Honey Producers Dispel Pollination
And Overproduction Myths
The Honorable John R. Block
Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Mr. Secretary:
URING the last three years honey producers over the
country have written hundreds of letters to members
of Congress about our problem with imports and the possibility of losing the honey price supports. Most of these
have been bucked to your office for reply. Some producers have written you and others in the Department.
I have received copies of a number of these both to and
from Washington. All producer correspondence expressed
deep concern about the possible loss of honey supports if
imports were not controlled.
A close study of the letters that have originated in the
Department of Agriculture reveals several troublesome bits
of misinformation. Also, we have noted that this erroneous
information has appeared in the news. We feel that your
Department can assist us in correcting these errors.
The most troublesome points are:
1. That pollination fees can be increased to soften the
effects of pesticide losses and cheap imports.
2. That high subsidies or supports will cause overproduction of honey.
For more than 30 years we have stressed the value of
honey bee pollination when seeking assistance of any nature from the government. Honey bee pollination benefits
to other segments of agriculture has been estimated at $10
billion or more. Discussions with members of Congress
and officials in the Administration about the value of
honey bee pollination have overlooked one point
only
a tiny percentage of beekeepers actually received cash rentals. In actual practice more than 90 percent of beekeepers pollinate neighboring crops free of charge. As a result
of overlooking this point when discussing honey bee pollination, a number in the Congress and Administration feel
that we can partially solve our economic problems by
D
THE SWEETENING OF
AMERICA
ID you know that the United
States has become a honeydumping ground of the world?
That's what Richard Adee, of Bruce,
S.D., says, and he ought to know,
he's vice president of the 650 member American Honey Producers Association. "Our big markets are
lost," he says, "and it appears the
government program will take about
75 million pounds of our 220-million-pound crop." The solution, according to Mr. Adee, is simple;
raise the current 1 cent-per-pound
import tariff on honey to 10 cents.
One's first reaction is amazement:
Does the United States really produce 220 million pounds of honey
a year? Can it be true that there
D
608A
merely raising the pollination fees.
This shocking realization came to us suddenly during
our losing fight to save the Beekeepers Indemnity Payment Program when a congressman suggested that the
pesticide problem could be partially solved by raising the
pollination fees. This hazy thinking originated in a study
by Frederic L. Hoff, Economic Research Service, USDA,
December 1976. Evidently, these researchers did not realize that only a tiny number of beekeepers were engaged
in paid pollination.
The Department has responded to several inquiries from
Congress about the impact of low honey prices on pollination. These replies indicate a solution to low honey prices
would be to raise the pollination fees. Sen. Paul Laxalt
received a letter from Ray F. Voelkel dated May 6, 1983
which states that the price of honey should not be the deciding factor as to availability of honey bees for pollination. Since most of the honey bee pollination is done free
of charge, we must insist that the price of honey would be
the deciding factor nationally.
An editorial in the June 11 issue of the Washington Post
implies that a solution to imports will be realized by raising
the pollination fees. First, Mr. Secretary, we need to know
how many beekeepers can operate selling pollination services
alone.
The second troublesome point is that high prices caused
from subsidies or otherwise will result in overproduction.
A close look at the Department's experience with the honey
loan program during these last 30 years indicates that
prices received have very little to do with production totals. We feel that a cursory study by the Economic Research Service would verify our position.
Since we are working ferverishly toward a solution to
our marketing problem, we feel that these hazy points
should be cleared up. We will certainly appreciate it if
you would give these items your personal attention.
Glenn Gibson, Executive Secretary
THE AMERICAN HONEY PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION
are government warehouses filled
with leaking containers of sticky
honey? Is there really a beekeepers'
lobby? Will they, if things get really
sticky, demonstrate en masse on
Capitol Hill, covered with protective neting and accompanied by
swarming hives?
The advocate of the beekeepers'
bill, Sen. Larry Pressler (R.S.D.),
assures one and all that while he is
"usually not this much of a protectionist," this issue is different. Bees,
it turns out, are useful not only for
making honey but for pollinating
all kinds of crops as well
from
apples to alfalfa to avocados. Beekeepers lease out their bee colonies
to other farmers, who want to have
their crops pollinated. If you make
the bee business unprofitable, the
beekeepers' lobby says, then you
won't have many beekeepers, and a
lot of crops that need to be pollinated won't be. Give us a little
more protection, and everything will
be fine.
Maybe so. But we wonder what
happened here to the old law of
supply and demand. A farmer with
a field full of potential avocados
should be willing to pay a beekeeper whatever the traffic will bear
to get some bees in there to pollinate his crops; otherwise he won't
have many avocados to sell. Increased costs can be passed along
to consumers, as they usually are.
Perhaps there's something special
here about the market mechanisms
that makes protection necessary. But
do the beekeepers really need a 10cent-sweetener? (The Washington
Post, June 11, 1983)
*
Reprinted from August, 1983, American Bee Journal
Vol. 123 (8): 608A
American Bee Journal