Bees and the Law

BEES AND THE LAW

What You Need to Know: Contents

1. Swarms.

2. The beekeeper and his/her neighbours.

3. The Data Protection legislation.

4. Insurances.

5. Poisoning.

6. Honey from hive to honeypot.

7. Bee Diseases and Pest Control (England) Order 2006 (as amended).

8. Problems on the horizon.

   1. Swarms.

   There is much confusion, in my experience, as regards the ownership of swarms. There is also a perception held by some that a beekeeper whose bees swarm has an absolute right to follow them and take them from wherever they go. Finally, collecting swarms may involve risks not only to others and their properties but to the beekeeper himself.

   Ownership of Swarms

   Background Note.

   In earlier times, for all but the very rich, cane sugar and similar crops were unaffordable luxuries, so a swarm or colony provided a vital source of sweetness for the beekeeper and his family. Until the widespread introduction of the moveable frame hive, enabling the beekeeper to adopt swarm prevention measures, the acquisition of swarms was the only means of establishing and maintaining apiaries. The emergence of a swarm was therefore a major event in village life. Servants were kept on the lookout for each swarm as it emerged and pandemonium ensued as soon as it did. Bells were rung, drums were tanged (beaten), mirrors shone for a dual purpose: to induce the swarm to settle where a beekeeper could catch it and, as a general warning to the then many fellow beekeepers, that its former owner wanted it back!

   What did the law make of all this? More pertinently, what is the legal position today?

   The law can conveniently be summarised in the Swarm Ownership Indicator below.

   Swarm Ownership Indicator

Situation	Owner	Why?
A. Bees in your hive; your colony shows evidence of swarm plans e.g. larvae in queen cells but no swarm has emerged.	You	Those in hive belong to you.
B. Bees out of the hive on colony business not in swarm.	You	Their intention is to return to the hive.
C. Bees in swarm and you did not see them emerge.	No one. Your ownership is lost when the swarm emerges [but may be regained see E below].	Bees have reverted to wild state over which you have no control, and nor does anyone else.
D. Bees in swarm and you saw them emerge.	No one but your right to follow them starts. You can become the owner of the swarm if you can take it under E or F below.	A beekeeper who sees his swarm emerge has a right to follow them (see below).
E. Bees in swarm described in C or D have landed - i) on your land. ii) on somebody elses private property.	i) You if you catch them and to the extent that they remain under your control. ii) You if you are allowed access and you catch them, as above. N.B. If someone else takes them, whether the property owner or a person authorised by the property owner does so, he/she becomes the owner.	(i) and (ii). Control gives you ownership
F. You have successfully followed and collected the swarm described in D.	You.	Based originally on Roman Law a beekeeper who keeps his swarm in view and collects it, can claim it. But if the swarm settles on private land, the right to follow and claim is lost.
G. Swarm has got away, living wild anywhere, including your land.	No one.	No one controls it.

Access:

Problems entering neighbouring land to collect swarms.

(a) Swarms on Private Property.

Private Property means any land of any kind to which the general public does NOT have right of entry whatever its use and whoever the owner, e.g. householder, company or government department e.g. H M Treasury.

Beekeepers do not have a right to enter private property to collect swarms. A beekeepers so-called right to follow and collect a swarm from where it landed, if that land is anothers private property, has long been rejected by the English Courts. That means that if your swarm lands, for example, in your neighbours garden, you have no right, whatever the temptation, to collect it without your neighbours consent. If your neighbour refuses, that should be the end of the matter. If your neighbour decides to keep it or offer it to someone else, again, you have no right to be compensated. Fortunately, consent is rarely refused; more usually it is a case of your neighbour, nowadays, urging you to remove your bees from my land.

Even with consent, care is still needed. First, go onto your neighbours land and see what equipment will be required and work out a plan of action. In particular, do you need to walk across flowerbeds? Or trim branches? Are there children around? Is damage likely? Warn that the collection may NOT go according to plan. That seemingly easy swarm may take flight and end up anywhere, including down the neighbours chimney. Then discuss and agree and clear your plan with your neighbour. Once agreed, execute and complete the plan efficiently and leave the neighbours land as you first agreed.

