# honey and botulism



## mythomane (Feb 18, 2009)

The honey didnt test positive, but so what!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546017/Babies-left-fighting-lives-getting-botulism-eating-honey.html


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

You are not to give honey to any one under 1 year. I always tell my people when I sale them honey not to give to children under 18 month, just to be safe.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

There was a thread last year that was on this topic. I recall someone said the study was flawed but beekeepers never challenged the notion that honey was responsible for botulism.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

There is nothing special about honey and botulism that isn't true for any raw food and botulism. Any infant should not be fed raw food because the acidity of their stomach is too low to kill botulism spores, which are in all raw food and dirt and all around us... so how much difference can you make? Don't know, but that is the recommendation by the medical community. Then the doctors start being "extra careful" and the age to start raw food keeps creeping up with no scientific reason for it...

When I was a kid, the "standard" infant formula was milk with honey added... no one noticed any significant issues...


----------



## mythomane (Feb 18, 2009)

My point was that they didnt find any spores in the honey, but blamed it anyway. I have researched this for years and never found a direct link.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

And one of the kids was given a "homeopathic treatment". That's pure water.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>My point was that they didnt find any spores in the honey, but blamed it anyway.

Exactly. It makes you wonder why...


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

I work with a guy from India and he told me that when babies are born over there they are given a drop of honey right after birth. He never heard of problems related to that ancient practice. Apparently we need to export some of our lawyers to fix this issue.


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Maybe they don't have such delicate immune systems.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Apparently we need to export some of our lawyers to fix this issue. 

Aren't they our friends?

Honey was a standard ingredient in baby formula for all of history that we know of. It was added to whatever kind of milk was available. No one ever noticed a problem.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

It wasn't too long ago (by my standards) that feeding honey to infants was considered beneficial. In my 1976 edition of The Hive and the Honey Bee, feeding honey to infants is highly recommended.....with a good number of citations to support it.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Aren't they our friends?


Only until such time as you need tech support for your computer.


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> There is nothing special about honey and botulism that isn't true for any raw food and botulism. Any infant should not be fed raw food because the acidity of their stomach is too low to kill botulism spores, which are in all raw food and dirt and all around us... so how much difference can you make?...


Ditto on not feeding young kids raw food. There's enough allergies and such out there to make walking softly in introducing new foods to kids a good idea. Introducing foods that are thought to be risky can wait for later, there's enough new (to them) food already to introduce. As for honey...does the antiseptic qualities of it come into play regarding harmful bacteria? 

Mike, I always thought the issue with small toddlers and babes with botulism was that their guts hadn't yet acquired the necessary 'good' bacteria and a population level of that bacteria that was capable of dealing with harmful critters introduced to their systems. Interesting about the stomach acid aspect, I hadn't heard of that before, thanks for sharing.

Ed


----------



## fruitveggirl (Mar 8, 2013)

As a mother, I think that babies are meant to have breastmilk, because that's the food designed for them. Why introduce their undeveloped digestive systems to something that could harm them? However, I do see the original point -- it's ridiculous to say the honey gave these English children botulism when it didn't test positive for the bacteria. 

BTW, I just read _The Sacred Bee, _and I thought it was interesting to note that in many ancient cultures, father's had the right to kill their newborn children until they had been fed milk and honey. So in these cultures, for instance, parts of Scandinavia, Germany, and India to name a few, infants were given milk and honey immediately after birth to ensure their right to live. Indeed, these cultures are still around, so the practice must not have caused too much harm.


----------

