# fla new honey law



## jack Jones (Mar 3, 2009)

go to gainesville.com and search on honey. You won't believe this.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

So you have to go to Georgia to get your cinnamon creamed honey??


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

This is good news. Hopefully the rest of the states will follow suit.


----------



## daknoodle (Dec 8, 2005)

I think its great, but what happens if you are selling semi-filtered honey that has pollen and wax particles? Can you no longer call it honey?


----------



## bk21701 (May 22, 2009)

Direct link to the article. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090714/ARTICLES/907141006


----------



## Apuuli (May 17, 2006)

Here is the text of the new law. You'll note that there's no problem with pollen or wax. In fact, the removal of pollen is specifically forbidden (except when unavoidable). It does seem to exclude honeydew derived honey though:

5K-4.027 Standard of Identity – Honey.
(1) This standard applies to all honey produced by honey bees from nectar and covers all styles of honey presentation that are processed and ultimately intended for direct consumption and to all honey packed, processed or intended for sale in bulk containers as honey, that may be repacked for retail sale or for sale or use as an ingredient in other foods.
(2) “Honey” means the natural food product resulting from the harvest of nectar by honeybees and the natural activities of the honeybees in processing nectar. It consists essentially of different sugars, predominantly fructose and glucose as well as other substances such as organic acids, enzymes and solid particles derived from honey collection. The color of honey can vary from nearly colorless to dark brown. The consistency can be fluid, viscous or partially to completely crystallized. The flavor and aroma vary, but are derived from the plant’s origin.
(3) Honey sold as such shall not have added to it any food additives, as defined in Section 500.03(1)(m), F.S., nor shall any other additions be made other than honey. It shall not have begun to ferment or effervesce and no pollen or constituent unique to honey may be removed except where unavoidable in the removal of foreign matter. Chemical or biochemical treatments shall not be used to influence honey crystallization.
(a) Moisture Content – No water may be added to honey in the course of extraction or packing for sale or resale as honey. Honey shall not have a moisture content exceeding 23%. 
(b) Sugars Content.
1. The ratio of fructose to glucose shall be greater than 0.9.
2. Fructose and Glucose (Sum of Both) shall not be less than 60g/100g.
(c) Sucrose Content.
1. Honey not listed below shall not be more than 5g/100g.
2. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Citrus spp., False Acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia), French Honeysuckle (Hedysarum), Menzies Banksia (Banksia menziesii), Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Leatherwood (Eucryphia lucida), Eucryphia milligani – not more than 10g/100g.
3. Lavender (Lavandula spp) and Borage (Borago officinalis) – not more than 15g/100g.
(4) Name of the Food.
(a) Products conforming to the standard of identity as adopted in this rule shall be designated “honey”. Foods containing honey and any flavoring, spice or other added ingredient or if honey is processed in such a way that a modification to honey occurs that materially changes the flavor, color, viscosity or other material characteristics of pure honey, then such foods shall be distinguished in the food name from honey by declaration of the food additive or modification.
(b) Honey may be designated according to floral or plant source if it comes predominately from that particular source and has the organoleptic, physicochemical and microscopic properties corresponding with that origin.
(c) Where honey has been designated according to floral or plant source [as stated in paragraph (4)(b)], then the common name or the botanical name of the floral source shall be used in conjunction with or joined with the word “honey”.
(d) The styles of honey identified in subparagraphs (4)(e)2. and 3. shall be declared on packaging labeling as “Honey”, “Comb Honey”, “Cut Comb in Honey”, “Honey with Comb” or “Chunk Honey” as appropriate.
(e) Honey may be designated according to the following styles:
1. “Honey” which is honey in liquid or crystalline state or a mixture of the two; 
2. “Comb Honey” which is honey stored by bees in the cells of freshly built broodless combs and which is sold in sealed whole combs or sections of such combs;
3. “Cut Comb in Honey”, “Honey with Comb” or “Chunk Honey” which is honey containing one or more pieces of comb honey.
Rulemaking Authority 500.09, 570.07(23), 586.10 FS. Law Implemented 500.03, 500.04, 500.09, 500.10, 500.11, 570.07, 570.50, 586.02, 586.10 FS. History–New 7-14-09.


----------



## summer1052 (Oct 21, 2007)

From the State of Texas Agricultural Code, Chapter 131:

SUBCHAPTER E. LABELING AND SALE OF HONEY

Sec. 131.081. USE OF "HONEY" ON LABEL. A person may not label, sell, or keep, offer, or expose for sale a product identified on its label as "honey," "liquid or extracted honey," "strained honey," or "pure honey" unless the product consists exclusively of pure honey.

Sec. 131.082. USE OF BEE, HIVE, OR COMB DESIGN. A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that resembles honey and that has on its label a picture or drawing of a bee, hive, or comb unless the product consists exclusively of pure honey.

Sec. 131.083. SALE OF IMITATION HONEY. A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that resembles honey and is identified on its label as "imitation honey."

Sec. 131.084. SALE OF HONEY MIXTURES. (a) A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that consists of honey mixed with another ingredient unless:
(1) the product bears a label with a list of ingredients; and
(2) "honey" appears in the list of ingredients in the same size type of print as the other ingredients.
(b) A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that contains honey mixed with another ingredient and contains in the product name "honey" in a larger size of type or print or in a more prominent position than the other words in the product name.

These have been in place since AT LEAST 1983.

Tom says: This is good news. Hopefully the rest of the states will follow suit.

Summer says: 'Bout time all y'all started catchin' up. 

Now, if only we could get some regs about the media and inaccuracy of AHB info! 

Sum


----------



## Apuuli (May 17, 2006)

"Catch up"?!?!

That Texas law just deals with the labeling of honey. Nowhere does it actually define what "honey" is. The Florida law deals specifically and in great detail with that sticky subject.

So there.


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

This is very important, it defines a product. First in USA.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

We're hoping to follow suit here in NY. I hope that other states will also. This should help w/ the different things that are labeled honey and are actually corn syrup or a honey corn syrup blend. In other words, adulterated honey.


----------



## Doc5000 (Jul 3, 2009)

I am concerned about this law. How is this law to be enforced? My guess is that the seller will have to bear the costs of verifying that his honey meets the standards and do the legwork to get his honey certified before he can sell it. I am fairly certain that some new licensing fee or (less likely) sales tax will be assessed to the beekeeper to pay for administrative costs and enforcement. 

What if the underlying purpose is to freeze out the small honey producers who cannot afford these costs or the purity and water content tests? I have no idea if they would be expensive, etc, but commercial beekeepers would be much more likely to be able to pay for them. Meeting with an official to get 300 hives certified would be less onerous for a professional beekeeper than getting time off from work, going to the state office, filling out the forms and paying the licensing fee for 2 or 3 hives. 

Also, no antibiotics or chemicals? That may be ideal, but what if something comes along that cannot be controlled without chemicals? Is that the end of the beekeeping/agricultural industry in the state? In the interest of Full Disclosure I should tell you that my life experiences and observations have led me to be skeptical of all government actions, which may have colored my reaction.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

See my other post if you want a real rant. So lemme understand this. I live in Florida but as a small beek I cannot bottle my own honey in my kitchen even though a score of States allow for this. I have to bottle it in a approved food processing facility, contact the gov't to schedule an appointment at said bottling facility and have them approve of how I go about bottling it. This is hardly easy or convenient or cheap. They are about to raise the educational requirement portion of this from 300 plus dollars to 400 plus dollars. I have to take a test on food preparation sanitation, like how to handle poultry even though I have nothing to do with the birds or other food stuffs. 

So, tough as heck to actually sell this 100% RAW Pure Honey I get from my hives, but thank goodness that I can CALL it 100% pure honey while it sits in my house unable to be bottled or labeled and sold publically.

Ok, all snarky comments aside, the definition is clearly aimed at stopping all the adulterated honey from becoming and even worse landslide than it already is. Stateside commercial honey operations cannot compete with Chinese adulterated honey. We put a tariff on Chinese honey and they just get around it by shipping it through Argentina and what not. So now a definiton of what honey is will allow inspectors to go out and test the bazallion barrels of honey imported into this country and disqualify it before it leaves the docks. Hurray for that, but still....

Clearly the large honey operators have enough money to peddle lobbyist to acquire enough influence to push for a Honey definition. But did the legislature take up the Food Bottling Requirement Exemption for small beeks? No. Will they in the very near future? I sure hope so.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Doc 5000

You are way out n left field!!!! No one is going to have to have A test run to prove it is pure....however those who are selling a adulterated product will be in big deep mud! Also a beekeeper or beekeepers may sue or class action sue a person/company who is selling a tainted honey due to their damaging the price we recieve. You may not be aware of it but a major packer in Florida has really hurt the honey prices by selling syruped honey and chinese honey with numerous antibotics. This takes a big step to help clean it up! I understand you concerns but it is evident you dont understand how much this has damaged the price we recieve. THIS IS THE BEST THING THAT HAS HAPPENED FOR FLORIDA BEEKEEPERS EVER!! ALSO WE DONT NEED TO BE SELLING ANY HONEY CONTAINING ANTIBOTICS....YOU WANT TO KILL THE HONEY MARKET.....THAT WOULD DO IT QUICKLY!!


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

MUSASHI
I agree with your post mostly. I think you should be able to sell out your door and not be inspected. However most stores of any size will require you to be inspected/insured. The currant proposal in Fl is for a 20 or 30 barrel exemption. I dont think anyone bottling 20 or 30 barrels is small time or should be exempt! The easy solution is to have a regional place to process your honey(small extactor/bottling equipment) such as a extension office. Anyone bottling over a barrel can/should have a place to process his honey with a hand washing sink and double sink with cleanable floors. I'm not familiar with the course but learning about chickens seems a bit overboard....they should have a special class for honey after all....if you use water around honey you got a problem and some beginners may not know that!


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

I think they have good intentions, but I am a little apprehensive of the wording. An article I read earlier said it had to be 100% honey with no chemicals or antibiotics.

We live in a world where our bees are exposed to agricultural chemicals. These chemicals show up in our honey in extremely minute quantites, but our honey is not 100% honey. If you use fluvalinate or coumaphos in your hive (applied properly - honey supers not on) you will still end up with extremely small quantities of those chemicals in your honey.

The way the law reads, it demands 'perfect' honey, and we can't supply perfect. There is a loophole - if your honey isn't 100%, you can sell it if you list all the other stuff in it, which will require you to have every single batch of honey to be tested before you can sell it.

This is going to turn into a nightmare if we aren't careful.


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

Countryboy, Jesus lives, doc, get involved with the national beekeeping organizations. Then you will have a little better understanding about what this means. It has been a huge expensive battle against adulterated contaminated money making ...stuff...unfairly impacting domestic producers. People have been contributing their money and time for the benefit of ALL OF US. AHPA or ABF are the two in USA. The conventions are fun and educational. :thumbsup:


----------



## Doc5000 (Jul 3, 2009)

suttonbeeman said:


> Doc 5000
> 
> You are way out n left field!!!! No one is going to have to have A test run to prove it is pure....however those who are selling a adulterated product will be in big deep mud! Also a beekeeper or beekeepers may sue or class action sue a person/company who is selling a tainted honey due to their damaging the price we recieve. You may not be aware of it but a major packer in Florida has really hurt the honey prices by selling syruped honey and chinese honey with numerous antibotics. This takes a big step to help clean it up! I understand you concerns but it is evident you dont understand how much this has damaged the price we recieve. THIS IS THE BEST THING THAT HAS HAPPENED FOR FLORIDA BEEKEEPERS EVER!! ALSO WE DONT NEED TO BE SELLING ANY HONEY CONTAINING ANTIBOTICS....YOU WANT TO KILL THE HONEY MARKET.....THAT WOULD DO IT QUICKLY!!


I doubt I am wrong. I am pretty sure that, if I try to sell any honey, I will find that I have to prove that my honey meets the legal requirements. If not, how will the people selling adulterated products be prevented from doing so? At some point the enforcers of the law have to be able to tell which honey meets the requirements or they cannot enforce the law. That is going to require testing.

From your comments, it seems that you must be a commercial beekeeper of some sort, but I wish you would consider the issue from the viewpoint of the hobbyist with three or four hives. The law may help you by reducing the supply of imported or adulterated honey, but those of us who hope to keep a few hives and maybe sell a few jars every now and then will probably have to go through considerable trouble to do so. 

By the way, assuming that there was only pure honey available and demand pressure pushed the price of honey up, where do you think the ceiling is? At local farmers' markets in my area, you can buy varietal honey for 3 to 4 dollars a pound in the two pound jars, depending on the variety. That is a little less than the grocery store price and is about all that most people will pay for honey. Even if there were only 1/4 as much honey available, they still wouldn't pay much more than that. People will do without. Therefore, I suspect that you will not get as much of a profit increase as you hope when the law goes into effect. I wish you luck, though.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Doc 5000
Well u r partly right....I am a commercial beekeeper. But I started with 2 colonies in 1977 expanded to 10 in 1980 and didnt aim to get any bigger. Then to 45 by 1982 and kept about 100 until 6 years ago. I also started purchasing and packing honey in 1991 until 2001. Lost my deal due to cheap imported honey so, been there, done that. I drove 300 miles today looking at sourwood yards, but have to contend with a yeahoo from tennessee who labels everything sourwood and sells for 5.50 qt. With honey at 1.50 for extra white honey and almost 3 lbs in a quart with jar cost at .50 plus freight and overhead and you tell me how he SELLS PURE HONEY for 5.50 a quart! and makes a profit!!!!! We wont have to test our honey to prove it is pure.....but if it isnt I got a feeling someone will need a lawyer because I will go after them if the Gov. dont! This law is NOT desgned to kill a little beekeeper, but to prevent crooks from making a profit by cheating and also stop adulterated importated honey. THe person who pushed this thru was Nancy Gentry who I know well....Nancy last year had less than 10 hives!! BUT she understands what this means..Like Toms post above you should get involved with some national/state associations. I'm not bragging when I say this but here goes and I'm not a know it all but have been very involved in the industry and understand how much we ALL have been hurt by adulterated honey. I have been a member of ABF for 26 years, attended 20 national conventions in a row, served on board of directors numerous times, given presentations on packing honey at national/state meetings, was on first commitee that formed the National Honey Board in Denver Co in August 1986 along with being on nominating commitee 7 more years. What I'm saying is I know how much this was needed.....believe me!


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

In Texas we don't need a chemical formula to tell us the honey is what bees make. Everything else is outlawed. What do you do if your bees make honey from some plant not on the list? And how are they going to tell? It's nice they are protecting honey, but it seems it goes a bit too far.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Ross

I dont think alot of people(beekeepers) understand. While Texas and mant other states make it illegal to sell honey with anything in it there was NO LEGAL DEFINATION of wat honey is..hence it made it hard to prove someone put something....this is the legal definationof honey.....or a variation of standrd of idenity.


----------



## be lote (Mar 26, 2008)

i dont look the goverment to do me no favers. 
that law no matter how good it is for the first couple years they gonna start addin to it.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

be lote

Again...if the government doesnt (we)have some laws defining honey and what honey is(legal defination)how would YOU stop someone selling a adulterated product? Now if you have two or 10 hives of bees you can sell all of your honey out of your door so adulterated honey may not affect you and your hobby. (I was a two hive hobbist at one time). BUt it has damaged the market tremendously for the beekeepers trying to make a living from bees. A above post stated honey is now selling for 3-4 dollars a 1 lb jar and how much higher can it go...well here it usually sells for 5. This standard may not affect that price much BUT if you sell to a packer(I pack most of my production and sell only some of my Florida honey in bulk) it really affects the price. Now honey is selling for 1.30 to 1.60/lb bulk...and there is a world shortage. What happens when we get a good crop down south(argentina) and china has a good crop and we get a good crop? The price will go back to where it was a couple of years ago.....60 to 90 per lb....below the cost of production! A few years ago a large Florida packer was taken to court for selling adulterated honey...he claimed the syrup he purchased was fed to his bees for winter food(if I remember correctly it was like 250 gfallons per hive per year). But there wasno legal definatoin for what honey is and a poor job by prosecution so he got off. If you dont think adulterated honey cost us alot of dollars.......you dont understand the market. While I understand you may not care what a commercial guy gets for his honey and dont want any regulations....you got to remember this is how I feed my kids its notjust a game or fun thing anymore . I still enjoy it but its serious business for me. Last week according to my sources there was two container loads of honey setting at a dock in Florida bound for SUE BEE. This was light honey from India according to the label.....India dont make produce light honey...you can bet it was chinese and SUE knows it! If any of you havent read the seattle times articles on honey laundering fo read it(google seattle times honey laundering...a long series about honey tampering). If commercial beeks go under....where re you goingto get your fruits and vegs? THIS IS a serious problem! No to mention if some dies or gets sick from a adulterated product what it would do to the market! nuf said!


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

If the law is intended to simply stop the production and sale of products that are called pure, or real honey when in fact they have some sort of syrup added to it, they I agree that it is about time, and I wish my state would follow suit. However if this law would stop a beekeeper from selling creamed honey with a flavoring like cinnimmon, then I think it has gone to far.

I suspect this is simply to get rid of the fake honey. I've lost count of how many customers I have lost because they think they can get two or three pounds of honey at the store for 2 dollars, but if you read the label on the back, its mearly "honey syrup".


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Thanks Indiana.....I forgot to mention I sell 10 flavors of fruit flavored creamed honey along with cinnamon creme. You can still sell these but it has to be on the label what it is and what is in it....which you should do in the first place! as a example My label states raspberry cremed honey...ingredients....pure honey and freeze dried raspberries. This would be legal.


----------



## jdpro5010 (Mar 22, 2007)

This law is like most other laws out there, they start off being well intentioned and put together by well intentioned people. Then it just ends up costing us more than the adulterated honey would in the long run. In the utopian world it sounds good but back here in reality land you can keep it!


----------



## Doc5000 (Jul 3, 2009)

Suttonbeeman, In principle, I am not against regulations to protect domestic honey producers and the public from dishonest sellers of adulterated honey. However, I am skeptical. I have seen many laws that ended up with a very different result from what was expected and intended. Also, I have seen business interests use the legislative process to eliminate competition that lacked equivalent political clout. 

I have seen lazy, power-mad bureaucrats that make rulings to make their own job easier or because they like to be in control. Those rulings can have a serious negative effect on the public or the small segment of the public that is within their control. In dealing with bureaucracies, the appeals process is usually difficult, expensive and/or pointless. I am not saying that will necessarily happen in this case, but I will not be surprised if, when the bureaucratic regulations come down about how to enforce this law, there are provisions (like I listed above) that make it much more difficult for a hobbyist or small time producer to sell honey.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

doc5000

I agree with you ...I totally hate gov red tape and bureaucrats....most dont know what a days work is. I have two major runins with California getting bees across the border....this year because of ONE ant! That said....this new regulation has nothing to do with bottling requirements, that is a totally differant regulation. This is the legal defination of honey and will go along way to help us clean up the funny honey. I personally dont believe we will get much help from the gov. FDA WOULD NOT IMPLEMENT the standard of identity saying they didnt have the time. I think it will be up to us beekeepers to sue the you know what out of the low life whohas screwed up our market while padding their pockets. I believe this is the best thing to happen to beekeepers in Fl. since the Langstrof invented the moveable frame hive. Hopefully all states will pass this


----------



## sittingmule (May 14, 2009)

unintended consequences nuff said 

goverment IS an unintended consequences

:doh:


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

*If You Really Care*

Join a National organization, and get informed. Contribute and learn. Meet a lot of great people. 

Or just sing in the shower.


----------



## Apuuli (May 17, 2006)

Ross said:


> In Texas we don't need a chemical formula to tell us the honey is what bees make. Everything else is outlawed. What do you do if your bees make honey from some plant not on the list? And how are they going to tell? It's nice they are protecting honey, but it seems it goes a bit too far.


When I look in my hives, I figure all that honey-like substance must have been made by bees and is therefore honey, because I know I didn't fill up the comb with anything and I doubt anyone else went to the trouble. However, people buying honey in stores have no idea where the stuff labelled "honey" is from. Without a definition, it is difficult to stop adulterated honey from being sold. ("But it IS honey! The bees made it! Perhaps from the HFCS I fed them or from the waste of the soda factory...")

If one reads carefully, the guidelines for unlisted plants are clear.

"(c) Sucrose Content.
1. Honey [from plants] not listed below shall not be more than 5g/100g."

This law was not some decree handed down by a monarch, it was made to protect both consumers and beekeepers. If China had a law defining "milk", perhaps 300,000 people wouldn't have been poisoned by dairies trying to make a little extra money. And to think, the same country is sending honey over here, for us to eat...


----------



## sittingmule (May 14, 2009)

well in 20 years lets see what effect it has taken just like all the other good ideas that start out well intentioned. the end result i guarantee will be a perversion of the original. you must educate your clients about the danger of all chinese product they must CHOOSE your products.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I agree sitting mule BUT the packer I'm referring to has many national accounts and I sell alot of bulk honey in Fl...two years ago dark honey was .60 and light .80-.90....no profit there, that said i hate gov. stupidity.....but we had to do something to stop this crap, and this will stop it at least in fl as I can sue the crap out of someone for damages who is selling "funny honey" effective putting them out of business. Hope they will now quit on their own, that would be even better!


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Hope they will now quit on their own, that would be even better!_

In which case you'd still be left with a useless law, AND you would be left with the perfect setting for the government to pervert the law even further. If no one remembers the purpose and intention of the law (adulterated Chinese honey) the government will look for the next 'criminal' they can get some fines from (you).

The end does not justify the means. While I believe the intentions are good right now, I believe these regulations will come back to bite us in the end. (government regulations always do)


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

If it stops adulteration then its not useless! The mess the honey industry is in with chinese and adulterated honey and no legal defination of what honey is left us with no way to stop it. I will make some of you mad but I don think some of you have a clue as to what has gone on in the past or the scale of what is happening now. You are either too hard headed or havent taken the time to learn whats really happening....that said some of you hobbist only care about your hundred jars you sell a year as a fun hobby and forget some of us who feed our kids and pay our bills with our bees. Notice I said some of you and also remember I was a hobbist for 10 years before going to a sideliner! Now here is another way to look at it....How can anyone process two or three drums of honey in their kitchen? I can see a super or two but if you are going to process over 50 gal you need a special place either in you basement in a small room or a building. You can build a room in your basement to meet health requirements and not be out thousands....a lot less that a divorce will cost you when you make a mess of your wifes kitchen! (if you havent had a honey spill you havent done it long..and it takes many moppings to get all the sticky up). And if you only do a few supers no one is going to be down your throat when you sell a few jars. We cant even get FDA to go after big guys doing thousands of gallons a day let alone a guy doing 10 gallons. THey say they dont have the time/money and there are more important things. You guys are making a mountaiin out of a minature mole hill!


----------



## jdpro5010 (Mar 22, 2007)

I love your enthusiasm suttonbeeman but unfortunately you are looking for the silver bullet in the wrong place.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

This law is to be used to procecute adulterators. If you don't adulterate your honey you're okay.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

so no one will complain when your honey get rejected with for instance oxalic acid levels to high since you can't be legally using it in the usa?? I'm game because I only use what is register and don't mix my own formic acid for instance, and only use it once a year not multiple times, levels to high again??

I'm would hope n.y. would pass it except some how it would make no sense, be taxable and unreadable.

mike


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

> "(c) Sucrose Content.
> 1. Honey [from plants] not listed below shall not be more than 5g/100g."


Sounds like an expensive lab test waiting to happen before you can legally sell any honey. Might just put the small guys out of business some day. And how are they going to tell if you have more than 5 gr of some other floral source? Has anyone developed a test for it? How did they certify the test, lock the bees in a greenhouse? Again, great idea that is frought with future bureaucracy.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I have too much to do to try to educate u guys. NO you wont have to get a test to sell your honey....honey will be tested if someone complains or look suspicious to see if it is adulterated. No one will have to test to PROVE your honey is pure....geez you guys dream more stuff than a Philadelphia lawyer.


