Such is the importance of bees to humanity that the decline and disappearance of these prolific pollinators is considered one of the most apocalyptic of scenarios. Albert Einstein put it thus: ‘‘Man would have only four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.’’ The prospect of such a catastrophe is clearly not on the horizon, but an investigation by The Age’s Adele Ferguson and ABC 7.30’s Chris Gillett revealing potentially massive fraud in the global market for honey is of immediate concern.

Clandestine dilution of honey by domestic and international producers, particularly in China, is undermining pristine producers’ profitability and is a threat to Australia’s reputation as a supplier of clean, safe food. The flow-on effect of this pernicious undercutting is a decline in bees in nations including Australia. During the past decade, the number of Chinese beehives has increased by about 7 per cent, while exports have soared by 200 per cent – indicating the brazen extent of the dilution of honey with substances including beet syrup and rice syrup.

During that same period, a quarter of Australia’s commercial beekeepers and hives have left the domestic market – indicating the crushing effect of unfair and deceptive competition. Fully two-thirds of agriculture depends on pollination by bees. They are already facing threats from disease, pesticides, pollution, climate change and drought.

It is, of course, also of concern that the investigation clearly shows that Australian consumers are being misled and defrauded. Accreditation and testing are at the heart of the scandal – and are the key to its resolution. Shady operators are making a quick fortune by exploiting a technology lag; they know that some substances are not detected by the long-standing testing method still used in Australia but increasingly abandoned in other places.

Despite some hesitation by local producers who, say, might be involved in diluting honey, the industry’s peak body voted unanimously for the adoption of the newer test, widely believed to be more reliable and comprehensive.

The investigation obtained copies of an evaluation of the tests, which involved collecting 28 blended and imported honey samples from supermarkets around Australia. A dozen of these failed the newer test. All of them passed the test used in Australia.

What should be done? First, the government should review the tests with a view to acceding to the industry’s request that the new measure become the standard. Second, the testing is too random – only 5 per cent of exports are checked. That can be readily fixed. Third, consumers need protecting – not so much from any health dangers in this case, although they could emerge as an issue, but from false advertising.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should investigate the situation and insist on clearer, larger, accurate labelling. Supermarkets, where most mass-produced honey is sold, have a role, too. They need to take responsibility for their supply chains.

This is not simply a classic consumer protection story. It is about protecting our reputation as well as much of our ecosystem. It is about food security and viable agriculture, and the status quo is not an option.

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/honey-fraud-a-threat-to-nation-s-reputation-20180903-p501i3.html