Oh yes, and dont forget honey! No beekeeper, in my view, should ever collect a swarm without offering a jar of honey in return. Works wonders for P.R. I regularly give jars of honey to my neighbours in anticipation of the swarms which may later land on their properties and get consent up front. Bribery, if you like, but they love the honey! One of the great advantages of a swarm landing on private property, rather than in a public place (discussed later), is that on private property the swarm collection can usually be organised with the minimum of disturbance to the owner, certainly if the general public is safely out of the way.

(b) Swarms in Public Places.

By public places I mean places to which the general public has access or which he uses, for example public roads, streets and lanes, communal places and parks. The first rather obvious point is that if the general public can use these places, then so can we beekeepers. The problem is that whilst the general public may want to use, say, a road to get from A to B, we may, to get swarms, need perhaps to bring ladders, block pavements, restrict traffic, pedestrian and vehicular, which may cause serious interruption for as much as a full day.

Whilst the powers to do these things are enjoyed by, for example, the police, they are certainly not vested in us beekeepers. These shortcomings are not likely to be a serious setback in rural areas where the ways of the countryside are still embraced (for example tolerance to the regular escape of sheep or cattle from their fields). In my village I have occasionally had to block off a section of pavement and caused churchgoers to use a side entrance to our church, without the slightest complaint. In such cases, the boot is now on the other foot, one becomes Mr Bee, on call to deal with any swarm, bee problem (usually bumble bees) and the like, and complaints come your way if you dont deal with swarms rather than if you do!

It is a different story in towns and cities, in urban environments where bees and beekeepers may not be understood and congestion of traffic and humanity may be extreme.

Swarms, as we all know, will land almost anywhere and are as likely to plump for the under-chassis of an omnibus in Oxford Street, London, W1 as a low-hanging branch in nearby Regents Park. Extracting a swarm in these conditions is always going to be riskier in terms of obstruction and swarm recovery, leaving the beekeeper with perhaps only two options. You require either the police and/or maybe other statutory bodies, to provide a safe working environment, or, less satisfactorily, you withdraw. If the police do get involved, do not forget to point out to them that the incident may require up to a day to clear, or at least until nightfall, when you should be able to get the whole swarm housed in your collection box and taken away.

(c) Summary.

Our willingness to collect swarms makes us popular with the public and the authorities alike. The fact that we do not enjoy specific and sufficiently extensive rights to do this is, therefore, invariably immaterial and perhaps our only concern should be this What are the risks?

RISKS:

Collecting swarms, like any other beekeeping activity, involves risks. What are they?

(i) Risks to others.

If you are a swarm collector, you owe a duty of care to those who foreseeably may be affected by your actions. The level of care is that of a competent swarm collector. If you fail to meet that standard then you will, in principle, be liable to anyone injured. As a practical matter, of course, the major risk is that bystanders may get stung with serious or perhaps fatal consequences. The Golden Rule is, therefore, to insist that the public are kept well away until the swarm has been caught and safely removed. Remember that whilst as beekeepers we want to save swarms (for the wider variety of genes they may carry in particular), unless you are confident you can complete the collection safely, leave well alone. The bees may, regrettably, have to be destroyed but that is better than your being sued for your efforts.

Note:

It is understood that the British Beekeepers Association (BBKA) currently maintains Public and Private Liability Insurance subject to a limit of indemnity of 10 million. The insured include members of the BBKA and area Associations. Like all insurance policies, the insurance is subject to conditions. It is not possible to state (and I do not state) whether or not any particular activity, or person, would (or would not) be covered by the policy. However, two points are worth stressing. First, if you fail to carry out a swarm collection (or any beekeeping activity) with the care and skill expected from a competent beekeeper, insurers may avoid any claim wholly or in part. Secondly, it can reasonably be expected that insurers, in the event of a poor claims record, may either increase the cost of insurance or alter the conditions of cover; further reasons to be very careful.

(ii) Risks to property.

When you collect swarms, you are responsible for any damage you cause (for example for a broken window, a damaged aerial, damage to roofs or gutters, blocked chimneys). Again, dont take on a swarm collection until you have assessed the risks and are wholly satisfied that you can do it; if not, do not even try. Again, it is understood that BBKA maintains cover but see my earlier remarks.

(iii) Risks to yourself:

Whether you are kicking a football around the garden, walking the dog or collecting a swarm, you run the risk of injuring yourself. If you are injured you will not be able to seek compensation under the BBKA (or similar) policy. If you want or need your own insurance, you will need to take out separate cover extended, I suggest, for all your beekeeping activities including swarms.

2. The beekeeper and his/her neighbours

Fundamental principle: every landowner can have reasonable use and enjoyment of his/her property subject to any specific restrictions e.g. in case of tenant, tenancy agreement, terms of planning permission, etc. However, a landowner cannot exercise this right [in the case of a beekeeper, the beekeeper] if to do so would unreasonably restrict his neighbours enjoyment of his/her property. It follows that beekeeping is no different from any other activity of mankind; you look to the effect of the activity on the neighbour and if it is, or becomes, inappropriate, the law will intervene. There are few reported law cases concerning bees and neighbours but here are some cases [both from UK and overseas] which have considered liability between the beekeeper and his neighbour.

Case Histories:

OGORMAN v OGORMAN [IRELAND] 1903

Beekeeper kept twenty colonies close to his neighbours boundary. Neighbour kept horses close to boundary. Beekeeper disturbed his bees, sometimes deliberately, and bees went beserk, neighbour thrown by a petrified horse and killed. Beekeeper behaved unreasonably and was liable.

PARKER v REYNOLDS [ENGLAND] 1906

Beekeeper [Mr Parker] kept ten hives close to neighbours boundary and within twenty feet of neighbours house (so close that bees sometimes took a shortcut through the house on the way to forage).Neighbour [Mr Reynolds, who was also a beekeeper!] and family got badly stung. Mr Parker was required to move his hives.

ROBINS v KENNEDY & COLUMB [NEW ZEALAND] 1931

Bees kept in unreasonable number and did damage to a neighbour. Beekeeper stopped. The position would probably have been different if the beekeeper had had only a few hives. A point to note is the fact that if someone gets stung that does not automatically make the beekeeper liable. Liability occurs when the number of stings and/or disturbances to the neighbour is so great that his use and enjoyment of his property is materially affected.

JOHNSON v MARTIN [ENGLAND] 1950

[A case the beekeeper won!]

The thrust of the plaintiffs argument was that use of land for beekeeping was unreasonable and that it should be stopped. The Court found, however, that the bees in question were kept in a proper manner so the beekeeper was not liable for injury to goats on adjoining land or to their owner. The Court further confirmed that, as a general principle use of land for beekeeping was reasonable.

INGAMELLS v PICKFORD [ENGLAND] 1986

Another case where the beekeeper kept his bees in a perfect manner but his neighbour had been stung on average two stings per year. Action by neighbour failed because her use of her property was not sufficiently disturbed by just two stings per year.

Taking a Practical Approach

The expense of going to Court is likely to be prohibitive, whatever the outcome. Good relations with neighbours, as well as the good name of beekeeping, demand that beekeepers get on with neighbours, indeed all land users. It is likely to be useful to clear any bee activity with your neighbour first and if not cleared, it is probably best to keep your bees elsewhere. Even if the neighbours have initially accepted the presence of bees the beekeeper should always move his bees away if he later suspects the neighbours are becoming concerned.

Sensible location of hives, filled with nice bees, in reasonable numbers, is vital. The test I apply is this. Assuming I was the neighbour and I was wandering permanently around my garden in a swimsuit, would I be happy to have bees next door? Probably a higher standard than the law requires! Just as the beekeeper must be reasonable to his neighbour, so must the neighbour, and activities such as the poisoning of bees and setting alight of hives should, as a final resort, be referred to the relevant authorities.

Environment Act 1990.

Statutory nuisance

Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), section 79, states that a statutory nuisance may include any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. Actual nuisance does not have to be shown, it will suffice if the activity complained of interferes with personal comfort.

Section 80 of EPA enables a local authority which is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur to take various steps including the issue of a notice requiring the abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence. In this type of situation it will be seen that the authority can, in an extreme case, severely restrict or even close down, the beekeepers beekeeping activities. A beekeeper receiving an abatement notice may appeal against it within a period of 21 days of service on him of the notice.