----------



## Apuuli (May 17, 2006)

That's 5 g sucrose/100 g honey, not a measure of how much honey is required from a given flower source. Read the law carefully, it wasn't written by morons unfamiliar with honey adulteration.

The law does not say that honey must be certified up front as real honey to be legally sold. That would be ridiculous, impossible, and easy to circumvent. It sets a standard that enables legal action to be taken against scum who cheat consumers, ruin the image of honey and beekeepers, and potentially threaten the health of Americans.

Honestly, if anyone thinks government regulation of food is just useless red tape, they should go to the market, buy whatever meat products they think look good and eat them while reading "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. All those silly rules and regulations that make our food so safe (and yes, it is generally safe with a few exceptions), yet still abundant, accessable, cheap, and largely aseasonal, weren't always around.

As a bonus, one of the nifty things about laws is they can be changed if they prove to be unworkable.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

Apuuli said:


> ....it wasn't written by morons unfamiliar with honey adulteration.


But it will be applied and enforced by morons unfamiliar with honey adulteration.


----------



## thelorax (Apr 20, 2009)

There is a very good article on this in Bee Culture, Dec 2008, pg 21. Written by Dr. M. Sanford, former Extension Specialist in apiculture at U. of Florida. Hopefully he does another article. I plan to write my Agricultural Dept. here in Ohio as well as House representative.

I strongly support the passage of this law - anything to bring transparency on what food we buy is a good thing (hopefully there is 100% agreement on this)

Part of the reason (http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/historyoffda/default.htm) the FDA was founded was because of the adulteration of honey - shame on them for sitting on their collective arses


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

Great in theory, until someone starts making claims against everyone, and then guess what, you get to pay for a test.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Ross How you and some others can come up with things like the above post is unbelievable....no one I repeat NO ONE will have to test to prove it is pure! So what do you propose? How do you think we can prevent adulterated honey from being sold? What have YOU done to help this industry? We have more than one person selling pure sourwood honey that has NO sourwood in it and they know it. It is selling at 69 dollars a case of 12 quarts....so what do I do....just turn my back? So lets hear some suggestions and ideas of what you propose to solve the problem!


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

Good point Ross. Some of the PETA crowd is against beekeeping because it is insect enslavement. It only takes a few of those bozos making claims and it will become a nasty situation.

_How do you think we can prevent adulterated honey from being sold?_

Educate the public. Put pressure on our congress and reps to guard our border better, and to increase inspections of imports. Keep educating the public. I have yet to hear a radio advertisement advocating pure natural honey produced by the American/Canadian beekeepers.

_We have more than one person selling pure sourwood honey that has NO sourwood in it and they know it._

Buy some, get it tested, and then sue them for fraud or false representation. Folks are flat out ignorant of laws. We DO NOT want a legal definition of honey, because as soon as there is a legal definition, the common definition is ignored in court. As long as there is no legal definition, the common definition prevails. (unless you get a crooked judge.)

_It is selling at 69 dollars a case of 12 quarts....so what do I do....just turn my back?_

Sell your pure honey cheaper. Folks will stop buying his. That's the easiest solution.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

So, what exactly does this piece of legislation achieve other than putting more money in the pockets of lawyers?


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

JPK

What does it achieve???? I (we)can now sue in Florida, yes sue someone for selling adulterated honey and lowering the price we receive for ours and also get punative damages. Also it gives the regulatory authorities some teeth to go after the guilty. And no they dont have the manpower to check every beekeepers honey or make them get it tested! 
THis was (is) a must if we are going to stop adulteration.


----------



## 36_Chambers (Jul 18, 2009)

I had intended this for Doc5k, but anyone with experience in national beek rules/laws could probably help. How does this new law differ from the law passed in Hawaii in 2007? Does the 2007 Hawaii law only pertain to labeling, like the Texas law appears to pertain to?


----------



## NorthWest_bee_guy (Jun 14, 2009)

Truth in labeling laws already in place. there is is no need for "new laws" and the Honey police.


----------



## letsrodeo (Jun 6, 2009)

suttonbeeman said:


> ross how you and some others can come up with things like the above post is unbelievable....no one i repeat no one will have to test to prove it is pure!


 Never say never when you are talkin about ower government...


----------

