The EU are at it again

[chrismcd]

I could "go on" for pages about GM, but my biggest objection to it is that it removes the right from those of us who don't want it in our diets, as the pollen contaminates surrounding crops (and can lead to the ludicrous situation where an organic farmer's crops can be polluted by the stuff, then Monsanto sues the farmer for stealing their technology...........) - More than a "bit silly" in fact, bulldozing an unwanted technology onto the world in the pursuit of profit, whatever the cost to the environment..... rather like those nice pesticide companies............

I have to agree with you. You can make a case for GM crops in some cases (e.g. salt resistant crops for over-irrigated land, or even, dare I say it, Bt maize where corn borer is totally resistant to every pesticide yet developed).

But, when Monsanto get involved as part of their plant to dominate world agriculture and gleefully sue anyone who dares object, it makes the EU bureaucrats look like the good guys.

Plant Breeders Rights are bad enough, but they were grounded in reality. Suing someone because their crop was contaminated with your pollen sounds like it escaped from "Alice in Wonderland".

Mind you, I would like to have a word with the guy who lets his Italian drones have their evil ways with my lovely dark queens!

 

[Spadaman]

"We have a secret GM trail in our area. They have bee hives set around the GM trail area, with some hives right on the same field and some hives at different distances away from the field. The beehives are there only to see what, if any GM pollen does get into the honey. And to see how far the pollen travels in the wind.

So GM crops are here, the powers that be are tailing it without public knowledge. This is one monster were not going to escape. "



We have GM pollen in some parts of this country already and if this proposal gets into EU law we will have to prove ( somehow) that the pollen in our honey is not GM pollen. The Trading Standards jobsworths will see to it that we comply ....or else!

 

[DanBee]

See this is the problem: it's not about beekeeping but beekeepers suffer. It's just unfortunate that beekeeping is being seized upon by those with an anti-GM agenda as another way of objecting.

The implication of the 'ingredient' status needs to be understood. There is a general <1% acceptability threshold for accidental inclusion of GM materials not approved for human consumption into foodstuffs.

How much does the pollen weigh in honey? Pretty much nothing, maybe a tenth of one percent. So always going to be well below the acceptable threshold. But when you class pollen as an ingredient in its own right, suddenly we're talking about 1% of the pollen weight, not 1% of the honey weight. Then scenarios such as bees working (GM?) maize for pollen, or the airborne pollen inclusion in honeydew, start to suggest that more than 1% of pollen could plausibly come from a GM source.

So, we're into a case of plausible food contamination. In this area of the law, ignorance is no defence. Thus honey samples will need to be tested to assure a <1% content of GM pollen. How much is this testing? Currently £200 per batch of honey tested. Economic for the small beekeeper?

An acceptable catch-all alternative to costly per-batch testing would be to put the following words on our jar labels: May contain GMO products, along the lines of the 'May contain nuts' warnings. That'll do wonders for sales and of course whilst the UK beekeeper might diligently follow the letter of the law, would we expect our southern European comrades to do the same? Who wants to see a health scare around UK honey?

This would simply not be an issue if pollen had not been decreed to be an ingredient of honey.

Let us also be clear about the nature of pollen within honey. Enzymes within honey denature pollen such that it is rendered 'dead' after at most one week. Even if you extracted the pollen, washed and dried it, placed it on the receptive stigma of a flower of the same (or compatible) species, it would be unable to germinate and hence pollinate that flower.

And is GM pollen a risk to human health? Can I absorb modified DNA that might adversely affect my own DNA? Well for this to be the case then surely we would have to literally be what we eat. Thus if eating GM pollen means we are damaged by the GM bit, then surely eating too many bananas means we would be similarly compromised by banana DNA?

As I have said many times before, we beekeepers would be far better off without those who use beekeeping simply to further an alternative agenda

For now, the good news is that the FSA are not going to change the implied labelling or testing requirements until, to paraphrase, the contradictions inherent between this ruling and the EU Honey Regulations can be resolved.

 

[Spadaman]

"An acceptable catch-all alternative to costly per-batch testing would be to put the following words on our jar labels: May contain GMO products, along the lines of the 'May contain nuts' warnings."

Unfortunately, this won't work as if the honey does contain GMO products you won't be able to sell it (in the EU anyway) as it is currently against EU law to sell any GMO product for human consumption.

The onus is on the producer to prove that the honey is free of GMO product.

 

[Swarm]

Which would not be a problem if GM testing was not allowed. You can't trial stuff like that, willy nilly and not expect problems.

 

[Brosville]

"we beekeepers would be far better off without those who use beekeeping simply to further an alternative agenda" - herrrumph!

