APIS Volume 8, Number 9, September 1990
In this issue
- Food Safety--Beekeeping's Issue of the 1990s
- NHB Contamination Crisis Program
- Costs of Beekeeping
- Honey Moisture Handout
FOOD SAFETY--BEEKEEPING'S ISSUE OF THE 1990S
Last month's report on potential contamination of honey brings into focus perhaps the biggest challenge that beekeeping must face in the 1990s, food safety. There is no lack of organizations that put themselves in the forefront of this issue. One, FoodWatch, is a national effort to inform the public and "ensure safe, abundant food for all--now and in the future," according to Mr. Len Richardson, editor of "Agrichemical Age" (August/September 1990). FoodWatch is trying to raise $50 million over a five-year period to fund an information center, a media relations publicity program and develop a pledge of responsibility and a consumer advertising program. The concept is fine, Mr. Richardson says, but doesn't go far enough. The new "bottom line" for agriculture is social approval, one that probably can't be influenced by public relations and advertising efforts. Such approval will not be forthcoming simply because producers take a pledge to "read and follow all label directions." First, Mr. Richardson continues, "...it will require as much sacrifice and compromise as it will money and pledges. Just saying food is safe doesn't make it so." In addition, consumers may have to sacrifice plastic bags, bigger grapes and unblemished peaches at supermarkets.
Further efforts are required, Mr. Richardson says, including organizing a pesticide- use reporting system, planning and funding integrated pest management (IPM) programs, placing risk communications under control of a group clearly oriented toward the recipients of the message, increasing funding for alternatives and research into safer chemicals, voluntary prohibitions or modifications of pesticide use and tougher accreditation for both testing laboratories and individual producers.
NHB CONTAMINATION CRISIS PROGRAM
The National Honey Board has recently published an outline of a honey contamination crisis program in response to recent reports of fluvalinate found in honey. The information encourages individual beekeepers, packers and others involved in honey marketing to formalize a plan enabling contaminated honey to be recovered from the market. The absolute first step anybody should take when a food safety problem is determined is to contact the Board (see address above).
There are several levels of product recovery depending on severity:
A. Stock Recovery: The removal or correction of materials that have not left direct control of the producer/packer. This is considered an internal matter and the FDA need not be notified.
B. Market Withdrawal: If the product has left producer/packer control, then withdrawal is from the marketplace. This is appropriate when consumption of the product is not considered a significant health hazard. This most commonly involves a minor violation or no violation that would be considered actionable by the FDA.
C. Recall: A voluntary program implemented by the affected industry. A recall involves products in violation of FDA administered laws. The FDA does not have statutory authority to mandate a recall, but can request federal courts to seize any product deemed harmful. Honey might be recalled if agricultural chemicals exceed a tolerance, or employer or employee negligence or a disgruntled employee results in product adulteration.
If a recall is instituted, a recommended plan of action includes:
A. Create a Recall Team: Depending on the size of the firm, individuals on the team might include a legal counsel, public relations person, in-house laboratory technician and/or a certified laboratory.
B. Develop a Recall Strategy: It is important during this step to define the problem based on answers to questions such as the extent of the health hazard, the risks to consumer and industry and the jurisdiction of the FDA. Based on heath hazard the recall could be designated as Class I (most hazardous) to Class III (least hazardous to health).
- Determine Depth of Recall: Specify, in coordination with FDA, the level in the distribution chain from which products will be recalled; consumer level, retail level, wholesale level, or geographic location.
- Develop methods to identify and retrieve contaminated honey. A testing program should be developed to identify contaminated product as well as an action plan to collect the product.
C. Recall Communications: This area includes notification of the FDA, then notifying the public and physically withdrawing product from the market. If considered hazardous enough, a public warning may also be issued. Finally, the FDA recommends a periodic status report be submitted.
A bibliography and sample press release concerning honey recall is also attached to the information as is a recommended honey sampling procedure and a list of laboratories providing analytical services. The packet of information is available from the National Honey Board (see address elsewhere in this issue). It would be advisable to have it on hand as a guide to handle any crisis arising out of honey contamination.
COSTS OF BEEKEEPING
Dr. Roger Hoopingarner and I recently published an article in American Bee Journal, (Vol. 130 (6):405-407, June, 1990) called "The Costs of Beekeeping-I. Survey of Commercial Beekeepers." It was accompanied by a figure which listed the average, minimum, maximum and totals of sixty six different costs for commercial beekeeping operations (those managing over 400 colonies). In addition, we also provided some observations on certain costs where appropriate. The goal of the article was to report the results of a couple of surveys conducted over the last few years which would allow beekeepers to compare costs. Totals were also published to show the impact of commercial beekeeping on the local, state or national economy. Write me at the address below and I'll be glad to send you a reprint.
There is little doubt that costs in beekeeping are continuing to rise. Of special concern is treatment for Varroa mites which are considered absolutely necessary if a colony is to survive and infestation (see last month's issue of APIS for details). The analysis of the effects of these expenses, therefore, must become paramount for many beekeepers. To help in this endeavor, I have written IFAS Circular 722, A Study in Profitability for a Mid-sized Beekeeping Operation. Unfortunately, this publication is in short supply. Perhaps the best way to ensure obtaining a copy is through contacts at the local county Cooperative Extension Service office. It is available at both the Florida State University and University of Florida libraries. Some local libraries may also have it.
Hint for the Hive number 124, "Financial Statements and Ratios for Beekeeping Operations," also was published to help beekeepers better analyze their activities. It provides an outline allowing one to sift, select and file necessary information to make informed financial decisions. County extension offices have limited supplies. I can furnish one on request as well.
HONEY MOISTURE HANDOUT
A new issue in the series, "Hints for the Hive" has been released. It is number 130, "Moisture in Honey." It concerns using a refractometer and also relates detailed information gathered in Canada over a period of years on dehumidifying honey in the honey house. This is an outgrowth of experience in that country which indicates that it is more economical to take honey off the bees before it is capped and reduce its moisture in a controlled environment.
Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (904) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: 904-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1990 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved
