September 2002

Honey Association statement to BBKA GM Workshop

Who are we?

• Representing all major importers and packers – including those who buy British honey

• Working right across industry, in close co-operation with BBKA and BFA

• Creating generic trade and consumer communication (eg National Honey Week) to everyone’s benefit

• Handling on-going crisis management (eg GM and veterinary drug residues) on issues affecting whole industry

• Maintaining Government lobbying and EU representation

The honey market in context

• 25,000 tonnes consumed in the UK each year – just 1,500 tonnes can be produced by British beekeepers

• Therefore, 90% has to be imported to meet consumer demand. With EU ban on Chinese honey (accounted for 40% of total imports) new origins need to be sourced, and supplies increased from other countries.

• Global market now extremely difficult - poor crops, limited supply and competition from US buyers

Where do we stand on GM issues – both now and in the future?

• Instrumental in establishing ‘six mile radius’ rule in UK because of retailer demand

• Taking steps to improve traceability of all sources globally, and consignments monitored on a regular basis.

• No GM traces have yet been found, and if problems arise with a particular source, this testing programme would be intensified

• Looking ahead, GM trials taking place all over the world – some programmes more advanced than others

• Combined with knowledge that pollen can be windborne for up to 100 miles, in years to come it will be impossible to organise bees to discriminate among crops. This could well be the case in the UK very soon – if not already

• With the implementation of a new form of testing – extracting the pollen and PCR testing on the isolated material only – minute traces of GM material are bound to be found not only in honey but in all fresh foodstuffs in contact with the wind

• However, these horticultural products can already be sold providing the GM levels fall below the legal 1% guideline (EU plan to reduce to 0.5%)

• Honey is classified as an animal product, although it originates from
  vegetation. Contaminated pollen is only picked up adventitiously. We
  believe however that honey should be classified as horticultural.

• Any GM trace found in honey would only be infinitesimal – one minute drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools (FSA source). Because of the component parts, this will always be the case – and thus honey will always be defined as a non-GM product.

• Thus the Association advocates we adopt the ‘non GM’ stance, in which honey easily falls within the legal limits – and always will

• Our colleagues in other countries are facing the same problems. Germany – a large honey consumer – has adopted the EU Commission guideline route. Despite its definition, honey is still included in the list of products which contain accidental or unavoidable contamination from GM plants (KOM (200l/425). Thus it does not have to be labelled or licensed as containing GM material – providing it does not reach a maximum limit of 1%.

• We are awaiting news from Australia who found a way of dealing with this issue successfully

What can we do?

• Obtain a ruling from the authorities that honey is a ‘special’ case and should not be liable under the regulations for animal products – rather those for horticultural products

• Establish an acceptance by retailers of the ‘below 1% limit and the term ‘non GM’ – as with other natural foodstuffs

• Educate the consumer on the process of honey-making, and why it will always be ‘safe’

• Thus pave the way for the future, when it will be impossible to distinguish between sources both in the UK and overseas