Finally, under section 82 of the EPA any person, (this includes the beekeepers neighbour) can apply directly to a magistrates court. The court has wide powers including to issue an abatement notice.

A beekeeper threatened with a statutory abatement notice, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, may be best advised to take his or her beekeeping activities elsewhere, given the likely costs of any action whatever its outcome.

3. The Data Protection Legislation.

As beekeepers it is vital that the authorities responsible for bees and their welfare as well as the Association can freely divulge its members details so as to deal with outbreaks of any foul brood and the like. Many associations are now obtaining specific consents from their members for this and similar purposes. In case it sounds like Big Brother, the sole intention of the requirement is to assist all beekeepers and the National Bee Unit if and when a problem arises. On the other hand, many associations do not circulate members details. There are clearly beekeepers who for political or other reasons do not want their details divulged. Chelsea would never share their game plan with Manchester City but for beekeepers the position is different surely? We need to know who our fellow beekeepers are, particularly those in close proximity to us so as to be sure, for example, not to encroach on their forage areas, or, in the case of disease, to identify and deal with it decisively.

4. Insurances

The following risks in particular should be of concern to beekeepers.

A. Their liabilities to the public (Public Liability). Say, for example, you can collect a swarm and someone gets badly stung because of your negligence.

B. Beekeepers liabilities to consumers of their hive products (Product Liability). Say, for example, honey not fit for human consumption is sold to a member of the general public who is seriously injured.

C. Loss of beekeepers hives or equipment (Equipment Insurance).

D. Trustee Liability. This will principally concern club officials. For example, an association makes a late payment of a premium to Bee Diseases Insurance Limited, a consequence of which is that a member with a colony contracting foulbrood is unable to make a claim as the member was not insured at the relevant time.

E. Disease, notably American and European Foulbroods, Small Hive Beetle and Trophilaelaps.

This is a very broad subject and I propose to limit my comments as follows:

[1]. Public and Product Liabilities. If you are a paid-up member of your association and it is affiliated to BBKA then you have the benefit of the policy maintained by the BBKA through its brokers, Towergate. The present limit of the cover of 10million with an excess of 250.00 for third party property claims. The policy, like any other policy, is, as you would expect, subject to conditions.

If your association is not affiliated to BBKA either it (as many associations do) or you ought to be able to arrange insurance cover for these liabilities.

Can I leave you with this question? Would your association get a better deal insuring for these risks through its chosen insurance rather than through the BBKA, assuming it could get a reduction of the capitation fee payable to BBKA?

[2]. Equipment Insurance. You can approach the BBKA requesting equipment insurance who will then put you in touch with its brokers who may, or may not, issue cover. For at least small-time beekeepers I would suggest the position can normally perfectly adequately be covered if a beekeeper approaches his own household insurer and has cover extended specifically to bee equipment (but it wont cover the bees!)

[3]. Trustee Liability. It is understood that BBKA, through its brokers, may be able to arrange suitable cover. Most associations are unincorporated bodies, i.e. they are not limited companies with the result that committee members take on personal responsibility for any commitment its association makes. The classic legal way of getting over this problem is to incorporate, in other words to turn an unlimited association into a limited company or company limited by guarantee but for any association which is a charity clearly any arrangement made would have to satisfy the Charity Commissioners and any re-arrangement would be expensive and may not on that account be thought worthwhile.

E. Disease and insects (as above). Bee Disease Insurance Limited offers financial compensation for the replacement of hive parts destroyed on the instructions of an authorised NBU inspector.

5. Poisoning

There is no specific legislation requiring farmers to notify beekeepers in advance of any intended use of poisonous sprays and other substances so it is essential that beekeepers liaise with farmers in the localities where bees are kept. It must be remembered that bees are likely to be affected if they venture through areas where spraying is taking place or has taken place, even though not foraging within them. No farmer wants to kill bees and it is well to remind farmers regularly of the bees presence in the vicinity of their operations. And the beekeeper must do all he or she can to fit in with the farmers and contractors timings and commercial requirements. If spray damage is suspected, beekeepers should take a sample of at least 200 dead bees and send it to the National Bee Unit for diagnosis as to the source of the problem.

