Honey Provisions in Senate Customs Bill Create Buzz Among Industry, Despite Concerns About Cost, Impact

The database would be “at least another tool in the toolbox as far as CBP being able to seize honey, seize illegal shipments,” said Mark Jenkins, chair of the American Honey Producers Association (AHPA) legislative committee. The group has been working on S-662 with the office of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the bill’s sponsors. The database, as outlined in the bill, would compile individual characteristics of foreign honey, “to facilitate the verification of country of origin markings of imported honey” (read S-662 here). CBP would be required to consult with industry groups, the FDA and foreign customs agencies when building the database.

AHPA has “high hopes” for the bill, said Jenkins, also an owner-operator at Smoot Honey Company in Power, Montana. Its direction to FDA to establish a standard of identity is cause for optimism, he said. Honey associations have been pushing the agency to craft a standard for years -- submitting a formal petition in 2006 -- to no avail. In the U.S., as long as honey isn’t added to, with things like water or other sugar syrups, it can be labeled as “honey.” It does not have to contain pollen, which has raised concerns among many in the industry.

“Once you take the pollen out, virtually you have no idea where this stuff is coming from,” said Vaughn Bryant, a Texas A&M anthropology professor and director of the school’s palynology (aka pollen) laboratory. In honey circles, Bryant is often called “America’s only melissopalynologist,” which means he studies the amount of pollen in honey. Bryant -- whose day job is forensic anthropology -- got his start in 1975, when the Department of Agriculture asked him to test country of origin for five honey samples. He’s been testing honey for companies, groups and individuals, ever since. The U.S. “desperately” needs a database, Bryant said, especially since the only one currently in existence is “in my head.” With a quality database, people with pollen knowledge could match honey samples to their country of origin, he said. “But without the database, nobody can do it without 40 years of experience.”

In his Texas lab, Bryant has about 20,000 pollen samples from around the world; but a slice of the roughly 350,000 pollen types bees use. He’s perfected the testing method -- which includes diluting samples with alcohol, a centrifuge and specialized microscopes -- and even uses tracer spores to account for different pollen concentrations. Pollen ratios vary from plant-to-plant: honey labeled “fireweed”, for example, doesn’t have as much pollen as honey made from forget-me-nots. It’s a complicated, time-consuming process, requiring “not only a good ability to identify the pollen grains. [You] also have to understand plant ecology,” Bryant said.

And while he heartily supports S-662’s honey provisions, Bryant warned a database will be “rather expensive.” He charges $60 per sample for testing, enough to pay for the chemicals and the graduate students in his lab, Bryant said. Big European labs charge far more, but also have greater capacity and technology, such as the ability to test isotopes -- different forms of a single element -- to determine country of origin.

Bryant is also skeptical of U.S. testing capability. “There’s nobody that’s teaching this stuff,” he said. “There’s no demand for this, aside from what I’m doing, I could not make a living doing this.” Crafting a standard of identity will also help the industry, he said, but the government has resisted one for so long. “Why is the U.S. so opposed to truth in labeling? The EU does it. We’re [one of] the largest honey producers in the world, [and] don’t seem to really care.” Faulty honey testing recently forced the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office to drop federal antidumping duty evasion charges against three importers (see 13053115). Bryant has never been asked to test honey by CBP or for large companies such as Sue Bee.

Not all the honey he tests turns out to be faulty. But a lot of the time, he said, the label is wrong. Bryant compared it to walking down the street and being offered a 54-inch flat screen TV for $100. “You don’t ask questions.” Honey works the same way, he said. Companies are “importing honey from dubious sources, and they just said ‘We don’t want to ask questions.’”

States, Honey Groups Tackle Honey Sourcing

Circumvention has injured honey producers and sellers so much that some have taken matters into their own hands. The North Carolina Beekeepers Association voted in 2010 to adopt a standard of honey that requires country of origin identification on the label. Florida approved a honey standard specifying “no pollen or constituent unique to honey may be removed except where unavoidable in the removal of foreign matter” (here). About three years ago, a group of North American honey packers created True Source Honey, a third-party certification program.

“We are very, very grateful and pleased with what ICE and CBP have been doing,” to prevent circumvention, said True Source Chairman Eric Wenger. “But when we started this … We didn’t know when we were going to see some resolution. So that’s when, as an industry, a number of us decided to step in and do the best we could.”

To secure the True Source logo, companies must have their honey’s country of origin tested -- True Source uses German lab Intertek -- and their supply chain certified. True Source requires special steps for Indian exports who want the certification, since India is often the second stop in transshipped China honey schemes. The companies must prove they have not taken any bonds against Chinese honey; the bonds are required by the Indian government, for companies importing honey from China.

Wenger said the True Source logo is on 10 to 20 percent of the honey in the marketplace, gaining popularity in the last year. He agrees the honey provisions in S-662 would “absolutely” benefit the honey industry. “I think what our industry needs is just very clear guidance,” especially for importers trying to source ethically, he said. “Right now things are kind of ambiguous. Each company has to interpret, ‘What should I be doing, and how should I be doing it?’”

Transshipment Increases Pressure on Already-Suffering Industry

The Senate bill comes at a crucial time for honey producers. Something must be done about transshipment and circumvention soon, Jenkins said, because “it’s killing our industry. Well, helping to kill our industry.” Beekeepers are already coping with heightened environmental pressures, such as pesticides and pollution. There’s colony collapse disorder, the mysterious mass bee deaths that have apiarists, scientists and farmers concerned (read U.S. Department of Agriculture information on colony collapse here). Duty evasion and transshipment only add to these woes, stakeholders said.

Producers face health challenges, and then the honey they sell is worth less than it should be because of circumvention, Wenger said. “See the financial impact … [it becomes a] little more difficult to survive.” Jenkins said he hopes S-662’s provisions will help CBP better catch duty evaders and trickle down to the FDA, pushing the agency to secure a standard of identity for honey. FDA tends to move “very, very slowly,” he said. “Maybe if they can get something with the customs reauthorization bill, and some powerful Senators saying ‘Hey boys and girls, we need to get our act together,’” things could change for the better.

For Bryant, that change is what’s truly necessary. “I would definitely like to see some of the rules changed,” he said. “I really think something needs to be changed for the future.” -- Jessica Arriens