# Dangerous Honey



## PaloAltoMark (May 26, 2010)

A study by food safety news shows that more than 75% of honey sold in traditional grocery stores may be adulterated or contaminated. 

My quick summary is located at: http://www.plantertomato.com/2011/11/dangers-of-store-bought-honey.html

The original article is at http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Actually the article says that over 75% of honey brands purchased at grocery and club stores had been ultra-filtered and contains no pollen.

That does not necessarily mean that 75% of honey is (or may be) "adulterated or contaminated". Which in turn would mean that 100% of all ultra-filtered honey is contaminated. Contaminated with what?

Granted honey that is imported from Asia is a shadey product, but is you want to come up with a contamination percentage, then test it directly and report the real numbers.


----------



## txsbman (Oct 4, 2011)

Thanks for the article; it was very informative!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> That does not necessarily mean that 75% of honey is (or may be) "adulterated or contaminated".


It does if the FDA has stated than honey without pollen is not honey whether it wants to prosecute or not.


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

this is a great thread tittle name for a group promoting honey products.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> It does if the FDA has stated than honey without pollen is not honey whether it wants to prosecute or not.


Just for clarification, are you saying the following? 

75% of honey is (or may be) "adulterated or contaminated" if the FDA has stated than honey without pollen is not honey whether it wants to prosecute or not. :scratch:


----------



## MichaelShantz (May 9, 2010)

Yet another chicken little.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> It does if the FDA has stated than honey without pollen is not honey whether it wants to prosecute or not.


The USDA and FDA do not have a Standard of Identity for Honey. The Federal Government wants States to handle this and set a Standard.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

Filtering pollen out doesn't necessarily mean the honey is tainted but it definitely seems like a precursor for nefarious activity from those who would, or plan to adulterate the final product.


----------



## Corvair68 (May 10, 2011)

While I must agree that the title of this thread sounds worse than the article, the article brings up a very good point. The sky may not be falling, but I think every American beekeeper should be really ticked off about the thought of cheap foreign honey coming into our country and taking a huge bite out of the profits we deserve for all our hard honest work. I also think the large honey corporations should be ashamed of them selves for turning a blind eye to something that is so obvious. Of course now that this stuff is being brought out into the open I suppose there is nothing stopping them from adding pollen from what ever source they want back into the honey after ultra filtering.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

rwurster said:


> Filtering pollen out doesn't necessarily mean the honey is tainted but it definitely seems like a precursor for nefarious activity from those who would, or plan to adulterate the final product.


Agreed! I realize that ultra-filtered honey is a bad thing because, as pointed out in the article(s), it is a indication that it probably came from overseas (China). And as we all know, China ships all kinds of contaminated commodities to the US. I am not supporting China or the import of honey from any other country, but I do support the truth. 

This kind of reasoning infuriates me:
A study found that 75% of honey found in US stores in ultra-filtered,
All ultra-filtered honey comes from China,
All chinese honey is contaminated,
Therefore, 75% of all honey is contaminated.
Only point 1 is valid. The rest is pure crapola.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

All honey is dangerous , if your under one year of age , infant botulism.

The whole honey import market is a conspiracy of the top 12 US honey packers.Sue just brings it in its plant ,tests it, packs it if passes, returns it to the broker if it doesn't, thee broker sells it to someone who doesn't care if its contaminated.The bottom line for all of them packers is a huge profit from cheap imported honey


----------



## PaloAltoMark (May 26, 2010)

Gents:

As I mentioned in my posting regarding this article, there aren't good reasons to ultra filter honey. When honey is ultra-filtered, it's suspicious. It does not mean that ALL ultra-filtered honey is contaminated, but certainly some of it is. 

How much is adulterated or contaminated? We don't know; the FDA isn't testing. But with 75% of samples tested showing ultra-filtration, one suspects that adulteration/contamination is more common than anyone would like. The European Union blocked the importation of honey from China, so they were clearly concerned.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Why would anyone test for ultrafiltration and not contamination? Wouldn't contamination be more serious a problem?