Can you sue the wrongdoer?

This question came up in the case of Tatton and others v A D Walter Ltd. In this case, bees worked a crop of oil seed rape which was affected by seed weevils, so the farmer applied a pesticide. Although the farmer did not know the particular beekeepers bees were working the crop, the court took the view that it could be expected that bees would work crops such as oil seed rape and because the farmer had not complied with the guidelines for spraying he was liable for the loss of the bees.

6. Getting Honey Safely and Legally from Hive to the Ultimate Consumer

Stage 1. Getting it legally and safely into your honey jar/container. Please consider and familiarise yourself with the following points before you start processing your honey!

Background: The underlying current law is a mixture of English Common Law, English Statute Law, European Union Directives and English Regulations, and is subject to frequent review and change. The good news is that you only need to know the law to the extent it is relevant, for the time being, to your own beekeeping/honey processing operations. However, as producers and processors of honey, there are certain rules or laws which apply to all operations.

1. Position under English Common Law

   Virtually since time immemorial, anyone who sells food by implication warrants that it is good for its purpose in the absence of a specific exclusion, e.g. if you bought a sack of potatoes unseen, you would expect the potatoes to be of , at least, sound quality and fit for consumption. And it is now established law if you were not the buyer but were, say, offered cooked potatoes when you were invited to dinner by a friend, you would similarly expect the potatoes to be good and safe for you to eat, and potentially you have a right to sue for any loss or injury if they are not. These general rules apply as much to honey as anything else for human consumption.

2. UK Government and EU Intervention as to quality

   As the years have gone by, the State (and the EU in particular) has taken increasing interest in food quality, laying down standards to be met by various industries and for us beekeepers. The specific statutory requirements are, as far as quality is concerned, chiefly to be found in the Food Safety Act 1990 (as now amended) and the Honey (England) Regulations 2015 (replacing Honey (England) Regulations 2003 and 2005) which came into force on 24^th June 2015. The important point to emphasise is that any breach of these statutory provisions, in addition to any civil action referred to above, may result in the wrongdoer being prosecuted, and if the prosecution succeeds, lead to a penal sentence and/or fines. It is fortunate, perhaps, that the authorities regard bees/beekeepers and their hive products as low risks compared with other industries, but that is not an excuse for being complacent!

3. Getting your honey safe and legal

   So how can we ensure that honey is safe and legal for human consumption, and is not in the words of Food Safety Act injurious to health? Perhaps even more important in the rare cases where honey sold by a beekeeper is injurious, how can a beekeeper nevertheless safely and cheaply avoid being successfully prosecuted? The answer: Comply with the following and you should keep out of trouble!

• Best Hygiene and Safety Practices

  Adopt the best hygiene and husbandry and safe practices for the time being. These are not set in stone, nor prescribed by law and, to an extent, are largely common sense. But do familiarise yourself with the various manuals etc. on best practices what you should be doing may not be obvious well certainly to me! In particular, do read Andy Pedleys excellent series of articles in Beecraft 2009.However do note that these articles were written before the latest food legislation; but the basic principles mentioned in Andys articles remain unchanged.

• Go on a Food Hygiene Course

  These courses are tremendously informative, and as part of the package you do an exam and are awarded a certificate if you pass. Should a claim be made against you, the fact that you can show you followed meticulously a recommended action by the course may be a sufficient defence.

• Food Safety Act 1990

  Under Food Safety Act 1990, food e.g. honey for sale will not comply with food safety requirements if it has been rendered unfit for human consumption during any part of its process, is unfit for human consumption or it is so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption. A beekeeper who, say, used an uncleaned extractor or honey jar has only himself to blame if his or her honey becomes contaminated.

• Adopt and operate a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Plan (HACCP Plan)

  (Meaning a management system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical and physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product.)

  This is a definition provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This principle is well-known and widely practised in the UK food industry, and clearly its full application will be beyond the resources of even the larger beekeeping enterprises. However, I suggest all beekeepers should adopt their own mini-plans. Start with the bees themselves, consider the frames in the hive, how you are going to get the frames back home for extraction. I wont go on youll get the drift and I suggest you practise it!

