# Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn’t Honey



## Rader Sidetrack

Boris said:


> 100 percent of the honey packaged in the small individual service portions from Smucker, McDonald’s and *KFC *had the pollen removed. "


Its difficult to give much credibility to someone who tests the _pollen _in the "_honey_" at KFC. Its labeled as *93% sauce,* not honey. Even KFC claims its only 7% honey!


----------



## EastSideBuzz

Dont feed that to your bee's for sure. Well maybe it is ok since it is HFCS.


----------



## Nature Coast beek

This is why things like True Source Honey program exists...

http://www.truesourcehoney.com/true-source-certified/


----------



## jmgi

I may be mistaken, but I thought I read somewhere recently, maybe even on here, that if the pollen is completely removed from the honey, that technically its not honey anymore. Can HFCS be detected in honey, just wondering? John


----------



## Coffee_Bee

er, True Source Honey imports honey "loads", removes the pollen, repacks. AKA a "self regulating" industry redefining what honey should be: a processed product.


----------



## libhart

The point of True Source (I think) is that we know packers are going to remove the pollen because pollen causes granulation and stores hate granulation. The longer the honey sits on a shelf in a store, the less pollen can be in it if it's ever going to sell before it granulates. Think about how much honey actually gets sold from a pharmacy, not much. That honey must sit there a long time. I have a hard time blaming any packer for removing the pollen. So True Source tests the honey, actually they have an outside independent company test the honey, prior to being put in the barrel at the source location to ensure that the honey really is honey from that location. They also have people from that outside company visit the beekeepers to ensure that the beekeepers actually have the size of operation necessary to provide the honey they claim to provide....no more 2 hive beekeeper magically producing 10 ton. So when a consumer buys True Source, they may not know from where on the globe it came, but they know it's honey.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

libhart said:


> So when a consumer buys True Source, they may not know from where on the globe it came, but they know it's honey.


Actually, True Source standards include an _accurate_ country of origin.


> True Source Honey firmly believes that consumers want products that clearly identify the origin of the products they consume. True Source Certified was created to deliver just that – proven country of origin, fully party audited, pure honey. True Source Honey takes the position that every container of honey sold in the United States should clearly indicate where that product originated and certify that claim using an independent audit firm. This program has been established under the name True Source Certified™.
> 
> _Complete standards document here:
> _http://www.truesourcehoney.com/true-source-certified/certified-2012-08-01.pdf


----------



## libhart

Oh good. I wasn't sure if honey labelled as True Source really needed to print the source country or not...guess that would make sense since the word source is in the name....just ignore my dumbness


----------



## Mbeck

The answer is to buy your honey only from me. I'll take you right to the yard and let you buy the frame right out of the hive.


----------



## libhart

Of course, I'll take my frames from my hives as well, but we're talking about regular non-beekeeping consumers who shop in supermarkets and believe that delicious porkchop wasn't once a cute pig with a face but is somehow "made" in the back. They're getting smarter, but the more help they can get, the better.


----------



## virginiawolf

When people have tasted our honey they say I love your honey and say things like OH MY GOD that is good.
I would have to agree with them. I'm sure the pollen influences the flavor so taking it out is probably reducing subtle flavors and smells.
Awareness is growing about bees and honey. People have asked me a bunch of questions about honey being raw and helping with allergies and all kinds of things. On a small scale I am optimistic that there are people in my area that are wanting to buy fresh raw honey. 
Quality is worth seeking out. At Farmaid this year at Hershey Park they talked about buying locally and things that are fresh and the importance of the family farm etc. Local honey could surely fall into that spectrum.


----------



## jmgi

I do everything I can to educate the consumer what they are getting when they buy honey from me, and I also let them know how the majority of supermarket honey's are processed. I coarse strain my honey with minimal heating to make straining quicker and that's about it. I tell consumers that most supermarket honey is fine filtered to remove the pollen and that it is heated to a high temperature to retard granulation, which destroys nutrients. I let them make the decision which honey to buy after that. John


----------



## Boris

jmgi said:


> I do everything I can to educate the consumer what they are getting when they buy honey from me, and I also let them know how the majority of supermarket honey's are processed... John


I completely support such approach.
Boris Romanov


----------



## Nature Coast beek

Another good link regarding USDA standards and honey filtration. RESPONSE TO RECENT FOOD SAFETY NEWS ARTICLE WHICH CRITICIZES THE USDA 
APPROVED STANDARD METHOD OF HONEY FILTRATION


----------



## urbanoutlaw

jmgi said:


> I do everything I can to educate the consumer what they are getting when they buy honey from me, and I also let them know how the majority of supermarket honey's are processed. I coarse strain my honey with minimal heating to make straining quicker and that's about it. I tell consumers that most supermarket honey is fine filtered to remove the pollen and that it is heated to a high temperature to retard granulation, which destroys nutrients. I let them make the decision which honey to buy after that. John


If you saw someone in a grocery reaching for generic honey would you bother with educating them on local honey?

Happened to me last week. I wanted to say something, but thought it might not be the best idea since I'm not yet a beekeeper, nor do I have local honey to offer in lieu of what was on the shelf.


----------



## jim lyon

Nature Coast beek said:


> Another good link regarding USDA standards and honey filtration. RESPONSE TO RECENT FOOD SAFETY NEWS ARTICLE WHICH CRITICIZES THE USDA
> APPROVED STANDARD METHOD OF HONEY FILTRATION


This is right on the mark. Honey packers deliver what the largely ignorant (and I dont use that word as an insult) buying public demands. They want a convenient to use easily dispensed LIQUID product. If their product granulated on the shelf, it is just not very marketable to the majority of shoppers. The stores will usually pull it off the shelf and charge back the product to the supplier. If that product granulates at home in their pantry it may well get thrown out and a repeat customer is lost. This is the reality folks, honey packers filter their honey because of economic necessity not because it is cheap and easy to do or because they are hiding something. Is something lost when honey is heated and filtered? You betcha there is.....but it's still honey. Just analyze what is sold in grocery stores nowadays and you will see its all about convenience. The modern consumer wants to pop their meal in the microwave and eat it on the run, and we expect them to patiently heat their jar of sugared honey in warm water or dig it out of a container? It's not going to happen. So let's not lump all honey packers together as purveyors of illegally sourced adulterated honey. The folks here on Beesource understand that granulation is a sign of honey purity the public at large is clueless.


----------



## Ramona

urbanoutlaw said:


> If you saw someone in a grocery reaching for generic honey would you bother with educating them on local honey?
> 
> Happened to me last week. I wanted to say something, but thought it might not be the best idea since I'm not yet a beekeeper, nor do I have local honey to offer in lieu of what was on the shelf.





urbanoutlaw said:


> If you saw someone in a grocery reaching for generic honey would you bother with educating them on local honey?
> 
> Happened to me last week. I wanted to say something, but thought it might not be the best idea since I'm not yet a beekeeper, nor do I have local honey to offer in lieu of what was on the shelf.


It's not about "local" but understanding and trusting what is in the bottle. A "local" packing address does not ensure that the honey is local, nor does a "local" beekeeper address. Packers buy honey from many sources. Some beekeepers do as well. "Beekeeper mystique" and health codes that require a certified kitchen if one is bottling bought-in honey can make it difficult to know what exactly is in the jar. Labels are generally not helpful in the search for truth.

Last week I was in several stores, giving out tastes to promote our products. I saw orange blossom honey from a local-ish packer tagged as "local", here in Massachusetts. A customer came to my table with a jar of a different southern blossom honey from another local company. She was very surprised to hear that just because the packing address is local does not mean the honey is local. "Wildflower" honey from a local company is not necessarily produced from fields in-state.

The word "local" has taken on a life of its own and has come to be, for many, a projection of hopes and dreams. Many have lost faith in "organic" but those desires for a better world have been transferred to "local". "Local" does not ensure quality, any more than non-local means a lesser quality product.

The important thing is to know and trust the source of what you are purchasing which isn't an easy task.

After sampling and hearing about the beekeepers who produced what I have to offer, the customer returned the jar she was about to buy to the shelf and chose one of the honeys I was selling, non-local and at a higher price. 

If you are educating others, do your very best to be sure you know what you are telling them is true. 

Ramona


----------



## Ramona

jim lyon said:


> This is right on the mark. Honey packers deliver what the largely ignorant (and I dont use that word as an insult) buying public demands. They want a convenient to use easily dispensed LIQUID product. If their product granulated on the shelf, it is just not very marketable to the majority of shoppers. The stores will usually pull it off the shelf and charge back the product to the supplier. If that product granulates at home in their pantry it may well get thrown out and a repeat customer is lost. This is the reality folks, honey packers filter their honey because of economic necessity not because it is cheap and easy to do or because they are hiding something. Is something lost when honey is heated and filtered? You betcha there is.....but it's still honey. Just analyze what is sold in grocery stores nowadays and you will see its all about convenience. The modern consumer wants to pop their meal in the microwave and eat it on the run, and we expect them to patiently heat their jar of sugared honey in warm water or dig it out of a container? It's not going to happen. So let's not lump all honey packers together as purveyors of illegally sourced adulterated honey. The folks here on Beesource understand that granulation is a sign of honey purity the public at large is clueless.



Um, we've tested honey that was granulated - it came up as 20% beet sugar. This was in a jar, at a fancy up-scale urban market with a local label on it. Beekeeper had bought it in in a 5 gallon pail from a "local" producer and was mortified when told. Can't imagine how many of those 5 gallon buckets have gone to other beekeepers.

Whether a honey is crystallized or not is related to processing (heating/filtering), not purity. Doesn't pure HFCS also crystallize?

As to selling crystallized honey, all our honey is sold that way. Yes, it takes a while to educate the customers but we have had zero push-back from the stores we sell to. The beautiful thing about crystallized honey is that it is what it is, it isn't going to change over time on the shelf.

Almost all of our customers have skipped over the warming stuff and go straight to scooping out of the jar. We explain that with the exception of a very few plant nectars, all honey will crystallize over time. Honey that is unheated/unfiltered will crystallize faster. Nectar sources also determine the speed. I ask if they would heat up a bottle of expensive wine and that settles the matter quickly. 

We've been at this for almost five years - it's fun to see the customer attitudes shift and to sell more and more crystallized honey! So don't say it isn't going to happen - it IS happening. The honey producers/sellers should expect to be at least as patient as their potential customers 

Ramona


----------



## jim lyon

Ramona: What you are doing is great but it dosent really address the scope of what we as an industry are dealing with. Educating your customers and educating a nation of potential honey consumers are two entirely different undertakings. Large retailers care about giving their consumer what they want today, they don't have the means nor the will to educate them.


----------



## deknow

....yet the NHB spent 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS co-promoting The Bee Movie as an educational film (where the girls tittered about, bees drove cars in the hive, and male bees harvest pollen with guns).

The industry has means....where is the will?

deknow


----------



## urbanoutlaw

Ramona said:


> It's not about "local" but understanding and trusting what is in the bottle. A "local" packing address does not ensure that the honey is local, nor does a "local" beekeeper address. Packers buy honey from many sources. Some beekeepers do as well. "Beekeeper mystique" and health codes that require a certified kitchen if one is bottling bought-in honey can make it difficult to know what exactly is in the jar. Labels are generally not helpful in the search for truth.
> 
> Last week I was in several stores, giving out tastes to promote our products. I saw orange blossom honey from a local-ish packer tagged as "local", here in Massachusetts. A customer came to my table with a jar of a different southern blossom honey from another local company. She was very surprised to hear that just because the packing address is local does not mean the honey is local. "Wildflower" honey from a local company is not necessarily produced from fields in-state.
> 
> The word "local" has taken on a life of its own and has come to be, for many, a projection of hopes and dreams. Many have lost faith in "organic" but those desires for a better world have been transferred to "local". "Local" does not ensure quality, any more than non-local means a lesser quality product.
> 
> The important thing is to know and trust the source of what you are purchasing which isn't an easy task.
> 
> After sampling and hearing about the beekeepers who produced what I have to offer, the customer returned the jar she was about to buy to the shelf and chose one of the honeys I was selling, non-local and at a higher price.
> 
> If you are educating others, do your very best to be sure you know what you are telling them is true.
> 
> Ramona


I agree with everything you said. However, I should have defined "local" as in the beekeeper personally selling their own honey, generally ala a farmer's market. I know not all farmer's market honey is legit, but that can usually be discerned in a conversation...same as with tomatoes, apples, veggies, etc.

I sure someone like you would have a tasting at one of the area groceries. At best, two chain groceries stock Virginia honey that tastes and appears like bulk package stuff. People buy honey thinking they're getting something they may or may not be.


----------



## jim lyon

The will to do what Dean? Educate over 300 million people about honey granulation with a budget that would be petty cash to McDonalds or InBev? Those packers that care about purity started TrueSource. It was started by packers committed to integrity who were tired of being underbid by the purveyors of rice syrup honey blends yet I even hear them getting bashed for selling honey that's not "real" simply because they are giving the consumer what they demand. I wish it was a simple task to educate a whole nation but it just isn't.


----------



## deknow

Well, if beekeepers and the whole beekeeping industry isn't willing to do it, it will never happen.

OTOH, beekeepers are willing to "educate" the nation that "local honey is good for your allergies" (apparently spring honey from area X helps with fall allergies in area X even though there is no common pollen content between the seasons....but honey from area Y is ineffective). If that kind of energy were spent (and note, this is not something that a lot of money gets spent promoting) regarding honey crystallization, a noticeable effect would be achieved.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

I will do my part, you no doubt will do yours but the ignorance out there about honey is overwhelming. I can't even count how many times through the years I have had people tell me about the jar of honey they bought that spoiled even though it was kept in the refrigerator.  But this is a nation where disclaimers are put on Viagra ads warning that their product doesn't protect against std's. good luck with a nationwide honey granulation lecture.


----------



## Coffee_Bee

Goal or bottom line:...Selling imported honey in the United States of America and making profit.

Changing the definition of honey, redefining processing techniques, PR for the consumer to accept honey that looks and tastes like corn syrup, is all for that goal.

For the pitiful domestic beekeeper producer who does not add diatomaceous earth to their honey in preparation for removal of nasties like pollen, you are just bottling some quaint, uncouth product. Perhaps you will have to warn consumers that it contains allergic material.

If the Honey Board were really interested in representing the domestic producer, they would educate the consumer about "real" honey, not how they should accept processed, imported honey.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

With regard to consumer education about honey, the California Milk Board alone spends $25-30 million dollars a year on milk advertising. Wisconsin spends a similar amount. Add in other diary states, and the Feds, and you have spending well over $100 million dollars a year on milk "education".

It will take _many _buckets (perhaps even _totes)_:lookout: of money to re-educate the average consumer to prefer _granulated _honey.

(I'd post sources for my numbers, but consolidated figures are hard to come by. But Google "milk advertising budget" if you want.)


----------



## jim lyon

I am a bit "out of the mold" on the whole issue of imports. The US consumes around 400 million pounds each year, possibly even more. We produce around 150 million lbs. There are good people all over the world raising honey most of them small family owned businesses that includes many members here on Beesource. There are also greedy, dishonest folks trying to make some easy money importing a lot of stuff that isn't honey by any definition but is sold as such. I am in favor of importing legitimate honey as long as it passes testing protocols as being safe. Imports are not the problem it's the whole issue of honey authenticity.


----------



## deknow

Using an advertising model to perform education is not efficient. How much is spent in large advertising campaigns wrt local honey and allergies? How much was spent by the industry to bring the level of "CCD awareness" that we have today?

Generally, if something like the California milk board spends $25 million in advertising, it is mostly because they have a budget of 25million, not a demonstrated need for $25 million in advertising.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Jim...are you saying that your crystallized honey is moldy? 

Seriously though, I agree with Jim...focusing on quality (and purity) rather than country of origin is much more important.

deknow


----------



## Tia

Proud to say, thanks to the hard work of Mr. Heatherly and Dr. Ambrose, NC now has a honey standard. See http://www.rtpnet.org/ncsba/Honey Standard.pdf. We've made every effort in NC to education our bee product purchasers and always suggest to them that they know their beekeeper!


----------



## deknow

....these standares are always problematic. For instance, from the one posted above:




> The sucroe content of honey must not be more than 5 grams per 100 grams of the product unless the honey is labeled as a particular floral source. In that case the sucrose content may be higher, if it is properly labeled as to floral source.




The above is both too specific and not specific enough. It is absurd that the same honey would qualify as legit with a high sucrose content as a specific floral source, and not legit if it were labeled as wildflower honey.



deknow


----------



## JRG13

My opinion, if you start with honey going in, filtering etc....., you get honey out as long as you're not adding anything. Removing pollen meets a demand and produces a product for a specific market, just label it as such. Personally I hate granulated honey, it's hard to work with, especially if it's a large crystal granulation. A fine granulation is ok though, but again, when I'm in the kitchen the last thing I want to do is fight a bottle of honey for it's contents. Perhaps it's more of a packaging thing, really hard to get into those little mouth containers to scoop out granulated honey, which is why I stick to jars for mine.

I believe it's 3 floral sources that will not granulate. Tupelo (I think white tupelo specifically) being one of them, another is a tropical flower I believe, can't recall the 3rd. In the end, the glucose to fructose ratio is what drives the process, but other factors can speed it along, solids etc... that act as crystallization points (i.e pollen, wax, bee parts). The information is out there but it seems no one really wants to pursue it. Even with threads on this forum, a lot of people here do not know what drives crystallization, and a lot of people just think it's a byproduct of 'raw' honey.


----------



## Boris

"Several states are in the process of passing laws or regulations establishing a legal definition of honey because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ignored repeated requests to do so. A legal definition could result in a ban on the sale of honey where the pollen has been removed."
From the new article (February 2013): Honey laundering: fraud on the shelves? 
http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/1302/honey_laundering.html


----------



## cerezha

Tia said:


> Proud to say, thanks to the hard work of Mr. Heatherly and Dr. Ambrose, NC now has a honey standard. See http://www.rtpnet.org/ncsba/Honey Standard.pdf. ...


 Bravo!!!


----------



## Roland

I am sorry, but if the bees make honey and some pollen is in it, it SHOULD be left in it. Remove the pollen, and it is no longer honey, but rather "Depollened honey" and should be labeled as such. If I removed the great smell of VSOP cognac, would be worth less? I did not remove much, just a little.

As to those that don't like large crystalled honey, buy honey with the pollen not removed, the pollen grains help to seed the crystals and make a smaller crystal.


I am not sold o Truessource. They count honeydew as honey.They Do however look for pollen, but only have one accredited lab that they work with, hmmmmmm. They should rather define the lab procedure, and let any accredited lab perform the procedure. Sounds like there will be a market in China for foreign pollen.

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

So far I have seen no links to any "Tests [which] Show Most Honey Isn't Honey". Where are the Links.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> So far I have seen no links to any "Tests [which] Show Most Honey Isn't Honey". Where are the Links.


 Hi Mark
I guess the source is in original post (I did not check):
"....
•100 percent of the honey packaged in the small individual service portions from Smucker, McDonald’s and KFC had the pollen removed. "

*From: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/1.../#.UQ1sbh3m1n5*


Boris Romanov 

...."


----------



## sqkcrk

It says that the pollen was removed. It didn't say that it isn't honey. The pollen was removed from the honey. If you remove pollen from honey, what remains? Honey, right? Therefore, I think his Thread Title is a misstatement, an inaccurate statement of facts.


----------



## jim lyon

I fully agree Mark.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

sqkcrk said:


> It says that the pollen was removed. It didn't say that it isn't honey.


I'm not defending the study, BUT, right there in the fifth paragraph:



> In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration says that any product that’s been ultra-filtered and * no longer contains pollen isn’t honey*. However, the FDA isn’t checking honey sold here to see if it contains pollen.
> 
> http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.UREJCB19L26


----------



## sqkcrk

I see. Thanks. Then what is it?

On another question about honey. I saw a "Bar Rescue" reality show and saw a Bartender mixing a drink w/ what he called "honey". I doubt it was really honey. Not the way it poured just like all the other mixers. So, wht was it? Anybody know?


----------



## jim lyon

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I'm not defending the study, BUT, right there in the fifth paragraph:


...and there is where the problem lays Graham. We are grouping what are accepted filtration practices (not saying its good, just that it is commonly done to extend shelf life) together with ultra-filtration done by those who are trying to conceal what they are importing into the country. In short we are assigning devious motives to a process that has been used by honey packers for decades. I am aware of no honey standard that requires that there be pollen in honey. Whether there should be such a requirement is a whole different argument. Personally I wish there were. I think packers can tweak there process a bit and still get pretty good shelf life on their product. Let's just not paint them as criminals for doing what they have always done.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Jim, I agree with you. As I pointed out in my first post, any study that examines the pollen in KFC "honey sauce", which is labeled as only 7% honey, is not worth the paper its printed on.

And yes, I know its an electronic file, not paper. 

P.S. Even though the article _claims_ the US FDA says that honey without pollen is not honey, I question whether that statement is in fact accurate.


----------



## sqkcrk

It is not nice that the FDA makes statements w/out definition.


----------



## Boris

New Import Alert 36-01

(Note: This import alert represents the Agency's current guidance to FDA field personnel regarding the manufacturer(s) and/or products(s) at issue. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person, and does not operate to bind FDA or the public).

Import Alert # 36-01
Published Date: 10/02/2012
Type: DWPE with Surveillance
Import Alert Name:
"Adulteration of Honey"

Reason for Alert:
NOTE: The revision of this Import Alert dated 8/27/2012 updates the Guidance section by providing additional information about the release of shipments subject to detention without physical examination, the technical reviews of private analytical packages, and the process for removal from detention without physical examination. Changes are noted and bracketed by three asterisks (***). 

During the mid 1990s, detentions of imported honey from Brazil, Mexico, and the Soviet Union occurred due to adulteration with corn or cane sugars. 

These detentions were based on analytical results received from Geochron Laboratories. This fast analytical technique measures the C-13/C-12 isotope ratio of the sugars in the sample. 

!!! FDA laboratories do not have the instrumental capability to analyze honey according to the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, AOAC Official Method 991.41, which requires an isotope ration mass spectrometer.

Guidance:
*** Districts may detain, without physical examination, the specified products from the firms listed in the Red List of this import alert. *** 

Surveillance of imported honey from all countries is indicated. 

FDA Districts requiring C-13/C-12 isotope ratio analysis should contact one of the following laboratories:...

Arrangements should be made by phone with the laboratory in advance. Approximately two ounces of sample should be shipped within 3 to 10 days. 

The findings of partial substitution of cane or corn sweeteners in honey should be routed to CFSAN, *** Food Adulteration Assessment Branch *** before detention is considered. The presence of cane or corn sweetener in the adulteration of honey can be selectively detected by using the internal standard stable carbon radioisotope ratio method. Reference for the appropriate analytical technique is published in the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, AOAC Official Method 991.41, C-4 Plant Sugars in Honey. Both stable carbon isotope ratios for the honey and protein therein (internal standard method) must be obtained. 

An appropriate alternate method may be used to determine cane or corn sweetener in honey if the method is adequately documented by a validation study to estimate precision, accuracy, and sensitivity for the specific analyses. Equivalency to the official method must be demonstrated in the submission of analytical data."...

More details are posted here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_108.html

And more details about "Adulteration of Honey" - States expand efforts to combat 'funny honey' that isn't pure.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-09-25-honey-producers_N.htm


----------



## irwin harlton

I am thinking there is such a shortage of honey out there, especially white that very little testing is or will be done.Unless the product is really suspicious looking physically by looks, smell , taste, it will be packed without a test for adulteration..that's the name of the game for the packers , buy it,filter it ,pack it ,sell it ..demand is strong .....make profit
I wonder what the ratio is for honey sold verses honey tested


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> ... The pollen was removed from the honey. If you remove pollen from honey, what remains? Honey, right? ....


 I never hear about a "honey" in the honeycomb made by bees from floral nectar without pollen. Pollen is an integral part of the honey in the honeycomb as well as many other "ingredients", which made "honey" honey. It is strange to hear from experienced beekeeper that treated honey (filtered, heated etc) is the same honey as before treatment. It just shows attitude - anything sweet may be called "honey"...


----------



## sqkcrk

Who said it was the same as before? I missed that statement.

So Sergey, is it your opinion that grocery store sold honey is mislabeled? If so, what would the proper label be?


----------



## Ian

I dont know Irwin, stocking an adulterated product on the shelf under a brand name, and found, will kill the brand name. 
Unless the packer does not care about branding, to which I agree with you

Something said about buying brand products, your buying that reputation


----------



## jim lyon

The odd thing about this issue is that the presence of pollen is hardly evidence of an absence of adulteration. All it really tells us is the floral source of at least some portion of the honey. The idea of analyzing pollen in honey came about to identify the origin of honey that was suspected of being trans-shipped through a third nation to avoid anti-dumping duties.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Who said it was the same as before? I missed that statement...


 Hi Mark. You said that after filtering it is still "honey". I assume that the word "honey" is naming the complex product produced by bees from floral nectar and other ingredients (including pollen). Stating that after alternation (filtration etc) it is still "honey" means to me that you do not distinguish between honey, which is in the honeycomb and in the jar. You just play with word "honey"... it is misleading and distracts people from original subject.

As for grocery store honey - the whole point of this thread is that it is not exactly honey. So, you missed the whole point. In my opinion, any alternations must be indicated in the label as well as origin of the honey and name/phone/E-mail who actually produce honey (not packager). For instance:

"Slightly heated raw honey filtered through 200 um filter to preserve fluidity. Made in <name> by <name>, <phone>"
or
"*Ultrapure honey.* in smallest letters:
_ For best quality, honey was heated and filtered through golden 0.22 um filter to remove all possible contamination. Sterile, ready to use. Proudly made in the green rural valley <name> in <name> near charcoal factory by <name>, E-mail <....>. _"


----------



## sqkcrk

I know that English is not your first language, so, please excuse me for pointing out that "alterNation" is not a word in English. Maybe you meant "alteration".

I asked what it was, I did not state what it was. Didn't I? Which you have avoided answering. If honey which has had all of the pollen filtered out of it isn't honey, what is it?

As to your suggestion about the Labeling, yeah, that's practical. Wuldn't you think that Ultrapure Honey woulod be a higher quality honey than any other? Think like a consumer rather thana beekeeper.

W/ the limited availability of Honey Produced in the United States why would anyone expect Packers to do anything other than what the are doing? Isn't it a simple matter of economics? Supply does not meet demand so other sources will be found and used. 

Sell your own honey and don't get yer panties all in a knot over what others do.


----------



## Ian

until consumers actually start giving a darn with their buying habits they will keep getting this sub standard sourced food
consumers insist on quality and production standards , yet they look the other way as impure food sources come in from countries with no production standards

Im all for international trade, but on a level playing field, 
consumers dont care about any of that, so they get what they pay for


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> I know that English is not your first language, so, please excuse me for pointing out that "alterNation" is not a word in English. Maybe you meant "alteration".


 Well, _alternation_ is English word - look in the dictionary, but indeed I meant "alteration", I apologize for typo.



sqkcrk said:


> I asked what it was, I did not state what it was. Didn't I? Which you have avoided answering. If honey which has had all of the pollen filtered out of it isn't honey, what is it?


 A syrup, because pollen is essential component of the honey, which is produced by bees, not packers.



sqkcrk said:


> As to your suggestion about the Labeling, yeah, that's practical. Wuldn't you think that Ultrapure Honey woulod be a higher quality honey than any other? Think like a consumer rather thana beekeeper.


 I know that English is your first language, so, please excuse me for pointing out that *"Wuldn't"*, *"woulod"* and *"thana"* are not English words. Maybe you meant "would" and "than?"

As for labeling - I think consumers need to know the truth - if it is purified by ultrafiltration, it IS ultrapure.



sqkcrk said:


> W/ the limited availability of Honey Produced in the United States why would anyone expect Packers to do anything other than what the are doing?


 Exactly, this is why honey regulation is necessary - to prevent packers to do what they do.


----------



## deknow

Pulp is a natural component of orange juice.
is orange juice without pulp something other than pure orange juice?

Deknow


----------



## jim lyon

.....as is beeswax a natural component of honey but no one seems to be suggesting that it's presence is required to prove purity. If I blend a high percentage of corn syrup, or a similar adulterant, with raw honey containing natural pollen is the result a better product than a 100% honey that has had the pollen filtered out? Again, the whole issue of the presence of pollen in honey is that it is a marker proving the source of at least some percentage of that honey with no guarantee of purity. So once again the title of this thread is a misnomer, the absence of pollen proves nothing.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Pulp is a natural component of orange juice.
> is orange juice without pulp something other than pure orange juice?
> 
> Deknow


Good analogy imo.

We are all mammals here. One characteristic of mammals of hair. If someone loses all their hair thru chemotherapy are they no longer a mammal?

I guess I have missed the point of this Thread. What is the point of this Thread? If the point is that some of y'all don't like honey[syrup] being sold as honey, what are you going to do about it? Protest at grocery stores? Write your Representatives? Gripe about it on public forums?

What about Pollen? Is pollen w/out honey pollen?


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> So once again the title of this thread is a misnomer, the absence of pollen proves nothing.


yes I agree, just to the principle of your point

It is showing that there is something to hide
adulteration perhaps?
If consumers want to buy honey syrup blends, they will buy honey syrup blends. End of the day its up to them. But when they find out, they will turn off honey completely.


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> If the point is that some of y'all don't like honey[syrup] being sold as honey,


Do you ?


----------



## sqkcrk

Other things bother me more. What is sold as honey appears to be honey. Only it doesn't have pollen in it.

What purpose does the pollen in honey serve? And why do we say that the pollen is in the honey if it is integral to what honey is. How can the both exist independently if they are so integral? 

No one is being fooled or lied to by a label which identifies the contents of a jar as HONEY. Honey syrup would be a product containing honey and some other sugar or sugarylike liquid such as corn or rice syrup.


----------



## Ramona

jim lyon said:


> .....as is beeswax a natural component of honey but no one seems to be suggesting that it's presence is required to prove purity. If I blend a high percentage of corn syrup, or a similar adulterant, with raw honey containing natural pollen is the result a better product than a 100% honey that has had the pollen filtered out? Again, the whole issue of the presence of pollen in honey is that it is a marker proving the source of at least some percentage of that honey with no guarantee of purity. So once again the title of this thread is a misnomer, the absence of pollen proves nothing.


Honey is produced from nectar and enzymes coming from somewhere inside the bees. Pollen gets into the honey via "messiness" by the bees but is not an integral part of the honey. Same with wax....it gets in through the extraction process..."messiness" by the beekeeper/processor, maybe a tiny bit of "messiness" by the bees.

Absence of pollen makes it impossible to trace origin of honey but presence of pollen has its own issues in regard to identifying nectar sources. Many types of pollen grains look similar to each other and it requires very sophisticated microscopes to see the grains clearly and accurately identify them. Percentages of pollen grains may not relate to percentages of their related nectars in the honey. Add to this that there are only a few (two? three?) folks in the US that are qualified to do pollen analysis in honey.

We had a very illuminating presentation from Dr. Paul Arnold on this topic at the Leominster treatment-free conference last year. 

The worst aspect about the filtering is the heat used to make the honey manageable. So I would argue that while honey with 100% of pollen filtered out may still technically be honey, it has lost its inherent character and as Sergey says, is just a syrup at that point. That said, raw, unheated honey with pollen, cut with adulterants, is just as bad if the consumer is not informed that that is what they are buying.

Before I knew anything about beekeeping and honey, I assumed that honey came straight from flowers and bees without the use of artificial feeds, chemical treatments or antibiotics. My first class at bee school changed that assumption right away. Heating, filtering and adulteration were not on my radar either. Later I learned more about the honey industry. I am not an ignorant person, I was just completely uninformed as to how bees are managed and how the honey industry works. I'm still learning. I don't see our customers/potential customers as any different. They all appreciate information, at different levels. To some, every last detail of management/production/sourcing is extremely important in their decision making as to what to purchase and ingest. At the other extreme, they just want something sweet that appears to be a healthier/more delicious choice than other sweeteners. Most fall in a spectrum between these two. But they can't know where they are on that spectrum if they are not informed that there are choices.

I also agree with Sergey as to labeling. Clear statements as to source, processing (temperatures, filtration, etc.) and hive management allow consumers to make choices and begin/add to their own education process.

Back to the spectrum - of course there are those who don't care at all and will just buy the cheapest thing. But there are many, many more who if given knowledge and information realize that there IS a choice and are moving in a direction toward better quality, higher priced honey. 

Unfortunately, most honey produced is considered a commodity and is sold at commodity prices regardless of differences in quality. When quality and price are being determined by color (light vs. amber vs. dark) there is a problem. This needs to change and will over time as consumer awareness and demand shifts.

We can all do our best to educate, produce the best products possible, be honest about our practices and make sure that if we are buying in honey from others that we know what we are getting/representing before putting our label on it. 

Ramona


----------



## Ian

I hear you mark
its kinda like buying hamburger from the local meat market as 100% beef and realizing 20% of it is soy meal water and colouring agents

consumers assume pollen is in the honey they buy. Little do they know the cheap stuff likely has other syrup blends in it also


----------



## deknow

Ian, we found honey on the shelf of a reputable health food store from a local organic farm at $11/lb that had 30% beet sugar. That's not the cheap stuff from the dollar store.

Deknow


----------



## Ian

was it circumvented Chinese honey also? lol


----------



## brooksbeefarm

Honey sold in stores has been pasteuized (heated at a high temp.) to keep it from crystallizing, if it crystallizes on the shelf they can't sell it.Retailers are selling honey that have all the goodies cooked out of it. I sell my honey as raw honey, strained once and bottled with a label on the jar telling that raw honey will crystillize and how to turn it back by not heating it over 120 F. My customers say they will never buy honey out of the store again if they can find raw honey, that there is no comparison between to two in taste. The biggest lie i see on lables is the Pure Clover honey lable, you would have to live on an island in the middle of the ocean with nothing growing but clover for this to be true. JMHO.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> was it circumvented Chinese honey also? lol


It wasn't supposed to be...but who knows. It came from a migratory operation.

deknow


----------



## Jayoung21

At risk of opening another can of worms, is milk really milk then? Even raw milk has had the cream taken off the top. The milk you buy in the store has been heated, strained, fortified, etc etc but it still came from a cow. I agree that when you add things like corn syrup it isn't 100 percent honey but if you just heat it and strain it, though it will have less nutrition it is still honey because the only way to get it is from bees. As brooksbeefarm mentioned, anyone who buys honey from me says its the best they ever tasted. Most of my customers are just people i know and most have only ever had honey from the store. I let my customers taste buds be the judge, if they have never had honey straight from hive to bottle then i let them try it, they always come back for more.


----------



## Tia

Our new honey standard considers honey without pollen still honey. It concentrates more on adulterated honey, i.e., HFCS, medications, etc. and on erroneous claims of the nectar source (the honey must contain 51% of the claimed nectar source). It does allow that if you don't know the nectar source, you can call it "wildflower honey" and of course it considers honeydew as a legitimate part of honey. One cannot prevent the girls from collecting it if it is there nor does honeydew does not have any deleterious properties.


----------



## NYSSOI

Unless you have a expensive processing facility and ultra filter honey, your honey will have pollen in it. THAT is honey
the consumer THINKS they are buying. If pollen is removed it MUST state that on the container. Why do people buy honey?
People buy honey instead of sugar or karo syrup because they think it is a natural & wholesome food. We may reach a tipping point were it is not worth the bother and expense to buy honey because it will be just another over processed "food".
Maybe it will be required, like for the milk producers, for honey to be processed before it is sold to the public. Is this where we are going? So the big importer/packers get to call the shots and make the rules, so the market can be flooded with imported honey and drive the price down for US beekeepers?, and exclude the smaller scale producer from the market unless they sell to the big packers?
It's a race to the bottom. I even heard a beekeeper in favor of the big packers processing methods, actually complain that the the price of honey was getting too high.... BTW, there already is a definition for honey, the International Codex.
-Pat


----------



## Boris

brooksbeefarm said:


> Honey sold in stores has been pasteuized (heated at a high temp.) to keep it from crystallizing, if it crystallizes on the shelf they can't sell it.Retailers are selling honey that have all the goodies cooked out of it...


Therefore I'm very skeptical about local standards similar to the NC Standard, that Tia mentioned in the post #31, because formally (according to some standards) you still can call/name a liquid (forever) substance as Honey.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, if honey was heated to avoid crystallization - it is not honey any more.

Therefore , even this statement: "Honey shall not be heated or processed to such an extent that its essential composition is changed or its quality is impaired." ( from Standard of Identity – Honey OHIO DRAFT PROPOSAL
http://tristatebeekeepers.com/node/157) 
is not completely perfect to avoid some manipulation with honey...

Useful links:
"Honey Composition" 
"...Diastase and invertase play an important role for judging of honey quality and are used as indicators of honey freshness. A minimum value of 10 diastase units is set in the Codex Alimentarius and the European honey directive. Their activity decay upon storage and heating of honey..."
http://fantastic-flavour.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/CompositionHoney.20105942.pdf

"Studies on the physicochemical characteristics of heated honey, honey mixed with ghee and their food consumption pattern by rats"
"The study has shown that heating of honey reduces the specific gravity with a subsequent raise in ash value, pH, HMF, browning, phenolics and antioxidant activity..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215355/

Boris Romanov


----------



## sqkcrk

People I know who buy honey by the barrel identify the variety of honey by color and taste, not by pollen analysis. Who here does differently?


----------



## Kieck

> People I know who buy honey by the barrel identify the variety of honey by color and taste, not by pollen analysis. -sqkcrk


I second that. Doing pollen analyses on honey would eat up any and all profits from that honey pretty quickly, I think.



> we found honey on the shelf of a reputable health food store from a local organic farm at $11/lb that had 30% beet sugar. -deknow


I suppose the easy way to determine presence of some of these other sugars is by measuring levels of glucose and fructose, although I will confess that I do not know what sorts of values might indicate differing sorts of sugar syrups.

I am curious to know 1) what, precisely, is "beet sugar," and 2) (assuming it is sucrose refined from sugar beets) how such refined sugar is differentiated from "cane sugar" or other sources of sucrose?


----------



## cerezha

deknow said:


> Pulp is a natural component of orange juice. is orange juice without pulp something other than pure orange juice?


 Pulp basically is broken cells. it is a shell, container to hold a juice. It has high cellulose/fiber content and therefore considered to be beneficial for us. It is "addition" to the juice, which appeared to be beneficial. Also, note - it is always stated on juice packaging if it contains the pulp.


----------



## cerezha

jayoung21 said:


> At risk of opening another can of worms, is milk really milk then? Even raw milk has had the cream taken off the top. The milk you buy in the store has been heated, strained, fortified, etc etc but it still came from a cow...


 With milk, it is stated on the package: 2% fat in the milk, whole milk, vitamin D added. It also stated if milk pasteurized etc. The point is that label should clearly explain what is in the container. By the way - I like "whole honey"!


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> By the way - I like "whole honey"!


Is that the honey with the bee legs and all Ha ha


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> Is that the honey with the bee legs and all Ha ha


 No, for legs I have "100-and-2% organic honey"


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> .... consumers assume pollen is in the honey they buy. Little do they know the cheap stuff likely has other syrup blends in it also


 I think, assumption would be that any _alteration_ of honey made it more expensive (more work to do), thus, cheaper honey should be less "purified" and, yes, contains the pollen and other "ingredients". They may also assume that the honey meant 100% honey, which as we see, is not always true.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> People I know who buy honey by the barrel identify the variety of honey by color and taste, not by pollen analysis. Who here does differently?


 How you could do pollen analysis if it is filtered out? Non-sense.


----------



## Kieck

> How you could do pollen analysis if it is filtered out? Non-sense. -cerezha


I believe sqkcrk is selling honey with pollen in it. That is, I doubt he is filtering out all of the pollen in his honey. The folks that buy his honey buy it based on color and taste. They could analyze the pollen in that honey. But they buy based on color and taste, not pollen analysis.


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> I believe sqkcrk is selling honey with pollen in it. That is, I doubt he is filtering out all of the pollen in his honey. The folks that buy his honey buy it based on color and taste. They could analyze the pollen in that honey. But they buy based on color and taste, not pollen analysis.


If he did not do pollen analysis, how he could prove/know that there is pollen in *it*? It is first person, who could determine pollen content by color and taste! Remarkable!


----------



## Kieck

I believe you misunderstand, cerezha. Sqkcrk harvests honey from his hives. He does not filter through filters small enough to remove pollen (jump in and correct me if I'm wrong here, Mark). Most likely, that honey contains pollen. However, that honey is not tested for the presence or absence of pollen. Not only that, the buyers are not testing it for presence or absence of pollen. They like the color of the honey and the taste of the honey, and they buy it.

Have you had buyers pull samples from barrels to analyze the pollen before they purchase from you?


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> ...Have you had buyers pull samples from barrels to analyze the pollen before they purchase from you?


 I have no barrels of honey and I do not sell - I am giving away all my honey. I am a hobbyist, only 2 hives permitted.


----------



## Roland

Someone stated:

I am aware of no honey standard that requires that there be pollen in honey.

To the best of my knowledge, Florida, and then California, have laws stating that the pollen can not be removed. If it has been removed, it can not be labeled as honey. 

There is a case pending in the San Francisco area I believe. It was weakly constructed, and has undergone revisions. Try a google search. Sue Bee is the defendant. 

Sugar ratios are not a good test, very easy to fake, just add the right sugars.

Deknow - what test did you use to determine it was beet sugar? I hope not Polarmetrics.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Boris

sqkcrk said:


> ...We are all mammals here. One characteristic of mammals of hair. If someone loses all their hair thru chemotherapy are they no longer a mammal?


In my opinion this example is incorrect, because normally “after chemotherapy hair does grow back.” ... “Don't let your hair loss bother you too much. It's an unfortunate side effect of chemotherapy that just about everyone goes through. But thankfully, it is temporary (!!!)-- and it's helping you battle your disease.”
http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/hair-loss/chemotherapy

But who will restore extracted pollen?

Therefore I think this example does not reflect the core of the problem, that was raised in the article. And in such situation I can give you my counter-example.
As we know in general ( without intervention of beekeepers or somebody else ) honey contains a pollen.
On the other hand, there is a common definition of man: in English, man refers to an adult human male .... "Although men typically have a male reproductive system” (in a normal situation - without intervention of doctors ).

That means a man without a main part of his reproductive system (castrated man) is not a man anymore...
. 
So, "honey" without pollen is not honey anymore, because one natural component was removed forever.

The question is very simple - why they (National Honey Board, ABF an so on) still did not create a comprehensive standard, that simply will force to name modified honey as "Filtered Honey", "Processed Honey", Honey Heated to the Level 1 (2,3...), Sugar/Syrup Honey and so on.
Instead of this they posted brainwashing articles similar to this:
National Honey Board: "Honey is Made from Nectar, Not Pollen"
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen/#.URPjkB1Fln4

Boris Romanov

P.S.
Influence Industry: U.S. honey industry asks FDA for national purity standard
"...Industry groups and some lawmakers are also pressing the Food and Drug Administration to establish a national "standard of identity" for honey to ensure that products are 100 percent pure, rather than diluted with other sweeteners to cut costs or evade import restrictions...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063005309.html


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> How you could do pollen analysis if it is filtered out? Non-sense.


No honey producers have the equipment necassary to remove pollen. So I don't understand your reply.

Any assumptions about what the vast number of honey consumers across the Nation want or know is not worth a dime w/out widespread real consumer survey information. So saying what honey consumers want or know about what they are buying is purely speculation and foolish.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yes Kieck, that is so. But I was refering to buyers of barrels too, such as McClure's, a subsidurary of Dutch Gold, and all of the other Packers I have dealt w/ and have knowledge of. None of them ask for a pollen sample, only a honey sample. They check color, taste, and moisture content. I'm sure they test for other things too, but color, taste and moisture content is what they base what they pay on.

I sold 4 buckets of honey on the way to SC last Saturday. My buyer wanted to know if it tasted good and was on the light side of the color spectrum. Before I got to Missouri he called me to see if I would bring him 4 more because it was all gone already. No body mentioned pollen. Anecdotal as that is and as are all of my experiences selling honey I think what I experience has some weight, being as I sell tons of honey. And some here in this discussin sell none. Some of y'all don't even seem to buy any.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> If he did not do pollen analysis, how he could prove/know that there is pollen in *it*? It is first person, who could determine pollen content by color and taste! Remarkable!


Sergey, are you being serious? I thought we were discussing HONEY, the selling and buying of it, and whether pollen is necassary to make honey honey. Not pollen. I don't sell pollen. Well, I guess I do, just like I sell the containers in which the honey I sell is in. I don't know where you are going w/ this.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> I have no barrels of honey and I do not sell - I am giving away all my honey. I am a hobbyist, only 2 hives permitted.


Which rally makes me woner why you are so concerned about any of this. By the way, thanks for taking food from the mouths of us who make our living selling honey.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

People are becoming more aware of what they are eating, at least in my neck of the woods. I sell honey from home and the local Farmers Market, most all ask if it is raw (uncooked) honey and if it's local honey. They like coming to the farm because they can see my hives and know it's local and they stock up for winter, because they know if i run out i won't have more till next July or Aug. I've had some get upset when i run out and they come to the house,had some say, well your hives are right down there, can't you go get me some.:lpf: Some people don't understand that there is a big differents in strained honey and filtered honey, heated and filtered honey is a world apart from raw honey.


----------



## BMAC

jmgi said:


> I do everything I can to educate the consumer what they are getting when they buy honey from me, and I also let them know how the majority of supermarket honey's are processed. I coarse strain my honey with minimal heating to make straining quicker and that's about it. I tell consumers that most supermarket honey is fine filtered to remove the pollen and that it is heated to a high temperature to retard granulation, which destroys nutrients. I let them make the decision which honey to buy after that. John


By telling customers that most supermarket honey is fine filtered trash can be harmful to the sale of honey in the supermarkets. There are alot of local honey producers who do not fine filter at high heats also to consider in said supermarkets. I can name 10 in my area alone to include myself.


----------



## sqkcrk

It's a basic tenent of Marketing that one not run down their competition. A rule not always held to. Bt it is basically not a good idea. Tell your own story, sell your own honey. What others do is not your responsibility. Perhaps you should have some knowledge of what they do so you can address questions from customers, but generally speaking you will be better off refering them to the company in question, lest you misspeak and misrepresent.

Mind your own peas and cues.


----------



## Ian

Now if those honey handlers, who filter their honey to remove unwanted "things" in their honey, would just buy some local clean pollen and mix it in to the honey batch, they would be selling honey again, , . . right?


----------



## Roland

Ian, the way you think is beginning to scare me. So how long will it take the Chinese to start buying American pollen to add to their rice syrup?

Sqkcrk wrote:

It's a basic tenent of Marketing that one not run down their competition.

Let's not forget this one....


Crazy Roland


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> Now if those honey handlers, who filter their honey to remove unwanted "things" in their honey, would just buy some local clean pollen and mix it in to the honey batch, they would be selling honey again, , . . right?


 Well, it looks like Mark's equation: syrup+pollen = honey


----------



## Ian

I do not know how much of a problem filtered honey is, Im not completely familiar with packer practices.

But, what I do know is how my packer operates, to which Im a part of. Kinda makes me feel all good and fuzzy inside,

www.beemaid.com

They are moving in the direction of 100% CFIA compliant producers. This honey will be trackable from the store shelf right back to the bee hive. All honey packed , and I think it 15 000 000 lbs or so is produced by Canadian prairie beekeepers.
If consumers really give a dam about purity, tractability and high standards we should pretty much hold the market

But Im not holding my breath


----------



## jim lyon

Ian said:


> They are moving in the direction of 100% CFIA compliant producers. This honey will be trackable from the store shelf right back to the bee hive. All honey packed , and I think it 15 000 000 lbs or so is produced by Canadian prairie beekeepers.
> If consumers really give a dam about purity, tractability and high standards we should pretty much hold the market
> 
> But Im not holding my breath


What Bee Maid is doing is really admirable Ian. Perhaps I am too pessimistic but I think that the majority of the time a honey purchase is an impulse purchase made in a large supermarket by a hurried, stressed and budget conscious consumer often with a child in tow begging for a $7 box of Fruit Loops. In that 10 second decision making scenario, unfortunately, price trumps all. Someone prove me wrong........please!


----------



## urbanoutlaw

I think it would depend on what type of supermarket. We have some large "upscale" supermarkets here where the consumers are, or think they are, pretty food savvy. Of course, you have the opposite at the normal (aka affordable) chains that certainly fit Jim's description. Is it possible for you commercial to target this "upscale" demographic outside of farmer's markets and niche health food stores?

I don't yet have a dog in the fight, but that doesn't mean I don't care.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> Now if those honey handlers, who filter their honey to remove unwanted "things" in their honey, would just buy some local clean pollen and mix it in to the honey batch, they would be selling honey again, , . . right?


Ian, in my opinion your assumption is incorrect, because of at least two reasons:

1. During an ultrafiltration process tiny particles of wax are also removed.

2. Usually during an ultrafiltration process honey heated to 150(°F) to 170(°F) to more easily pass through the fine filter. In such situation the major downside to ultrafiltration is that it eliminates nutritionally valuable enzymes found in raw honey, such as diastase and invertase.
“Typically enzymes are proteins of complex structure that catalyze a specific chemical reaction. They are sensitive to heat (!!!), visible and UV light and other forms of energy such as microwaves.”
http://www.airborne.co.nz/enzymes.shtml

“Heating destroys hydrogen peroxide activity, a natural component of raw, unprocessed honey. Hydrogen peroxide is one of the mayor elements that makes honey a powerful antibacterial agent and healer.”
You can get more details from this book: “The Honey Prescription: The Amazing Power of Honey as Medicine” by Nathaniel Altman (page #35).

In addition you can see two examples from my previous post # 71


So, the Rubicon (the point of no return) is passed during an ultrafiltration process of honey. 

Boris Romanov

P.S.
"Ingredients of Beeswax:
• Beeswax is a mixture of many chemical compounds 
• Essential ingredients (monoesters, diesters, triethers and oxi-ethers) - 70 -75% 
• Free fatty acids (carotene, montanin and oleic) - 13 - 15% 
• Saturated hydrocarbons - 12 - 17% 
• Water - 0,4% 
• Carbohydrates (heptacosane and pentacosane) 
• Aromatic substances 
• Coloring agents 
• Organic and mineral substances.
Yellow wax contains the largest amount of vitamin A."


