Skip to Navigation Skip to Content
Decorative woodsy background
January 28th, 2011 by Dave Mance III Notes from the Editor

Proposed Maple Syrup Standards

I think the title’s a bit too shrill in this news piece about proposed maple syrup standards in Vermont, but I think the piece is well written and the topic is an interesting one. http://vtdigger.org/2010/12/05/new-maple-sugaring-standards-could-squeeze-out-small-producers/

As a medium-sized maple sugarmaker (our tree farm taps about 2,500 trees), I have mixed feelings about these proposed standards. On the one hand, I’m distrustful of the food safety bureaucracy, as many small farmers are. You need only look at the dairy and meat farming industries – where off the farm sale of raw milk or farmer-processed meat is either intensely regulated or downright illegal – to see how seemingly well intended rules can lead to consolidation that squeezes out the small farmer. There’s freedom in being able to tap a tree, boil the sap, and sell the syrup with minimal bureaucratic interference.

At the same time, the standards they’re proposing here wouldn’t affect my ability to sell my syrup to a consumer or a store, only to a packing house. Some will say that I’m being naïve to not smell a domino effect, but I’m not that cynical yet.

And I do have a certain amount of empathy for the packers. I like to complain about the price of bulk syrup as much as the next guy, but we’re all in this boat together. The fact of the matter is that there are sloppy producers out there and there is bad syrup being made, as probably everyone reading this blog can attest. There’s still galvanized drums in the system; there’s still lead solder in old fashioned pans; there’s still junk syrup getting sold and packaged. If one bottle of lead-tainted maple syrup becomes a national news story, prices for everyone will plummet. In light of this, it certainly doesn’t seem unreasonable that the packing houses would want to do more to ensure that their butts (and by default, our butts) were covered.

What do you think? I suspect our readers will have strong opinions on this subject.

by Dave Mance III

© by the author; this article may not be copied or reproduced without the author's consent.

Visit the Notes from the Editor Archive

Discussion *

“
Feb 03, 2011

It makes sense that the industry could suffer if somebody got sick from maple syrup. It is also not hard to figure where things can go wrong with the syrup making process. Vacuum pumps can leak oil into the sap, a mouse can fall into the bulk tank (seen it), the only clean sap line is a new sap line….....blah..blah. We small producers can do more to make our operations cleaner and safer. But lets ask this question, will we get paid more? I doubt it. This business already borders on a hobby for many. Yes there are some that claim they make money. When you start factoring time and equipment, its a tough go. As far as the packers, well they don’t pay us enough as it is. Now we got to do more, for basically less. Either the price has to go up or there will be many who will just make syrup for themselves.

Jim Curtin
“
Jan 31, 2011

Hi Carl,

Specifics would be good – I’ll see if I can track down the proposal and post it.

Not sure what you found objectionable about Olga’s story – it seemed down the middle to me. As for my own thoughts, I’d argue that what I’ve written here is an opinion, not a rant (though you’re free to consider it useless).

I would like to hear more about the new NOFA standards if you’d like to share. A lot of sugarmakers, myself included, don’t see any value in paying NOFA to be able to use the organic label on a product that is naturally organic. From my understanding, the only thing that separates “organic” syrup from non-organic syrup is the type of defoamer a sugarmaker uses. What’s new in the new standards?

dave
“
Jan 30, 2011

With a similar-sized operation (about 2200 trees) I find that we’re already being regulated by the market due to new HACCP standards, and many other measures that bulk clients impose on us sugarmakers. I’ve had to do phytosanitary tests, build an HACCP plan, and create Certificates of Analysis for commercial clients. These are not things that are at all economical to someone making 50 gallons a year.

This is not all a bad thing (that lead tainted bottle is less likely to get out there), but it is certainly overkill in many respects. My sausage company client, which has federal inspectors working full-time within their facility, assumes that my maple syrup is as dangerous as any pig part that they have coming into the plant. A dirt smudge on the barrel is enough to have them send it back across the country. This is all to say that people with commercial clients are likely to find the government regulation small beer. People with only retail clients are in for a wake-up call.

Vermont state folks, maple syrup association people, and our congressional delegations can help in making sure that maple syrup is treated as the sort of product that requires a bit less scrutiny. For instance, we need not install chain-of-custody-wide temperature control systems. If our product is thrown into an overly-large bin of food products, we could have some pretty silly regulation, which I already find in the market-driven requirements.

-Tig Tillinghast

Tig Tillinghast
“
Jan 29, 2011

These articles are not useful.  What specifically are the proposed standards? 
Your comments and that of vtdigger are rather useless rants, with few specifics. 
You might also report on the new NOFA Organic maple standards. They are specific and clear, and ensure that organic syrup will command premium prices and meet health standards.

Carl Reidel

Leave a reply

To ensure a respectful dialogue, please refrain from posting content that is unlawful, harassing, discriminatory, libelous, obscene, or inflammatory. Northern Woodlands assumes no responsibility or liability arising from forum postings and reserves the right to edit all postings. Thanks for joining the discussion.