• Have a professional analysis done if you have any doubts about the quality of your hive products.

  The trouble is that however careful you are it is perfectly possible because of the location of the bees, (bees in New York took a liking to anti-freeze and returned to their hives with green honey!) or presence of particular plants (like ragwort or rhododendron), or as a result of the weather or some other reason, your honey may not satisfy the requirements laid down in Honey (England) Regulations 2015 or other legislation or otherwise be injurious. This is a practice widely pursued by importers of food in situations when the country of origin may well have different food standards or the honey contains unacceptable substances for the purpose of English law.

• Re-used Glass Jars

  About two years ago there was a hiatus because it was realised that EU had issued a directive to the effect that save in situations where the authorities could determine that proper cleaning and sterilisation regimes were being practised (e.g. in the milk industry), used jars were not to be reused. The current attitude of the authorities in the UK appears to be this; The Food Standards Agency considers the Directive only applies to corporate businesses, not individuals and that any enforcement is for local authorities to consider and it is unlikely that they will prosecute individuals. It is right to point out however that authorities like Food Standards Agency have no legal power to state the law, so however relaxed these authorities are about the issue, it could re-open. The choice is yours. Personally, I happily re-use clean, sterilised and sound (i.e. no chips etc.) jars again. New lids, however, are always used. Clearly, items like cut-comb should be placed in suitable containers.

• Registration of Premises where food (hive products) is processed: Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations 2014.

  The basic rule is that a beekeeper processing food (e.g. honey) is in the food business, and therefore needs to register his premises with the local environment office. There is a limited exemption for any beekeeper processing small amounts of honey from their own bees. Small amounts is not defined in the relevant legislation, but sticking my neck out, I would suggest in the case of honey and other hive products, a beekeeper who is running an apiary to produce honey and other hive products for family, friends and occasional sales at charity events and the like, has no need to register. I stress the point is unclear, and will remain so until determined by the courts.

  My firm view is that if there is any doubt then register!

  Please particularly note:

• If the beekeeper sends, say, his honey to a third party for processing, then the beekeeper has no need to register but the processor does.

• If honey is sold other than to:

• the ultimate consumer at a farm gate sale (meaning at the beekeepers own premises) or

• a retailer whose premises are registered with Environmental Health and the purpose of that sale is to enable the product to be sold to the ultimate consumer

  then in either case the beekeeper processing the product must register his or her premises regardless of quantity. It follows that if the beekeeper/processor sells honey direct to say a honey distributor, he must register regardless of quantity.

  Registration is simple and costs nothing. Processing of honey and other hive products may commence 28 days following receipt by the Local Environment Office of the application for registration.

  Stage 2: Safely selling your Honey

  Hopefully, my observations under Stage 1 will go a long way to helping you safely and legally comply with the law appropriate to your products from the hive until it is within your jars or other appropriate containers. What else needs to be done to get it to the consumer? I will offer the lawyers classic answer: It depends!

  In particular it depends on the producer and the size and nature of his operation, who the consumer is, how the consumer is to obtain the product from the producer and what the product is. Here are some of the issues to consider:

1. Hive Products for consumption only by the beekeeper and his family, gifts of hive products by the beekeeper to friends.

   As may be expected, hive products to be consumed by the beekeeper, his family or his friends where no money changes hands, are not subject to any statutory control, so there are no special labelling requirements or restrictions. It may be sensible for the beekeeper, nevertheless, to ensure that a label is attached to the jar or other container briefly describing the product and any allergen simply as a matter of precaution rather than under any legal requirement.

2. Hive Products for Sale

   We all take great pride in our honey and other products and naturally want our labels attached to jars and other containers to be the best. Unfortunately, all labels must also be legal and comply with the laws relevant to the product being sold. The cumulative law is a mix, in the main, of Food Safety Act 1990, the Honey Directive 2001, Food Information Regulations 2014 and the Honey (England) Regulations 2015 (replacing those of 2003 and the amended version of 2005). The appliances manufacturers go a long way to helping us by producing either standard labels or labels of our choice, but they cannot be expected to know exactly what your products are, and therefore a particular labels suitability. Trading Standards officers, in my experience, always very helpful, can advise on labelling (but I am told some are now charging for their services!) and certainly, if you are designing your own labels, it will be sensible to explain explicitly your product to them and to get their consent to the label you are intending to use.

