# Wisconsin Laws



## sqkcrk

Not being from WI, I don't know. But I am selling 5 gallon totes (square plastic containers/jugs) for $3.00/pound. I don't know why he needed an excuse for his price, but it makes a good story, if it sells the honey. I guess. I tell people that think that that is a high price that I set it that high so I could profit from my business and stay in business. 

"Fresh to You, Fair to Farmers"


----------



## FindlayBee

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...sin-honey-standards-bill-poised-to-become-law

Honey must also meet the Global Standard for Honey. Here is a link to the PDF on the standards. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/310/cxs_012e.pdf

Here is a good article covering what the bill does:

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...honey-and-vandana-shivas-law-of-food-fascism/

It appears to me that you have to have your honey tested to make sure it meets standards. If your honey has not been tested, you cannot sell it.


----------



## wolfpenfarm

FindlayBee said:


> http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...kay. IF they say so. meanwhile, next please!


----------



## Hawkster

Not being a lawyer i could be wrong but it looks like it is only talking about people that want to label their honey as "Wisconsin Certified"


----------



## Beeslave

The reason for asking about a license is because now I have people(very few but enough) that won't by my honey because I am not licensed. The other 99% don't care because they know they are getting a great product from me.

This other beekeeper is from Menomonie, WI, Dunn County- If you are him-watch it, your false statements may cause you lost sales.


----------



## FindlayBee

*100.187 Sale of honey and Wisconsin certified honey; rules, prohibitions.*

(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.

(b) Establish standards for testing by private laboratories of
samples submitted by persons who intend to sell honey produced
in this state as Wisconsin certified honey to determine whether the
samples meet the standards established under par. (a).

(2) (a) No person may label a product as Wisconsin certified
honey or imply that a product is Wisconsin certified honey unless
all of the following apply:

1. The product has been determined to meet the standards
established under sub. (1) (a) by a laboratory whose testing procedures
meet standards established under sub. (1) (b).

2. A summary of the results of the testing performed under
subd. 1. have [has] been submitted to the department and
approved by the department.

NOTE: The correct word is shown in brackets. Corrective legislation is pending.
3. The product was produced in this state.

(b) The department shall investigate violations of this subsection
and may bring an action for permanent or temporary injunctive
or other relief in any circuit court against a person who violates
this subsection.

(*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).*

(b) Any person who suffers damages as a result of a violation
of this subsection may bring an action for damages against the violator
for the amount of the person’s damages or $1,000, whichever
is greater. Notwithstanding s. 814.04 (1), a court shall award to
a prevailing plaintiff in an action under this paragraph reasonable
attorney fees.
History: 2009 a. 169.


----------



## Beeslave

No person may label a product as honey or imply that
a product is honey unless the product meets the standards established
under......

Nothing about being licensed. Just states the product must meet the standards.

That law hasn't passed yet anyways.


----------



## FindlayBee

I got that information from this pdf file:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/stat0100.pdf


----------



## sqkcrk

Beeslave said:


> No person may label a product as honey or imply that
> a product is honey unless the product meets the standards established
> under......
> 
> Nothing about being licensed. Just states the product must meet the standards.
> 
> That law hasn't passed yet anyways.


And how do you show that it meets the standard? By having it tested and certified.


----------



## mxr618

They can kiss my black-and-yellow-striped drone behind. 

Food fascism indeed. 

Here in IL they got the exemption passed for small-scale producers. What the heck is wrong with WI?


----------



## jkirby

REALLY.....who cares about what the W.H.O or U.N. has to say about Wisconsin honey. I've lived long enough to know they need to be concerned with other matters, as does everyother public office holder in the U.S.( NOT trying to be politicial in any way) but...REALLY:ws


----------



## sqkcrk

jkirby said:


> ( NOT trying to be politicial in any way) but...REALLY:ws


Oh, no, of course not. We can see that.


----------



## MapMan

I'm a very small producer, but assessing the merits of increasing my production. Does anyone know the cost of independent lab testing? Of course, I'd have to pass on the cost to my buyers, unless I sell through third party in other states. The great Socialist State of Wisconsin - what next?

MM


----------



## Hillside

It doesn't look to me that they are going to require testing unless you want to have your honey "certified". Certification may be a good idea, but it would be up to the individual producer.

