I imagine that the ghost of Bob LaFollette would be pleased to know that Wisconsin lives up to its Progressive heritage by being on the leading edge of a food purity issue, namely honey. According to an AP article in Wednesday's La Crosse Tribune, honey standards are now being considered at the national level. See "Shumer: Import rule needed to limit honey "fraud" for the deets.
As with the Wisconsin standard, it's a no-brainer that if bees didn't make it, it shouldn't be labeled as honey. And if it's poisoned with medications, pesticides or what-not, it has no place on store shelves. Taken together, the premise should be a win-win for both consumer and honey producer.
Granted, the "no-brainer" aspect has probably limited the breadth and depth of debate. But even so, not all voices have been heard--in fact, billions have had no say whatsoever in any policy-making. I'm of course referring to the bees themselves. So to rectify the situation--and add a six-legged perspective to the debate--let's turn to our Senior Apian Correspondent, Beatrice.
fivechimera: Thanks for joining us, Beatrice.
Beatrice: Thanks so much for having me. Oh, and do call me "Bea."
fivechimera: Okay. So, Bea, as I understand it, sometimes your humans will feed you sugar water or corn syrup and even soy-based pollen to tide you through the cold spells. Frankly, is the species even affected enough to have a position on a regulatory definition of honey?
Beatrice: Oh, definitely. Obviously, some of the taint in adulterated honey comes from over-medication. That's something we'd like to see eliminated entirely. But at the end of the season, it really boils down to craftsmanship and letting nature shine through.
fivechimera: Craftsmanship? Meaning like a winemaker respecting the terroir and vintage?
Beatrice: Exactly. What two-leggers don't seem to understand is that, other than seeing the hive survive another year, the quality of the product is really the only other reward.
fivechimera: I guess I've never heard it put in quite such stark terms before. Would you care to let readers know a little more about that?
Beatrice: Well, I don't mean to complain. But maybe I should translate things into human terms context. Imagine that, right after you're born, the first thing you have to do is clean your room. Which you share with upwards to 60,000 of your sisters, half-sisters and half-brothers. You graduate from being a housekeeper to raising the next generation of brood to come along. Later, you might end up putting your life on the line guarding your home. Finally, you graduate to grocery runner until you wear out and/or something eats you. All of which will likely happen in about six weeks. And the sum total of your life's work will average out to one-twelfth of a teaspoon.
fivechimera: And having some idiot human completely ruin your handiwork with chemicals or impersonate it with corn syrup--after all that--I can see how that would be absolutely infuriating.
Beatrice: The human concern about parasites and diseases is completely understandable--trust me, we're even more concerned. The life I just described--that only happens if we're one of the lucky ones. If a parasitic varroa mite crawls into our cell when we're still a pupa, we might be born without wings at all. That's scary enough, even without CCD. Even so, there's a limit to how much good chemicals and sugar water can do for us. They're no subsititute for good practice and having decent working conditions in the first place.
fivechimera: I think that sentiment's something even we bi-peds can get behind, Beatrice. Is there anything else you'd like us to know?
Beatrice: I think the perception is that if it's a flower, it's all good for us. But the reality is, when we have the choice, we're actually quite deliberate about what we bring back for food. That's something we'd recommend to any species.
fivechimera: Absolutely. Well, I believe that we're just about out of time here, but, Bea, thank you again for sharing your unique perspective on our human doings.
Beatrice: It's been my pleasure.
