Food: Commission proposes clearer rules on status of pollen in honey
In line with international WTO standards, the proposal defines pollen as a natural constituent of honey and not as an ingredient.
En horas me llega el mismo comunicado desde una exportadora chilena, con el comentario de "sería bueno divulgar esto".
¿Pero que significa lo que dicen en el comunicado de prensa?
"La Comisión Europea ha adoptado hoy una propuesta de modificación de la normativa sobre la miel1cuyo objeto es aclarar la verdadera naturaleza del polen a raíz de la decisión prejudicial del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea2 De conformidad con las normas internacionales de la OMC, la propuesta define el polen como un componente natural de la miel y no como un ingrediente."
Lo anterior concuerda con lo que veníamos insistiendo desde diciembre 2011 a través de FILAPI.
pero mientras no vea la propuesta completa no podré fundar opinión.
por tuiter al comentar esta noticia, Lorenzo Consoli @LorenzoConsoli me dice:
@juanseapi Translation is: to prevent honey market collapse #EUCOM will adapt labelling rules, in order to hide #GMO contamination in pollen.
Mi amigo PeterD desde el oeste de Australia acota : OK seems sensible (at last) to me. Pollen is a normal constituent of honey and doesn't require to be labelled as an ingredient, unless it
is a) more than 0.9% and/or b) GMO pollen, in which it has to be approved and labelled.
Osea, seguimos donde mismo?
No estoy muy claro, en particular considerando las sutilezas que ve el mismo WalterH en el texto:
now that this press release is out, we know, where we are in the process. At this stage this is a proposal that needs to work its way through the member states. According to my information, it will take a year for this to actually take effect.
What is clear though, is that the commission shares our understanding, that this proposal does not alter the situation for non-authorized events:
The commission in it's press release is taking great pains to explain that this is not altering zero-tolerance and supposedly not the labeling.
It is quite clear from the proposal, that this commission's proposal is only addressing the narrow case of the labeling of authorized events, which in conjunction with their desire to have all crops cultivated in the EU with food authorization will allow the GMO industry to claim, that no buffer zones are necessary in the EU.
They are solving the problem of the GMO industry at the expense of the consumer, who will be deprived of his or her freedom of choice.
What is clear though, is that the commission shares our understanding, that this proposal does not alter the situation for non-authorized events:
In particular it does not alter the Court conclusion that honey containing GM pollen can be placed on the market only if it is covered by an authorisation under the legislation.
It does not solve the problem of the honey importers, who lobbied for this, because there are plenty of events without food authorization cultivated around the world and therefore honey still needs to be analyzed to check, if it can be marketed in the EU.
The commission in it's press release is taking great pains to explain that this is not altering zero-tolerance and supposedly not the labeling.
It is quite clear from the proposal, that this commission's proposal is only addressing the narrow case of the labeling of authorized events, which in conjunction with their desire to have all crops cultivated in the EU with food authorization will allow the GMO industry to claim, that no buffer zones are necessary in the EU.
They are solving the problem of the GMO industry at the expense of the consumer, who will be deprived of his or her freedom of choice.
En otra comunicación WalterH indica, en respuesta a ciertas preguntas que le hace Fernando Esteban.
It is true, that the commission is proposing to make this change to the honey directive. It would take about a year for this proposal to be implemented, if the proposal stands.
As you can read in the press release, this change would change the labeling requirement for honey containing events with food approval for honey in the EU.
For unauthorized events, the zero tolerance principle still applies, which means if in a honey exporting country GMOs are cultivated, which do not have food authorization for honey, testing the honey is still necessary. If you don't have a register of GMO fields and you don't know where the contamination sources are, you continue to have a problem.
We will oppose this proposal, because it is clearly designed to help the GMO industry avoid any kind of buffer zones to protect GMO free honey production in the EU, at the expense of consumers, who are deprived of their right to know the GMO status of the honey.