   So what should be on the label? Hopefully the following list will cover the labelling requirements of most products you have for sale.

3. Mandatory Requirement: Accuracy of Information

   Generally, all information on the label must be accurate. In particular, it must not mislead, it must be easy to understand, and it must not attribute qualities it does not possess (? Can we still call our honey pure or purest I suggest not) nor claim that it contains characteristics where the same characteristics can normally be found in similar products. In addition, any pictorial material must not mislead: for example, it needs little imagination to appreciate that a picture on the label of heather collected by bees based in London Tower Hamlets has to be wrong. Also be very careful with those county (e.g. Yorkshire) or town (e.g.Yeovil) labels. You can call your honey derived from Yorkshire nectar Yorkshire Honey, but what do you do if your bees are in Yorkshire close to the Lancashire/Yorkshire border and you know that the nectar is mainly from Lancashire? Under EU Directives, honey is harvested where the bees hives are located, in this example, Yorkshire. But to call it Yorkshire Honey would be plainly mislead. In these types of situations it may be found best to drop the county or place name title, and, for example, call it Charlie Woffs Honey (assuming that the beekeeper is Charlie Woff) and explain on the label that the honey is from bees based in Yorkshire collecting nectar from Yorkshire and Lancashire.

4. Mandatory Requirement as to Name of Product

   Each label must state the name of the product. If you are selling straight honey, you can call it either Honey or you can use, if available, a reserved description (e.g. in the case of honey from the nectar of plants the reserved descriptions are blossom honey or nectar honey). For further information on reserved descriptions look at Honey (England) Regulations 2015, and note the particular restrictions in the regulations relating to filtered honey, bakers honey and cut-comb honey.

5. Mandatory if your jar contains ingredients apart from honey.

   Ingredients must be listed in a descending order of weight. Certain minor ingredients do not need to be named. Further, if any of the ingredients is an allergen (e.g. mustard in Honey Mustard) then an allergen statement must also appear on the label. The full list of allergens as regards which an allergen statement must appear, is referred to in the Food Information Regulations.

6. Mandatory Weights

   Net metric weights must appear on the label. If desired, net imperial weights can in addition be used providing these are less prominent (i.e. lower case) than the metric weight shown. It is no longer a requirement that food, including honey, should be offered for sale in prescribed quantities.

7. Mandatory Durability

   All products are required to have a date of minimum durability (meaning a date until which food /honey retains its specific qualities). This can be achieved by the following information; Best before.. when the date includes an indication of the day e.g. 1^st September 2017 or Best before end in other cases e.g. 2017.

8. Usually mandatory: lot numbering

   Honey and other products usually must carry a lot number. The mark can be prefixed by the letter L and must be clearly visible, clearly legible and indelible. It is good practice when containers are sold in exterior packaging also to lot mark the packaging. Where a product bears a date mark, e.g. Use by 24^th September 2017 (in that order) this may provide sufficient batch identification to serve as a lot mark. Food, e.g. honey, sold to the ultimate consumer that is pre-packaged on the premises of the seller for sale do not need a lot mark. Where a lot number is required, you can either separately provide a lot mark on each jar or other item or batch mark with one lot number. The danger about batch marking is that if some defect is discovered then the whole batch may be destroyed rather than only an individual container.

9. Mandatory. Name and address of the food business

   This is important if an authority needs to get in touch with you about your product or your label. There is no need to provide either a telephone number or e-mail address which is perhaps a blessing in these days of scams, computer fraud etc.

10. Mandatory. Country of Origin.

    This may be stated as either England or UK. The fact that your address has been stated on the label is insufficient. Special provisions apply if your honey is from another /other EU country/countries or from non-EU country/countries in any combination or combinations.

11. Sometimes Mandatory Nutritional Declaration

    This requirement, where it applies, becomes compulsory on 13^th December 2016, but can be complied with on a voluntary basis before this date. However:

• NOTE 1 - Unprocessed products which comprise a single ingredient (e.g. honey) or category of ingredients are EXEMPT from this requirement. Despite the fact that honey taken from hive to jar goes through a series of processes (e.g. extraction, straining, perhaps some heating and jarring) it must be argued that honey is UNPROCESSED and that NO NUTRITION STATEMENT IS REQUIRED (but see further exemptions below.)

