A week ago, the European Parliament decided that pollen is a constituent, not an ingredient of honey!!

This decision may seem bizarre and incomprehensible for the European Parliament, however, what are the consequences of it?

According to the EU legislation, there is a huge difference between an ingredient and a constituent. An ingredient is a part of mixture and, as far as GMOs are concerned, would be subject to GMO labeling regulations. Thus, GMO maize pollen, as an ingredient, would require labeling if present at greater than 0.9% of the total maize pollen.
In contrast, if honey is a natural entity – and pollen is a constituent of honey – then the GMO labeling requirement is calculated as a % of total honey. Pollen comprises between 0.005% and 0.05% of honey and thus, is always under 0,9%. Therefore, labeling would never be required.
As a consequence there will be no limit to the production of honey from bees that live in a totally GMO environment, and the consumers will not have the option to choose what they will in fact buy and consume.

According to Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero: Bees are on the front line of Europe?s toxic agricultural system, so it is not surprising that what they are subjected to in the field ends up on the breakfast table as honey. Instead of recognising that bees should be protected from industrial farming and that GM and conventional agriculture cannot coexist, the EU?s response has been to brush the problem under the carpet. The result is that consumers will not know what they are eating and bee decline will continue to threaten food production.
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2014/EU-parliament-to-reject-labelling-of-GM-contaminated-honey/

One may agree or disagree whether GM and conventional agriculture may coexist. However, in Greece, along with other countries of the South Europe, where GMO are not allowed, many small producers produce honey of excellent quality in areas of conventional farming and have the right to take credit for that, giving the consumer the freedom of choice for the quality of their food.