's happened to dairy farming for example.

That was what I was trying to say !​

 

[itma]

We are talking about a ruling regarding honey labelling, a ruling which WILL if implemented ...

Stop right there!

I believe there are two errors in that.

"If implemented" - it was implemented in about 2003/4. The new ECJ ruling is about how the law is to be interpreted.
Their interpretation is now the way that Law works.
And they seem to have said have said that it could apply to honey producers.

"Regarding honey labelling" - don't think so.
Check what the Court actually said

The directive on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [see note 1 below] provides that such organisms may be released deliberately into the environment or placed on the market only when prior authorisation has been given.
Moreover, the regulation on genetically modified food [see note 2 below] provides that GMOs for food use, foodstuffs containing or consisting of GMOs, or foodstuffs produced from ingredients produced using or containing GMOs must be authorised before being placed on the market.

What the Court is saying is that specific authorisation is required before selling honey containing any {viable - see below} GM pollen.
I don't see how that can be a 'labelling problem'.
Its a requirement to authorise the product.

The Court ruling, in full, (its not long), is here http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/news/eu-11115.htm



The ONLY 'wriggle room' that I can see that the Court has allowed is the scientific question of whether or not the GM pollen contained in the honey was "capable of transferring genetic material".

the pollen in question may be classified as a GMO only if it is an ‘organism’ within the meaning of the directive and the regulation, that is to say, if it is a ‘biological entity capable’ either of ‘replication’ or of ‘transferring genetic material’. It holds in that regard that, since it is common ground that the pollen in question has lost all specific and individual ability to reproduce, it is for the referring court to determine whether that pollen is otherwise capable of ‘transferring genetic material’, taking due account of the scientific data available and considering all forms of scientifically-established transfer of genetic material

If the pollen is 'viable' (my shorthand), then it seems to me that one requires prior authorisation to sell the honey, not just specific labelling.
However if the pollen is not capable of genetic transfer, then the whole legal problem for honey simply goes away.

Judges can sometimes be so clever that their cleverness is not properly appreciated.
Is that not so, M'Lud?

 

[Hebeegeebee]

Thanks itma - this is from the reading.ac website

"The Court concludes that a substance such as pollen derived from a variety of genetically modified maize, which has lost its ability to reproduce and is totally incapable of transferring the genetic material which it contains, no longer comes within the scope of that concept.

The Court goes on to hold that, nevertheless, products such as honey and food supplements containing such pollen constitute foodstuffs which contain ingredients produced from GMOs within the meaning of the regulation. In that regard, it finds that the pollen in issue is ‘produced from GMOs’ and that it constitutes an ‘ingredient’ of the honey and pollen-based food supplements. As regards the honey, the Court observes that pollen is not a foreign substance or an impurity, but rather a normal component of honey, with the result that it must indeed be classified as an ‘ingredient’. The pollen in question consequently comes within the scope of the regulation and must be subject to the authorisation scheme provided for thereunder before being placed on the market.

The Court observes that that authorisation scheme for foodstuffs containing ingredients produced from GMOs applies irrespective of whether the pollen is introduced intentionally or adventitiously into the honey.

Lastly, the Court holds that the authorisation obligation exists irrespective of the proportion of genetically modified material contained in the product in question".

Paragraph 1 says that as pollen is not capable of genetic transfer we're OK as honey producres.

Paragraph 2 say that honey needs to be authorised anyway if it contains pollen from GM crops so contradicts para 1. So lots of work for the ECJ's mates as lots of lawyer time to be spent! Jobs all round for the boys and lots of champagne to be drunk! (Which supports French grape growers naturally and who bets that some of the ECJ judges happen to have a little vinyard somewhere. I see a conspiracy theory coming along nicely).

 

[thorn]

Hey Heebeegeebee, don't knock lots of lawyer time! My Merc's getting a bit elderly. And it's claret for lawyers. Champagne is for women and city traders.

 

[itma]

...
Paragraph 1 says that as pollen is not capable of genetic transfer we're OK as honey producres.

Paragraph 2 say that honey needs to be authorised anyway if it contains pollen from GM crops so contradicts para 1. ...

Not quite - you've almost got it.

Your Paragraph 1 actually says *IF* its not capable of genetic transfer, we are OK.
Your Paragraph 2 says if it is capable of genetic transfer then, for these reasons, we need authorisation if there's any GMO in our honey. Para 3 says even if accidentally in the honey. Para 4 even if there's the merest trace of it.

The ECJ were asked by the Bavarian court to clarify the Law.
They've done that.
But they have (very cleverly) avoided giving judgement in the Bavarian case, because that's not their job this time.
They've said its up to the Bavarians to decide whether Para 1 or 2 applies. And that depends on science, which the ECJ doesn't rule on.

it is for the referring court to determine whether that pollen is otherwise capable of ‘transferring genetic material’, taking due account of the scientific data available and considering all forms of scientifically-established transfer of genetic material.

These guys are Judges. Top Judges. May not always seem like it, but they are clever.

 

[Storm™]

I get from that then - basically if anyone wants to bring the ruling to bare (say in order to prosecute or enforce correct labelling) that it's up to the plaintiff to provide scientific study of that sample of honey that they are complaining about, containing GM pollen and that it has the ability to transfer genetic material. Expensive and almost certainly doomed to fail because at best they would only be able to write off a single batch maybe only that one jar. So in the clear basically. If I understand the English wording correctly.

 

[itma]

I get from that then - basically if anyone wants to bring the ruling to bare (say in order to prosecute or enforce correct labelling) that it's up to the plaintiff to provide scientific study of that sample of honey that they are complaining about, containing GM pollen and that it has the ability to transfer genetic material. ...