• NOTE 2 There is an exemption for Nutritional Declarations if food (e.g. honey) is in packaging or containers the largest surface which has an area of less than 25 cm sq.

• NOTE 3 - There is a further exemption for food (e.g. honey) sold in small quantities or to the final consumer or to a local retailer selling to the final consumer. Small quantities is not defined in the legislation so what is meant by this is uncertain (see my comments Registration of Premises on Page 7).

1. Voluntary Information

   The label may contain voluntary information without any restrictions. For example, a label

   may contain:

• a statement requesting that a jar be stored in a cool dry place. NB The authorities recognises that honey does not require special conditions.

• advice as to how to clear crystallised honey

• a direction not to give honey to any child under the age of 12 months, NB because of the risk of botulism.

• (my favourite) A request for return of honey jar!

  7. Bee Diseases and Pest Control (England) Order 2006 made pursuant to the provisions of the Bees Act 1980 (now amended by Bee Diseases and Pests Control (England) (Amendment) Order 2010.

  Clause 2 - Definition extends to American foul brood and European foul brood (each a notifiable disease) and small hive beetle and any species of the Trophilaelaps mite (each a notifiable pest).

  Clause 3 - An owner or person in charge of a hive who knows or suspects that any bees are infected with a notifiable disease or notifiable pest and other person who has or discovers a bee pest that may be injurious to bees must inform the Secretary of State.

  Clause 3 - After notification has been given as above a Standstill is imposed on bees, equipment, vehicles and the like.

  Clause 6 - enables service of notices to prevent various removals including bees and hives.

  Clause 7 in case of foul brood, requires destruction or treatment of bees, hives, equipment to the extent directed..

  Clause 8 in case of a pest, authorities have similar powers as regards destruction or treatment.

  Briefly, the purpose of the Order in relation to these brood and pest problems is to enable the authorities to act and intervene. All the beekeeper needs to know is that if one of these problems arises, he or she should (indeed must) contact the local bee inspector at once and take matters from there.

  8. Problems on the horizon?

  As they say, forewarned is forearmed so may I share these two potential problems with you?

  (a)

  Disease. Potential liability of local beekeepers for advice regarding disease issues. It is well-known that the NBU is expecting local beekeepers to appoint specific officers to advise on bee disease issues. It is undoubtedly the fact that, as a general rule, any person who holds himself or herself as an expert and is aware that the person advised may rely on his or her advice may incur liability if that advice is wrong. Despite any demands which the NBU may make to local associations I suggest that local beekeepers should go no further than providing what may be termed an NHS 111 Service. In other words the NBU should be invited to provide local associations with a series of questions and answers and officers should go no further. Beekeepers have been sued for giving the wrong advice in the past.

  (b)

  Anaphylactic Shock: In Bedfordshire BKA we are only too aware of the actual lethal consequences and our association has been campaigning both for a better understanding as well as greater protection for beekeepers and ways of legally dealing with incidents when they occur. As the law stands beekeepers medically unqualified and medically non-practising have no legal right to operate Epipens and similar devices, but what do you do if a fellow beekeeper is dying, a hospital is half a mile away and death will inevitably occur in as little time as, say, ten minutes. There is clearly no satisfactory legal answer. As a practical matter, we should all know what to do, not only in this event but for all the usual health risks both in the apiary and elsewhere. In Bedfordshire we have been running a series of first aid courses. They do not answer the legal questions but, more importantly, they might just save a life.

  The purpose of these notes is to give an overview of legal aspects of various situations which may confront the beekeeper. When we came to Stewkley in 1971 I unwittingly brought AFB with one of my hives the local bee inspector stepped in and the problem was soon cleared. Hopefully, you will not be troubled but if you are, then perhaps these notes may offer some direction. However, you must not rely on these notes but instead take legal advice and rely on that advice alone, please as I am a retired lawyer deep in his dotage and I have no insurance!

  Andrew Beer

  September 2015