I think we have to accept the fact that all nature is linked - we and our bees are part of it, and to try to divorce them from it in some way is just "missing the point".
If there are any "agendas" in this case, it is the GM companies' efforts to bulldoze the rubbish onto the market, and into "our" environment, our bees and their honey is another case of "canaries in the coal mine", and to try to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the onward march of Monsanto's schemes for world domination of the food chain is frankly childish and selfish - no "alternative agenda" at all, just resisting the forces of darkness.......

We don't want polluted honey, the answer is simple, ban GM crops from these islands - simples!

 

[VEG]

Brosville as said in a post further up they are here all ready.

 

[Into the lions den]

Actual words from the minister at a recent meeting.........

'The UK government will never permanently close the door to the growing of GM crops. Period.'

Its largely irrelevant anyway, as the distribution of all pollen, normal and GM alike, is global. Even a jar of honey from the most isolated spots on Earth could not, in all honesty, claim to guarantee zero GM pollen grains.

Its there, it seems to be harmless. There seem to be no immediate plans to grow target crops here. As Finman said we have greater worries.
The activists are a bigger threat to me than the crops, so as was mentioned in an earlier post by someone, we and our bees ARE indeed the pawns in someone elses fight. Could easily turn into 'the innocent bystanders gunned down in a drive by shooting' if we do not watch our backs.

Gut feeling is that this will be an issue that will take years to fully play out, and in the end will fade away. Meanwhile the legal fraternity grow fat and the rest of us pay.

 

[BeeJayBee]

... the distribution of all pollen, normal and GM alike, is global. Even a jar of honey from the most isolated spots on Earth could not, in all honesty, claim to guarantee zero GM pollen grains.

Indeed.

Insects such as greenfly get caught up in the jet stream, so it's hardly surprising pollen travels a long way.

 

[itma]

It needs to be remembered that the question on which beekeepers were being consulted, was about how the labelling requirements could be updated while minimising the hassle to beekeepers.



The whole "Ban all GM Frankencrap" argument is way above these guys pay grade.
They want the help of beekeepers to straighten out the conflicting (in their view) requirements for ingredient declaration. Nothing more.

 

[itma]

"An acceptable catch-all alternative to costly per-batch testing would be to put the following words on our jar labels: May contain GMO products, along the lines of the 'May contain nuts' warnings."

Unfortunately, this won't work as if the honey does contain GMO products you won't be able to sell it (in the EU anyway) as it is currently against EU law to sell any GMO product for human consumption.

This is correct that the "may contain GMOs" statement would be saying "may be illegal".

The onus is on the producer to prove that the honey is free of GMO product.

However, I don't see why this should be so.
As it is, before sale, one does not have to prove the water content, or anything else.
What regulation requires proving GM-free before sale?



/ And I must repeat that, at present, the question of whether or not honey containing GM pollen is or is not a GMO has not been decided by the Bavarian Court.
The ECJ said that was a question of scientific evidence (about DNA transfer), not a question of law, and referred it back to the Bavarians.

 

[richardbees]

However, one of the Kinnocks' nephews is looking for a job so the EU will probably start a 'Honey Commission' with regulatory powers.....

 

[REDWOOD]

Let me get the just of this, so gm food has been strongly protested around the world for the reason it is bad for you to eat, am I right ? so if gm pollen is in our honey it is also bad for us to eat so by not putting a label on the jar I would say is deceiving your customers and making us beekeepers as bad as the people trying to introduce it into the country. We all Have a moral obligation to our customers, although the same cannot be said about the companies making gm food. Has any beekeeper in the world had bees forage on gm crops, if so what do the bees think of it, are they OK with it I know they don't like the water the government pump through our taps.

 

[DanBee]

if gm pollen is in our honey it is also bad for us to eat so by not putting a label on the jar I would say is deceiving your customers and making us beekeepers as bad as the people trying to introduce it into the country. We all Have a moral obligation to our customers, although the same cannot be said about the companies making gm food.

To follow this argument, all beekeepers would immediately withdraw their honey from sale until they could prove - through testing - that it did not contain GM pollen above a safe threshold. That would mean immediate ceasing of honey production in Spain, France, and Germany, for instance, and for a 5 mile radius around the 7 or so trial plantations in the UK. Imports of honey into the EU would also have to stop if coming from countries where GM crops are grown, until such testing has been done.

You seem to be advocating a 0% threshold for safe inclusion of GM pollen. Given that airborne pollen travels between continents, that many GM crops are wind pollinated, and that we cannot rule out miniscule amounts of airborne pollen 'contaminating' nectar sources, you would be advocating the shut-down of honey production world-wide.

 

[DanBee]

This is correct that the "may contain GMOs" statement would be saying "may be illegal".

Yes, you are correct. This would only be acceptable if the GM pollen included was from a crop approved for human consumption.

 

[Hebeegeebee]

..