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> Well, it looks like Mark's equation: syrup+pollen = honey


Please don't put words in my mouth or incorrectly interpret what I write. Thanks. 

Boris, can you please list for me which Packers ultrafilter their honey? By name please. And sight the source of your information too. Thanks. I'd like to know. And what kind of machinery and handling techniques are they using to do this ultrafiltration.


----------



## Tia

Things kind of look like they've gotten out of hand here. As I said, NC honey standard states that honey is still honey even if the pollen is removed, rationale being that the honey has not been adulterated. I do believe, however that NC is looking to change that provision so that honey must contain some pollen. The problem I see with removing pollen and not providing that information to the purchaser is that lots of people (the majority of my honey customers) buy honey for the purpose of easing their allergies. If it's being purchased for its taste, clarity, etc, I don't see the problem here.


----------



## sqkcrk

Here is where I have a problem similar to Sergeys. Where is the PROOF that honey relieves allergy symptoms. If you allow people to fool themselves w/ such thoughts, which may not be true, aren't you doing exactly what others are complaining about? Misleading by mislabeling? Not dispelling a myth to sell your honey.

On the oter hand, if honey does relieve allergy symptoms, why doesn't anyone promote that idea on their label.


----------



## Boris

sqkcrk said:


> Boris, can you please list for me which Packers ultrafilter their honey? By name please. And sight the source of your information too. Thanks. I'd like to know. And what kind of machinery and handling techniques are they using to do this ultrafiltration.


Mark, 

You raised the very good questions. Unfortunately, the Packers for the Supermarkets normally are anonymous. 
I keep some honey Jars for my collection: "Distributed by Performance Food Group" - even a source of honey is not mentioned; "Distributed by AlDI Inc" - product of USA, Canda and Argentina" and so on....
But the jewel of my collection is this one - NO Distributor Name - just a statement: "A Select Blend of Honeys from Argentina, USA, and Other Conunries (!!!)"

Nevertheless, the horrible statistics are here:
"The study found that more than 75 percent of the honey tested (!!!) had the pollen removed through an ultra-filtration process.(!!!)
...All of this honey which has been found to be free of pollen goes through a process called ‘ultra-filtration’. Ultra-filtration drains the honey of impurities like wax (!) and pollen (!) by heating the honey and then forcing it through small filters at high speeds."

http://naturalsociety.com/exposing-...-depleted-honey-entering-us-stores-unchecked/

Could you please explain, why not the NHB neither the NHF still did not start a lawsuit against Mike Barrett who posted this statistics, if he lied to us.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Broke-T

We have a lot of customers who want our local raw honey for allergies. I know of no study that shows this and do not label my honey to relieve allergies. But if they think it works, I am not going to tell them they are wrong and refuse to sell them honey.

I also tell these customers for it to do any good it needs to be local and not from somewhere 1000's of miles away.

Johnny


----------



## deknow

This is something I recently sent to one of our retail accounts regarding honey and allergies:

The idea that "local" honey helps with allergies has never been demonstrated in any kind of controlled study. There is no anecdotal evidecne that I'm aware of that compares "local" honey with raw, unfiltered honey that isn't local. Local milk will provide you with calcium...that is a true statement...but does it provide more/better calcium than non-local milk?

The idea that pollen content of honey changes every 50 miles (or doesn't change within within 50 miles) is not true. The idea that honey from a specific area harvested in the spring or summer contains the pollen that people are allergic to in the fall is not true. The idea that the pollen that people are allergic to is in the honey is overstated at best....there might be some ragweed pollen in the honey because the bees are negatively charged and attract pollen from the air, but the bees are not foraging on ragweed, it is wind pollinated, and therefore doesn't put energy into producing protein rich pollen or nectar to attract pollinators.

We are very careful about not assigning health benefits to honey when we are selling....it is illegal to so. It certainly isn't the retail stores' job to point all of this out to customers, but I would advise caution when dealing with customers in this matter....health claims need to be handled carefully.


----------



## deknow

Broke-T said:


> But if they think it works, I am not going to tell them they are wrong and refuse to sell them honey.
> ....
> I also tell these customers for it to do any good it needs to be local and not from somewhere 1000's of miles away.


Errr......


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> Mark,
> 
> You raised the very good questions. Unfortunately, the Packers for the Supermarkets normally are anonymous.
> I keep some honey Jars for my collection: "Distributed by Performance Food Group" - even a source of honey is not mentioned; "Distributed by AlDI Inc" - product of USA, Canda and Argentina" and so on....
> But the jewel of my collection is this one - NO Distributor Name - just a statement: "A Select Blend of Honeys from Argentina, USA, and Other Conunries (!!!)"
> 
> Nevertheless, the horrible statistics is here:
> "The study found that more than 75 percent of the honey tested (!!!) had the pollen removed through an ultra-filtration process.(!!!)
> ...All of this honey which has been found to be free of pollen goes through a process called ‘ultra-filtration’. Ultra-filtration drains the honey of impurities like wax (!) and pollen (!) by heating the honey and then forcing it through small filters at high speeds."
> 
> http://naturalsociety.com/exposing-...-depleted-honey-entering-us-stores-unchecked/
> 
> Could you please explain, why not the NHB neither the NHF still did not start a lawsuit against Mike Barrett who posted this statistic, if he lied to us.
> 
> Boris Romanov


I have no idea why anybody wouldn't file a lawsuit. Not in my knowledge base.

It is my understanding that ultrafiltration removes more than all of the particulate matter, it also removes the color. So, how does the color and taste get back in the varietal honeys found on store shelves of grocery stores.

Ultrafiltration of honey by the Major Packers has been denied. Dutch Gold, aka Gamber Honey Company, and Souix Bee say they don't have Ultrafiltration Equipment. Maybe it's a matter of symantics, but words and their definitions do matter. imo


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> "Distributed by AlDI Inc" Boris Romanov


Not being a burros behind, but is "AIDI" a typo? Did you mean "ALDI", a discount grocery store chain in the US?


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Errr......



Couldn't agree w/ you more Dean.


----------



## deknow

I believe that Mark is correct...this is all old news. The term 'ultrafilteration' means something specific in the food industry...and what was reported in this story was not considered 'ultrafilteration'.

Filtering out pollen is common (and smart) for those that would stand to lose (unsold stock) if the honey crystallized on the shelf.

Of course, crystallized honey doesn't crystallize on the store shelf or in the pantry....

deknow


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Not being a burros behind, but is "AIDI" a typo? Did you mean "ALDI", a discount grocery store chain in the US?


One of these moved into our neighborhood....really designed for food stamp shopping (I'm not making a value judgement here...that is how they are setup...cash or public assistance card...credit cards get a surcharge), and based on the one time I went there to shop for ingredients to make a tuna sandwich (bread, tuna, dried onion flakes, mayo), low quality abounds.....I ate the tuna, threw away the mayo (it didn't taste spoiled, just not good), and I haven't decided if I think the dried onions are edible or not.

This is one step above buying food at a dollar store...I would not expect to find anything of good quality there.

deknow


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

sqkcrk said:


> Not being a burros behind, but is "AIDI" a typo? Did you mean "ALDI", a discount grocery store chain in the US?


Perhaps you are being a _burros behind_, Mark. In Boris's post, the second letter of the word in question is a lower case "L", not an uppercase "I". Look at it more carefully. In the quote below, I did not change the spelling, but did put it in a more distinctive font.


Boris said:


> I keep some honey Jars for my collection: "Distributed by Performance Food Group" - even a source of honey is not mentioned; "Distributed by AlDI Inc"


Aldi is spelled correctly, although it does not have uniform case.


.


----------



## Tia

sqkcrk said:


> Here is where I have a problem similar to Sergeys. Where is the PROOF that honey relieves allergy symptoms. If you allow people to fool themselves w/ such thoughts, which may not be true, aren't you doing exactly what others are complaining about? Misleading by mislabeling? Not dispelling a myth to sell your honey.
> 
> On the oter hand, if honey does relieve allergy symptoms, why doesn't anyone promote that idea on their label.


It doesn't need promotion on the label. At least in this area people know the benefits of honey from allergies to wound healing. They try it and if it doesn't work, they don't continue to use it. My customers who have been buying it from me for 10 years appear to believe that it helps their allergies. Makes perfect sense to me. . .if you're allergic to something and you take that something in small doses, you will eventually build up a resistance (much like the varroa mite and Apistan). That's why one must use local honey. . .to get the local pollens that are causing the sneezing and teary eyes.


----------



## Boris

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Perhaps you are being a _burros behind_, Mark. In Boris's post, the second letter of the word in question is a lower case "L", not an uppercase "I". Look at it more carefully. In the quote below, I did not change the spelling, but did put it in a more distinctive font.
> 
> Aldi is spelled correctly, although it does not have uniform case.
> .


Thank you for your reply. The company website is also posted on the honey jar:
http://www.aldi.com/

As I stated in my post it was the Distributor, but why a Packer name is not posted?

Boris Romanov


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Perhaps you are being a _burros behind_, Mark. In Boris's post, the second letter of the word in question is a lower case "L", not an uppercase "I". Look at it more carefully. In the quote below, I did not change the spelling, but did put it in a more distinctive font.
> 
> Aldi is spelled correctly, although it does not have uniform case.
> 
> 
> .


Thanks Radar. W/ my cattaracts I have to hold the computer close as it is. So, fine details get passed me. Saving up for the operations. Maybe pollination money will help.


----------



## sqkcrk

Tia said:


> It doesn't need promotion on the label. At least in this area people know the benefits of honey from allergies to wound healing. They try it and if it doesn't work, they don't continue to use it. My customers who have been buying it from me for 10 years appear to believe that it helps their allergies. Makes perfect sense to me. . .if you're allergic to something and you take that something in small doses, you will eventually build up a resistance (much like the varroa mite and Apistan). That's why one must use local honey. . .to get the local pollens that are causing the sneezing and teary eyes.


Sorry to inform you of thi Tia, but you and your customers are operating under misunderstandings and selfdillusion. Seeing causeand effect where it doesn't exist. For one thing, the pollen you customers may be allergic to does nt exist in the honey you are selling them. The are allergic to windborn pollens, not the kind of pollens collected by bees.


----------



## Boris

sqkcrk said:


> ...Ultrafiltration of honey by the Major Packers has been denied. Dutch Gold, aka Gamber Honey Company, and Souix Bee say they don't have Ultrafiltration Equipment. Maybe it's a matter of symantics, but words and their definitions do matter. imo


Mark,

Even in the best-case scenario the Packers that you mentioned are less than 25% from the total amount of tested honey.

In addition, the video posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDtClXCM1_I
explains what kind of final product the Dutch Gold Honey provides to the market.
Therefore I do not want to call this forever liquid substance as HONEY.

My wife, my children, my grandson and my friends prefer my raw organic honey, but not a sweet liquid substance from the Supermarkets.
What about your family choice/preferences?

Boris Romanov


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Boris said:


> ... but why a Packer name is not posted?


_Many _foods sold in America do not have a "packers" name on the label. This is not really a honey issue. All kinds of foods are produced by a contract manufacturing arrangement. The most obvious of these may be "store brands" like Janet Lee, Safeway, etc. The less obvious are those where national brand name goods are packed by a contractor using the national brand packaging. 

Any move to force all food labels to identify in plain English the companies involved in manufacturing that food item on the label is from someone that just doesn't understand the true meaning of the phrase _food fight_. :lookout:

And I predict the entire food industry will _mobilize the troops_ even if a smaller segment of the industry is targeted for contract disclosure.


----------



## JRG13

Agree with Mark and Dean for the most part on the pollen issue... Lined up a new outyard today and she was interested in the allergy effect but had the presumption most of it was caused by grasses and I said can't really help you there, although bees may visit ones that actively have anthers, the amount of grass pollen collected is still minimal.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> Perhaps I am too pessimistic but I think that the majority of the time a honey purchase is an impulse purchase made in a large supermarket by a hurried, stressed and budget conscious consumer often with a child in tow begging for a $7 box of Fruit Loops.


Well, like I say to a lot of your posts Jim, I agree to a point

Yes we are selling to a budget conscious consumer, and alot of the consumers food spending habits prove that time in and again.

But I believe good food is back on the consumers radar. And if not here, it is in other places in the world. 
Take China for example, I would say that the majority of consumers in China are just as happy to eat than not. But with the increasing wealth in that country and the huge number of people, premium products are finding a place and good food is fetching a price.

Our packer is tapping into that higher quality market,
I do believe that trend is happening here also, otherwise we simply would be out competed


----------



## Ian

BeeMaid honey is in Canadian Starbucks. No second rate foreign import put in that coffee !


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> ... No body mentioned pollen. Anecdotal as that is and as are all of my experiences selling honey I think what I experience has some weight, being as I sell tons of honey. And some here in this discussin sell none. Some of y'all don't even seem to buy any.


 yes, because, many of "us" are on customer side. Apparently, many wanted to know what they are buying? It is very simple and your arguments are foolish.


----------



## Boris

sqkcrk said:


> ...Ultrafiltration of honey by the Major Packers has been denied. Dutch Gold, aka Gamber Honey Company, and Souix Bee say they don't have Ultrafiltration Equipment. Maybe it's a matter of symantics, but words and their definitions do matter. imo


Mark, 

In fact I don't know even one company that you mentioned. 
So, show us please the real companies, that “…don't have Ultrafiltration Equipment.”

Nevertheless, I know these companies: 

Dutch Gold Honey
http://www.dutchgoldhoney.com/ 
You can see the video from my post #117 also.

Sue Bee Honey, Sioux Honey Association
http://www.suebee.com/

Gamber Container, Inc.
http://www.gambercontainer.com/

Some info about Sioux Honey Association:

“Huser said the Sioux Honey Association and other producers shun ultra-filtration in favor of a more traditional, much less aggressive technique, called macro filtration, to remove bee parts, wax and other debris from the hive...

"When we do that, we incidentally remove most (!!!) of the pollen," he said.”…

According to the Food Safety News story, Sue Bee Honey "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."
http://siouxcityjournal.com/busines...cle_b9e659dd-84f0-55f0-99d8-42f754760d83.html

Now, probably after some criticisms, instead of this statement: "When we do that, we incidentally remove most (!!!) of the pollen," 
new statement is posted here: http://www.suebee.com/?q=node/32 - "...which incidentally removes SOME of the pollen," 


Boris Romanov


----------



## brooksbeefarm

For the past 5 yrs. i don't know how many customers at the farmers market tell me that their doctor said they couldn't do anything more for there allergies and that they could try local honey,that some people say it helps them? Well, i have people tell me after eating my raw honey, it's the only thing that has helped them or there children and as long as they can find it they will never buy anything else. So if it's mental or physical who is to say?If the person feels better or feels cured, that's a good thing.:thumbsup:By the way, doctors will tell you that all allergies are not caused by things in the air The Honey Vs Allergy is becoming like the Global warming fight,we can see it happening.


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> Mark,
> 
> Even in the best-case scenario the Packers that you mentioned are less than 25% from the total amount of tested honey.
> 
> In addition, the video posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDtClXCM1_I
> explains what kind of final product the Dutch Gold Honey provides to the market.
> Therefore I do not want to call this forever liquid substance as HONEY.
> 
> My wife, my children, my grandson and my friends prefer my raw organic honey, but not a sweet liquid substance from the Supermarkets.
> What about your family choice/preferences?
> 
> Boris Romanov


Okay Boris.

My amily gets all of the Squeak Creek Honey they want.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> yes, because, many of "us" are on customer side. Apparently, many wanted to know what they are buying? It is very simple and your arguments are foolish.


Thanks for pointing that out my friend. I often wonder. I never was a member of the Debate Club when I was in school.

 Wanna buy some honey? I'll ship it to you.


----------



## sqkcrk

If you are selling honey, how does your price compare to the shelf price of those found on stores shelves? The one w/out pollen. Are you charging a premium for your honey? Or are you selling it for less so you can get rid of it? A statement I often hear.


----------



## deknow

With that reasoning (doctors recommending honey for allergy because some patients self report that it helps them), seems like we should be expecting professional financial advisers to recommend a trip to vegas, and buying scratch tickets as ways out of debt....or ways to finance an empire!

deknow




brooksbeefarm said:


> For the past 5 yrs. i don't know how many customers at the farmers market tell me that their doctor said they couldn't do anything more for there allergies and that they could try local honey,that some people say it helps them? Well, i have people tell me after eating my raw honey, it's the only thing that has helped them or there children and as long as they can find it they will never buy anything else. So if it's mental or physical who is to say?If the person feels better or feels cured, that's a good thing.:thumbsup:By the way, doctors will tell you that all allergies are not caused by things in the air The Honey Vs Allergy is becoming like the Global warming fight,we can see it happening.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

It's hard to argue with success


----------



## sqkcrk

Allergists recommend, if that's the right word, the use of Local Raw Honey because they don't know any better either and it can't hurt. So, if the patient experiences relief, no none loses. People thing and believe all sorts of things which aren't true.


----------



## Kieck

> yes, because, many of "us" are on customer side. Apparently, many wanted to know what they are buying? -cerezha


O. K., I'll bite. I'm really curious about this, speaking as someone on the "selling" side, who is interested to know a bit more to maybe help marketing. How do you, as the customer, tell how much pollen if any is present in honey when you're out shopping for it?


----------



## apis maximus

Kieck said:


> How do you, as the customer, tell how much pollen if any is present in honey when you're out shopping for it?


Well, for that matter, one can build on the same line of questioning...how do you as a customer, tell that the honey you buy is even honey? Or fake honey? By who's definition?
If you buy directly from the beekeeper, his word is the only thing you can go by...If you buy from a store, any store...you can take the clerk's word, or go by what's on the label, or go to whatever/whomever you think or accept as authority... What else you've got?


----------



## johno

Interesting read guys, I sell a little honey locally and quite frankly it is the best honey that I have tasted in years (the only honey I have tasted in years) and my customers all agree with me on that score. Taste matters with raw honey.
Some of you would like to get the FDA involved with setting standards, I feel that with our foundering free market system GOVT involvment would soon side with big honey and all the small producers would be forced out of the market place, some legislation in VA at one point was targeting small producers so be careful in what you wish for.
About bees not gathering wind blown pollen, I personally have seen bees gathering ragweed pollen so who really knows where the bees do all there shopping.
Johno


----------



## brooksbeefarm

The news media is making food shoppers more aware of what they are buying and feeding there family, with the Govt. allowing food (honey is one) in from China and other country's shoppers start reading the labels. With the problems over the years with China products for one, people shy away from food products from China, i know i dnce they see (not all the customers) honey labeled from China and other countries on the shelf where they shop they start looking for local honey and other home grown food at Farmers Markets, Health food stores, ect,I sell produce and honey at the Farmers Market and hear customers say they hate to see winter coming because they have to buy that crap out of the stores.When people become aware of how honey is processed to put it on the retail shelves, it gathers dust until the local beekeepers run out, around here anyway.They know what ever the bees put in my honey is still in it (raw uncooked, strained once honey) pollen and all, some come and watch me process it. Once they taste real honey they won't go back.


----------



## MJC417

deknow said:


> This is something I recently sent to one of our retail accounts regarding honey and allergies:
> 
> The idea that "local" honey helps with allergies has never been demonstrated in any kind of controlled study. There is no anecdotal evidecne that I'm aware of that compares "local" honey with raw, unfiltered honey that isn't local. Local milk will provide you with calcium...that is a true statement...but does it provide more/better calcium than non-local milk?
> 
> The idea that pollen content of honey changes every 50 miles (or doesn't change within within 50 miles) is not true. The idea that honey from a specific area harvested in the spring or summer contains the pollen that people are allergic to in the fall is not true. The idea that the pollen that people are allergic to is in the honey is overstated at best....there might be some ragweed pollen in the honey because the bees are negatively charged and attract pollen from the air, but the bees are not foraging on ragweed, it is wind pollinated, and therefore doesn't put energy into producing protein rich pollen or nectar to attract pollinators.
> 
> We are very careful about not assigning health benefits to honey when we are selling....it is illegal to so. It certainly isn't the retail stores' job to point all of this out to customers, but I would advise caution when dealing with customers in this matter....health claims need to be handled carefully.



In the following thread is a photo of my bees collecting ragweed pollen. I think most people dont witness this because it is often cut down. I leave a large patch of ragweed for my bees and they will work it. People claim that my honey helps with allergies, I make NO claims that it will. But I can say that my honey has ragweed pollen in it.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...n-capital-of-the-U-S&highlight=pollen+capital


----------



## deknow

Bees will collect corn dust from the chicken feed), sawdust, and even fungus spores in place of pollen.
I heard several people claim that they have never seen honeybees on queenannes lace...until this past year.

Great shot of a honeybee on ragweed in that thread....but as to how common it is (especially as there is often/usually goldenrod and aster or sometimes knotweed are available at the same time), I don't think very common for them to collect it in large quantities....but it would take a pollen trap and monitoring to know.

deknow


----------



## deknow

For those of you who's customers swear by your local honey from their allergies, how are the pollens that are in the air "now" present in the honey you sold someone 3 weeks ago?

deknow


----------



## brooksbeefarm

That's the good thing about Raw honey, i don't have to brag it up or make false claims. It sells it self.:thumbsup:


----------



## Kieck

> Well, for that matter, one can build on the same line of questioning...how do you as a customer, tell that the honey you buy is even honey? Or fake honey? By who's definition? -apis maximus


Good point. I suspect some of us are too close to honey to be very objective about it. As a consumer, I buy maple syrup. If the label says it's real maple syrup, I assume it is. If I buy it and that brand tastes good to me, I'm likely to buy it again if it's available again. I don't analyze it for possible presence of other sugar syrups or tree saps, and I don't really know if it is really from maple trees.

I've just assumed most consumers who buy honey do about the same.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

Kieck,That is what the problem to me is,when you buy a jar of honey at a retail store that says Pure Clover Honey, it should be pure clover honey.Just because the honey has a light color the producer of that honey should be made to back up that claim. I want what i pay for.


----------



## Boris

sqkcrk said:


> Other things bother me more. What is sold as honey appears to be honey. Only it doesn't have pollen in it....
> 
> What purpose does the pollen in honey serve? And why do we say that the pollen is in the honey if it is integral to what honey is. How can the both exist independently if they are so integral?
> 
> No one is being fooled or lied to by a label which identifies the contents of a jar as HONEY...


Mark,

I have a bad news for you.
Below you can see a proof, that "honey" in Supermarkets is not real Honey anymore. 
As you can see - REAL HONEY it is not just an issue related to a pollen removal. For example Enzymes.

"COMPARISON OF MINERAL AND ENZYME LEVELS IN RAW AND PROCESSED HONEY" - Research Project Funded by National Honey Board (!)

"...Enzymes 
Without a doubt, heating and filtering honey reduces the final quantity of enzymes in 
honey. Enzyme levels dropped an average of about 35% when heating and DE filtration was 
used. Enzyme levels dropped about 15% using heating and straining. Enzymes such as 
invertase were nearly completely eliminated (!!!) by processing (average drop of 73%). Others, 
such as phosphatase dropped about 13%. 
That there was an average reduction is not a complete surprise—most enzymes are 
destroyed by heat. However, honey’s enzymes were not completely destroyed by processing. 
Quite the contrary, some enzymes increased after being blended. It is likely this occurred due 
to the highly variable nature of the honey samples. For instance, the range in enzyme levels 
for some honeys were two the three times higher from one sample to the next. " 
http://www.honey.com/images/uploads/general/processed-versus-raw-honey.pdf

Is a level of Enzymesins in honey important? - see two examples from my previous posts.

So, can you label a 1% Milk as a Whole Milk? 
Therefore I think your statement: "...No one is being fooled or lied to by a label which identifies the contents of a jar as HONEY" is incorrect.

If we are thinking about ethical behavior - the Packers should use the labels similar to these: "Filtered Honey", "Processed Honey", "Heated Honey" and so on.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Ian

Yup, I agree Brooksbeefarm
Seen honey on the shelf from a local producer the other day, in clear jars, who was selling clover creamed honey, and wild flower creamed honey. Both honeys were the same white honey colour. It would pass for maybe canola honey, but not wild flower honey. Wild flower honey typically is dark from around here. 
Little does the consumer know, how would they know any different


----------



## Ian

Boris, I have listened to your talk along now,

the fact of the matter is the way packers handle our honey is the most economically way to process honey. I ship out 250 barrels of honey every year, as do many other beekeepers associated to our packing group. That honey is stored, cleaned, processed according to the buyers order, packed and then shipped out to the retailers shelves. And from there, the honey sits for a customer to buy it. Quality constancy and availability is what consumers want, we provide it to them. 

To supply the market place with honey anyother way would not only cost the beekeeper more in processing costs, it would cost the consumer. 
We do the best we can to supply the consumer with good quality honey.

If they want raw unfiltered un heated honey, they can go straight to the beekeeper

I cant imagine my packer trying to handle 15000000 of honey without filtering and "processing" the honey first


----------



## deknow

Boris said:


> Is a level of Enzymesins in honey important? - see two examples from my previous posts.
> So, can you label a 1% Milk as a Whole Milk?


Well, milk is an interesting example. Pasteurized milk has less enzymes than raw milk does, yet it can still be considered "whole milk".


> Is it true that raw milk has more enzymes and nutrients than pasteurized milk?
> 
> While it’s true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health. Some nutrients are somewhat reduced in raw milk, but the United States diet generally has plenty of other sources of these nutrients. For example, vitamin C is reduced by pasteurization, but raw milk is not a major source of vitamin C.


http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#enzymes


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> Boris, I have listened to your talk along now,
> 
> the fact of the matter is the way packers handle our honey is the most economically way to process honey. I ship out 250 barrels of honey every year, as do many other beekeepers associated to our packing group. That honey is stored, cleaned, processed according to the buyers order, packed and then shipped out to the retailers shelves. And from there, the honey sits for a customer to buy it. Quality constancy and availability is what consumers want, we provide it to them.
> 
> To supply the market place with honey anyother way would not only cost the beekeeper more in processing costs, it would cost the consumer.
> We do the best we can to supply the consumer with good quality honey.
> 
> If they want raw unfiltered un heated honey, they can go straight to the beekeeper
> 
> I cant imagine my packer trying to handle 15000000 of honey without filtering and "processing" the honey first


Ian,
I cannot accept your comments, especially with your previous statements: "I do not know how much of a problem filtered honey is, Im not completely familiar with packer practices.
But, what I do know is how my packer operates, to which Im a part of. Kinda makes me feel all good and fuzzy inside,
www.beemaid.com" (your Post #96).

I know about www.beemaid.com" very well. I tried BeeMaid "honey" from my local Shop Rite Superstore, therefore I cannot call it HONEY.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Ian

I dont see anything wrong with what I said, read it again if you please,

I dont know where I said "(your Post #very well. I tried it from my local Shop Rite Superstore, therefore I cannot call it HONEY."
Im not going to check back through the thread for that one, but its not from me, whats a Shop Rite Superstore?


----------



## Ian

I have a feeling you dont peddle much honey Boris . . . .


----------



## deknow

One of the interesting things we encounter at the markets is that many people from many parts of the world have "tests" to perform to see if honey is pure. These range from seeing how it "drips" (almost everything we sell is crystallized beyond "dripping"), what a match does when put to the honey...some just assume that if it is crystallized it has had sugar added.

Another thing we joke about is people who turn down a taste of honey because they "know what honey tastes like"....when we have goldenrod honey from NY, clover/basswood/wildflower honey from Vermont, and usually at least 3 distinct honeys from Arizona (from almost white to almost black).

One time a few years ago, a local health food store owner told me that they had been having the honey tested....I was quite curious, as at the time I didn't know anything about how to go about having honey tested....I thought I was talking to someone more expert than myself. It turned out to be "muscle testing" (essentailly, the "tester" asking themselves if the honey is pure, and seeing how hard it is for them to pull their own fingers apart as a way to test the purity of honey).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology
...no, I'm not kidding.

If you want to start tossing around accusations of something specific that isn't honey, probably more is required than seeing or tasting it....there is just too much variation.

deknow


----------



## Boris

Ian, 

Please reload your browser prior to visit your post #96

Boris Romanov


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> I have a feeling you dont peddle much honey Boris . . . .


It's true - I'm not a commercial beekeeper. I am who I am, and website clearly describes my beekeeping practises.

But why BeeMaid doesn't use labels that I proposed in my post # 141 ?

Boris Romanov


----------



## jim lyon

Those of us who produce and market honey on a large scale get a bit testy when a thread like this shows up and you find yourself in a cyber-debate with someone that has little or no background in either honey production or marketing. I, like Ian, sell large quantities of honey. What we sell is a marvelous product, no different than what the beekeeper raises who has a hive or two in their backyard. In many cases better depending on the investment the producer has made in stainless honey handling equipment where you can easily spend $100,000 on an extracting system. We have families and workers with families, and lots and lots of other expenses. So who is going to buy this crop? We sure don't have the time to try to market a few hundred pounds here and there. There are only a few major packers that market honey to the majority of honey consumers in the country and they are for the most part very reputable. When you sell your crop to them it isn't accepted until it is tested for adulterants and chemical residues. They process it and pack it in the manner that their customers demand and that they have found to be profitable. If they aren't profitable they are not in business. I understand these realities, Ian and some others "get" it as well. We don't appreciate uninformed and slanted articles such as this implying that the consumer is being given something other than what they thought they were getting. I wish everyone could be informed about the quality of unprocessed raw honey, it sure would make things easier for everyone in this industry. Unfortunately they aren't. I learned first hand the cost of chargebacks when grocers pulled my granulated product off the shelf. In the meantime I give little credence in listening to the lectures by those whose breadth of knowledge in this area is pretty much what they just learned about somewhere and graciously provided a link so we can all be as informed as they are.


----------



## Ian

Lets highlight Post # 151

Thats as basic as it gets, 

Boris, did you read post # 151 ?


----------



## Ian

Boris, oh I think I see what you were trying to say, 

Glad you like BeeMaid honey, we are very proud of our product


----------



## Ian

Jim, we also need it all in bold type ha ha ha


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris, as I think I said before, I don't worry about that stuff. I sell my honey and don't worry much about what others do. But thanks. Knowledge is power and good to know. Now I am going to go buy a Slurpee and not worry about what is in it.


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> Those of us who produce and market honey on a large scale get a bit testy when a thread like this shows up and you find yourself in a cyber-debate with someone that has little or no background in either honey production or marketing....


 Well, I have to admit, I feel exact the same way when people without any credentials keep talking about matters in which they are null! For instance most of the cries regarding how pollen is not part of the whole honey especially deknow speculations regarding pollen and allergy... Having doctorate degree in molecular immunology and spending last 30 years working in this field , it just amused me how people may be so ignorant in immunology. I was trying to offer my expertise in other threads, but it just does not work and feels so hopeless... Also, it looks like, the forum is heavily biased towards large-scale honey producers, which makes me feel that I am not welcome here. Sad.  Sergey


----------



## jim lyon

cerezha said:


> Well, I have to admit, I feel exact the same way when people without any credentials keep talking about matters in which they are null! For instance most of the cries regarding how pollen is not part of the whole honey especially deknow speculations regarding pollen and allergy... Having doctorate degree in molecular immunology and spending last 30 years working in this field , it just amused me how people may be so ignorant in immunology. I was trying to offer my expertise in other threads, but it just does not work and feels so hopeless... Also, it looks like, the forum is heavily biased towards large-scale honey producers, which makes me feel that I am not welcome here. Sad.  Sergey


I'll make you a deal Sergey I wont suggest that folks with degrees in molecular immunology aren't "real" immunologists if you would stop suggesting that the product that we raise isn't "real" honey since, like you, that is the field I have been working in for the past 30 years.


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> I'll make you a deal Sergey I wont suggest that folks with degrees in molecular immunology aren't "real" immunologists...


 Well, the allergy as a disease lies exactly in the area of *molecular immunology*. From another hand I really do not care what you think about my credentials. My credentials are supported by more than 50 research articles in pier-reviewed journals and by my appointment as a research scientist at the university medical school. What is your credentials other than 30 years of doing ...what? Beekeeping? Do you have a degree, which one? I have masters in human physiology and actually two doctorate degrees: in molecular biology and immunology. I am sorry for being clear in my words, but you provoke me. Also, do not be so manipulative: "that the product that we raise isn't "real" honey" - look at the title of the thread. Could you read? "Tests Show Most *Store Honey* Isn’t Honey." I do not think that "store honey" is what you are making... I have deep respect to your business, but I could not tolerate the ignorance. So be respectful to others opinions and read the titles of the thread. I am not making any "deals." I apologize for inconvenience. Sergey


----------



## Ian

and you are wondering why you dont feel welcome here? are you kidding me?
happy thoughts Sergy, happy thoughts

Im sucking on a spoon full of honey right now, boy is that good !


----------



## jim lyon

Sergey: I think we would all be interested in hearing more about your resume as it relates to what actually constitutes honey and any direct experience you have in handling, processing and packaging honey. My apologies if I am the only one here that has missed your name in the industry publications?


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> Sergey: I think we would all be interested in hearing more about your resume as it relates to what actually constitutes honey and any direct experience you have in handling, processing and packaging honey. My apologies if I am the only one here that has missed your name in the industry publications?


 Molecular immunology, Jim, Molecular immunology... I do not care about "industry", it is not my area of interest. I am sorry for that. I just submitted the paper on the structure of the human IgG2, which pays a key role in the human immunity respond AND diseases. This immunoglobulin is used to produce therapeutic drugs and hopefully, my paper will help to design a better therapeutics. Immunoglobulines, which I am studying for 30 years is a key molecule in any allergy. 

As I stated many times in many threads, I am not an expert in beekeeping. I am a hobbyist.

Sergey


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> and you are wondering why you dont feel welcome here?


I guess, I have too much education. It was always the problem - street gangs did not "welcome" me... I get used to it...


----------



## Ramona

Ian said:


> and you are wondering why you dont feel welcome here? are you kidding me?
> happy thoughts Sergy, happy thoughts
> 
> Im sucking on a spoon full of honey right now, boy is that good !



Would that be a spoonful of honey before or after it was sent to the packer?


----------



## deknow

cerezha said:


> Well, I have to admit, I feel exact the same way when people without any credentials keep talking about matters in which they are null! For instance most of the cries regarding how pollen is not part of the whole honey especially deknow speculations regarding pollen and allergy...




I'm a bit confused here. What I said about pollen in honey and allergies:

1. That there are no peer reviewed studies that show "local honey" (unheated, unfiltered) helps with allergies.

2. That there are no peer reviewed studies (or even reasonable anecdotal observations) that compares "local" unheated, unfiltered honey with "exotic" unheated unfiltered honey wrt allergy issues.

3. Claims that local honey helps with allergies are almost always accompanied by the claim that it is "the local pollens in the honey" that helps with allergies....yet, there is no attention on what pollens are actually in the honey. Does wind born pollen end up in honey in appreciable enough concentrations to have an effect? How does honey that is harvested in the spring help with fall allergies?

I can cite a book if you like that claims that any pollen in the honey is helpful for pollen allergies...regardless of the source. It isn't peer reviewed, it isn't even science....it is a book on pollen for health.

What you should also understand:

1. That Ramona and I make our living selling honey. Raw honey from hives that are not treated, that is not filtered (ultra or otherwise).

2. We pay our producers a premium for their honey.

3. That we got into the honey business specifically because we saw what we consider an outstanding product from a pristine environment get sold to large packers for commodity prices...to be turned into commodity honey. It broke our hearts, and we saw that there was an opportunity.

I don't believe for a second that there are many (if any) commercial beekeepers that would prefer to eat their own honey _after_ it has been packed by a large packer rather than straight out of the extractor or settling tank (Jim, Ian, what do you have on your own table in your own home?)

We have customers that buy our Arizona honey and claim it helps their allergies here in Massachusetts.

We never sell honey as an allergy relief. Obviously, we often get people at our table who want to talk about allergies....if I feel like they are open, I have a discussion with them about it...citing the wind pollinated plants they are allergic to and the seasonal variations...that the thesis that "local" honey helps allergies because of the specific local pollen in the honey has a lot of holes in it. Sometimes I get a sense they don't want to hear it, and I tell them I don't have the local honey (produced within 5-50 miles depending on the person making the claim), and send them off to buy something with a local tag on it (even if the honey is not local).

We get all kinds of people looking for honey to cure specific things..sometimes "woman problems"...I had one guy a few years ago (not sure where he was from...somewhere in South America I think) that was looking for honey to help with "sperm" (he was not more specific, thankfully). His wife was going to make him have some kind of surgery if he couldn't cure the problem with honey.

We say what we always say...that we make no medical claims about our honey or any honey, but if raw unfiltered honey is what they are looking for, that's what we have. When asked which of the honeys is "best" for a specific problem, we try to get them to select on the taste they prefer...but some insist on a recommendation....I usually point out the one with the lowest moisture content has the most "other" things in it besides water.

If I am mistaken or misinformed on any of this, please correct me.

With all of that said, the "industry" doesn't seem motivated to push what I consider "higher quality" (less heat, less filtration), and there are legitimate marketing reasons to remove the pollen (to keep it from crystallizing on the shelf). Should I spend my energy telling everyone else what to do when they are making more money _not_ doing what I think they should do? Clearly their goals and mine are not the same...I don't see a problem with that...I see opportunity.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

cerezha said:


> Molecular immunology, Jim, Molecular immunology... I do not care about "industry", it is not my area of interest. I am sorry for that. I just submitted the paper on the structure of the human IgG2, which pays a key role in the human immunity respond AND diseases. This immunoglobulin is used to produce therapeutic drugs and hopefully, my paper will help to design a better therapeutics. Immunoglobulines, which I am studying for 30 years is a key molecule in any allergy.
> 
> As I stated many times in many threads, I am not an expert in beekeeping. I am a hobbyist.
> 
> Sergey


I respect your education Sergey, it's something I could never do and in a field I know little about. I also have an education, it was earned not in a university but through decades of hard work raising bees, handling and marketing honey and I am proud of it. You only make yourself look petty belittling it. I will leave it to others to decide whose resume is more relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> I dont see anything wrong with what I said, read it again if you please,...


Ian, please read my post #145 more carefully:

COPY of my POST:

Ian,
I cannot accept your comments, especially with your previous statements: "I do not know how much of a problem filtered honey is, Im not completely familiar with packer practices.
But, what I do know is how my packer operates, to which Im a part of. Kinda makes me feel all good and fuzzy inside,
www.beemaid.com" (your Post #96).

I know about www.beemaid.com" very well. I tried BeeMaid "honey" from my local Shop Rite Superstore, therefore I cannot call it HONEY.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> ...Glad you like BeeMaid honey, we are very proud of our product


Ian,

Please do not misinform forum's members. 
In my post I said: "I know about www.beemaid.com" very well. I tried BeeMaid "honey" from my local Shop Rite Superstore, therefore I cannot call it HONEY."

Once again - it's not ethical to call/label forever liquid substance as HONEY!

And please remember the title of the original article: "Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn’t Honey"

Ian and Mark - could you show us please some real proofs that you are more knowledgeable with this issue , than Bryant, who is director of the Palynology Research Laboratory.

Boris Romanov


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> They process it and pack it in the manner that their customers demand and that they have found to be profitable.


...perfectly good cattle are used to make Mcdonalds hamburgers. The customer doesn't care so much about the cow...they care about the patty in front of them. Being profitable is great...it's one of the best ways to stay in business  ...but at the same time, you can't benefit from the low cost of producing a McDonalds hamburger, the ready market for a cheap McDonalds hamburger, and have the recognition that it is the finest gourmet burger on the planet. Don't confuse profitability with quality. That it is profitable to heat, filter, and blend the honey into a consistent looking/tasting product that is shelf stable isn't surprising. I expect that what you are selling to the packer is measurably different than what the packer is selling to the customer (filtered, heated, blended)....I understand being proud of your product (and you should be), but we can't really equate what you are selling to the packer with what the packer is selling to the consumer.



> We don't appreciate uninformed and slanted articles such as this implying that the consumer is being given something other than what they thought they were getting.


Cmon Jim. Oftentimes the customer is not getting what they thought they were getting. Heating, filtering, feeding, treating aside....much of what is sold as "local" honey (at least around here) is not local, not produced by the beekeeper that claims to have produced it. This "buying in honey as your own" practice seems to be baseline, and no one (selling honey) seems to object. Heck, even the NHB did their own market research in 2009:
"One-quarter of the total number of respondents do not know that pure honey has no other ingredients. Those that believe there are ingredients added to honey expect to find various syrups, sugars and/or preservatives on the ingredient listing."
...so what is it you think people think they are getting when they buy honey?



> I wish everyone could be informed about the quality of unprocessed raw honey, it sure would make things easier for everyone in this industry. Unfortunately they aren't.


....if you really wish this, I'm not sure what you are objecting to. If unprocessed raw honey has qualities that your honey (once it leaves the packing facility) does not have, why would you object to having that pointed out.

There is nothing that prevents you, a family member, an enterprising young kid, a mother or father with a background in marketing who wants to work on their own time from coming up with a marketing plan that matches with your wishes. I'm not criticizing you for not doing so...we all have to decide where our resources are best spent...but it is not impossible nor prohibited. It's your darn honey until you sell it....you can do with it as you please.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

Dean: for the record, I eat honey every day and, no, it has not been filtered. We pack only 3 to 4 thousand pounds a year for local customers and landowners. We heat it to about 120 degrees while constantly stirring for a few hours to make sure it's fully liquified and dosent scald. After it has been thoroughly warmed we allow it to cool for a few hours to a good bottling temp to clarify and skim off any "settings". It usually stays liquid for about a year depending on the primary floral source that year and, yeah, it's gonna have a few "floaties" in there. We pass it out with the usual advice about gently rewarming it if it granulates and we still get a few comments about the "spoiled" honey in the basement. The very best honey, no doubt, is fresh out of the tank on the day it's extracted and yes a few savvy honey buyers come walking into our extracting room mid summer with jar in hand. The only education those folks need is to watch out for bees and forklifts.


----------



## Ian

>>Jim, Ian, what do you have on your own table in your own home?)<<

My packer sends through a run of my product to which I provide for sale, and own use.


----------



## jim lyon

Dean: I can't disagree with too much you are saying here, but until a savvy honey marketer approaches me with an offer and a plan to sell it as an upscale value added product then nothing really changes does it. The only place large quantities of bottling honey are sold are in the Wal Marts and large supermarkets and those buyers look at revenue per foot of shelf space. They care about liability and they care about moving product. Try talking enzymes and pollen content and watch their eyes glaze over. Who would you sell to if you were me? The buyer offering $2.00 a pound with a good track record of paying on time or waiting around for the $2.50 or $3.00 dream?


----------



## deknow

Jim, I don't have any criticism for what you are doing.

To [mis]quote Neil Young:
"Raw honey is better, bumper stickers should be issued"

deknow


----------



## Ian

Boris, your missing a real treat ! They sell a very high quality product sold around the world. We take alot of pride in the product we produce. BeeMaid is one of the few North American packers who can link the honey on the self right back to the hive it came from. 

My initial objection to filtration was of the Chinese honey filtered to remove antibiotics and other adulterating products. That kink of filtration requires heating, watering down and sending the product through a very fine filter. That is not common practice, you know that right? It is so sad to see honey treated in that manner sold beside honey presented to the public in a respectable manner. 

If the public had a choice between "Ultra filtered Honey" or "Our _Processed_ Honey" or "Raw honey" to where as the discription of its handling was present on the label, 
the public would choose our processed and Raw honey everytime. No doubt about it. The battle between our processed honey and raw honey would be the same battle as we are having now,

and my I add, I do not see how we could provide the public with the hundreds of millions of lbs of raw honey on the self. There is a reason why we handle our honey in such a fashion, and I would argue the standards our packer follows are bettered my none


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Jim, I don't have any criticism for what you are doing.


Nor do we of you, I really respect the fact that your tapping into that market ! Love it !


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> Its your company that seems to be comparing our packed honey product as filth


???? when did I/we do this?

deknow

edit: upon rereading, I can't tell if you mean my Company (Golden Rule Honey), or "the company I keep" on this thread. Either way, I'm not sure what you are talking about.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> Boris, your missing a real treat ! They sell a very high quality product sold around the world. We take alot of pride in the product we produce. BeeMaid is one of the few North American packers who can link the honey on the self right back to the hive it came from.


...but I think Boris has been clear about what he wants...which is not what Beemaid is providing.

At some point, one has to accept that not everything is the same as everything else, and to accept that a "great" or even "the best" product does not suit everyone's needs.

deknow


----------



## Ian

Thats for sure, and hold towards my hard grained belief that the consumer will decide what is sold to them

But, my appreciation falls a bit short when someone like Boris will slag the product I spend my pride on producing


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> Boris, your missing a real treat ! They sell a very high quality product sold around the world. We take alot of pride in the product we produce. BeeMaid is one of the few North American packers who can link the honey on the self right back to the hive it came from...


Ian,

I cannot accept your statements, especially this one: "...BeeMaid is one of the few North American packers who can link the honey on the self right back to the hive it came from." 

The BeeMaid final product, that I bought from Shop Rite was 
sweet, processed (therefore probably forever liquid) substance.

It's is clear to me, that you did not manipulate on a final product, but it's not HONEY any more.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Ian

Boris said:


> Ian,
> 
> I cannot accept your statements, especially this one: "...BeeMaid is one of the few North American packers who can link the honey on the self right back to the hive it came from."


why cant you accept that statement ?


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> But, my appreciation falls a bit short when someone like Boris will slag the product I spend my pride on producing


To some extent at least, that is quite unfair. What Boris is largely objecting to is the processing that happens with the packer. This is the same processing that the packer (and you) claim contributes towards it being a great product.

So...the same processing....some think it adds value, some think it subtracts value. 

Might as well argue PC vs Mac or vanilla vs. chocolate.

To say that unprocessed honey is "better" than processed honey is nothing more than an opinion.

To say that unprocessed honey is "different" than processed honey is a fact.

If you want to claim that these differences are important, then lets start citing some facts. How much pollen is removed from a pound of honey? How much remains? What effect does that pollen have? Would the filtered out pollen, if eaten, help with allergies? What if the pollen was not local? What if the pollen were out of season? What are the quantifiable effects of raw local honey on allergies (not some Russian folklore please....lets look at some actual data)? What are the quantifiable effects of raw exotic honey on allergies? What are the quantifiable effects of inverted sugar syrup on allergies? What are the quantifiable effects of processed honey on allergies?

Although we may not have the answers to all of these questions, the questions themselves seem rather obvious.

But Boris's own posts makes it seem like crystallization is what makes honey honey.....no Tupelo or buckwheat for Boris!...even if it is raw, pure, and unfiltered!

deknow


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> To some extent at least, that is quite unfair. . .
> So...the same processing....some think it adds value, some think it subtracts value.


Yes I completely agree, that about sums up this off shoot of the thread,
except for the "not HONEY" comment, I will never agree on that point 

cheers!


----------



## brooksbeefarm

Lets be real here, it's a shame that in order to sell honey on the grocery shelve, Wal-Mart,ect. that it has to be heated over 200F + to pasteurize it and pressurize it through filters before it is put in jars an sold.If you don't it will crystallize and not sell.(to the retailer or customer). Like any food that is cooked at high temps., most all(if not all) the nutrients are cooked out, Most everyone have heard or read that honey is a good nutritious food, not so after pasteurized, to me you might as well eat Karo syrup on your biscuit, you would be getting about the same food value. As for the allergy argument whether raw honey helps or not, until there are more studies done on if it does or doesn't help, i'm going with the people who claim it's the Only thing that has helped or cured them. To say pasteurized honey is still honey i agree, but it is what it is pasterurized. It's not real, raw, unchanged from the nutrients still intact, honey.To the person who wants what they paid for.


----------



## jim lyon

Yikes are we reaching a consensus? I'm not sure about the 200+ degree heating Brooks. I haven't heard of anything quite that harsh correct me if I'm wrong on that.


----------



## Ian

I know of a common practice called a "flash treatment" where as the honey is heated in an extremely controlled fashion to kill off any yeast or bacterial in the honey. And when I say controlled, its done by the book, to the second of exposure. Much the same way milk is pasteurized, to kill off the botulism.,

The way packers handle millions of pounds of honey, right from the beekeeper to the retail shelf is extremely interesting. It has it problems as does other food products but the ability for us to market that much honey to the entire consumer spectrum at such high standards is quite amazing


----------



## brooksbeefarm

I was wronge on the 200+ temp. i looked it up,160F + 72 c is more common, from what i've read and heard anything over 120F or 72 c the food value in honey starts to diminish. It's supposed to kill bacteria and stop crystallization at this temp.?


----------



## Ian

I dont know about the retardation of granulation, filtering pollen out helps with that.
It does kill all bacteria with a flash heat treatment though, much the same as they do with milk
They are mostly targeting Botulism


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> I dont know about the retardation of granulation, filtering pollen out helps with that.
> It does kill all bacteria with a flash heat treatment though, much the same as they do with milk
> They are mostly targeting Botulism


Err...it takes 250F for a few minutes to kill botulism spores. I'm not sure there is any honey that is heated to that temp. There are other bacteria, yeasts, fungi, etc that are sometimes in honey, and honey is often pasteurized in order to kill any of these live organisms (some people with dietary restrictions can't eat honey that hasn't been pasteurized).

deknow


----------



## deknow

http://www.beemaid.com/sweet-fact4


> Why pasteurize honey?
> 
> Pasteurizing honey is a very different thing than pasteurizing milk or other dairy products, and it’s done for very different reasons. Because of its low moisture content and high acidity, bacteria and other harmful organisms cannot live or reproduce in honey, so pasteurization is not done for that purpose. One of the few things that can live in honey is yeast, although if the moisture content is below 18% (as it normally is), the yeast cells cannot reproduce. All nectar (the source for all honey) contains osmophilic yeasts, which can reproduce in higher-moisture content honey and cause fermentation. While fermented honey does not necessarily pose any health risk, we try to discourage it, so Bee Maid pasteurizes its honey to kill any latent yeast cells that might be present and to remove any chance of fermentation.
> 
> Another side benefit of pasteurizing honey is that it will slow down the granulation process. Pasteurized honey will last longer in its liquid state than unpasteurized honey, which makes for a more appealing-looking product for both retailers and consumers.


http://www.beemaid.com/sweet-fact5


> Sweet Fact 5
> How is honey pasteurized?
> 
> We pasteurize our honey by a “flash heating” method, to minimize the amount of time that the honey is exposed to the heat and to reduce the risk of damaging or burning it. The honey is heated very quickly to about 160°F and then rapidly cooled, which will kill the yeast cells without damaging the product. This process is done on our production line during the packing procedure.