That's my reading of it. (Though without product authorisation, the label issue can't arise.)


So who would try?

1 - Anti-GM campaigners (like these German beeks).
2 - Anti-EU campaigners (Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc.)
3 - Trading Standards etc jobsworths inspired by 1 & 2.
4 - ?

 

[Storm™]

4. Tesco - in order to drive the bulk purchase price down then interpret the law differently and have "may contain GM pollen as part of world air load" and charge the usual price lol

 

[Chris Luck]

Read this to the end, a bit simplistic but raises some points....

http://www.care2.com/causes/what-passes-for-honey-on-u-s-shelves.html?page=1

Chris

 

[Poly Hive]

Nothing new there.

Liquid honey to have a shelf life has to have the pollen taken out of it. Else if acts as the starter for granulation and the American honey market is a market for liquid honey the lighter the better.

So what do they do over there, and here btw, they flash heat, force the fluid through very fine filters and flash chill the resultant liquid, which in my thoughts is no longer honey.

PH

 

[alanf]

Your Paragraph 1 actually says *IF* its not capable of genetic transfer, we are OK.
Your Paragraph 2 says if it is capable of genetic transfer then, for these reasons, we need authorisation if there's any GMO in our honey. Para 3 says even if accidentally in the honey. Para 4 even if there's the merest trace of it...

Maybe I'm missing something, but "As regards the honey, the Court observes that pollen is not a foreign substance or an impurity, but rather a normal component of honey, with the result that it must indeed be classified as an ‘ingredient’".

How compatible is that with the Honey Labelling Regulations 2003 where honey can be labelled simply as 'honey'? At present we're labelling without a separate ingredients list. Does this imply that we may need to use something like "Ingredients: honey, pollen, beeswax, bee parts" because pollen is an ingedient?

 

[Storm™]

An alternative re pollen would be to irradiate the honey. That would end the GM pollen debate. Dunno what it would do to:
Price
Honey
People etc

 

[itma]

...How compatible is that with the Honey Labelling Regulations 2003 where honey can be labelled simply as 'honey'? ...

The question should be the other way round - 'Are the Honey Labelling Regulations 2003 compatible with (over-riding) EU Law?'

I don't know, its too far above my pay grade for me to care!

My suggestion is to just go with whatever satisfies your local bureaucrats, unless you are looking for trouble or standing on a principle (or both).
Why would you want to challenge that bit of UK Law? (I'd suggest leaving that sort of thing to the EU Commission - its one of their jobs.)

 

[Chris Luck]

The question should be the other way round - 'Are the Honey Labelling Regulations 2003 compatible with (over-riding) EU Law?'

Yes.

Chris

 

[Heather]

Heather, Does b.....s means someone of doubtful parentage or a double appendage in a small flexible container between the right hip and left thigh of most gentlemen?

I am a nasty fighter- always go for the appendage, dont tell my grandchildren... they think I am a nice Nanna-

Re the ruling- the court reckoned pollen from GMO was an ingredient added during centrifugal extraction - making them look stupid as well as ignorant.

 

[itma]

Re the ruling- the court reckoned pollen from GMO was an ingredient added during centrifugal extraction - making them look stupid as well as ignorant.

No, that's just stupid ignorant reporting.

What the Court actually 'reckoned' was

35
Pollen, gathered by bees and stored in certain parts of the beehive for food purposes, may find its way into honey either accidentally, through the action of bees during honey production, or as a result of a technical process, when honeycombs are centrifuged in the harvesting of the honey, which may result in the extraction of the content not only of cells filled with honey, but also of neighbouring cells intended for the storage of pollen.

- which sounds like they had a pretty fair understanding (for non-beekeepers) of how pollen could come to be in honey.

I would suggest that the comment in para 76 is either a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the evidence that the German beeks actually specifically collected and sold pollen, as well as honey.
And para 76 does makes more sense when read together with para 75!




BTW, the Reading University link was to the (English version of the) official report of the judgement.

If anyone wants to see the full Judgement in all its glory (from which I have quoted para 35 above) it can be found at http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-442/09



I note that this was a 'Grand Chamber' hearing - the ECJ treated this with maximum seriousness.
I repeat, these Judges are nobody's fools - even if their impeccable logic does occasionally take them to strange conclusions!



And incidentally, one of the points that is clearer in the full thing is that while the 0.9% limit might apply to labelling it specifically does not apply to authorisation. (See Ruling 3 at the end, and para 105 and neighbours)

 

[thorn]

I am a nasty fighter- always go for the appendage, dont tell my grandchildren... they think I am a nice Nanna-

Re the ruling- the court reckoned pollen from GMO was an ingredient added during centrifugal extraction - making them look stupid as well as ignorant.

The judges probably aren't beekeepers. They have no personal knowledge or experience and do not do their own research, save in the law (and even then they have a team of researchers under them). They can only reach their judgement on the basis of the evidence presented to them. The lawyers who presented the case can only go by what their (hopefully) expert witnesses tell them. So if anyone's ignorant or stupid it's those experts who gave incorrect evidence.
I agree with itma. Your local bureaucrat is charged with enforcing the law. Go along with what he demands of you, or challenge it if you really feel you have to (and have recently won the lottery).

 

[itma]

...
I note that this was a 'Grand Chamber' hearing - the ECJ treated this with maximum seriousness.
...

To correct myself, they could have gone one step higher with the full court (at least 15) hearing the case.
But they allocated 11 Judges to decide the case, when it could have been as few as 3.
This was a seriously important case for them.