I would also think that for the Honey Packers that do ultrafilter, certainly there must be good reason to do it.


----------



## PaloAltoMark (May 26, 2010)

I didn't do the testing so all I can do is make a hypothesis.....

The group that conducted the research did hundreds of samples because there are something like 1,100 honey brands in the US. To test several hundred samples for contamination by various pesticides and cut with other sweeteners would be very expensive.

To determine if the honey is ultra-filtered on the other hand, would be cheap. I think all you need to do is look at the sample under a microscope; if you don't see pollen, then the sample has been ultra-filtered. And ultra-filtration raises the red flag. It doesn't mean the sample is contaminated, but it would be suspiciousl


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

But, people are drawing a connection between ultrafiltration and contamination. The diff should be made clear.

Plus, I don't know the cost of doing contamination detection or ultrafiltration detection, but, I don't think it costs much more than a cpl hundred dollars per sample to detect pesticides in honey. Penn State has a program where beekeepers share costs.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The undelying assumption is that Chinese honey, that has had all substances that can identify its point of origin removed (by filtration), has made its way into U.S. Honey production.

However, we don't know the extent of this.

For instances, besides pollen, did they also remove the telltale polyphenols?

Different plants make different polyphenols. So, it could be used to detect 'funny honey'.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Let's not forget the whole story...

>>The good news is that all of the honey products FSN tested from farmers
markets, food cooperatives, and "natural" stores like Trader Joe's and Whole
Foods, were found to contain pollen and a full array of antioxidants and other
nutrients. Local beekeepers are another great source of obtaining raw,
unprocessed, real honey.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann (Feb 2, 2011)

Thus the tremendous amount of transhipped honey through other countries that had not a history of any major honey production by China. The average chinese beekeeper has thirty hives of bees, extracts his honey in a tent with a hand held extractor. The honey is extracted while still green and uncapped. If the bees get sick, a hodge podge of chemicals are used without regards of the label or dosage. Thus contaiminating the 'honey'.....The extractor never gets washed and the floors of the tent are dirt. When the flow is over the bees, tent and extractor all get packed up and moved to the next flow. The beekeepers family also lives in the tent. There of course is not running water or sanitation other than the back side of a bush because these people are migratory beekeepers. The beekeepers take the honey to the state run collection point or quasi state liscensed operator, who then takes posession of the honey........OF course they are going to want to ultrafilter the "honey" to get all the unsanitary lumps out of it.....Then they ship it to us and we eat it.....And I believe that ALL the contaiminated crap that the chinese send us in the form of food is their governments way to try to cause as much damage as they can to America. So if it is a food product and the label says "Produced in China" do not buy it. Buy local or Buy American and if you can not do that, then buy Chilean, something that our government moniters closely. TED


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> Just for clarification, ...


(IF) the FDA has in their rule book that ultrafiltration is not honey than if filtered it is adulterated. Any process of a product that is different than what is deemed acceptable is labeled adulterated. Examples would be canning, freezing, irradiation, pasteurization, yada, yada.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

WLC said:


> For instances, besides pollen, did they also remove the telltale polyphenols?
> 
> Different plants make different polyphenols. So, it could be used to detect 'funny honey'.


Are Flavonoids polyphenols? Seems like I remember that they are.... If they get into the honey, then I would think the geographical source of the honey could be identified. Surely, ultracentrifugation doesn't remove these compounds. Not much bigger than sucrose.


----------



## JohnAllen (Jul 2, 2010)

Acebird said:


> (IF) the FDA has in their rule book that ultrafiltration is not honey than if filtered it is adulterated. Any process of a product that is different than what is deemed acceptable is labeled adulterated. Examples would be canning, freezing, irradiation, pasteurization, yada, yada.


No, if you look up the definition of adulterated it means that something was ADDED. And why discuss an FDA rule that doesn't exist. Isn't there an old saying about "(IF) pigs had wings ..." ?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

You better look up that definition again. If your recipe says it has sugar and it gets forgotten or left out the product is adulterated. That is pretty black and white for the FDA. Actually a varying amount will make it adulterated.

The "if" is because the article cited an FDA official claiming it was a rule. Honey does not have to be defined to have the FDA put restrictions on a product. And very few organizations win arguments with the FDA. It is like arguing with a tax auditor. If for some reason you win it will cost you a lot more somewhere else.


----------



## weavefish (Sep 24, 2011)

not sure about the FDA but i did read about this on this link
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3011895

talks all about the legalities of Honey in the states.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

PaloAltoMark said:


> ... 75% of honey sold in traditional grocery stores may be adulterated...


I read the web page. Now let me see if I have this straight. If I buy honey that has been filtered to remove all the pollen it is adulterated, right?

Then how come my dictionary says that adulterate is “to make inferior, impure, etc. by adding an improper substance.”

The reason large commercial operations lure and keep their customers is because consumers know before hand how good the food or service will be at a Wall-Mart, McDonalds, or Motel 6 etc. before money changes hands. Most commercial honey is not only filtered but is also blended with different honeys to create both a flavor and or a color that the most potential customers will find pleasing. That is the reason your salsa jar says mild, medium, or hot. How many jars of salsa would you buy if there was no way of knowing what you were buying before you popped a corn chip full of H-Bomb ☢ salsa into your mouth?  Honey is the same.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adulterated-food/



> Food is adulterated if
> 1. a valuable constituent has been omitted or abstracted in whole or part;
> 2. a substance has been substituted in whole or part for a valuable constituent;


Don't mess with the FDA.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> You better look up that definition again. .


*Definition of ADULTERATE*

transitive verb
*:* to corrupt, debase, or make impure_* by the addition *_of a foreign or inferior substance or element; _especially_ *:* to prepare for sale by replacing more valuable with less valuable or inert ingredients.

Thank you Merrium Webster.

Filtering out pollen is not _adulteration _by any definition


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adulterated-food/
> 
> Don't mess with the FDA.


First of all the definition you provided is not from the FDA. Secondly, you provided a definition from some crappy legal website that has nothing to due with food processing. Third, if what you are saying is true, then anyone that passes their honey though even a coarse screen is adultering it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Acebird said:


> http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adulterated-food/


Boy are you thick.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

This is the definition of adulteration that is provided by the FDA smart guy. I dont see anything about filtering in there. 

*Food Contaminants & Adulteration*


The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) provides the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with broad regulatory authority over food that is introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce. Section 402(a)(1) of the FFDCA provides that a food is deemed to be adulterated if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substances, such as chemical contaminants, which may or ordinarily render it harmful to health. Under this provision of the FFDCA, FDA oversees the safety of the U.S. food supply (domestic and imports), in part, through its monitoring programs for natural toxins (e.g., mycotoxins), pesticides, and anthropogenic (e.g., industrial chemicals, such as dioxins; cooking or heating related chemicals, such as acrylamide; trace elements, such as lead) contaminants in food and the assessment of potential exposure and risk.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/foodcontaminantsadulteration/default.htm


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Palmer said:


> Let's not forget the whole story...
> Local beekeepers are another great source of obtaining raw,
> unprocessed, real honey.


And, in light of the ultrafiltration expose', we smaller packers should double our prices.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> (IF) the FDA has in their rule book that ultrafiltration is not honey than if filtered it is adulterated. Any process of a product that is different than what is deemed acceptable is labeled adulterated. Examples would be canning, freezing, irradiation, pasteurization, yada, yada.


But, as I wrote earlier, they don't have a rule book on honey.


----------



## JohnAllen (Jul 2, 2010)

Whew, glad they don't have a rule book. I was afraid I could be arrested by trying to sell that honey that I adulterated by putting it in the freezer!


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

JohnAllen said:


> ... I was afraid I could be arrested by trying to sell that honey that I adulterated by putting it in the freezer!


Don't eat that honey JohnAllen, I saw a web sight one time that claimed all your children will bee born naked if you do!!!


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

> a food is deemed to be adulterated if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substances, such as chemical contaminants, which may or ordinarily render it harmful to health.


Ace, why no response?


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

I know Chinese honey is or can be produced from the same plants that grow and flower here, in fact many of our commercial crops originated in China, as surely as many commercial crops in China were transplanted there from the Americas. Cotton, beans, corn, etc. come to mind, so I doubt that Chinese bees collect many different pollens or polyphones from Chinese plants than those pollens and polyphenols that are collected by North American bees. The wild card is pollen or polyphenols from native Chinese or North American non crop plants currently growing only in China or only in North America. Complicating the matter however is the wide verity of honey producing environments in North America from near Sub Artic to Tropical, the same is true in China, creating a wide range of plant and pollen types in both Chinese and North American honey.

Honey tends to be a mélange of different nectars and while I won’t say that what you are proposing can't be done, I will say it is likely to be a fast moving and difficult target in deed. I suspect a DNA test of some kind would prove more accurate, maybe even down to the apiary level.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> But, as I wrote earlier, they don't have a rule book on honey.


I don't know what the FDA has in their rule book on honey. It would be naive to think they don't have anything in lew of the problems mentioned with sources. It would seem reasonable to assume if large commercial operations (packers) are ultra-filtering the honey they produce the process has been approved by the FDA or USDA. Their only restriction may be in labeling or tracability documentation and I don't know what that is. I do know that once a process has been validated and approved by the FDA any changes such as filtering, temperature, pressure etc must be re-validated before it can go to production and out to the customer. If the re-validation is not done the product is ADULTERATED. It doesn't matter what direction the change was made in. It could be increase or a decrease outside the acceptable range.

Nabber, take a course in GMP (Good Manufacturing Process). Preferably one that is accredited as a training course for Quality Assurance personnel. I have hopes it will smarten you up.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Ace =


> I don't know what the FDA has in their rule book on honey.


So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about. I provided the answer for you below:



> a food is deemed to be adulterated if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substances, such as chemical contaminants, which may or ordinarily render it harmful to health.


End of story


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Just a quick jab....Hey all you Sue Bee Co-op guys...now why do you think it is that Sue Bee wouldn't talk to these people about their product. If they are using the honey from their US suppliers then they should be proud of the honey they produce...right? Hmmmm....unless they blend it with the ultra filtered chinese crap rice syrup that they buy to keep the prices they give to the Co-op members artifically low. nawwwww....couldn't be that. 

"The Sioux Honey Association, who says it's America's largest supplier, declined repeated requests for comments on ultra-filtration, what Sue Bee does with its foreign honey and whether it's ultra-filtered when they buy it. The co-op markets retail under Sue Bee, Clover Maid, Aunt Sue, Natural Pure and many store brands."


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Nabber if it is the end of the story you are not going to learn anything ... And I had such high hopes for you.

sigh


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

alpha6 said:


> "The Sioux Honey Association, who says it's America's largest supplier, declined repeated requests for comments on ultra-filtration, what Sue Bee does with its foreign honey and whether it's ultra-filtered when they buy it. The co-op markets retail under Sue Bee, Clover Maid, Aunt Sue, Natural Pure and many store brands."


After leaning in another thread that the bulk of honey is not used or consumed in its natural state and most likely is used for other benefits besides a sweetener it makes sense to filter out what may affect other ingredients in the recipes. Those that would eat store bought cookies or Little Debbie cakes are not eating them for nutrition so what is the harm? The rest of the ingredients are practically a toxic waste dump anyway. The concerned consumer finds out what is in their food or what is missing and chooses accordingly.

I don't think Sue Bee forces you to be a member. I think it is more the other way where you jump through hoops to become a member so you can have their marketing influence. Aren't they just another WalMart?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I don't know what the FDA has in their rule book on honey. It would be naive to think they don't have anything in lew of the problems mentioned with sources. It would seem reasonable to assume if large commercial operations (packers) are ultra-filtering the honey they produce the process has been approved by the FDA or USDA.


What you don't know, what you find nieve and what you think seems reasonable don't matter, because the FDA does not have a Standard of Identity for Honey. Believe it or not. I can't make you believe what is reality. Look it up if you don't believe me. I'd be glad to learn otherwise.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

sqkcrk:

Wasn't chinese honey not allowed in because of the treatments/pesticides that they use?

I don't remember the forbidden chemicals involved. Nor do I remember which regs prohibit it from being imported.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Mark a standard for honey and a procedure for processing honey are two different things. A standard for honey is nothing more than setting tolerances on what is in honey or what levels of inert ingredients can be in honey. The FDA is concerned more about the control of the processes. If you take the pollen out of honey it doesn't make it harmful. If you take the pollen out of honey and you market it as raw the FDA will be concerned because you are trying to sell something it is not (an adulterated product). If you sell it as ultra-filtered honey you are golden. Can you see the difference?


----------



## ryan (Apr 3, 2010)

alpha6 said:


> Just a quick jab....Hey all you Sue Bee Co-op guys...now why do you think it is that Sue Bee wouldn't talk to these people about their product. If they are using the honey from their US suppliers then they should be proud of the honey they produce...right? Hmmmm....unless they blend it with the ultra filtered chinese crap rice syrup that they buy to keep the prices they give to the Co-op members artifically low. nawwwww....couldn't be that.
> 
> 
> Follow the Money!!!! The money trail usually doesn't lie. If Sue was cutting it's domestic honey with cheap fake stuff the members would all be getting twice price that everyone else is getting. But I've read here 649 seperate times (a close estimate  ) that Sue members never get as high a price as the rest of you guys get on the open market. It's simply not possible.
> ...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

ryan said:


> alpha6 said:
> 
> 
> > that Sue members never get as high a price as the rest of you guys get on the open market.
> ...


----------



## ryan (Apr 3, 2010)

Read it again. Many non Sue members have claimed they can sell bulk honey to packers at a higher price than Sue members get paid being in the Coop.

Take it easy


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> sqkcrk:
> 
> Wasn't chinese honey not allowed in because of the treatments/pesticides that they use?
> 
> I don't remember the forbidden chemicals involved. Nor do I remember which regs prohibit it from being imported.


Yes. Imidiclorprid. Also traces of Rice Syrup.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Mark a standard for honey and a procedure for processing honey are two different things. Can you see the difference?


Yes. This may be an oversimplification, but, I believe for ther most part ther FDA probably doesn't care how Honey is processed as long as no one is getting sick.

You can feed rice syrup all thru the honey producing season, extract it and call it honey and the FDA won't give a hoot.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Yes. Imidiclorprid. Also traces of Rice Syrup.


Pretty sure it is Chloramphenicol and there is a zero tolerance for it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

That's right.

What about it?


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

yes, chloramphenicol. A nasty antibiotic that can cause aplastic anemia in humans.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

To the best of my knowledge, Florida is one of the only states that has a definition of honey, and tests to support that definition. The test for moisture and sugar ratios.

SQKCRK wrote:

But, as I wrote earlier, they don't have a rule book on honey. 

Wisconsin's definition is still in the works. We should be "locked and loaded, ready for bear"
by the first of the year. Beware of pissed off Cheeseheads.

True, the Feds have nothing at this time.

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Have any of y'all read Kim Flottum's "Catch The Buzz" article "Clarifying Ultrafiltration"? Wherein the National Honey Board Director explains ultrafiltration and reacts to the Article claiming that 75% of store bought honey isn't honey.

He says that ultrafiltration isn't used by US Honey Packers, that it is too expensive a process and not necassary. The processes they do use make for a more clear a product w/ a much longer shelf life. Pollen is removed in the process too. And the USDA still considers it honey. (so they do have some criteria Acebird, I was wrong. Still not a SoI.)

Ultrafiltration of Honey is done by some industries in the world to make a sweetener for soda pops, but it is nolonger considered Honey and no one is packaging and selling it as such.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Roland said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Florida is one of the only states that has a definition of honey,
> 
> True, the Feds have nothing at this time.
> 
> Crazy Roland


California has a Standard too, I believe.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann (Feb 2, 2011)

I have Ryan to back me up on this. The first 5 pools of honey -0 through 50 on a pfund honey grading device-brought an average of a 1.70 per pound with color and moisture bonuses paid by Sioux to the membership for the past production season. Darker grades were paid a little less. Sioux does filter honey, Dutch Gold filters honey, Golden heritage filters honey- so what is the big deal?? You all must want meat -a bee leg or two-with your sweets. TED


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

When we prepare nucleic acids from honey (SOP), we mix 1 part honey (by volume), to 4 parts water (dH2O) and then heat at 65 degrees C for 30 Minutes. Yep, it's pasteurization.

What happens after we remove the samples for cooling may be the reason why manufacterers want well filtered honey.

A pellet of material always forms at the bottom of the tube without centrifugation.

It most likely has to do with the natural mineral content of honey.

So, I don't blame the manufacturers if they insist on a well filtered product before they add it to their processing. They could easily get alot of 'gunk' on the bottom of their tanks.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I cast no blame on the manufacturers for doing what they think is best until it gets to marketing. That is where the lying starts. If they secretly take out what the consumer thinks is there or lies about what is in or not in the "honey" I have a problem with that.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Acebird said:


> . If you take the pollen out of honey and you market it as raw the FDA will be concerned because you are trying to sell something it is not (an adulterated product). If you sell it as ultra-filtered honey you are golden. Can you see the difference?


 Again, the definition that is provided below is the FDA's definition of "adulterated"

_A food is deemed to be adulterated if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substances, such as chemical contaminants, which may or ordinarily render it harmful to health. 
_

It doesnt get any clearer than that.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Acebird said:


> … Don't mess with the FDA.



I am of the opinion that the USDA grades or inspects tomatoes, animal products like cheese, onions, pork, beef, durum wheat, and green bell peppers, while the FDA on the other hand is responsible for inspecting frozen pizzas. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now extend this to honey and tell me which agency is in line to conduct honey inspections, the USDA or the FDA.

http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm248257.htm

*Open Quote: *Altogether, FDA screens all import entries and performs multiple analyses on about 31,000 import product samples annually. During Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the Agency performed more than 175,000 food and feed field exams and conducted more than 350 foreign food and feed inspections. *:Close Quote.* 

I’ll have more on the terms “screens” and “field exams” when I have time but now I want to call your attention to the last sentence of the above paragraph. 

Good golly gee, the FDA itself is telling us that the FDA preformed 175,000 food and feed “field” exams but the FDA conducted only a little more than 350 “foreign” food and feed inspections. The FDA provided no further breakdown. The math however is inescapable, and it says only one thing and that thing is that the FDA is 500 times more likely to inspect or examine United States of America farmers or production facilities than they are the farms or factories of Brazilian or Chinese producers. In other words the FDA only performs one five-hundredths (1/500) as many overseas inspections as they perform domestic inspections, or the FDA performs 50,000% more “field”-tests on domestic producers than they perform on foreign producers. Besides this huge imbalance between the number of FDA, inspections preformed on domestic producer’s verses foreign producers some of these inspections are preformed on pet food or other animal feed. Don’t you feed better now knowing that the FDA is out there protecting us from “adulterated” Chinese honey? 

Is it any wonder then that almost half of the fresh apple juice concentrates in your child’s or grandchild’s Sippy-Cup was produced in China? Given the imbalance between domestic and foreign inspection and enforcement actions conducted by the FDA, you should be more amazed that China doesn’t produce ALL your family’s apple juice.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I don’t believe the FDA has any jurisdiction on foreign land. They might inspect the products coming in (only when there is a problem) but do not inspect foreign plants. That is how it is in the medical industry anyway. They can ban a product from coming in and that is the threat to foreign companies.


----------



## JohnAllen (Jul 2, 2010)

t: The FDA does in fact inspect some foreign drug manufacturing plants. They certainly don't have jurisdiction but if foreign drug companies want to sell their product here it is in their interest to be cooperative.

http://gao.gov/products/GAO-11-936T

Just setting the record straight. Acebird has a habit of speaking with an attitude of authority but many of the facts he provides seem to be merely conjecture on his part.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Acebird said:


> I don’t believe the FDA has any jurisdiction on foreign land...


The following link suggests that only 8% of foreign drug manufacturers are ever inspected by the FDA.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Committee-Examines-Foreign-made-Pharmaceuticals/10737424144/

Extra! Extra! Extra! Read all about it, hot off the press from America’s newspaper of record, The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/washington/29fda.html

*Open Quote: *The Food and Drug Administration is so understaffed that, at its current pace, the agency would need at least 27 years to inspect every foreign medical device plant that exports to the United States, 13 years to check every foreign drug plant and 1,900 years to examine every foreign food plant, according to government investigators.
Computer systems at the drug agency are so inadequate that it can only guess the number of the plants, and it cannot produce a list of those that have not been inspected. The situation is particularly dire in China, which has more drug and device plants than any other foreign nation but where F.D.A. inspections are few. *:Close Quote*

Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Does there have to be Pollen in Honey for Honey to be Honey? How does Pollen get into Honey? Bees don't intentionally put it there do they?

We know that nectar is ingested by bees and then squirted into cells while enzymes from their mandibular glands are added to the mix which changes the liquid into Honey. So, was the pollen found in honey previously ingested by bees?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

SQKCRK - I believe that the Codex Alementaris(sp?) specifies that the pollen must be left intact.

I found a file from 2006 concerning the FDA and honey identity standards. Shoot me and e-mail and I will forward it to you. It may be from Nancy Gentry.

someone wrote:

Just setting the record straight. Acebird has a habit of speaking with an attitude of authority but many of the facts he provides seem to be merely conjecture on his part.

Ya Think? 

There is one thing worse than no information,,,,,, Bad information


Crazy Roland


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

I bet the extraction process has a lot to do with it. Uncapping probably opens up at least an occasional pollen cell and gets it contents dumped in there. I'd also guess that comb is thoroughly covered with all type of random pollen. Guess the bees are pretty well covered in it too... after all that rooting around inside the flower. All just guesses - no data - no internet links.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

We'll let it slide this time.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Roland's location in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin jogged my memory cells. You can never turn back the hands on the clock of time or put the Genie of invention back in the bottle, it is futile to try. This thread is sounding more and more like the old Oleo War of a bygone era, especially the battles in the Oleo War fought in and by the state of Wisconsin. Since some of us may benefit from revisiting the so called Oleo War, here it is in a nut shell. Everyone in Wisconsin, (meaning the Wisconsin dairy farmers), was worried that oleo would be fraudulently substituted for butter.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/wmh/pdf/wmh_autumn01_strey.pdf

One way Wisconsin and other butter producers tried to deny oleo a market, (a.k.a. prevent fraudulently substitution of oleo in place of butter), was laws that prohibited oleo being tinted or dyed the same color as butter. How the oleo producers counted this law was to include a small packet of coloring material inside each package of oleo. Then behind closed doors, and in the privacy of his or her own home the consumer could rip the brown paper wrapper off this coloring packet and change the color of their oleo to a lovely buttery yellow. :shhhh: Do any of you folks think that some day ultra filtered honey producers might include an itty bitty, teeny weeny, packet of pollen, maybe glued to the label, so that every ultra filtered honey consumer can in effect pollinate their jar of ultra filtered honey before pouring it on their waffles, slathered with what else but butter colored OLEO? LOL


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Interesting story scrapfe but no I don't really see a parallel unless you are talking about an artificial product competing with honey and being called by a different name. What I do see happening, though, is some changes in filtering techniques by the larger packers and new labeling touting the natural pollen in their honey and that would be a good thing.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I guess it either hasn't gotten through to some folks or they just don't believe it that US Honey Packers don't ultrafilter the honey which goes thru their Plants.

A. It is expensive.
B. It isn't necassary.

Source: The National Honey Board


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

JohnAllen said:


> t: They certainly don't have jurisdiction but if foreign drug companies want to sell their product here it is in their interest to be cooperative.


Yeah well let's set the record straight. The FDA has no jurisdiction outside the US. They can ask to see a foreign plant and that plant can say flat out no. All the FDA can do is stop shipment from that plant coming into the US and it is just another label to show it came from somewhere else. Where the FDA has influence is with an American company that manufactures off shore. They still can't inspect the off shore plant but they can hold accountable the American Company that is bringing in the goods to this country. So it is the mother company's responsibility to inspect the off shore plant, not the FDA (and it is a requirement). I know this first hand.

So in keeping with the topic, if Sue Bee is bringing in foreign honey it is Sue Bee's neck that is on the line. I am sure they don't take it lightly. Do they catch everything that is gone astray? Nobody catches everything. Just like a guy that buys anybodies honey and put his label on it, sooner or later it will become evident what he is doing if you have your eyes open.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Have we forgotten about NAFTA and the trucks that can enter the U.S. from Mexico uninspected?

Foreign honey producers can most certainly ship in 'ultrafiltered' honey (and any other processed honey) and get around regulations.

It's not what the U.S. honey producers are doing that's the issue. It's the type of honey that the food processors are using in their manufacturing that is the concern.

While I don't think that they're deliberately using 'dangerous' honey in their processing, food manufacturers can most certainly use 'funny' honey to make 'Honey Nut Cheerios'.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

It would shock me to learn that Honey Nut Cheerios was made with just pure honey. I tend to be a realist.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Read the Ingredient List and tell us which parts you believe.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Definitely Honey Nut Cheri O's contain honey, at least they say it does,it helps the sales,tremendously
This honey is the industrial grade,bakery trade or sometimes called junk honey,something a good packer would not usually want to put on the store shelf.I think the quality of this product would vary ,depending upon the contract ,but as it is an ingredient, it is a high volume usually lower priced market and very competitive .The price for for this product ,in this market dictates what the price of white honey will or should be.
This market is well over 200M lbs and growing cause that word" honey "sells products.
No FDA legal description of the product honey in the USA is a big problem.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

The front of a package is usually a major lie. Our society has accepted lying on a regular basis when selling a product. look at the whole grain version. How much whole grain oats sweetened with real honey is in that package? You are lead to believe it is 100% whole grain and that it reduces cholesterol and prevents heart disease. Now if it did contain 100% whole grain and was sweetened with real honey it would prevent heart disease and control cholesterol but what doctor would prescribe it with out the pills? Not a one.
I think if you want to be healthy you have to educate yourself and be willing to exercise self control. Most people choose to eat pills even when they know the facts.
Deep down the people that buy the honey on the Walmart shelves know it is not real but they still buy it.


----------



## sammyjay (May 2, 2011)

Acebird said:


> Deep down the people that buy the honey on the Walmart shelves know it is not real but they still buy it.


I disagree. Back before I became interested in bees, I didn't know that there was such a thing as fake honey or transshipped honey containing chloramphenicol. Many non-beekeepers don't study honey very closely, and so I think many people only know as much as I did then.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I agree Sammy. I believe that most people look for what they want to buy and when they see something labeled w/ the name of what they are looking for they will then look for what they are used to or what is the least expensive. These are nondiscriminant shoppers. The vast majority of us. The discerning shopper will look beyond the label. They have the time, the money, and the inclination.

So, I strongly disagree w/ Acebird's statement. People who buy honey at Walmart know as much about what is in the jar labeled honey as anybody else. If you did an in store survey, in Walmarts and in other chain grocery stores, I doubt that there would be much difference in the results of the surveys. I have little reason to believe so.

I don't shop for groceries, or other stuff, at Walmart, usually. Or even at Price Chopper, a chain of grocery stores in NY State. I do my grocery shopping in stores where my honey is sold. I don't do alot of shopping.


----------

