# T.- f.a.c.t.



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Here is a link:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/T-FACT-Treatment-Free-Apiculturist-Collective/122304114464541


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Two thoughts:

1. Why would you be based on facebook?

2. What kind of sugar adulteration tests are you going to use? Will you be testing for rice syrup?

deknow


----------



## BareHoney (Jan 2, 2011)

The issues facing beekeepers today reach far beyond the control of beekeepers. As a collective we must reach out to the public and let them know what issues beekeepers are confronting today. Making a connection with honey consumers on facebook gives us an opportunity to make the public aware of these issues. 

We all may have disparate reasons for becoming treatment free, i.e. honey contamination, bee stewardship, biodynamics. However, this site and FaceBook give us the opportunity to communicate our ideas to one another and to listen to the wants of our customers. 

Perhaps with the support of the general consumers, we can begin to make an economic impact on some of the causes of bee decline, i.e. systemic pesticides, in hive chemicals, etc. . .


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Just my personal input, but...I and a good portion of my friends choose not to join Facebook. I'm just puzzled why your organization or cause would not simply want to have its own web presence and perhaps attach a blog with it to encourage public input. Why eliminate a portion of your audience right off the bat by requiring them to join FB?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Omie, it seems to me that there are far more on FB than off. In fact, the vast majority of social media is tied to it in some way. A presence there would probably be more effective than a stand alone website, especially for something still in the early stages. All the beekeepers I know in this area use FB.

What I'm trying to say is this: By not using Facebook, you're probably eliminating far more people than by using it.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I really don't know what to say....obviously, I'm in favor of treatment free beekeeping, and I appreciate having our conference listed, but from what I can read, there seem to be a number of problems:

1. What you call "the official usda standard for organic honey production" is no such thing. It is a proposed draft from 2001. There have been many changes in the draft since then, and many changes to how bees are looked at by the NOP. There is a discussion elsewhere on beesource that discusses this in some detail. I'm sure it is not your intention to mislead, but if part of your mission is to educate consumers, you have to understand what you are talking about.

2. I don't really understand your use of the term "treatment free". I get the impression that you are "anti industrial chemicals", yet you ask for "alternative methods of disease control", which end up being powdered sugar, vinegar, and I'm sure essential oils are soon to follow...the same old same old. These are treatments used to treat problems. Bees treated with these substances are not treatment free. These substances are "industrially produced".

3. Between your facebook page and what you've posted here, you seem to be the following:

A non-profit organization
A collective
A conduit "to the general public"
A testing service: "Honey testing, for in-hive chemical and antibiotic residue, pesticides, sugar syrups. "
(probably) some kind of certification agency?

Yet, 

There is no information as to who runs, funds, or is "in" the collective

I'm not a facebook person, but I don't see much targeted at "the general public" (just using the word "apiculturist" means that many folks won't know you are talking about beekeepers).

"We are looking for suggested materials to test for when determining what in hive chemicals will leave harmful residue in wax, honey or other consumer products. Can you make a suggestion? "...this doesn't give me confidence that you understand the status quo in honey testing, and where it is lacking.

It is difficult to be in the business of offering "transparency" when you offer none yourself.

Are you a registered non-profit? Do you plan to be? Are you a company? Where will you get your funding? Let me tell you, testing isn't cheap!

I'm not trying to be overly harsh...please take this as constructive criticism. I simply was trying to figure out what you were offering, and I can't tell. From what I see, it is another chat group on facebook complaining about chemicals and industry. If you want to be something different than that, you should read over your OP and see that the first sentence begins:


> T.-F.A.C.T. Is a page on FaceBook...


At least to me, there is nothing compelling about something that describes itself first and foremost as "a page on facebook".

deknow


----------



## callsign222 (Nov 9, 2010)

Good questions, deknow.

Also, I do not use facebook, either.


----------



## oldfordguy (Dec 5, 2009)

+1, the absolutely last place I would ever go for credible information on _any_ subject is facebook.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...please understand that I'm not looking to rain on anyone's parade.

if you are going to promote something (treatment free beekeeping in this case), you have to define what it is you are promoting.

i'm a big proponent of treatment free beekeeping, and have done quite a bit to educate beekeepers and the public alike. i've spoken all over the country, written a book, raised the wholesale price of treatment free honey, and made hundreds of posts on the various forums on the subject. i think it's fairly well established how we use the term.

i'm not a big proponent of how some others define the term. until you define the term, i have no idea if i support your efforts or not....it's just an ambiguous cause.

deknow


----------



## BareHoney (Jan 2, 2011)

Great questions, yes as of now the site is only a page on facebook. It was created to grow awareness of the term treatment free. I make no claim on the site of any expertise. I use the site as a cache for information relevant to treatment free beekeeping. Information that the average honey consumer can understand along with a smattering of info that may be interesting to beekeepers. I advertise the site mainly to non-beekeepers who are interested in organic or natural agriculture methods and food. I chose the term collective because it is really just a loose gathering of folks interested in beekeeping and food and has no legal bearing. The people who use the site could be considered part of the "collective," I guess. I hope that beekeepers will see this site as a portal with which to communicate with the honey consuming public. Beesource is where debates are most appropriate. 
I'm a student at the University of Minnesota and sell honey to help fund my education. My interest in organic foods led me to research which pulled the curtain back from my own eyes. I was shocked to find the amount of chemicals and antibiotics allowed in organic food production. So, I began to collect information about organic production. My love of beekeeping has tangentially caused me to gather much information regarding honey and hive products. 

If you have any additional information to share, please do. The only organic honey standards i could find on the NOP site are those that I posted on TFACT. If you have updated info, please add a link, so we can all check it out. I try not to post any of my own opinions on the site and attempt to keep behind the scenes. While this may not seem transparent, I'm not sure of any better way to provide objective information and allow open conversation. As admin of the site, I do not agree or disagree with any posts, rather I try to encourage all posts. 

Thus said, I would like to help form a board of industry leaders and qualified individuals, whom have varied points of view, to organize TFACT as a non-profit. TFACT will eventually begin honey testing. Using TFACT, will be allow us to negotiate lower prices through several different business tactics. 

There seems to be quite a bit of anti-facebook sentiment among older beekeepers. However, the population of FaceBook speaks for itself. It is a powerful tool to communicate grass root messages. As we have recently witnessed across the middle east, FaceBook can be a powerful revolutionary tool. I hope Beekeepers will use TFACT to communicate the dangers we currently face as an industry to the general public. My opinion is only reflected in the choice of links that are posted each day. However, anyone who views the site can help shape the conversation by making their own post or comment. I encourage you and other beeks to create a dialog between the honey consuming public, and those of us who work alongside these amazing insects.


----------



## BareHoney (Jan 2, 2011)

Deknow- it is very confusing, what is treatment free? In the end, the consumer will decide what they want their treatment free honey to be. Do they want it to be chemical free? Do they want it to be something more? Who know's. Only the market can decide.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> ...was created to grow awareness of the term treatment free.


Um, OK...but what does the term _mean_? How are you using it?



> If you have updated info, please add a link, so we can all check it out.


sorry, i don't use facebook, and won't add a link.
the most up to date information on the honey standard is usually presented at the organic beekeeping conference in Arizona every year. although this talk is a year out of date, i don't think anything substantial has changed:
http://vimeo.com/10211570



> I try not to post any of my own opinions on the site and attempt to keep behind the scenes. While this may not seem transparent, I'm not sure of any better way to provide objective information and allow open conversation.


As someone looking at the page, I cannot assume that an anonymous poster (especially when it is also the page owner/administrator) is objective..that is what transparency is for.

deknow


----------



## BareHoney (Jan 2, 2011)

You should try using FaceBook It seems like you may be a bit confused as how it works. I am trying not to take any position in my posts. I am only posting links to other sites or asking questions. Thus, the transparency issue seems moot. 

The term as "treatment free" will be defined by those whom are willing to pay for treatment free products. If they deem that that means no chems, they may want to see proof. If they believe it should mean something more than that, they will ask for a for more. The market will determine what treatment free means, just as the market is determining what "organic" means. 

Do you have a link to the documents which state the USDA's position on organic honey. FB users don't generally have an Hour and Half to watch a video about a topic.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

BareHoney said:


> Deknow- it is very confusing, what is treatment free? In the end, the consumer will decide what they want their treatment free honey to be. Do they want it to be chemical free? Do they want it to be something more? Who know's. Only the market can decide.


This is the real problem.

Awareness of a "term" means little unless it is defined. Terms like god, freedom, change, rich, poor, positive, negative, good, evil, etc are terms we are all "aware of", yet they mean different things to different people in different circumstances.

Certainly, consumers will ultimately decide what they want in the marketplace, but if the choices they are given have ambiguous terms associated with them, then they cannot make good choices. "Natural", "healthy", "organic", etc. are good examples...the food industry (along with the govt) has intentionally changed and obscured the meanings of these words in order to sell products to people that wouldn't otherwise buy them.

You say you started this because of the chemicals used in organic food production...this is exactly what I'm talking about. "organic" food is marketed as "produced without chemicals or pesticides", yet it is not that at all. A lot less organic food would be sold if the applicable standards were attached to each item. To me, this seems to be exactly what you are doing...using a feelgood term in an ambiguous enough manner so that everyone can claim "treatment free".
"i'm not using synthetic chemicals" (as a treatment)
"i'm not using anything that i wouldn't eat" (as a treatment)
"i'm not using anything that doesn't occur in honey naturally (as a treatment)
"i'm not using anything toxic (as a treatment)

resulting in the absurd:
"When I treat, I'm not using treatments"

an undefined term is not a concept, it is a meaningless buzzword.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

What is the book called for people who might like to purchase it?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

OK, both sides have expressed their views in detail over and over. Let's move on and let the dead horse bee.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

deknow said:


> an undefined term is not a concept, it is a meaningless buzzword.


As has been shown in defining "treatment-free" just for the use on this forum, you will not come to any kind of consensus. So I have to agree with BareHoney, the definition will be defined by whatever group is using it and they won't all be the same.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

BareHoney said:


> FB users don't generally have an Hour and Half to watch a video about a topic.


Since you are the one trying to disseminate information on the organic standard (and are working with documents 10 years out of date, and don't seem to understand the difference between a "standard" and "draft standard"), you might watch the video yourself and post a summary? Is that too much work?

I traveled to the conference and paid my registration fee on my own dime. I was in charge of who was speaking when _and_ all the AV equipment (both presentation and recording). I brought my own recording equipment (dv camera, backup video camera, audio recorder). Paid for my own vimeo account to host the video, paid for my own bandwidth to upload the video (I'm on 3g, and don't have unlimited bandwidth), and despite the fact that I had just posted this on the relevant thread here on beesource, posted it again for your benefit. It cost me hundreds of dollars out of my pocket to make this video available unedited (so there is no speculation over what was cut out).

This is your project, not mine.

I would also point out that none of the FB users that have or would comment on your site pointed out that the document you linked to as:


> the official USDA standard for organic honey production


is titled:


> Draft Organic Apiculture Standards


...if they can't be bothered watch a relevant video, or read a relevant document, i'm doubtful as to the actual support they can provide.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Okay, we're starting to see the word "you" just a little too often. Let's dial back the hostility just a little bit please.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

WiredForStereo said:


> What is the book called for people who might like to purchase it?


"The Complete Idiot's Guide to Beekeeping"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1615640118/spea06-20#customerReviews

We also run the Northeast Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference
http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/conferencesevents/2011-treatment-free-conference
deknow


----------



## BareHoney (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm a big fan of yours deknow. I'm not sure how I have ofended you. However, I do offer my apology.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Barry said:


> As has been shown in defining "treatment-free" just for the use on this forum, you will not come to any kind of consensus. So I have to agree with BareHoney, the definition will be defined by whatever group is using it and they won't all be the same.


Barry, agreed 100%. But, when one uses the term here in this forum, one generally has a specific definition in mind. 

On beesource, "treatment free" is used as a forum header which includes discussion of what treatment free means, and topics fall under several of those definitions. I wouldn't do things this way, but it's not my site.

In this case, however, the poster states specifically that the purpose is to promote the term "treatment free".

This is apples and oranges.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

BareHoney said:


> I'm a big fan of yours deknow. I'm not sure how I have ofended you. However, I do offer my apology.


...you have not offended me, and you own me no apology.

I do hope you consider what I've said here about promoting a concept vs. promoting a term, and the need for you to be up to speed on a topic before you can effectively/productively inform others about it.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I'm one of those "old beekeepers" who does not have a facebook page. 

None the less, I see no harm in having a facebook page to promote treatment free honey, and allow people including non beekeepers, to discuss what treatment free honey actually is.

Nothing wrong with coming here to advertise the page either.


----------



## lakebilly (Aug 3, 2009)

Most of my FB friends, maybe all, know that honeybees are having troubles. They don't consider that they can do anything. When I make a comment or post a link, my circle of influence is getting exposed to info they can check out or not. Sometimes I am made aware of other informative sites by people who know or care nothing about keeping bees, they just happened upon it & thought that I would want to know.

Every little bit helps. I think the betterment of honeybee culture is dependent on more than those that are keeping bees. Choices like; maybe I can live with a few dandelions in my yard rather than chemicly treat them, or I'd rather buy American honey. People that are made aware of their choices & the consequences of their choices will hopefully take the higher road.

I applaud your resourcefulness.:applause:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I have nothing against do this on Facebook, but doing so will be better for facebook than it will for Treatmentfreeism.

Why has the original poster taken on this cause?


----------