I'm willing to bet the infant botulism warning is on all their honey.

deknow


----------



## deknow

brooksbeefarm said:


> I was wronge on the 200+ temp. i looked it up,160F + 72 c is more common, from what i've read and heard anything over 120F or 72 c the food value in honey starts to diminish. It's supposed to kill bacteria and stop crystallization at this temp.?


What is the "food value" of raw honey?

deknow


----------



## Ian

looks like I stand corrected on the Botulism. Thought it got that too. 
250F for a few min would defiantly degrade the honey.

I love the fact you pulled that off the BeeMaid site, Ha ha


----------



## Ian

Looks like BeeMaid also offers an un pasteurized product
http://www.beemaid.com/sweet-fact6


----------



## JRG13

I recall someone saying botulism wasn't a problem in honey typically and that the study done was that Karo syrup was the culprit but the honey board never sought to correct the claim that all honey is tainted with botulism when in fact it isnt?


----------



## jim lyon

brooksbeefarm said:


> I was wronge on the 200+ temp. i looked it up,160F + 72 c is more common, from what i've read and heard anything over 120F or 72 c the food value in honey starts to diminish. It's supposed to kill bacteria and stop crystallization at this temp.?


Yeah that sounds about right (or should I say correct) and I don't think it needs to be at that temp for more than a matter of minutes.


----------



## ryan

Ok, the title of the article and the thread are false and misleading. The "standard of identity for honey" is a work in progress, state by state and nation by nation. The statement made by the FDA about what "is or isn't honey" has not been finalized. The article itself said Food News Safety is waiting for the FDA to get back to them about what they consider honey as far as pollen content is concerned. It is inflammatory to degrade store shelf honey, containing little or no pollen, by claiming it's not real honey. There is no clear standard about honey and its pollen content. Save they claims of "not real honey" for the Syrups, and Sugars that everyone fights to keep off the shelf. Store shelf honey has been heated and filtered for generations. Very recent statements, which are ambiguous and incomplete, about things that are still a work in progress, should not be fraudulently used to indite an established industry.

Here is the history. First, the big beekeeping groups worked to implement a tariff on honey from some countries. To avoid the tariff some countries transshipped honey to make it look like like it originated from a country with no tariff. To catch the cheats we started testing the raw bulk honey for pollen to see where it actually came from. Once pollen testing started, the cheats invented Ultra Filtration. So the american beekeeping groups worked to stop "Ultra Filtered imported bulk honey" because it hid the country of origin to avoid the tariff. Now our hard work to stabilize the bulk honey market has been turned against us by some people looking for a Headline. The tools and words used to stop transshipments of bulk imported honey are being used against domestic honey on the store shelf. It's a sloppy application and no one has given clarification yet. Note the article itself says the FDA has not yet given any guidance or clarification.

ryan


----------



## deknow

What does a stable bulk honey market look like?

deknow


----------



## Kieck

Honey is a good sweetener, but I have yet to read or hear of much other nutritional value in it. The trace amounts of pollen may have some protein, I suppose, but at such low levels that nothing about it appears in nutritional information that I've seen. Other than calories from the sugars, what other nutritional value does honey have?


----------



## Ian

That was a good post ryan.


>>I recall someone saying botulism wasn't a problem in honey typically <<

JRG13 , ya I dont know the facts behind honey and botulism except that most all consumers link the two together. So I follow the same position ,...
I cant see how its any different than any other raw food, 
People dont feed a new born baby garden carrots or beans


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> What does a stable bulk honey market look like?
> 
> deknow


perhaps stability where as imports are brought in following established trade agreements


----------



## ryan

Thanks Ian

I think if you look at the history of bulk prices from the 90s until today you will see severe ups and downs early on followed by steady and rising prices. Ending today with $2.00 honey and diminished worries about exporting countries wrecking our momentum like they did early on in the fight. It is an ongoing battle. I encourage support of the AHPA and ABF with all their efforts.


----------



## Tia

sqkcrk said:


> Sorry to inform you of thi Tia, but you and your customers are operating under misunderstandings and selfdillusion. Seeing causeand effect where it doesn't exist. For one thing, the pollen you customers may be allergic to does nt exist in the honey you are selling them. The are allergic to windborn pollens, not the kind of pollens collected by bees.


Mark, I don't think I've ever posted a reply in this forum where you didn't tell me I'm wrong. Since you're so sure of the right answers to everything (you must be a Republican) I think I'll just stop posting and learn from your future sage advice.


----------



## johno

I have just read Tia's remarks and I worry about the level of IQ,s of some of the participants. I for one pointed out the fact that bees feed on ragweed a wind blown pollen,a debate is taking place on this thread and some things can be learned from it. It is unbecoming that someone should try to label a persons position by blaming it on a political ideology,I begin to understand why the gentleman who did some research on FGMO no longer takes part in this forum
Johno


----------



## Kieck

Everyone on these forums should keep a couple things in mind:

First, you might meet some of the people you debate/criticize/dismiss in these threads. Chances are, you will find those people to be far more reasonable than they may come across in this medium, given the limitations of communication in this format. You might find that you actually like some of them if you do meet them. All the members of Beesource that I've met face-to-face have been pleasant, likable people. Bearing that in mind while you type might make your responses a bit more temperate.

Secondly, the non-verbal components of communication are lost in a forum like this. What you interpret as a harsh response may not have been intended as harsh at all. Try to have a thick skin while reading others' responses, and don't take offense at every difference of opinion.

Having said that, I did look up the story in the initial post. I also found follow-up news stories from shortly after it appeared (back in 2011). The impression I got from those articles was very different than the general tone in this thread seems to be.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> why cant you accept that statement ?


Because I think your statement in your post "179 is incorrect. 

The Bee Maid Honey is just a distributor. I think you forgot the Packager - HACCP.

“Bee Maid Honey is proud that it’s honey processing and packing operations are HACCP recognized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).”
http://www.beemaid.com/bulk-ingredient

Could you please describe us the HACCP’s “honey processing” DETAILS. It will help us to compare a Canadian "honey processing" with an American " honey processing" - for example with the Sioux Honey Association.

Did you ever try the final product AFTER the HACCP processing?

Today I’ve visited the Shop Rite Superstore in Monticello, NY and I have more details to show you later my explanation of Why the final product from the BeeMaid is not HONEY any more (in my opinion).

Boris Romanov


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Boris said:


> The Bee Maid Honey is just a distributor. I think you forgot the *Packager * - *HACCP*.
> 
> “Bee Maid Honey is proud that it’s honey processing and packing operations are HACCP recognized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).”


Oops, Boris, you seem to be confused. :scratch: HACCP is not a packager of any kind.



> HACCP is a management system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product.
> 
> More _here_:
> http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/hazardanalysiscriticalcontrolpointshaccp/default.htm


----------



## brooksbeefarm

deKnow,Here is some food value of Raw Honey, natural sugars,minerals,and vitamins,and even antioxidant properties,it is fat free,and cholesterol free. The minerals, calcium,copper,iron,magnesium,manganese,phosphorus,potassium,sodium,and zinc. are abundant in Raw Honey:thumbsup:Thanks for asking, i didn't know alot of it, and this is only some of the benefits of raw honey, over pasteurized honey. Why not label it for what it is.


----------



## ryan

Boris
It would have been nice if you had linked to the Food News Safety article from April of 2012 instead of that older one from 2011. 

The USDA says honey is from nectar and does not need pollen to be present to be complete.

Regular filtration can remove all pollen from honey depending on the honey and pollen source.

This supports my post 194

All a wild goose chase. But it made a nice Headline for a reporter.


----------



## Ian

Boris I wish you would quit doing that. Please quit slagging my honey.

HACCP, is a third party auditing certification process which provides food related industries a standard to work under. Its the same as the US HACCP program I believe. CFIA is a function of our government which imposes strict standards of food related industries and such.

take a look

http://haccpcanada.net/

I doubt any consumer would object to our honey processing plant being certified by HACCP, AND have the honey supplied to them be from beekeeping operations registered with CFIA


----------



## Ian

Boris, would your honey establishment pass the inspection requirements that fall under the HACCP certification processes?


----------



## Kieck

> deKnow,Here is some food value of Raw Honey, natural sugars,minerals,and vitamins,and even antioxidant properties,it is fat free,and cholesterol free. The minerals, calcium,copper,iron,magnesium,manganese,phosphorus ,potassium,sodium,and zinc. are abundant in Raw HoneyThanks for asking, i didn't know alot of it, and this is only some of the benefits of raw honey, over pasteurized honey. Why not label it for what it is. -brooksbeefarm


Maybe deknow asked, too, but I asked about nutritional values. What sorts of levels of these are found in honey? Standard nutritional labels for honey list sodium as 0% RDA, and 0 grams in one serving. I'd like to see the numbers if they're available.

I think it's worth noting that calcium and sodium and iron and copper and phosphorus and the other metals listed aren't likely to be affected by pasteurization.


----------



## G B

Wow Tia what an ignorant comment...political affiliation has nothing to do with this.





Tia said:


> Mark, I don't think I've ever posted a reply in this forum where you didn't tell me I'm wrong. Since you're so sure of the right answers to everything (you must be a Republican) I think I'll just stop posting and learn from your future sage advice.


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> Ian and Mark - could you show us please some real proofs that you are more knowledgeable with this issue , than Bryant, who is director of the Palynology Research Laboratory.
> 
> Boris Romanov


Is this what we have come to? Mine is bigger than yours arguments? Your expert says that honey sold in grocery stores is not honey because it no longer contains pollen. And I ask, "Well, then what is it?" and the reply is "Syrup". I'm saying it isn't syrup, it's still honey. Neither of us will convince the other. This we call a dead head I believe.


----------



## sqkcrk

Tia said:


> Mark, I don't think I've ever posted a reply in this forum where you didn't tell me I'm wrong. Since you're so sure of the right answers to everything (you must be a Republican) I think I'll just stop posting and learn from your future sage advice.


Interesting rationale. But you are wrong, again.


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> Interesting rationale. But you are wrong, again.


You must have been the only Republican at Nixon's Counter Inauguration Ceremony - LOL :lpf:


----------



## sqkcrk

Yup. And I should make a mental note to have someone else tell Tia she is wrong the next time.


----------



## Roland

Boris - I am very anxious to see the lab results on BeeMaid honey. If indeed it is not legally honey,then we have been legally injured. 

Whose lab will you use? What test procedures? In what jurisdiction are you going to apply a legal definition? Will you be sampling more than one specimen? Have you created a legal trail of control over the specimen to verify that it is indeed as packed by BeeMaid, and not adulterated at a later date by anyone?

If you need help choosing a lab, let me know, my honey gets tested annually for ISCIRA.


Crazy Roland


----------



## deknow

brooksbeefarm said:


> deKnow,Here is some food value of Raw Honey, natural sugars,minerals,and vitamins,and even antioxidant properties....The minerals, calcium,copper,iron,magnesium,manganese,phosphorus,potassium,sodium,and zinc. are abundant in Raw Honey:thumbsup:


OK....are these minerals and vitamins only in raw honey? "Abundant" isn't accurate. The table below is from Wikipedia...note that the percentages given are the percentage of the USDA recommnded daily intake....if one eats 3.5oz of honey a day (that's almost a quarter of a pound).

Calcium...1%

Copper...not even on the radar

Iron...3%

Magnesium....1%

Etc and so forth....nothing comes in at more than 3% of the USDA recommendations. How much honey are you planning to eat? How much nutrition do you expect to get out of it? Add the carbohydrates (82.4%) and water (17.1%), you get 99.5% of what is in honey. Everything else combined (including pollen) is .5% of the weight of honey.

For something like iron (which you mentioned specifically), you would have to eat 3000 grams (6.5lbs) pounds of honey to get a single days requirements. We have a customer that can eat 2lbs of honey in a day (no, we won't share him)....I've never seen anyone eat 6lbs in a day. Even water (which is at a very high concentration compared with any of these other substances,) is only 17ml in the quarter pound of honey...the recommended (by the Mayo clinic) amount of water for an adult male is 3L....so about 10lbs of honey to get your water for the day....good luck 

Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 1,272 kJ (304 kcal)
Carbohydrates 82.4 g
- Sugars 82.12 g
- Dietary fiber 0.2 g
Fat 0 g
Protein 0.3 g
Water 17.10 g
Riboflavin (vit. B2) 0.038 mg (3%)
Niacin (vit. B3) 0.121 mg (1%)
Pantothenic acid (B5) 0.068 mg (1%)
Vitamin B6 0.024 mg (2%)
Folate (vit. B9) 2 μg (1%)
Vitamin C 0.5 mg (1%)
Calcium 6 mg (1%)
Iron 0.42 mg (3%)
Magnesium 2 mg (1%)
Phosphorus 4 mg (1%)
Potassium 52 mg (1%)
Sodium 4 mg (0%)
Zinc 0.22 mg (2%)
Shown is for 100 g, roughly 5 tbsp.
Percentages are relative to
US recommendations for adults.
Source: USDA Nutrient Database





> ,it is fat free,and cholesterol free.


A lack of something does not add food value.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> Yup. And I should make a mental note to have someone else tell Tia she is wrong the next time.


...and get accused of being a Republican???? Not a chance! 
Oh great, now Dean has spilled the beans on the dirty little secret about nutrition and honey, and don't forget the part about promoting tooth decay.  Here's what I like about honey, particularly fresh unprocessed honey. IT TASTES GOOD!!!! Now go brush your teeth.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

deKnow, yes that is the nutritional value of the honey that they tested, that could change with different forages. That was Raw Honey. Did you read that heating (pasteurizing) honey up to 37 C or 99F causes loss of nearly 200 components, some of which are antibacterial. Heating up to 40 C or104 F destroys invertase an important enzyme. The food value of raw honey Vs pasteurized honey doesn't even come close. it's sweet syrup.


----------



## deknow

brooksbeefarm said:


> deKnow, yes that is the nutritional value of the honey that they tested, that could change with different forages.


Yes it will....but not much. If the sugar and the water is 99.5% of what is in honey, that doesn't leave a whole lotta room for nutrition.



> That was Raw Honey. Did you read that heating (pasteurizing) honey up to 37 C or 99F causes loss of nearly 200 components, some of which are antibacterial. Heating up to 40 C or104 F destroys invertase an important enzyme.


The nice thing about Wikipedia is that they tell you what their source is....and they tell you when they don't have a source. Guess what the source is for both of those claims? [Citation Needed]. It doesn't even pass the smell test to claim "the loss of nearly 200 components". The evaporation? The denaturing? The metabolizing? What is a component? A chemical compound? A vitamin? A mineral? An amino acid? Can anyone name 200 components in honey?

The other problem is if you look at the Wikipedia entry for invertase, it says it works best at 60C....20 degrees celcius higher than it takes to destroy invertase if it is honey?



> The food value of raw honey Vs pasteurized honey doesn't even come close. it's sweet syrup.


I certainly prefer raw honey....but what is the food value of raw honey? Would you eat 10lbs of anything because it contained less than an ounce of "food value"?

deknow


----------



## BMAC

sqkcrk said:


> Yup. And I should make a mental note to have someone else tell Tia she is wrong the next time.


I'll step up to the plate and do it for you Mark. Just don't say I'm Republican or Democrat!


----------



## sqkcrk

brooksbeefarm said:


> it is fat free,and cholesterol free.


I'd like to see someone put that on their label and tell us what happens.


----------



## sqkcrk

BMAC said:


> I'll step up to the plate and do it for you Mark. Just don't say I'm Republican or Democrat!


I'm not aware of your Party affiliation and it doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## BMAC

My party affiliation used to revolve around bon fires.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

deKnow,i'm not talking about eating x amount of honey to get my daily vit. intake? I'm talking the nutritional value of Raw honey over Pasteurized honey, we've seen the nutritional value of Raw honey, now show me the nutritional value of Pasteurized honey?
sqkcrk, Why couldn't i put fat free and cholesterol free on my labels? packers have been putting Pure Clover honey on their pasteurized honey and getting away with it.


----------



## lazy shooter

This thread brings a whole new meaning to "splitting hairs."


----------



## sqkcrk

brooksbeefarm said:


> sqkcrk, Why couldn't i put fat free and cholesterol free on my labels? packers have been putting Pure Clover honey on their pasteurized honey and getting away with it.


There are Laws about this sort of thing. I can't quote them. But, there is a reason wy you won't see such things stated on labels on grocery store shelves.

Check w/ your State Labeling Authority. State Weights and Measures or Dept. of Ag maybe?


----------



## Ian

brooksbeefarm said:


> packers have been putting Pure Clover honey on their pasteurized honey and getting away with it.


make a resolution at your next association meeting, to form a committee to act against this practice of labeling pasteurized clover honey 
You will get laughed out of the room


----------



## JD's Bees

Nutrition facts on containers that I buy from my local bee supply store.
Per 1 Tbsp (20g)
Calories 60
Fat 0g
Carbs. 17g
Protein 0g
Not a significant source of saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, fibre, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium or iron.


----------



## sqkcrk

Huh, whadda ya know.


----------



## Boris

Rader Sidetrack said:


> ... HACCP is not a packager of any kind.


My main point is about misinformation of consumers.

Please look into the BeeMaid MOTTO’s “Hive to Home” Why a packer as the main component is missing?
http://hivetohome.beemaid.com/

Let’s find the answer.

“…BeeMaid is one of the few North American packers..." (Ian – Post # 173)

But I know two Canadian Packers, related to the BeeMaid:

Alberta Honey Producers processes and packages honey for its members.
http://www.beemaid.com/alberta-honey-producers

Manitoba Honey Cooperative processes and packages honey for its members and purchases raw wax.
http://www.beemaid.com/manitoba-honey-producers

Therefore I stated : “The Bee Maid Honey is just a distributor. I think you forgot the Packager - HACCP.” 
It was my short sentence with the “-“ symbol, therefore I also posted the quoted statement with the link for detailed info”: “Bee Maid Honey is proud that it’s honey processing and packing operations are HACCP recognized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).” http://www.beemaid.com/bulk-ingredient 
It's clear - packers work under some standards.

Boris Romanov

P.S.


“Bee Maid Honey Limited is owned jointly and equally by Alberta Honey Producers 
Co-operative Limited and Manitoba Cooperative Honey Producers Limited. Bee Maid 
Honey is owned by the Member beekeepers in western Canada. 
The Directors of the two Co-operatives are also the Directors of Bee Maid. The 
Directors appoint and direct the Management of Bee Maid Honey Limited. Bee 
Maid receives the revenue from all processed honey sales and is responsible for 
paying the costs of honey containers, processing, freight, commissions, advertising 
and all other related expenses. The net proceeds are then returned to the 
Co-operatives on a shared basis. 
Should either Co-operative have honey beyond that which is required by Bee Maid 
to fill its processed honey market, the Co-operative may sell this honey through as 
raw bulk honey. The net revenue from this honey is returned to the Co-operative 
supplying the honey.”
http://www.beemaid.com/files/AHPOperationandPolicyManual.pdf


----------



## Ian

You have absolutely no idea what your talking about Boris,
I think your eyes are crossing when your reading all this stuff.

BeeMaid is the actual packing company to which it buys all its honey from the Manitoba and Alberta Honey Producers. Its a Cooperative. 
Its owned by the beekeepers of western Canada, ITS A COOPERATIVE 

everything is on the website, everything is clear and transparent , all the honey supplied to BeeMaid is from the beekeeper either from the Manitoba or Alberta members

HACCP is something completely different, is third party auditing. It has nothing to do with packing honey, its a facility standard. I believe is North American wide, its way larger than something your able to comprehend Boris


----------



## Ian

Do you want me to repeat that Boris?

I wish you could see through you thick glasses, 
this packer to which I am a member of, is very proactive with its standards, quality, and currently enacting producer CFIA registration which provides a system of tractability

Very exciting stuff


----------



## Boris

Ian,

Once again.

Please look into the BeeMaid's MOTTO: “Hive to Home” This is the FALSE statement!
Why a packer as the main component is missing?

After processing is not ethical to call/label a final product as HONEY - it's PROCESSED HONEY - forever liquid substance!

Boris Romanov


----------



## Kieck

> Did you read that heating (pasteurizing) honey up to 37 C or 99F causes loss of nearly 200 components ... -brooksbeefarm


Isn't 37C the mean internal temperature of a human body? Are those components similarly lost as soon as they enter the human body?

Along those same lines, doesn't bearding on hives begin at around 37C to 38C? Why wouldn't those components be destroyed right in the hives under those conditions?



> Heating up to 40 C or104 F destroys invertase an important enzyme. -brooksbeefarm


I'll confess I'm ignorant on what these sorts of enzymes do physiologically in the human body. Why is consuming invertase so important or helpful?


----------



## Ian

Again,

They are fully certified with HACCP, and currently in the process of fully registering its membership with CFIA. Right now, they are packing honey on the shelf all around the world which has the ability of tractability from that store shelf right back to the beekeeper, and the hives the honey came from.

Hive to Home, 

Boris, what cant you understand ?


----------



## Ian

in the scale of 15,000,000 lbs plus
and capturing the market place


----------



## Boris

Ian,

I didn't ask you about certification, but I asked you about misinformation of consumers.
Therefore I cannot accept your reply. Please read my post #233 more carefully.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Ian

there is no misinformation

this whole idea that as soon as honey is sent through a machine it no longer is honey is absolutely ridiculous 

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS


----------



## jim lyon

I hope people are seeing the irony in this conversation. Hint: Bee Maid IS the beekeeper.


----------



## Ian

Jim, Im hitting my head against the wall , I got to stop, its starting to hurt,....

Boris ..... got it..... ?

Because I cant explain it again


----------



## Kieck

Boris --

I think you're missing a bit of the organization here. Let me see if I can make it clear:

A number of beekeepers in Canada own and manage hives. (Ian is one of those beekeepers). They harvest honey from their hives.

Most commercial beekeepers either bottle and market their honey themselves, or they sell their harvested honey to "packers," businesses that process and bottle ("pack") honey and sell it wholesale.

In this instance, rather than sell to an independent packer (a free-standing business), the Canadian beekeepers organized themselves, invested in the equipment to "pack" honey (the processing and bottling machinery), and hired individuals to do that work. This sort of organization is called a cooperative. The business owned and operated collectively by the members is the packer, in this case. Therefore, BeeMaid _is_ the packer. The beekeepers who own shares in BeeMaid are the honey producers. And HACCP is the set of health and safety standards used to inspect and certify the business packing the honey.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> there is no misinformation
> 
> this whole idea that as soon as honey is sent through a machine it no longer is honey is absolutely ridiculous
> 
> ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS


Yes, "as soon as honey is sent through a machine it no longer is honey" - i's PROCESSED HONEY.


----------



## Ian

Thanks Kieck, 

Im starting to regret mentioning the whole thing. I was just trying to provide an example of a packer who holds quality as it up most priority


----------



## Ian

Boris said:


> Yes, "as soon as honey is sent through a machine it no longer is honey" - i's PROCESSED HONEY.


do you sell your honey in the comb?


----------



## Kieck

> Yes, "as soon as honey is sent through a machine it no longer is honey" - i's PROCESSED HONEY. -Boris


Fine. It's "processed honey." I assume this is true from right after it's extracted, if it's extracted with a centrifugal extractor (i. e. a machine)?

I'm lost as to why or if most consumers are concerned with such details.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Boris said:


> Yes, "as soon as honey is sent through a *machine *it no longer is honey" - i's PROCESSED HONEY.


Huh. An _*extractor *_is certainly a _machine_. Boris, apparently you are of the belief that once honey is extracted from the comb, it is _no longer_ honey. :scratch:

By your definition, even honey that is extracted but _never _heated, and _never _filtered is no longer honey. :lpf:


----------



## Ian

I have customers who come directly to me because they want raw honey, I have customers come to me because they want comb honey. I hae customers come to me because they want honey that has not been processed in anyway, I also have customers come to me and buy some processed honey I get from my packer because they love the product and want to support me directly

I do not understand the direction Boris is taking this conversation. Consumers know what processed means. They encounter it with all foods. Its reality of our day. THe ones who actually care are the ones who come directly to me and get the good straight from the source. It takes more work doing it that way but that is the way getting raw food has always been. It is avaliable, they go find it


----------



## Boris

Kieck , 

I know who they are - please see my "P.S" section from my Post # 230.
The core of my position is my Post # 233
What is your opinion about this post?

Boris Romanov


----------



## Boris

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Boris, apparently you are of the belief that once honey is extracted from the comb, it is _no longer_ honey.


Of course NOT!
In short - HEATING of honey is a key element during honey processing.

I need a brake to make a short video with explanation of my opinion.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Ian

Just dont slag my packers name while you make your video


----------



## Kieck

> The core of my position is my Post # 233
> What is your opinion about this post? -Boris


I think I'm too confused by your post to have an opinion. You seem to be suggesting that the packer, BeeMaid, is not really a packer. Is that what you're claiming?