As you know, a significant percentage of the honey produced in the EU is marketed regionally. As we have seen already, if a region has GMO cultivation, the honey from this region becomes tainted in the eyes of the consumers. The proposed change will result in no protections whatsoever for beekeepers.
Why does this matter? Normally the EU requires member states to implement a number of steps to protect gmo-free production:
- Register GMO cultivation
- Inform the land owner of GMO cultivation, in case of leasehold
- Create buffer zones
- Inform neighbours of GMO cultivation
- Take precautionary measures by separating GMO seeds from conventional seeds
- Meet other conditions for coexistence with conventional crops.
In the case of beekeeping, the proposal is designed to make sure there are no buffer zones around our hives, we are not neighbors that need to be informed and no other steps will be taken to protect our bee products.
Thanks to the efforts of farmers and citizens we have GMO free regions covering large parts of the EU. This area is increasing year by year. This is the best protection we have right now and we will start positive labeling of our honey to at least partially restore the consumers freedom of choice.
Bottom line, if the proposal gets implemented you don't win, but we loose.
As you can read in the press release, this change would change the labeling requirement for honey containing events with food approval for honey in the EU.
For unauthorized events, the zero tolerance principle still applies, which means if in a honey exporting country GMOs are cultivated, which do not have food authorization for honey, testing the honey is still necessary. If you don't have a register of GMO fields and you don't know where the contamination sources are, you continue to have a problem.
We will oppose this proposal, because it is clearly designed to help the GMO industry avoid any kind of buffer zones to protect GMO free honey production in the EU, at the expense of consumers, who are deprived of their right to know the GMO status of the honey.
As you know, a significant percentage of the honey produced in the EU is marketed regionally. As we have seen already, if a region has GMO cultivation, the honey from this region becomes tainted in the eyes of the consumers. The proposed change will result in no protections whatsoever for beekeepers.
Why does this matter? Normally the EU requires member states to implement a number of steps to protect gmo-free production:
- Register GMO cultivation
- Inform the land owner of GMO cultivation, in case of leasehold
- Create buffer zones
- Inform neighbours of GMO cultivation
- Take precautionary measures by separating GMO seeds from conventional seeds
- Meet other conditions for coexistence with conventional crops.
In the case of beekeeping, the proposal is designed to make sure there are no buffer zones around our hives, we are not neighbors that need to be informed and no other steps will be taken to protect our bee products.
Thanks to the efforts of farmers and citizens we have GMO free regions covering large parts of the EU. This area is increasing year by year. This is the best protection we have right now and we will start positive labeling of our honey to at least partially restore the consumers freedom of choice.
Bottom line, if the proposal gets implemented you don't win, but we loose.
Para saber más de estas zonas libres de OGM sugiero partir por este link http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-conference-2012.html
Yo lamento no poder participar en ApiEcoFlora donde me habían invitado para la primera semana de octubre, ya que hubiera sido una excelente oportunidad para intentar conseguir el texto de la propuesta, y para mejor entender estas sutilezas de las que habla Walter. Pero el viaje de la Dra. López, más el desarrollo atrasado de la temporada apícola nacional y el largo feriado patrio, hacen poco aconsejable mi participación sin arriesgar el buen desarrollo del colmenar de Apizur.
Insisto que no me alarmaré por esta modificación en tramite y no tendré opinión sobre sus impactos hasta que no vea el texto completo. Me queda claro sí, que tenemos que seguir perseverando en el mejoramiento del SIGSAG en particular en cuanto a identificar los eventos prohibidos en Europa. Y perseverar también en definir un mecanismo de compensación para aquellos apicultores que por culpa de los transgénicos no puedan exportar a Europa y reciban un menor precio por su producción.
En paralelo veré si a través de los contactos en el gobierno logró llegar al texto de la propuesta que publicitan en este comunicado de prensa.
En paralelo veré si a través de los contactos en el gobierno logró llegar al texto de la propuesta que publicitan en este comunicado de prensa.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario