Wisconsin Laws

[WI-beek]

Here is the bill itself as far as I can tell.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-575.pdf

You probably should carry this doc with you so you can explain that the rules have not been defined yet so there is no law yet.

What is scary is that you may not be able to bottle honey yourself and meet the requirements they make. Hopefully they make some exemptions for small quantities under a certain number of containers or tons if you are selling it to customers personally. I think the testing should be free if you are from Wisconsin. Make out of state packers and out of state beeks pay to shelf their honey here. How about that.

[waynesgarden]

... the new law says you can not say your honey is pure honey, certified honey, or Wisconsin honey unless it has been tested to have it on the shelf in this state.
.....

What is scary is that you may not be able to bottle honey yourself and meet the requirements they make. Hopefully they make some exemptions for small quantities

What, precisely, will prevent you from bottling your own honey or that you can not call your honey "pure" honey? As others who have read the bill you link to with some degree of care have stated, the bill requires testing if you are going to sell it as "Wisconsin Certified Honey." The rest seems to be the product of imagination. Where does it say it must be tested to call it "pure?"

Section 1a, which everyone must comply with, refers to a basic definition of what honey is. You can not call your product honey unless it it is honey and only honey. Pure, if you will. You can not sell adulturated honey and call it honey. Not unreasonable, in my opinion. Where, precisely, is it required that you have your honey tested as Mark suggests?

I don't live in Wisconsin but am always interested in the debates here about food bills. This looks to me to be much ado about nothing.

Wayne

[WI-beek]

(3) (a) No person may label a product as honey or imply that a product is honey
unless the product meets the standards established under sub. (1) (a).

here is 1 (a)

(1) The department shall promulgate rules that do all the following:
(a) Establish standards for products sold as honey that are consistent with the
standard for honey under the Codex Alimentarius of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, number
12−1981, as revised in 2001.

so depending on what RULES they make, you may not be able to label a jar and call it HONEY if the made RULES say it has to be tested. If they did this, how would they regulate and control it? You tell me. It is all up in the air at moment.

[waynesgarden]

(1) The department shall promulgate rules that do all the following:

(a) Establish standards for products sold as honey

Again, what it says it that you can't label as honey something that isn't honey. Period. The bill directs the department to make rules establishing standards. Period. It does not direct them to establish rules requiring testing for all sellers or it would be indicated in the bill, just as it does for those who wish to sell honey as "Certified Wisconsin Honey." You can imagine that it does but you do not see it in there.

However, in answer to your question about "how would they regulate and control it" (enforcement,) you must not have read the bill or you would have noticed the last provision which puts enforcement in the hands of the consumer who may sue you for a minimum of $1000 if you sell them adulturated honey.

Wayne

[WI-beek]

In never said they would make rules that all honey needed to be tested. I stated that they have not made the said standards and rules yet which could require testing if they say so. Thats the point. At the moment the bill is not finished, and you can not know what and how they will regulate the final product of this bill no matter how many times you read it.

[waynesgarden]

At the moment the bill is not finished, and you can not know what and how they will regulate the final product of this bill no matter how many times you read it.

Actually, at this moment, the bill is finished. Passed by both houses and signed into law by the governor of your state in March. That bill can not be changed.

Your state agency responsible for making the rules is limited by the language of the new law. The law requires testing for marketing as "certified." That is the limit of the language of the law. To require testing for everyone, it would require a new law giving it the authority to make such a rule.

You will also have another opportunity to comment as an agency proposing new rules must provide a public comment period. These are always fun to read because of the wild assertations that usually are made. Some of the more imaginative ones are very entertaining.

After the elections, I'll be suggesting a similar bill to my reps here in Maine.

Wayne

[brushmouth]

"Codex Alimentarius of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, number
12−1981, as revised in 2001."

Look out folks, use google research for your own DD.

International law (UN) vs Our Constitution

Illegal to grow your own food
Fines for not having registered chickens
Can't tag the bees so control the honey house?
S.510 is sidelined again at this time, however we have in both parties,
people who seek the power to control your choices:

"Congress certainly won’t be the one tightening its belt. Section 401 of S. 510 authorizes nearly $1 billion to grow the FDA’s reach and calls for almost 4,000 new bureaucrats to be hired in fiscal year 2010 alone.

This onerous new law will apply harshly to reputable food producers like the independent family farm, where the free market works every day to provide the public with healthy choices."


"Meanwhile, Big Agriculture will continue to use its well-entrenched connections to make sure it escapes serious scrutiny.

The statists have worked to replace "credible evidence" with "reasonable probability" in the U.S. Code, giving the FDA power to invade, quarantine, or shut down private property in search of any foodborne illness.

They also changed "presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals" to "is adulterated or misbranded." What exactly constitutes adulterated? That glass of raw milk? An FDA bureaucrat will decide."


WORSE YET:

"The bill also grants blanket authority for federal agencies to impose international guidelines and standards on domestic food producers - giving agencies authority to harmonize all American food production and processes in line with the globalist Codex."

BM

[waynesgarden]

[QUOTE=brushmouth;590941Look out folks, use google research for your own DD.

International law (UN) vs Our Constitution

Illegal to grow your own food
Fines for not having registered chickens
Can't tag the bees so control the honey house?
S.510 is sidelined again at this time, however we have in both parties,
people who seek the power to control your choices:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this stuff again. Conspiracy fantasies are always entertaining. Thanks for posting it.

Wayne

[WI-beek]

Wayne. I agree not much more will probably come of it as you say but as far as the constitution goes out government uses it when it convenient and ignores it when it gets in the way. If you disagree then tell me why when the constitution forbids anyone other than congress to create and coin money, how we ended up with a private corporation (the federal reserve and the federal reserve act) which more or less makes and controls all money printed and issued?

I dont have faith in people. The state and federal government take an inch at a time and soon they take what they said they have no intention of taking.

[brushmouth]

Yeah, this stuff again. Conspiracy fantasies are always entertaining. Thanks for posting it.

Wayne

Your Welcome!

S.510 Information for your entertainment and research.

http://saladin-avoiceinthewilderness...nd-hidden.html

BM

[waynesgarden]

A discussion of S510 is off topic, but I will say that while I admire a lot of Saladin's work, that doesn't mean that I don't find that article alarmist, opinionated and without substance or substantiation. Borderline wacko. A lot of conspiracy fans post the same silly rubbish on their websites.

Not exactly a path to serious research.

But to get back on topic, after these upcoming elections, I will contact my new state House and Senate reps to discuss a bill similar to Wisconsin's to keep funny honey off our shelves.

Wayne

[WI-beek]

Good idea Wayne with the legislation. i just hope the legislation does not end up hurting any of us as the old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for". It is about time states finally move to do what the fed apparently could care less about.

I am also interested to see if honey condiments at Wendy's, and Kentucky fried chicken and others will be affected. I am a bit worried that they will just drop the honey ingredient which will hurt the honey market.

[Beeslave]

I am a bit worried that they will just drop the honey ingredient which will hurt the honey market.

The only honey market that will hurt is the cheap imported junk we are fighting against.