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> Just dont slag my packers name while you make your video


Do not worry - I will try to show my definition of HONEY. I hope I will post it tomorrow.


----------



## Ian

No he figured HACCP and CFIA were the packers .....


----------



## brooksbeefarm

Ian, if i brought up that the Pure Honey lable was True at the club meeting they would laugh me out of the building. After you heat your honey at 161 F and filter it (pasteurized) you should feel Rediculous passing it off as a nutritional product. It can be called honey because that Was it's base product, but that's about all you can claim it is after pasteurizing it.


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> I think I'm too confused by your post to have an opinion. You seem to be suggesting that the packer, BeeMaid, is not really a packer. Is that what you're claiming?


No. 

I would like to know your opinion about this my statement: "After processing is not ethical to call/label a final product as HONEY - it's PROCESSED HONEY - forever liquid substance!"


----------



## Kieck

> I will try to show my definition of HONEY. -Boris


Very cool exercise, I think. Concentrating and narrowing a definition in a case like this really make you consider a wide range of factors, makes you think about what should and should not be included, makes you more aware of what might or might not be included and what exceptions might have to be granted. If nothing else, creating such a definition deepens the understanding of the topic by the person who creates his definition.

For example, I got to thinking about water as a parallel to this discussion. I turn on the tap in my house, run liquid into a glass, and drink it. I refer to that liquid as "water." Now, I realize fully that it isn't pure water. It has other things in it. But it also has had things removed and added by human intervention. Call it "processing," I guess. It's pulled by machinery out of the ground, filtered, treated with chemicals to kill some organisms, and delivered by machinery through pipes to my tap. Does the process make it something other than water? I don't define it that way. I know some folks separate "tap water" from "bottled water," but, in my experience, I tend to refer to both as simply "water."

In the case of honey, does pollen have to be in it for it to be honey? How about all of the enzymes and trace amounts of various things that have been suggested above? Do trace amounts of various pesticides (as demonstrated by a number of recent research studies on pesticide residues and diseases in bees) have to be present for it to be defined currently as "honey?"

I haven't given that much thought in the past as to what is and is not "honey." I've always believed that if I extract it from a bee hive and it's a sweet liquid that bees have gathered and developed from floral sources, it's "honey."


----------



## Ian

brooksbeefarm said:


> Ian, if i brought up that the Pure Honey lable was True at the club meeting they would laugh me out of the building.


I understand what your saying, until you make the point that it is the pasteurization that removes the pureness from it.

We sell our honey according to our flows, its how the public associates the honey types, as do the beekeepers. Never can we get 100% of a floral source, but we can get close. And so we market it as such.


----------



## deknow

A couple of years ago, we were invited to speak at the Fl state beekeeping meeting. They had just passed their honey standard, and part of our talk focused on the standard.
One of the issues that will have to be addressed in the future is that the FL standard allows for zero adulteration with feed According to the letter of the standard, .005% feed in the honey would make it not honey. At some point, testing will get better, and beekeepers and packers that are used to a LOD of 5% will have a problem. 

I think beekeepers are shooting themselves in the foot with these standards.....all the while there is plenty on the market that is demonstrably not honey....have any of these standards resulted in pulling a single jar from the shelf? 

Deknow


----------



## Kieck

> "After processing is not ethical to call/label a final product as HONEY - it's PROCESSED HONEY - forever liquid substance!" -Boris


Ah, this seems very different than the initial thesis of the thread, I think. I had read the initial posts as objecting to filtration at a level that would remove pollen grains from honey. This seems to be objecting to a process that prevents crystallization while retaining the "honey" label.

I haven't tried it -- I don't know that I even want to try it -- but I suspect that honey filtered so it is absolutely free of pollen grains will still crystallize eventually. The period of time that it remains liquid may be extended, but I don't know that such filtration will prevent it from crystallizing "forever."

After all, it seems to me that HFCS will also crystallize. Does that make it "honey?" I think not. But I would not use "crystallizes/does not crystallize" as a single criterion to define "honey."

To return to the point, I presume from the thesis statement in post #233 that you believe that heating past some point converts "honey" into something other than "honey." At what point does that occur? What sorts of inclusions are necessary to meet the definition? How can honey be identified? What sorts of characteristics define "honey?"


----------



## Kieck

As far as the ethics of calling honey that has been extracted, heated, filtered and bottled, "honey," rather than terming it something different, I have no difficulty with the term "milk" for a product that has been processed along similar lines or "water" as I suggested above. Any number of other examples are similar, I suspect.


----------



## Roland

Boris - Did I miss your lab results?

I am very interested in what jurisdiction you will say that Beemaid's product is not honey. Your opinion does not matter. This is a legal mater of definitions, and i anxiously await your proof that Ian's honey has failed to meet any legal requirement for honey anywhere. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## deknow

I figure it isn't honey until you've grated a few onions into it.

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> Ian,
> 
> Once again.
> 
> Please look into the BeeMaid's MOTTO: “Hive to Home” This is the FALSE statement!
> Why a packer as the main component is missing?
> 
> After processing is not ethical to call/label a final product as HONEY - it's PROCESSED HONEY - forever liquid substance!
> 
> Boris Romanov


I think you are taking things too far here Boris. On purpose.

How can a person eat honey w/out processing it in some manner. Unless you cut the comb out of the hive yourself and eat it comb and all.

People call me a troll. What's the opposite of a troll? Someone who Posts Threads and Posts to illicite reactions.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Huh. An _*extractor *_is certainly a _machine_. Boris, apparently you are of the belief that once honey is extracted from the comb, it is _no longer_ honey. :scratch:
> 
> By your definition, even honey that is extracted but _never _heated, and _never _filtered is no longer honey. :lpf:


This is very much true. The centrifical force throws all of the heavier parts of the honey against the wall of the extractor which damages the honey. Didn't you know that? sheesh


----------



## red

My bees took a cleansing flight today. After sampling the brown specs on the hives I finally discovered what adulterated honey is.


----------



## jim lyon

Boris said:


> Do not worry - I will try to show my definition of HONEY. I hope I will post it tomorrow.


This may well be the most anticipated event on Beesource since Barry agreed to reveal some of his beer brewing secrets. opcorn:


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> ... For example, I got to thinking about water as a parallel to this discussion. I turn on the tap in my house, run liquid into a glass, and drink it. I refer to that liquid as "water." Now, I realize fully that it isn't pure water. It has other things in it. But it also has had things removed and added by human intervention. Call it "processing," I guess. It's pulled by machinery out of the ground, filtered, treated with chemicals to kill some organisms, and delivered by machinery through pipes to my tap. Does the process make it something other than water? I don't define it that way. I know some folks separate "tap water" from "bottled water," but, in my experience, I tend to refer to both as simply "water."


 Indeed, interesting exercise! I think, this discussion drifted away from original post. Water and honey are opposite - "water" is a chemical term for H2O. H2O contains only H2O. If it contaminated by something, from chemical point of view, it is not water anymore. Thus, pure water is more "water" than water with "additional" content. Honey from another hand is not chemically defined and it is a "composite" - something, which contains many components. Each component, which is chemically defined may be treated as water above (pure water is more water). But, does "composite" remain the same if some component removed or destroyed or changed? The answer for this, one could ask school-level chemistry teacher. I suspect, the answer would be that removing or destroying or changing one component of the "composite" will affect the integrity of the whole. In another words the "composite" before and after modification is not the same. It is sort of obvious to me as a scientist - if my technician will grab anything from the shelve in my lab and heat it to +70oC - do you really think I will use it in my research after heating? No, that "something" will go in the chemical waste immediately. It is very simple - ALL chemicals must be stored at room temperature or below, so any drugs. Did anybody tried to heat DayQuil to +70oC and after that use it as a medicine?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

cerezha said:


> if my technician will grab *anything* from the shelve in my lab and heat it to +70oC - do you really think I will use it in my research after heating? No, that "something" will go in the chemical waste immediately.


So if you have a bottle of distilled H2O on your shelf in the lab, then heat it to 70 degrees C, it will be no longer be distilled water? :scratch: Is it now *processed *water? What will it be when it cools?


----------



## Kieck

OK, from a strict chemical standpoint, I agree. But what do you call that liquid that flows from the faucet?

What criteria does "honey" have to meet to qualify as such to you? Is it possible to have a naturally-produced, bee-collected-and-stored sweet substance entirely from floral sources that does not meet the criteria simply because it's missing something naturally? Seems to me that "honey" varies in constituency from location to location and even between and within seasons. It is subject to fluctuations in temperatures within the hive even (is honey that is frozen less changed by that than honey that exceeds 45C?).

For the love of Pete, it's almost as bad as trying to pin down what qualifies as "organic."


----------



## cerezha

Rader Sidetrack said:


> So if you have a bottle of distilled H2O on your shelf in the lab, then heat it to 70 degrees C, it will be no longer be distilled water? :scratch: Is it now *processed *water? What will it be when it cools?


 of coarse "processed" - it will loose 50% of dissolved CO2 and therefore pH will change. Also, at the high temperature, elements of container will leak into the water, contaminating it (potassium from the glass,for instance). Normally, we do not store distilled water - it is produced by purification system for immediate use. Quality of water is more important than quality of honey, I guess.


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> OK, from a strict chemical standpoint, I agree. But what do you call that liquid that flows from the faucet?


 Do you really want to know what is flowing from SOME faucets? Definitely not water! The quality of liquid sometimes is horrible. May be, we could call it chlorine solution? In Chemistry, we use dihydrogen monoxide or simply H2O when in pure form. Liquid from faucet may contain actually some water, H2O. Same with "honey" - liquid in the store may contain some honey...


----------



## BMAC

cerezha said:


> Water and honey are opposite - "water" is a chemical term for H2O. H2O contains only H2O. If it contaminated by something, from chemical point of view, it is not water anymore. Thus, pure water is more "water" than water with "additional" content.


Sergery your logic is slightly flawed here in relation to the topic. If H2O can only contain H2O to qualify as water (which is what you are stating), then how can pure water be more water than water with additional content? It can't be water if it has additional content according to your logic above. It would have to qualify simply as a solution. Possibly break it down with percentages of the solution CO2, CH4, H20, FE, S, CI, F, HOPS, Barley, Yeast, etc...


----------



## sqkcrk

Sergey,
Is honey a solution, as that term is defined scientifically?


----------



## hpm08161947

I think they call it a supersaturated solution.... one grain and it's ready to crystallize.


----------



## ryan

The USDA defines honey as "honey", it may or may not contain pollen, DOESN'T matter. Honey may contain pollen but it is not needed. Standard filtering may remove all the pollen. Honey without pollen on store shelfs does not mean it was Ultrafiltered. 

Go read the follow up article april 2013, it's basically an apology for the fraudulent article they wrote earlier. Same publisher, food safety news.


----------



## sqkcrk

hpm08161947 said:


> I think they call it a supersaturated solution.... one grain and it's ready to crystallize.


So what is it when pollen grains are suspended in it? A suspension?


----------



## Kieck

> ... it will loose 50% of dissolved CO2 and therefore pH will change. -cerezha


Wait. I thought this was "pure" H2O here. Now you're telling me that the "pure" water has carbon dioxide in it?!?!

Of course, I jest. I didn't mean to pick an example that would send us down this rabbit hole when I brought up tap water. What I was trying to get at is that "water" from my tap is different than "water" from your tap is different from "water" in a bottle sold in a convenience store, yet we use the common term and all are recognizable as being roughly the same thing.

The same latitude and flexibility is useful when trying to define "honey." Honey is not an absolutely consistent product. In fact, its variability even from day to day may be part of what makes it what it is.



> Go read the follow up article april 2012 [correction Kieck's], it's basically an apology for the fraudulent article they wrote earlier. Same publisher, food safety news. -ryan


Yes. Unfortunately, some of these stories gain immortality from the Internet. The articles that correct or refute seem to be less popular than the initial piece.


----------



## deknow

Sergey 's comments about water supports the contention that extracted honey isn't honey. Extracting most assuredly adds air (dissolved and in bubbles) to the honey....along with whatever contaminants are in the air. Honey in a glass jar must also absorb substances from the glass jar.

Deknow


----------



## Ian

dont forget the odd bee leg and antenna

I had a buyer come to the honey house asking for whole honey one time, "you know, the stuff right from the tank, with the bee legs and all"


----------



## brooksbeefarm

This thread has become silly,trying to make comparisons of honey to milk, water,ect. and what man has to do to it to make it better? Any beekeeper worth his salt, knows that raw honey straight from the hive is what honey is supposed to be. The more man does to it the less it becomes real honey, so i'm saying to the packers, you can't have your cake and eat it too.:no: I check every frame of honey and brush it off before i extract it, so i don't get the trash in my extractor like the big boys do.I know some people who have worked for some bottlers that told me if a frame of honey comes through the decapping machine with some brood in it,they don't stop and remove it, it goes on through. so yes i can see how it could have legs and antennas in it. Of coarse heating and filtering it will make it alright for the unknowing public to eat.


----------



## Kieck

Sure. Right. I agree to the point that heated, filtered honey is not exactly the same as unfiltered, unheated honey. But to argue that one is "honey" and the other is not is where the pettiness creeps in, if you ask me.

And arguing that one is "better" than the other is arguing personal preferences and opinions.


----------



## deknow

...and every dairy farmer worth his/her salt knows that milk, raw and warm fro the cow is what milk is supposed to be. Anyone with a pristine well knows that cold, untreated water from the earth is what water is supposed to be. Any gardener worth his /her salt knows that fresh veggies from the garden (never refrigerated) is what veggies are supposed to be.

I like raw honey. I make my living selling raw honey. I spend much of my time teaching others the beauty of raw honey (beekeepers and customers). I suggest those that think only raw honey should be sold as honey invest in raw honey, market it to a large chain retailer, and refuse to accept the chargebacks when the store and customers complain about it crystalizing on the shelf.
If the person paying their hard earned money doesn't want it....perhaps you can force them?

Deknow


----------



## deknow

I think it is difficult to argue that honey has any appreciable food value.....now add in some protein (wax moth / shb / brood) and you might be able to make a claim.
Deknow


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> refuse to accept the chargebacks when the store and customers complain about it crystalizing on the shelf.
> If the person paying their hard earned money doesn't want it....perhaps you can force them?
> 
> Deknow


My choices were to come pick it up which could mean driving hundreds of miles, or donating it to a food pantry. The chargeback was just deducted from my next invoice with an upcharge for their freight and handling. I was given no choice. You margin could disappear in no time if you shipped out "improperly" processed honey. It was sooooooo frustrating. I made warehouse deliveries to 3 large grocery chains. They all had similar policies


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> ...or donating it to a food pantry.


It would be an interesting study to see what happens to crystallized honey when handed out by a food pantry. I expect that a significant portion of it would be thrown out in the trash.

deknow


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> So what is it when pollen grains are suspended in it? A suspension?


Suspensions eventually settle out, so perhaps it is best to call honey a "Colloid".


----------



## jim lyon

I always hoped someone appreciated it but never once received a thank you from anyone or any sort of acknowledgment


----------



## brooksbeefarm

I was raised on whole milk straight from the cow (my children also), water from a 340 ft. well fresh veg. from the garden and canned veg. from the garden for winter,Honey,and meat from animals we raised, and still do. Our two children are married and doing the same.We are all in good health and active (5 grandkids and all). I credit most from staying away from proccessed food and city water, that is supposed to be safer and better for you.I sell veg. and honey at our local Farmers Market, or i should say i take it to the Farmers Market, it sells itself.I don't find it difficult to say Raw honey has some food value (studies have shown it does) and the health value of Raw honey. Now if you want to eat proccessed honey with less food value and body parts cooked in, you can have my share.


----------



## Kieck

Sounds like you have identified your market, and are filling the demand of that market, brooksbeefarm. Good for you! But why disparage the competition?

I like "raw" honey. I also like "processed" honey. I'll admit that I don't see as much difference between "raw" honey and honey that has been filtered at the 500-micron level (all pollens should go through such a filter) and heated to 110F to help it flow through "processing" as the discussion on this thread would make me believe exists.


----------



## Boris

Roland said:


> Boris - Did I miss your lab results?...Crazy Roland


Roland,

I uploaded my video here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5bWyeDKXgc

But I will post my comments on it AFTER Ian’s reply to my questions about BeeMade’s HONEY processing technology from my previous post.


Ian, 

I would like to know HOW your packagers make a final product (temperature, time, filtration).Please do not tell me about standards - just simply describe in details a PROCESS.

Alberta Honey Producers processes and packages honey for its members.
http://www.beemaid.com/alberta-honey-producers
or
Manitoba Honey Cooperative processes and packages honey for its members and purchases raw wax.
http://www.beemaid.com/manitoba-honey-producers


Boris Romanov


----------



## Kieck

I couldn't find a definition of "honey" in your video, Boris. Did I watch the right video? All I saw was a demonstration of an inefficient way to warm crystallized honey.


----------



## Boris

My video is not about "an inefficient way to warm crystallized honey".

Please read my previous post . I stated: "But I will post my comments on it AFTER Ian’s reply to my questions about BeeMade’s HONEY processing technology from my previous post."

See my request to Ian also.


Boris Romanov


----------



## Kieck

My mistake. I believed the video was the "explanation" you said you would make in video form:



> I need a brake to make a short video with explanation of my opinion. -Boris, post #249


I didn't see anything demonstrating any difference between "raw honey" ("honey?") and "processed honey" ("not honey any longer?") in the video. I did see a hair dryer being used in an open room to blow warm air at two glass jars containing honey. The honey appeared to be crystallized, considering that I saw no change in its form while it was suspended in open jars over plates. That is, I believe that liquid honey would flow out of such containers, and this did not; hence, it appeared "solid," or crystallized to me. I consider using open air to warm honey that way to be a very inefficient way to transfer energy.

Keep in mind that when making videos such as these, what the viewer perceives may be very different than what the producer intends.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

Kieck, i don't have to disparage the competition, when i sell raw honey at the Farmers Market, my customers tell me that there is no comparision between the two.With all the call backs of food stuff from the retail stores people are becoming more aware of what they eat and feed there families,and that's a good thing.I'm not big time, i only produce 2000 to 4000 lbs. of honey per year for local sales, but usually sell out before the first of the year.:thumbsup:Had a little better year last year and have 7 quarts left, but it's spoke for.I enjoy selling fresh veg. and honey at the local Farmers Market and answering questions about honey bees. (if i can.


----------



## apis maximus

deknow said:


> I like raw honey. I make my living selling raw honey. I spend much of my time teaching others the beauty of raw honey (beekeepers and customers).
> Deknow


What is the beauty of raw honey? Could you elaborate on it? 
Lets pretend...I am a potential customer, sort of confused about all the "information" I hear and read about honey...I like honey...but I am sort of on the fence after being wrapped in all the noise about what is or what is not considered honey...Then, I meet you, or Ramona and say, please help me understand the beauty of raw honey. What would you tell me? 
Thanks!


----------



## Kieck

I think that's great, brooksbeefarm. Like I wrote, you identified a market, you've meet the demands of that niche market, and it seems to be working well for both you and the customers. Well done!

So why make statements about "processed honey" being so inferior that it doesn't even qualify as the same thing?

At the risk of going down a different rabbit hole, I witnessed an instance where a few people swore that they could detect differences between the two major brands of colas, blind. The person who put them to the test mixed the two brands equally before putting them into paper cups marked "A" and "B." Those tasting insisted that one was one brand, and the other cup contained the other brand (although they were not consistent from person to person about whether the cups marked "A" contained the same brand). They also all avowed that the liquids in cups "A" and "B" were markedly different, so distinct that it was "easy" to tell the difference.

Sometimes, I think items that we expect to taste differently do simply because we expect it.


----------



## Ramona

apis maximus said:


> What is the beauty of raw honey? Could you elaborate on it?
> Lets pretend...I am a potential customer, sort of confused about all the "information" I hear and read about honey...I like honey...but I am sort of on the fence after being wrapped in all the noise about what is or what is not considered honey...Then, I meet you, or Ramona and say, please help me understand the beauty of raw honey. What would you tell me?
> Thanks!


No need to elaborate...We just hand over the tasting sticks...


----------



## apis maximus

Thanks Ramona! Easy enough...but since we are communicating with words, most of the time anyways, and since deknow said :"*I spend much of my time teaching others the beauty of raw honey (beekeepers and customers)"*, I was thinking... maybe we can have a conversation about it. 
Certainly handing out tasting sticks of something that soothingly touches and caresses ones tasting buds, is a great strategy, would it be all that it takes to have that "teaching" experience?


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> ... I consider using open air to warm honey that way to be a very inefficient way to transfer energy...


Please STOP to misinform forum's members, because I already answer to your question: 
"My video is not about "an inefficient way to warm crystallized honey"." (Post # 292)

And I also stated: "But I will post my comments on it AFTER Ian’s reply to my questions about BeeMade’s HONEY processing technology from my previous post."
Are you in rush?

In fact you never confirmed that you have bees.
Could you do it now? Otherwise - this is my last reply to your posts.


----------



## deknow

300+ posts into a discussion you started about what is and what is not honey isn't too soon to offer a rough definition. It's hard to consider anything short of that a discussion.

deknow


----------



## Boris

deknow said:


> ... It's hard to consider anything short of that a discussion....deknow


I need Ian's reply to my post #290 to finalize my statement and to show some differences between HONEY and PROCESSED HONEY. 

I hope we will get some answers soon.

Boris Romanov


----------



## deknow

Regarding the beauty of raw honey....

At least around here, much of the "local" liquid honey found at farmers markets actually comes from a single migratory operation. Aside from the adulteration in this honey we have reported on several times on beesource, I don't think it tastes very good, and I've never been at a market where anyone was offering tastes of this honey (it requires working with the health dept., and can be a cumbersome process). 

I like the taste and texture of crystallized honey. I'm always amazed when I hear about competitive honey showing...either totally liquid, or very small smooth crystals need apply. What a stupid way to judge honey. Bob Brachmann's goldenrod honey crystallizes with the smallest, smoothest crystals you can imagine....the melt as they touch your tounge. Dee's honey usually has a crystal size about that of table sugar....you can put it on a spoon and nibble on it for a half hour.

But the real bueauty of raw honey is its stability. Sugar is the "money" in natures economy. Plants make it, and it is traded up and down the food chain, providing both energy and a currency with which to conduct "the business of nature".

It is metabolically expensive to concentrate sugar. When sugar is concentrated, it becomes a more enticing target for those looking to aquire sugar...like robbing a bank rather than mugging an individual.

Plants, the producers of sugar, use all kinds of techniques to guard their precious stored energy....they produce toxins that are effective against microbes and larger predators....essential oils, acids, etc are produced at great cost to protect the sap and unripe fruit from being eaten by microbes or biger things.

Yet, nectar is freely offered by the plants for anyone that wants to come by and take it...and do a little pollinating in the process. Bees expend the energy to actually remove so much moisture from the nectar, that it doesn't spoil....it is so rich and so rare in nature, that there aren't microbes that are equipped to eat it. Bees are (apparently) the only life on the planet that protects its sugar in this way.....a unique enough solution to a problem that everyone else on the planet has solved a different way, that there is no microbial threat to raw honey....not true of any other raw food or any other accumulation of sugar in nature.

Because it is so concentrated, and because a store of honey is such an inviting target, bees are also equipped to defend it.

There is simply nothing else in nature that is such a high concentration of microbial "food", that microbes don't know what to do with it.

deknow


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Boris said:


> I need Ian's reply to my post #290 to finalize my statement and to show some differences between HONEY and PROCESSED HONEY.


If you can't tell us exactly what constitutes _honey, _without input from _Ian_, why did you even start this thread without being able to define _honey_? :scratch:


----------



## Ian

Boris, Alberta and Manitoba Honey Producers provide the honey to BeeMaid honey, our marketing arm, to process for retail sales. First off, get that right....
I am a member of the Manitoba Honey Producers, Im a beekeeper.... second off get that right ...
I dont know how BeeMaid handles the product, Im a primary food producer, 
I DO know of the standards they implement in handling and processing the honey as that is relevant to my operation.
I would suggest, as they describe on the website, they melt granulated honey out of the drum, they filter it, they pasteurize and prepare it according to the orders. Typical practice done by large and small honey packers.

If your going to make general sweeping negative claims against the packing industry, I would suggest you start leaving the name of the packers out of the conversation. 
As I have asked you many times before,


----------



## deknow

There is not a question that there are differences between comb honey, raw honey, and heated/filtered honey. No one has disputed this in 300 + posts.

You have been, for 300+ posts, arguing about what is or isn't honey....thus far, 300+ posts into this (which you started), no one has any idea what kind of criteria you are using to make this distinction....your contributions are worthless because they are based on something that only exists in your head. Even a Mac vs PC debate has valid criteria for making a judgement as to which is "better".

How Ian's honey is processed has nothing to do with what you think is honey and what you think isn't.

deknow


----------



## Kieck

Nice post #302, deknow. Your comments are very eloquent, almost read like poetry. Your passion for the topic comes through nicely.

At the same time, you seem to nicely leave room so that those consumers who prefer a different form don't feel wrong for their preferences. Great salesmanship, I think.


----------



## cerezha

BMAC said:


> Sergery your logic is slightly flawed here in relation to the topic. If H2O can only contain H2O to qualify as water (which is what you are stating), then how can pure water be more water than water with additional content? It can't be water if it has additional content according to your logic above. It would have to qualify simply as a solution. Possibly break it down with percentages of the solution CO2, CH4, H20, FE, S, CI, F, HOPS, Barley, Yeast, etc...