The standard that is being adopted is basically a definition of honey. It must be produced by bees, from floral nectar or honeydew plus a few other standards such as moisture content, sugar content, etc. It doesn't say you have to test. However, it will be a good tool to use to prosecute those who engage in fraud. 

I suppose some people will choose to certify their honey and use it as a marketing tool. Others may decide it's not worth the cost. This all assumes the bill actually passes into law.

Has the Wisconsin Honey Producers Association weighed in on this? What's their take on it? I would doubt this would make it into law without them backing it.


----------



## dcross

I checked into it 2-3 years back, talked to someone at the statel level and the county health inspector. As long as I was selling honey that wasn't intended for resale there were no regulations whatsoever.

If it was going to a store the facility would have needed inspection/certification of some kind.


----------



## Ben_K

Something you guys need to remember on the State honey standard laws, They are being put in place to help combat foreign honey dumping. This involves using corn syrup and other adulterants to weaken actual honey to a point it can get past import tariffs.

Right now, the FDA does not have a clear definition of what honey is. This is why individual states are deriving a standard so to help protect their own honey producers / beekeepers. 

Their is more information at the American Beekeeping Federation on this issue.

The Wisc. Local certification is just a step to shore up what a local is to be in Wisconson.

Besides, If anyone wants to know if my honey is local, they can watch me while I do some extraction work.

Ben


----------



## suttonbeeman

Ben is right. The honey standard is to establisha standard for honey so we can stop "funny honey". Also I think wisconsin certified is a good idea. If not someone will buy honey from timbuckto and label it as wisconsin. A good example is a Tennessee packer labeling and packing honey under the label "Tennessee Mountain Honey". It was all clover from the mid west....hardly andy honey in Tennlast year especially extra white. To make it worse you could buy "clover" for 65.oo cs 12 quarts or sourwood for 67.00 cs qts. Samehoney differant label so he KNEW it wasnt sourwood. Fo those beekeepers who make sourwood and fight the bears this only damages their market. Plus a not knowing public thinks sourwood is not "special" or differant and taste like clover. THere was little to no sourwood produced in 2009 and you can bet the packer knew..just used nameto sell. This needs to be stoped! A law like in Wi should help do this.


----------



## MsBlackwolf

dcross said:


> I checked into it 2-3 years back, talked to someone at the statel level and the county health inspector. As long as I was selling honey that wasn't intended for resale there were no regulations whatsoever.
> 
> If it was going to a store the facility would have needed inspection/certification of some kind.


I got this same information when I checked into selling back in June. If I retail my honey to a customer, it's a non-issue. If I wholesale it to another retail outlet or a distributer..then it needs to be tested/inspected. As pointed out by other posts, this has not yet been made law. Unfortunately, laws designed to help, end up resulting in higher priced product, and fake honey products will continue duping consumers.

There is a retailer in my county selling "Honey flavored syrup". The labeling has HONEY in large letters and the 'Flavored Syrup' in small lettering. It's packaged in a honey bear bottle. Very misleading IMO, and a couple of customers have asked why my honey costs more than honey from this retailer. After pointing out that this product is nothing but corn syrup that a honey bee fell into a 1,000 gallon tank of, they bought a 4oz and then came back for a big jar a few days later. Score 2 for REAL HONEY!


----------



## Riley

FindlayBee has posted the correct link to the Wisconsin statutes and this is indeed law in Wisconsin. I checked with the legislative reference bureau. (The senate version -- SB 419 -- of this failed, but the house version (Assembly Bill 575) passed both houses and became law. The law now says the DATCP must make the rules defining honey and create a certification process. I don't think those rules are written yet. In the end I think this is a flawed bill and more trouble than help. It was supposed to just create a "Wisconsin Certified Honey" program but because of section 3 (a) highlighted by FindlayBee it is much broader than that. The testing idea seems problematic anyway -- what's to prevent a bad operator from having good honey tested from one barrel or a dozen and then adulterating whatever else. Are we going to test every jar? The good operators don't need a bill like this to sell good honey.


----------



## 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

WI-beek said:


> ... 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

WI-beek said:


> (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

WI-beek said:


> 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

brushmouth;590941Look out folks said:


> 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

waynesgarden said:


> 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.blogspot.com/2010/10/leaked-trade-agreements-and-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

WI-beek said:


> 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.


----------