 Yes, I agree, it is a solution. Pure water is more water in the sense that it contains more H2O. Since the term "water" is used in science, we have to specify what it is: "distilled water", ultrapure water", HPLC-grade water", "Cell-culture grade water"... HPLC-grade is the highest in quality. My point was that as less "additives" in water, it is closer to H2O and thus - more pure (better). This is not true for honey because honey is a compound material, which contains many components, sometime unknown. Removing or adding or modifying something from the complex mixture would unavoidable change the properties of this "compound material".


----------



## Ian

Boris said:


> Ian,
> 
> Please do not tell me about standards - just simply describe in details a PROCESS.


Your the one insisting to know about HACCP and CFIA. Like I had said earlier, this regulatory process is way beyond you Boris


----------



## beemandan

Dean is right. Comb, raw and heated/filtered honey are each different. The rest is opinion. In the realm of opinions….no matter how long you argue you cannot sway the other party. It is a useless waste of time. It isn’t a question of right or wrong. It is opinion.
The dialog will go back and forth until someone tires and disengages. And at that time absolutely nothing will have changed. How long will you continue to kick this horse? It has been dead for a couple of hundred posts already.


----------



## BMAC

Ian said:


> dont forget the odd bee leg and antenna
> 
> I had a buyer come to the honey house asking for whole honey one time, "you know, the stuff right from the tank, with the bee legs and all"


But its mostly honey. Or maybe its partly honey. Oh no the terminology is some honey.


----------



## BMAC

cerezha said:


> Removing or adding or modifying something from the complex mixture would unavoidable change the properties of this "compound material".


 So removing a solid suspended in the compound material (18% H2O) such as pollen granules changes the properties of this compound material? Is this chemical or physical properties?


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Sergey,
> Is honey a solution, as that term is defined scientifically?


 It is a complex mixture, which contains soluble part (sugars) and insoluble part (pollen etc). Sugars, soluble minerals etc creates a solution in the water; insoluble matter (pollen etc) is *suspended* in solution. So, when liquid, it is a solution and suspension at the same time. It is not a gel, by the way, how somebody suggested.


----------



## Ian

I have often wondered how the pollen get into the honey naturally,

Does the bee ingest the pollen while taking up the nectar or is the pollen accidentally dusted into the honey cells while the bees walk over head,.?
I know the beekeeper has alot to do with the addition of pollen as they extract the honey from the frames. 
So, in the context of natural, what % of pollen in the honey would need to be present to qualify as HONEY, as some are suggesting here?


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> Wait. I thought this was "pure" H2O here. Now you're telling me that the "pure" water has carbon dioxide in it?!?!...


 Please read carefully before posting. I clearly stated that in the lab we DO NOT store water and use very expensive purification system to have pure water. Your example with water was not good because cleaner water is closer to its pure chemical form, which is opposite to what is happened with honey during "processing"... read, think ... than post


----------



## Kieck

Naw, Sergey, I get it. I got it before. What I was attempting to drive home is that even water with other things in it is commonly called "water," and is accepted by most of the public as such.

Water is easy, comparatively. It has a simple chemical structure. Honey, I think, is quite different. Honey that comes off from a legume flow -- such as predominantly clover -- is decidedly different than mixed wildflower honey is different than buckwheat honey is different than honeydew honey (which, by the way, should almost certainly have no pollen naturally in it). All are "honey." All are chemically different. Therefore, "honey" must cover quite a range. The moisture content varies, the floral sources vary, the amounts of pollen if any vary, the pH varies, and none of it might be consistent even within a hive from one day to the next.


----------



## cerezha

BMAC said:


> So removing a solid suspended in the compound material (18% H2O) such as pollen granules changes the properties of this compound material? Is this chemical or physical properties?


 It depends from the content of the "compound material". Simplest example - epoxy resin. Adding catalyst will change a physical state of the compound. But, if you will keep epoxy mixture (no catalyst) in the heat, plastifier will change and polymerized resin become fragile. Also, storing epoxy resin in the heat even without catalyst will eventually lead to polymerization. It is just ridiculously stupid to think about honey in such simplified way that syrup is equal to honey. Did anybody ever think why honey is much less crystallized if stored in the honey comb? I have 2-years honey comb and honey is still liquid in it. Why? There are group of materials called emulsifiers - they keep suspension from precipitation. Wax and lecitin are quite effective emulsifiers. Now, think and made a connection, wax-liquid honey... interesting?


----------



## cerezha

brooksbeefarm said:


> I was raised on whole milk straight from the cow (my children also), water from a 340 ft. well fresh veg. from the garden and canned veg. from the garden for winter,Honey,and meat from animals we raised, and still do. Our two children are married and doing the same.We are all in good health and active (5 grandkids and all). I credit most from staying away from proccessed food and city water, that is supposed to be safer and better for you.I sell veg. and honey at our local Farmers Market, or i should say i take it to the Farmers Market, it sells itself.I don't find it difficult to say Raw honey has some food value (studies have shown it does) and the health value of Raw honey. Now if you want to eat proccessed honey with less food value and body parts cooked in, you can have my share.


 Bravo!


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> Did anybody ever think why honey is much less crystallized if stored in the honey comb? I have 2-years honey comb and honey is still liquid in it. Why? There are group of materials called emulsifiers - they keep suspension from precipitation. Wax and lecitin are quite effective emulsifiers. Now, think and made a connection, wax-liquid honey... interesting?


That has more to do with the nectar sugars . Canola will granulate within weeks, hard as a rock un disturbed in the comb, while alfalfa honey will stay liquid in the comb for months before it granulates.


----------



## deknow

cerezha said:


> I have 2-years honey comb and honey is still liquid in it. Why? There are group of materials called emulsifiers - they keep suspension from precipitation. Wax and lecitin are quite effective emulsifiers. Now, think and made a connection, wax-liquid honey... interesting?


Um....I think the aeration of honey as it is flung against the extractor wall has quite a bit to do with why liquid honey tends to crystalize...this is true of extracted and never heated honey. We've had honey that stayed liquid in the bucket, until run through a course strainer...crystalized almost immediately, yet it had been out of the comb for months.

I also have combs that I could not extract because the goldenrod honey crystallized in the comb. If you had Tupelo honey or buckwheat honey in a jar, you would note that it never crystallized...even if it was never heated.

It is most unscientific and innaccurate to talk about two foodstuffs (honey and water), and hold one to a lab grade "purity" standard as a chemical compound, and the other to a "how it exists in nature" standard. Pure water of the type you describe simply does not exist outside your lab...that's why you have to produce it when you need it. Pure drinking water is not pure water.

deknow


----------



## Boris

Ian - nothing personal. 
All brands of liquid processed honey (US or Canada) in my local Superstores are almost EQUAL...


In your post # 238 you stated: “…this whole idea that as soon as honey is sent through a machine it no longer is honey is absolutely ridiculous…” 

Nevertheless, I cannot accept this and I would like to object to your statement.

My first argument is the undeniable basic: in general real HONEY (almost all types) HAVE to crystallize sooner or latter. Crystallization of honey is a natural process, which indicates its good quality. And as you know, several factors determine the time it will take honey to crystallize. 
In my short video, I tried to show that crystallized HONEY remains solid even after of influences of heat (of course in a limited time)
From the other hand – “honey” from the Supermarkets (processed honey) LOSES ITS CRYSTAL STRUCTURE and therefore (mainly) remains liquid for many years without Crystallization!

My second argument.
For me HONEY is a remedy/medicine, but not just a sweetener, therefore I asked you to describe in details a process of packaging of any Canadian HONEY. It will help me to show that product you mentioned previously is not HONEY, but PROCESSED HONEY. 
I tasted many brands of Processed Honey from my local Supermarkets, therefore I can explain you Why packers cannot call/label Processed/heated honey as Honey (view from the Medicine) based on the official studies.

So, if you wish – please find some details about your honey Processing procedure (temperature, time and filtration) and I will give you more explanation.

Boris Romanov


----------



## sqkcrk

This question is for everybody except Boris Romanov. What the heck was that video about and what does it have to do w/ this Thread?


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> It is a complex mixture, which contains soluble part (sugars) and insoluble part (pollen etc). Sugars, soluble minerals etc creates a solution in the water; insoluble matter (pollen etc) is *suspended* in solution. So, when liquid, it is a solution and suspension at the same time. It is not a gel, by the way, how somebody suggested.


What about creamed honey, would that be a gel?


----------



## deknow

...I was trying to keep track of which jar had the bean under it 

deknow


----------



## Boris

This question is for Mark ONLY.

What have you done personally to avoid statements similar to this:
"“I have learned from Dr. Mercola’s book is that there are bee farms that produce 2/3 of the annual honey production in North America by force feeding their bees high fructose corn syrup or other sugars, and keeping them under 24-hour hive lighting so that they will produce honey year round (the remaining 1/3 of honey produced in N.A. is pure honey). These tactics result in the bees producing a product that is only partially real honey; the other portion of the “honey” is high fructose corn syrup!”
http://www.fearlessfatloss.com/book...e-corn-syrup-and-honey-a-sneaky-relationship/

Who has to worry about beekeeping industry's reputation among consumers?


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> Did anybody ever think why honey is much less crystallized if stored in the honey comb? I have 2-years honey comb and honey is still liquid in it. Why?


I hope you are not basing an opinion on anecdotal evidence Sergey. Because, just because you have some comb honey which has not crystalized, that does not mean that comb honey does not crystalize. Which you seem to imply. I have some comb honey which is crystalized which I can send you. I can't sell it.

Honey crystalizes in brood combs quite often.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> Bravo!


Yeah, whoop-di-do.

I used to lay down and drink water from creeks that emptied into the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. Maybe that why I am the way I am.


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> This question is for Mark ONLY.
> 
> What you personally did to avoid statements similar to this:
> "“I have learned from Dr. Mercola’s book is that there are bee farms that produce 2/3 of the annual honey production in North America by force feeding their bees high fructose corn syrup or other sugars, and keeping them under 24-hour hive lighting so that they will produce honey year round (the remaining 1/3 of honey produced in N.A. is pure honey). These tactics result in the bees producing a product that is only partially real honey; the other portion of the “honey” is high fructose corn syrup!”
> http://www.fearlessfatloss.com/book...e-corn-syrup-and-honey-a-sneaky-relationship/
> 
> Who has to worry about beekeeping industry's reputation among consumers?


When I worked on Dairy Farms I some times went barefoot, but usually I wore rubber boots. I thinki you should do the same Boris. Dr. Mercola is full of something and it isn't honey. It comes out of male cattle.

I would like to see Dr. Mercola's data and evidence. There is no one I know, including people w/ thousands of beehives, who does what is described in that paragraph. None of them could afford to "keep[] them under 24-hour hive lighting". How would doing so effect the production of honey anyway? I didn't know that light was necassary when bees process nectar into honey. That would be new information for me, if it is so.


----------



## jim lyon

Ok folks after his last post Boris now officially qualifies as a troll in my book. Lets all just disengage. This is all getting a bit bizarre.


----------



## squarepeg

sqkcrk said:


> When I worked on Dairy Farms I some times went barefoot, but usually I wore rubber boots. I thinki you should do the same Boris. Dr. Mercola is full of something and it isn't honey. It comes out of male cattle.


:lpf:


----------



## deknow

1. Dr. Mercola is ignorant and spreads ignorance....in order to make a profit....and this isn't even Dr. Mercola, this is a website for someone selling a "get skinny and happy quickly and easily" program....I always get my honey analysis from a certified F.A.T. coach
From the same page you quoted "statements" from:


> So how do you know if you’re buying honey that contains HFCS if it’s not even listed on the label? Well, unless it states that it is raw, natural, 100% certified organic honey, then you’ve got HFCS in that bottle sitting in your cupboard.


and


> You can also tell if you have pure, raw honey by whether it burns at 140 degrees. If it burns, it’s not real honey.


Both statements are pure, ignorant BS.
I don't avoid these statements, I look at them closely and evaluate them.
2. I've never heard of the 24 hour hive lighting (I have heard of nucs being made up indoors with red lighting)
3. The other stuff (HFCS) happens...it's been discussed on this forum more than once, and more than by me...it is a real problem. But I know from having tested honey from a variety of sources, that beekeepers who are really conscientious about how and when they feed don't get feed in the honey. Heating and filtering honey doesn't turn it into HFCS. But from the same tests, I can tell you that "beekeeper honey" seems to be often bought in by the beekeeper from larger operations, and that it seems that honey the larger operation doesn't want to sell under their own name is sometimes sold to the small beekeeper to sell as their own, where it will never be tested. I see this as a big problem, but it has nothing to do with how properly produced honey is processed.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris, do you pass Dr. Mercola's statements printed out as fact sheets to your customers? I hope not.

Dean,
yes, adulterated honey is a problem which should be dealt w/ to the highest degree of the Law. I hope you have taken samples to MA Dept. of Ag. NY State Apiculturalist Paul Cappy gathered 80 samples of jars of honey from store shelves across the State of NY. Those 80 jars of honey were tested for adulteration and none were found to be adulterated. I am not putting this up as opposed to your statements. I just thought it aught to be known too.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> I hope you are not basing an opinion on anecdotal evidence Sergey. Because, just because you have some comb honey which has not crystalized, that does not mean that comb honey does not crystalize. Which you seem to imply. I have some comb honey which is crystalized which I can send you. I can't sell it.
> 
> Honey crystalizes in brood combs quite often.


It is interested observation. Anybody else could comment on crystallized honey in the comb? In my hand with limited experience, I do observe that honey are not crystallized in the comb, but the same honey extracted by crush-and-strain method, in fact, do crystallize.


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> What about creamed honey, would that be a gel?


I do not think so. Gel is very specific state.


----------



## cerezha

deknow said:


> ...It is most unscientific and innaccurate to talk about two foodstuffs (honey and water), and hold one to a lab grade "purity" standard as a chemical compound, and the other to a "how it exists in nature" standard. ...deknow


 Yes, exactly! Braaaavo! Could you explain it to Kieck? The whole point was that it does not make sense to compare water with honey. I am glad you got it!


----------



## Ian

let talk about garden fresh carrots now,

lord will this ever end . . .


----------



## deknow

cerezha said:


> It is interested observation. Anybody else could comment on crystallized honey in the comb? In my hand with limited experience, I do observe that honey are not crystallized in the comb, but the same honey extracted by crush-and-strain method, in fact, do crystallize.


...it is largely the air bubbles...perhaps some dust on the outside of the cappings getting into the honey is seeding it as well. Look up heather honey from the UK moors....it crystallizes so fast that it is usually either sold in the comb, or pressed out of the comb.
Honey is a supersaturated solution, even in the comb. The balance of simple sugars, temperature, and the presence of particles (or tiny air bubbles) in the honey influences the speed and size of crystallization....but similar harvests from the same location seem to have similar textures from year to year. Probably agitation influences crystallization as well (I remember that when making rock candy in science class that you were not supposed to tap or move the cooled solution).

deknow


----------



## deknow

cerezha said:


> Yes, exactly! Braaaavo! Could you explain it to Kieck? The whole point was that it does not make sense to compare water with honey. I am glad you got it!


I don't agree. It makes no sense to compare water, the reagent grade uncontaminated chemical compound, to honey, the food. I think it's fine to compare "pure water"...fresh drinking water from nature with honey wrt purity. In both cases, you can change some of its character by heating and/or filtering without making it something other than water or honey.

deknow


----------



## deejaycee

cerezha said:


> Anybody else could comment on crystallized honey in the comb?


Happens all the time. Just a couple of months ago I put in my first load of honey for the season to our packer, and a box of honey that had been left on the hives for over winter feed was included, and was thoroughly cyrstalised. 

And no, we use no supplementary feeds (no sugar or syrup). It's real honey, just left long enough to hit its natural crystalisation timeline.


----------



## deknow

I have some crystallized comb honey in the pantry (couldn't extract it), I'm gonna go eat some...it's good 

deknow


----------



## cerezha

deknow said:


> I don't agree. It makes no sense to compare water, the reagent grade uncontaminated chemical compound, to honey, the food. I think it's fine to compare "pure water"...fresh drinking water from nature with honey wrt purity. In both cases, you can change some of its character by heating and/or filtering without making it something other than water or honey.
> 
> deknow


 Exactly, yes, "... It makes no sense to compare water, the reagent grade uncontaminated chemical compound, to honey, the food. "

No, "you can* not *(edited by me, RS) change some of its character by heating and/or filtering without making it something other than water or honey" - even water after heating will taste differently - did you ever try fresh water from the glassier? And then heat it and compare? Entirely different taste. The thing is - you may speak from scientific point of view and than we are talking about H2O or from "consumer" prospective. Both views are legitimate but incompatible when mixed together and semantic is used as a "scientific" argument... that all waters are the same... did you hear about "structured water"? Water is unfortunate example. Do not insist on continuation, use milk instead - much more "beneficial" to your point of view example. Are we going to talk about milk now? or carrots?


----------



## Ian

carrots !


----------



## squarepeg

i'm still crackin' up over mark's rubber boots.  that's classic, good one mark.

i wonder how often processed sugar gets into honey via hummingbird feeders or other beeyards.


----------



## Ian

Usually if a guy is feeding his hives, there is little to no nectar to be had. So even if a neighbouring bee yard was robbing a neighbouring yards pail spills, that syrup will be going into the nest, not into the supers


----------



## Barry

cerezha said:


> It is interested observation. Anybody else could comment on crystallized honey in the comb?


I still have about 5 comb sections of honey that I took off my hives about 13 years ago. It's been in the freezer all this time. They are just now starting to get some crystallization. What I can say is, honey that's been kept in the comb will retain the best flavor. The comb honey years old will still taste fresher than any of my extracted honey.


----------



## sqkcrk

cerezha said:


> It is interested observation. Anybody else could comment on crystallized honey in the comb? In my hand with limited experience, I do observe that honey are not crystallized in the comb, but the same honey extracted by crush-and-strain method, in fact, do crystallize.


Well, of course it does. Why would you expect otherwise. What w/ all of the particulate material in the honey from the crushing and straining.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Ian said:


> let talk about garden fresh carrots now . . .


By special request, how about _carrot honey _.... :lookout:









_Carrot honey produced by a local farmer who grows carrots for their seeds, not their roots. He sells the seeds, and before the flower matures, bees gather the pollen from the carrot flowers and make this unique honey.
_
​Linked from this blog:
http://pastryprose.blogspot.com/2012/01/portland-farmers-market-winter.html

No information available as to how quickly it crystallizes.


----------



## Ian

Blah ha ha ha ha ha ah aha ha ha

Cheers !


----------



## Ian

whats the chances that's actually carrot honey,.? 
got to have acres of that to amount to anything.


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> By special request, how about _carrot honey _.... :lookout:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Carrot honey produced by a local farmer who grows carrots for their seeds, not their roots. He sells the seeds, and before the flower matures, bees gather the pollen from the carrot flowers and make this unique honey.
> _
> ​Linked from this blog:
> http://pastryprose.blogspot.com/2012/01/portland-farmers-market-winter.html
> 
> No information available as to how quickly it crystallizes.


Problem is, bees don't make honey from pollen. So, there may be carrot pollen in this honey, but that isn't the nectar source.


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> whats the chances that's actually carrot honey,.?
> got to have acres of that to amount to anything.


Not much of a chance, imo.


----------



## Ian

but it says raw carrot honey on the label, and probably has carrot pollen in the honey, sooooo . . . . must be the real


----------



## sqkcrk

I'm sure u believe everything you read, don't u?


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Well, of course it does. Why would you expect otherwise. What w/ all of the particulate material in the honey from the crushing and straining.


 What is added to the honey during crushing and straining? Wax, I guess. So, if so, wax stimulates crystallization, which is opposed to my "theory". My "theory" was that wax may function as a "emulsifier" (not exactly) to keep honey from crystallization. Based on replies by experienced people, it looks like, my wax theory did not work


----------



## Roland

Boris, you should maybe go into comedy. Honey is defined by legal definitions, not anyone's opinion. We can all discuss viewpoints, but it is a court of law that has the only say. You have failed to provide ANY statutes and ANY lab results that show that ANY honey found by you was not honey. You have not even provided any court cases that have found "funny honey" for sale.

I really feel sorry for you.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Ian

I got to get me some of that carrot honey !


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> Based on replies by experienced people, it looks like, my wax theory did not work


cheers Sergey


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

sqkcrk said:


> So, there may be carrot pollen in this honey, but that isn't the nectar source.


Hmm, Carrot blossoms offer nectar to pollinators, according to Dr. Keith S. Delaplane. Here's a page from his book supporting that:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZH...A#v=onepage&q=carrot seed pollination&f=false

Seems to be somewhat of a stretch to say that carrot honey _cannot _be made from carrot blossoms.

And if you don't know who Dr. Delaplane, of University of Georgia is, here's his background.
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/personnel/delaplane.html

And here's someone from last spring looking for 400 hives to pollinate carrots:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?266411-Wanted-400-hives-for-Carrot-seed-pollination


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> This question is for everybody except Boris Romanov. What the heck was that video about and what does it have to do w/ this Thread?


I couldnt help it, I watched the Youtube Vid, 

Mark, I got it figured, Boris is completely NUTS


----------



## Ian

probably some nectar there Graham, but do you see enough to make surplus?

ah, who cares, Love the initiative !


----------



## apis maximus

sqkcrk said:


> So, there may be carrot pollen in this honey, but that isn't the nectar source.


Why do you think carrot flowers cannot be a nectar source?


----------



## BMAC

cerezha said:


> It is just ridiculously stupid to think about honey in such simplified way that syrup is equal to honey.


Who thinks about honey as being an equal to syrup?

What I am finding interesting is you are dancing around and not answering a simple direct question about changing the properties of honey by removing pollen. Pollen being a part of the non soluable portion of honey. Does removing pollen change honey from being honey?


----------



## BMAC

cerezha said:


> What is added to the honey during crushing and straining? Wax, I guess.


More than wax. Do you suppose your bees thoroughly scrub their little feet before waking from frame to frame inside the colony. Who knows what those little girls been walking thru while outside the hive. I certainly hope they have not visited Mark's old dairy job and walked thru bare foot what he walked thru barefoot.

bahahahaha


----------



## sqkcrk

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Hmm, Carrot blossoms offer nectar to pollinators, according to Dr. Keith S. Delaplane. Here's a page from his book supporting that:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=ZH...A#v=onepage&q=carrot seed pollination&f=false
> 
> Seems to be somewhat of a stretch to say that carrot honey _cannot _be made from carrot blossoms.
> 
> And if you don't know who Dr. Delaplane, of University of Georgia is, here's his background.
> http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/personnel/delaplane.html
> 
> And here's someone from last spring looking for 400 hives to pollinate carrots:
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?266411-Wanted-400-hives-for-Carrot-seed-pollination


Thanks Graham, I didn't know that carrots produce nectar. Learned something today. Yes, of course, I recognize Dr. Delaplane's name and contributions to the world of beekeeping. Met him once or twice if I recall correctly.

The statement under the photo of the carrot honey might lead someone to believe that pollen is what bees make honey out of, don't ya think?


----------



## sqkcrk

apis maximus said:


> Why do you think carrot flowers cannot be a nectar source?


I did not say they couldn't. Did you read the line below the photo of the carrot honey?


----------



## deknow

cerezha said:


> What is added to the honey during crushing and straining?


...for the third time, air bubbles are acting as "seeds".

deknow


----------



## Ian

I know my question got lost in the shuffle, but I am very interested if someone could answer this question for me,
maybe I missed it along the way,

I have often wondered how the pollen get into the honey naturally,

Does the bee ingest the pollen while taking up the nectar or is the pollen accidentally dusted into the honey cells while the bees walk over head,.?
I know the beekeeper has alot to do with the addition of pollen as they extract the honey from the frames. 
So, in the context of natural, what % of pollen in the honey would need to be present to qualify as HONEY, as some are suggesting here?


----------



## deknow

cerezha said:


> No, "you can not change some of its character by heating and/or filtering without making it something other than water or honey" - even water after heating will taste differently - did you ever try fresh water from the glassier? And then heat it and compare? Entirely different taste.


I actually have a funny story about that. The summer before I was going to college, I was looking for a job. I saw an ad in the paper about a sales opportunity...called the number, and showed up for the presentation....in the basement of a very large house. I was the only person there who's first language was english (only mentioning this to point out that I was not the target market...they were looking for recent immigrants).
Four words....water filters, multilevel marketing.

The goal was to get everyone there to sell everyone they knew a water filter, and in the process, become "distributors" with a garage full of product that they paid for....only to realize that they have been used as a way to sell the product into their own ethnic community....and that the public at large generally does not buy water filters this way. The water filters were of reasonable quality...it was not a total scam, but the marketing was obviously not going to benefit the people in the room with me.

When it came time to "test" the filter and see how compelling the sales pitch would be, we were given a cup of warm tap water, and a cup of cold filtered water...guess which one "tasted" better?

Did the water that came out of the filter taste better than the water that went into the filter? ...it's a rather moot point, they are both water. Warm tap water and cold tap water taste different, but they are both water.

Another related story....

For many years, researchers defined chalkbrood as "Ascosphaera apis" in the literature. When one wanted to do a study on chalkbrood, dried mummies were simply ground up, and the resulting powder was used as an Ascosphaera apis inoculation.

Dr. Phil Starks, from Tufts University, when he started looking at the chalkbrood literature, and at chalkbrood mummies, he was appalled to find that the actual mummies were infected with a number of different fungi...not just Ascosphaera apis.....yet, virtually all the research on chalkbrood had been done with whole ground mummies as the source, but talked about using Ascosphaera apis as an innoculant. "chalkbrood" is a complex culture when seen in the field, yet the causative agent is more specific. Ascosphaera apis is not "pure chalkbrood", and the complex culture in the mummies is not simply "Ascosphaera apis".

I dare say that if one wanted to define "honey" for serious chemistry work, one would have to standardize it down to the lowest common denominator....some balance of fructose, glucose, sucrose dissolved in about 17% water. Using "raw honey" as a reagent is meaningless, because raw honey is so variable....the experiment would be unreproducible using a variety of sources of "raw honey". This is why you cannot make any equivalency between the food honey and the chemical water.

[added in edit]....In fact, imagine a lab procedure that called for "tap water" or "bottled water"....meaningless, unless the purpose of the test is to determine what the qualities of that water is.




> Both views are legitimate but incompatible when mixed together and semantic is used as a "scientific" argument... that all waters are the same...


I never said that all water was the same. I said that it is all water.

deknow


----------



## Kieck

Wow. Nineteen pages of posts, and I don't know that much of anything has been established. I started reading the thread because the title implied that something other than a product made by bees was being fraudulently passed off as honey. As deknow stated a bit earlier in the thread, I presumed that HFCS was being labeled "honey" and sold as such. That doesn't seem to be the case.

In the meantime, the thread seems to have gone to some quite accusatory tones (naming companies and insinuating that the products they produce are not as they are labeled). While it has been pointed out that the USDA uses a definition of honey that covers a range of things, no one else has been able to offer a clear, personal definition of "honey," other than some claiming it is distinct from "processed honey." I know it's difficult to define such a thing. A bit earlier in this thread, I posted:



> Honey that comes off from a legume flow -- such as predominantly clover -- is decidedly different than mixed wildflower honey is different than buckwheat honey is different than honeydew honey (which, by the way, should almost certainly have no pollen naturally in it). All are "honey." All are chemically different. Therefore, "honey" must cover quite a range. The moisture content varies, the floral sources vary, the amounts of pollen if any vary, the pH varies, and none of it might be consistent even within a hive from one day to the next. -Kieck


Regarding crystallization and when it occurs, as others have pointed out, honey from some floral sources does not seem to crystallize over extended periods of time. Honey from others does. I've had bees make honey from honeydew. It crystallizes so quickly in the comb that it makes me wonder if it doesn't crystallize in the bees' honey crops on their way back to the hives. Quite a range of things in "honey."

And for the record, last time (a couple years ago) Boris asked me to "prove" I actually have bees, I told him to contact the state apiarist's office and confirm it with them. I PMed Boris the name of the state apiarist here and the registration records for the state, and I invited him to come visit and see for himself. If anyone else feels they need such verification, please PM me and I will send you the same information. I fail to see how such things are germane to this discussion, and I don't care to post such information publicly, but I'll do my best to confirm that I have bees for anyone who cares so deeply about it.


----------



## BMAC

deknow said:


> Warm tap water and cold tap water taste different, but they are both water.


Warm tap water will always taste different because of the annode rod that is in our hot water heaters. a true experiment on water quality taste from hot to cold is to take a portion the same sample (cup of cold water) preferably in glass and heat it in another non reactive vessel. Then sample both warm and cold water. comparing warm tap water and cold tap water is like comparing our apples and oranges, or maybe Mccintosh and Granny Smiths.


----------



## Kieck

> So, in the context of natural, what % of pollen in the honey would need to be present to qualify as HONEY, as some are suggesting here? -Ian


I'm interested, too, Ian. I've searched for such things in the past and again during this discussion. The few labs that do such tests all seem to hold that information quite close to the vest. Maybe it's so that people can't simply add pollen to syrup to pass it off as "honey?" The best I can say is that it seems to be a range of values, but what that range is, I do not know.

I suspect that some pollen ends up in nectaries within flowers just by the sloppy nature of insect pollination. Plants rely on such "sloppiness" to pass pollen from one flower to the next. If bees carefully packed pollen and took it all away, the pollen would fail to serve its purpose for the plants. It's that general brushing and dusting of pollen all over the bee and to different parts of the flower that accomplish transfers of pollen -- i. e. pollination.

Of course, if a beekeeper extracts a frame of mostly honey with some cells of pollen mixed in, that pollen will add to the pollen levels in the honey.

As I pointed out earlier, in an instance of bees storing relatively pure honeydew "honey" (I don't know, does it still qualify as "honey" if it doesn't come from floral sources? It's natural, bees do it on occasion, but it's different than the usual "honey" that most folks think of), I would expect no pollen from the source of the carbohydrates. Any pollen in those cases must be contaminants, I would think.


----------



## Ian

If you look at a dandelion flower, just by looking at the flower you can see that the nectar would be loaded with pollen. 
\But look at a soy bean flower, I bet little to no natural pollen is present in that honey


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Ian said:


> I have often wondered how the pollen get into the honey naturally,


Here is an explanation of how pollen gets into honey:


> Pollen can be incorporated into the honey produced in a beehive in a number of ways. When a honeybee lands on a flower in search of nectar, some of the flower's pollen is dislodged and falls into the nectar that is sucked up by the bee and stored in her stomach. At the same time, other pollen grains often attach themselves to the hairs, legs, antenna, and even the eyes of visiting bees. Later, some of the pollen that was sucked into her stomach with the nectar will be regurgitated with the collected nectar and deposited into open comb cells of the hive. While still in the hive the same honeybee might groom her body in an effort to remove entangled pollen on her hairs. During that process pollen can fall into open comb cells or the pollen can fall onto areas of the hive where other bees may track it into regions of the hive where unripe honey is still exposed in open comb cells.
> 
> http://www.scirpus.ca/cap/articles/paper017.htm


And,  OMG , *bees themselves filter pollen out of honey! *



> _The honeybee's filtering process, as described by Snodgrass and Erickson (1992) is rapid and effective._ The bee sucks nectar into a slender tube that ends in the bee's abdomen where it becomes an enlarged thin-walled sac called the honey stomach. This thin-walled sac is greatly distensible and can expand to hold large amounts of nectar. Once in the honey stomach, the nectar flows over the proventriculus which serves as a regulatory apparatus that filters and controls the entrance of food into the bee's stomach. The anterior end of the proventriculus, also called the honey stopper, projects into the bee's honey stomach like the neck of a bottle and at its anterior end is an x-shaped opening consisting of four, thick, triangular-shaped, muscle-controlled lips. _The nectar in the honey stomach is drawn back and forth into the funnel-shaped proventriculus where it is *filtered to remove debris such as pollen grains* and the fungal spores of foul brood.
> _
> http://www.scirpus.ca/cap/articles/paper017.htm


:ws:


----------



## Kieck

Some years, clouds of pollen are blowing from spruce trees here while dandelions are blooming. I imagine some of that spruce pollen must wind up in honey, too.

I agree: different shapes of flowers and different sizes of pollens must mean that some are more prone to getting into honey.


----------



## deknow

Dandelion pollen is especially interesting, as they mostly reproduce asexually. Pollen and nectar must be produced at a tremendous cost by the plant...the occasional fertilization must either be worth it, or there are other benefits for a plant to be visited by insects that make this profitable for the flower.

deknow


----------



## apis maximus

sqkcrk said:


> I did not say they couldn't. Did you read the line below the photo of the carrot honey?


Sure did.

We're probably getting off topic already, but the statement under the picture "..*.bees gather the pollen from the carrot flowers and make this unique honey*" did not lead me *"to believe that pollen is what bees make honey out of*". 

Two separate activities/processes taking place. One, gathering pollen and the other, making honey. Lots of flowers are sources of both, nectar and pollen. That does not mean bees visiting those flowers are making honey from the pollen of those flowers. 
As yourself so eloquently pointed out in previous postings, honey is made by the bees from nectar, and the pollen is there for the ride. Or not?


----------



## jim lyon

I raised a pretty large quantity of honeydew this past summer. A pollen analysis showed only a small amount of sweet clover pollen ( remants of an earlier flow) and a local weed in the daisy family. The "honey" is very dark (70+ mm) and has yet to granulate. its obviously not clover honey and qualifies as honeydew only because the scenario fits and it dosent qualify as anything else. Given the logic of some on here it's honey since it does contain some pollen. Soooo honey??? Yes? No? If not what and why?


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Dandelion pollen is especially interesting,


My favorite flower, the Dandelion ! 
my kids get funny looks when they tell people that. My kids dont understand why people hate dandelions,.? So young and innocent, they have not been corrupted by the silliness of society 

I agree, all the pollen and nectar available is a tremendous cost to the plant, at what cost? 
Got to look at the time that plant grows, early to mid spring. Lots of moisture, lots of nutrients, lots of sunshine. The plant exploits the abundance it grows in
and the bees exploit the plants abundance , got to love nature


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> Soooo honey??? Yes? No? If not what and why?


Hmmmm,. . . . lets talk 19 forum pages on that one,


----------



## Ian

What is the industry going to do about Ultra Filtered honey? In my eye this is the real issue. This honey is being watered down, heated and then sent through very fine filters to remove contaminates in the honey and then brought back to its original state. 

Is there a way of identifying this stuff?

or perhaps is the only way for the consumer to avoid ultra filtered honey is to buy from packers who qualify their honey with documentation ,.?


----------



## Boris

Roland said:


> You have failed to provide ANY statutes and ANY lab results that show that ANY honey found by you was not honey...Crazy Roland


Roland - read my post #320 again carefully!
I said:
"My first argument is the undeniable basic (!!!): in general real HONEY (almost all types) HAVE to crystallize sooner or latter. Crystallization of honey is a natural process, which indicates its good quality. And as you know, several factors determine the time it will take honey to crystallize...
From the other hand – “honey” from the Supermarkets (processed honey) LOSES ITS CRYSTAL STRUCTURE and therefore (mainly) remains liquid for many years without Crystallization!" 
This is the main difference between HONEY and liquid PROCESSED HONEY."

In addition: "...All honey crystallizes eventually (!); suspended particles (including pollen) and fine air bubbles in honey contribute to faster crystallization. 
Filtering pollen and other particles out helps delay crystallization, allowing the honey to remain liquid for a much longer period than honey that has not been filtered." http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen/#.UR0Ewx3Whn4 

I have no time to teach you beekeeping basics - go to your local library...

I also said: "So, if you (Ian) wish – please find some details about your honey Processing procedure (temperature, time and filtration) and I will give you more explanation."

The second part of my explanation is a simple home test, that shows influences of different type of honey (HONEY and PROCESSED HONEY) on bacteria in MILK.
And result is posted here: https://sites.google.com/site/healthbenefitsofgarlic/_/rsrc/1360852816743/home/honey_test.JPG
But I need detailed information from Ian to be sure that liquid processed honey from my Shop Rite passed a packaging process similar to this: http://www.suebee.com/?q=node/32
or to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDtClXCM1_I

Nevertheless, I still did not get requested details. 
But it's up to Ian to provide or not to provide requested details, and I do not want to force him.


----------



## jim lyon

Ian: In addition to testimg for adulterants I think about the only logical answer (and it dosent solve the entire problem) is that all raw, bulk honey sales should contain pollen. There is no logical reason why someone would filter it out of raw honey. Of course that is where all the confusion that reigns on here originally came from. It was a fatally flawed report from a reporter that didn't fully research his subject matter. Sigh! According to Ryan corrections were later made but so much mis-information has persisted that we still end up threads such as this about an article written a year and a half ago.


----------



## deknow

We don't even have a good working definition of honey....how can we define raw honey? I get asked all the time "what makes this honey raw", my answer always starts with, "there is no legal definition for the term, and different people use it different ways..."

Deknow


----------



## jim lyon

I am not asking for a legal definition Dean. Call it unfiltered, extracted honey if using the term raw bothers you. It is the state at which virtually 100% of honey is in that is sold to the businesses that repackage and market honey. To filter it is expensive, time consuming and degrades the color. There is no logical reason, that I know of, for any of it to be filtered in any way at that stage unless someone is trying to hide its origin which is exactly the reason this whole issue ever reared it's ugly head.


----------



## deknow

One beesource contributor has shared the experience of wholesaling barrels of honey to a food manufacturer (this was largely "raw" honey in the drum that he had purchased for resale) who sent the same barrels back to him several times for liquefying...it is not true that there is no reason to filter honey....I don't want it, but many do.

Deknow


----------



## Ian

I was under the impression that the off shore honey was being Ultra filtered to remove antibiotic residues and heavy metal contamination. They are telling me micron filters ,.? ( I was not aware it was possible up til these last couple of years ) And I guess on a side benefit to them they would also make the honey untraceable to its origin.


----------



## JRG13

Jim, what was the source of the Dew? Aphids or naturally occuring seeping? As to carrots, why is everyone thinking there's no nectar? Ever seen a carrot bloom? Huge umbels, quite smelly though, not a ton of nectar, but if you were to rub your hand over it, it would get sticky.


----------



## Ian

I agree, very few if not any producers filter their wholesale honey


----------



## Kieck

Pinpointing source of honeydew can be difficult, I think. The experience that I had with it was from large infestations of aphids on ash trees. At least, that was the most abundant source of honeydew in the area that I could find. I'm curious, too, Jim, if you tracked down a source?

I did pull up the definitions of honey used by the USDA. You can read them for yourselves here:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3011895

Seems to me that filtering out pollen and other suspensions actually moves honey up the grade scale. Bear in mind that I'm not advocating one way or the other here, just stating the way that I read the standards.


----------



## Ian

when honey is graded at a fair or show, clarity is very important


----------



## Kieck

And, from the Codex Alimentarius Commission (commission created by the United Nations), another detailed definition of honey:

www.codexalimentarius.org/input/download/standards/310/cxs_012e.pdf.

This one states that pollen should not be filtered out completely or in part.


----------



## jim lyon

Kieck said:


> Pinpointing source of honeydew can be difficult, I think. The experience that I had with it was from large infestations of aphids on ash trees. At least, that was the most abundant source of honeydew in the area that I could find. I'm curious, too, Jim, if you tracked down a source.


We called it Honeydew only through the process of elimination. There was simply nothing else in bloom. It was in hilly pasture ground that had a lot of clover blooming early that quickly dried up in the drought. We took off the clover honey, put an empty super back on and were planning on moving all the bees out of the area. Before we got around to it we noticed that the boxes were filling up with a very dark honey. We thoroughly (we thought) drove around the area looking for a possible source but there was nothing to be seen but brown drought stressed pasture. There were however a lot of cedar and scrub oak trees in the valleys that I never even considered looking at. After several samples gave us no pollen clues we were left with the possible, and plausible, scenario that insects desperate for water had bored into these trees releasing the honeydew sap. It made sense the more I read about the nature of the flow. It was never heavy, never had excited roaring bees in the air just a slow steady approximately 2 pound a day daily gain. Many hives filled up 2 mediums in something over a month. One of the more remarkable beekeeping experiences I have ever seen.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> I agree, very few if not any producers filter their wholesale honey


Ian, 

How you can explain the NHB's statement, that I mentioned in my post #380

And what is your opinion about these two big Packers:
http://www.suebee.com/?q=node/32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDtClXCM1_I

And how about this:
“Huser said the Sioux Honey Association and other producers shun ultra-filtration in favor of a more traditional, much less aggressive technique, called macro filtration, to remove bee parts, wax and other debris from the hive. 
"When we do that, we incidentally remove most (!!!) of the pollen," he said.”…
According to the Food Safety News story, Sue Bee Honey "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."
http://siouxcityjournal.com/busines...cle_b9e659dd-84f0-55f0-99d8-42f754760d83.html


----------



## Kieck

Really neat, Jim. I've watched bees (not mine) collecting honeydew from corn leaf aphids in a heavily infested corn field. I've tasted honey that I was told came from honeydew from aphids on pine trees (I have no reason to doubt that it did).

From the honeydew "flow" that I experienced, it was fairly short lived. Not much else was in bloom for about two weeks, and the bees brought it in at the time. As soon as other flowers started blooming, the bees seemed to switch back to floral sources. Maybe the bees needed pollen sources again as much or more than they needed carbohydrates? Maybe collecting nectar was easier or more efficient than collected honeydew?


----------



## Ian

Boris, your a NUT

Leave the names of packers out of your crazy theories

>>>>there are bee farms that produce 2/3 of the annual honey production in North America by force feeding their bees high fructose corn syrup or other sugars, and keeping them under 24-hour hive lighting so that they will produce honey year round (the remaining 1/3 of honey produced in N.A. is pure honey)<<<<


Your absolutely NUTS


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> ...Leave the names of packers out of your crazy theories


So, who are you - a misinformer?...

In fact this not my statement and not my theories: "“Huser said the Sioux Honey Association and other producers shun ultra-filtration in favor of a more traditional, much less aggressive technique, called macro filtration, to remove bee parts, wax and other debris from the hive. 
"When we do that, we incidentally remove most (!!!) of the pollen," he said.”…
According to the Food Safety News story, Sue Bee Honey "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."
http://siouxcityjournal.com/business...754760d83.html


----------



## Kieck

> How you can explain the NHB's statement, that I mentioned in my post #380... -Boris


I'm not sure that the article linked and quoted (found here: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen/#.UR00aGihBSV) is really a statement by the NHB.

However, I think "producers" are being confused with "packers" in some of the posts on this thread.

The beekeepers who pull the honey off of their hives are the "producers."

The companies that bottle and distribute the liquid honey are the "packers."


----------



## red

A few years back I used to help an old neighbor with his bees. A commercial guy stopped by one day to visit and gave us a four gallon bucket of carrot honey. It was one of the worst things I have ever tasted in my life. We ended up pitching it in the garbage.


----------



## Ian

Boris, 
producer packer producer packer producer packer producer packer


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> I'm not sure that the article linked and quoted (found here: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen/#.UR00aGihBSV) is really a statement by the NHB.
> 
> However, I think "producers" are being confused with "packers" in some of the posts on this thread.
> 
> The beekeepers who pull the honey off of their hives are the "producers."
> 
> The companies that bottle and distribute the liquid honey are the "packers."


"National Honey Board: Honey is Made from Nectar, Not Pollen"
BY BRUCE BOYNTON 
"Bruce Boynton is CEO of the National Honey Board..."

And this thread is about FINAL product!!!


----------



## Kieck

As a friendly piece of advice, Boris, you've stuck your neck out on this thread with some of the insinuations and allegations that you've leveled against a particular business. If you have evidence to back it up, it's time to present it, I think. Otherwise, you might consider moderating your comments and/or avoiding naming specific individuals/businesses in your posts.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> Boris,
> producer packer producer packer producer packer producer packer


So, it's clear you do not have real arguments to deny Huser's statement


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> As a friendly piece of advice...


As a friendly piece of advice - try to not misinform forum's members - see my post #399


----------



## Kieck

> And this thread is about FINAL product!!! -Boris


I believe the comments posted regarding this were: 



> It is the state at which virtually 100% of honey is in that is sold to the businesses that repackage and market honey. To filter it is expensive, time consuming and degrades the color. There is no logical reason, that I know of, for any of it to be filtered in any way at that stage unless someone is trying to hide its origin which is exactly the reason this whole issue ever reared it's ugly head. -Jim Lyon





> I agree, very few if not any producers filter their wholesale honey -Ian


Both are related to producers, not packers.


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> I believe the comments posted regarding this were: ...


Do not twist, my post #399 in general is about your misinformation


----------



## Ian

Boris,
producer packer producer packer producer packer producer packer


----------



## Kieck

> So, it's clear you do not have real arguments to deny Huser's statement -Boris


I'm fairly certain that Ian is not involved with Sioux Honey Association or Sue Bee Honey. As far as I'm concerned, I will not support or deny Huser's comments. Huser's comments are his comments. Others can vouch for them or not as they wish, but I have no first-hand knowledge of the packing practices in a business where I do not work.



> ... try to not misinform forum's members - see my post #399 -Boris


I'll concede that it can be taken as a statement of the NHB, if you wish. I cannot find the article linked as a "statement" or "press release" on the NHB Web site, as I would expect such an official statement to be linked. You're right, Boynton is CEO, and his status and the disclosure of his affiliation attached to the article show the connection.

Really, though, Boris, I was being sincere. I meant my advice as friendly. People find themselves in court for slander and libel at times, and I don't want to see anything along those lines come from comments on a tool like this board.


----------



## deknow

Boris, can you explain what We are looking at in the Milk and honey Photo?


----------



## Kieck

> Do not twist, my post #399 in general is about your misinformation -Boris


OK, time to put up, Boris. You started this thread, you've mentioned in posts in this thread that you will offer your definition of "honey." So far, you've posted that honey will crystallize.

HFCS will crystallize, too. And others here have pointed out that some honeys do not crystallize readily if at all.

So, what is your definition of "honey?" 

Let's have it already.


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> ... but I have no first-hand knowledge of the packing practices in a business where I do not work...


Glad to hear this.
Therefore in my post #392 I asked Ian, but not you. Doesn't it?


----------



## Kieck

> Therefore in my post #392 I asked Ian, but not you. Doesn't it? -Boris


Yes. Right. But Ian has not posted here that he has any connections to Sioux Honey Association or Sue Bee Honey.

I've driven past Sue Bee down in Sioux City, Iowa, a few times. Ian lives in Manitoba, Canada. What makes you believe that he has first-hand knowledge to confirm or deny the comments you quoted?


----------



## honeyshack

I sure have been out of the loop for a while. I had no idea we had to define what was honey. Thinking all this time, we got it so wrong.


----------



## deknow

If we are going to drawn a line anywhere, I would say a frame of comb removed from the hive is "honey free of processing"....a comb section or Ross round would probably also qualify (if produced without foundation). Once you cut it, crush it, extract it, it is no longer in it's natural state. I'd be willing to bet that Boris 's honey crystallized prematurely because of the processing (extracting or crush and strain) and the resulting introduction of air bubbles. Processed honey.

Deknow


----------



## JRG13

Jim, it was probably from the oaks, bees work them here when they're dripping and producing the little nublets where the 'acorns' form.


----------



## Ian

Oak tree honey, bet the honey tastes like nuts

your kind of honey Boris


----------



## cerezha

BMAC said:


> Who thinks about honey as being an equal to syrup?
> 
> What I am finding interesting is you are dancing around and not answering a simple direct question about changing the properties of honey by removing pollen. Pollen being a part of the non soluable portion of honey. Does removing pollen change honey from being honey?


 I do not think, it is my rule to dance around. In my posts, I was trying to explain that honey is a complex compound. But many who attended this thread play word game calling everything honey. It is not accurate, but people insisted that treated honey= honey. I disagree, but majority think that way. So what you want from me? My personal opinion? My personal opinion is that honey without pollen is a different substance. As a person with masters in human physiology, I think that honey-substance without pollen lost many beneficial qualities and turns into simple sweetener, syrup. Also, keep in mind that pollen removal usually happened when material is heated up. What is a syrup? Sugars kept close to saturation point (but liquid) by heating. I think,heated and filtered honey-substance technically may be called "syrup", honey-syrup... if it is sounded better. 

But, actually, my point was that I have no problem with treated/processed foods. Milk is treated... But what I want - is that any treatment should be indicated on the package along with other useful information - origin, contact information of the honey-producer, presence or absence of pollen etc. Sergey


----------



## cerezha

BMAC said:


> More than wax. Do you suppose your bees thoroughly scrub their little feet before waking from frame to frame inside the colony. Who knows what those little girls been walking thru while outside the hive. I certainly hope they have not visited Mark's old dairy job and walked thru bare foot what he walked thru barefoot.


 I have no problem with it. This is why I call my honey "100 and 2%" organic. This honey consumed quicker than it crystallizes! You need to read posts more carefully,because I explained earlier my "theory" that wax may slow down the crystallization process inside the comb. This "theory" was proven to be not true because many people reported that honey, in fact, do crystallize in the comb. I accepted that. Sergey


----------



## squarepeg

sergey, do beekeepers in russia like to argue about every little thing like they do in america?

nostrovia!


----------



## cerezha

squarepeg said:


> sergey, do beekeepers in russia like to argue about every little thing like they do in america? nostrovia!


 I do not think so, but I do not know any beekeeper in Russia, who is using Internet. As far as I know, beekeeping in Russia is heavily westernizing and I would not surprise to see arguing Russian beekeepers in beesource in near future. Arguing in the area out of competence, I think, is a general social networking trend. Also - trolling is invention of the social networks. спасибо! Sergey


----------



## Ian

people keep saying trolling

what is trolling?


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> people keep saying trolling
> 
> what is trolling?


i think it means 'intentionally trying to elicit an emotional response out of others on an internet forum but posting outrageous stuff'.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Checking the Beesource Member list 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/mem...stafter=&lastpostbefore=&sort=username&order=
shows that there are 19 members with a location of "Russia". However, none of them have made more than 10 posts each. 


You can do member searches on _Location _by clicking _Forum >Community>Member List> Advanced Search_


----------



## ryan

Boris
Packagers buy honey, heat it, filter it, then sell it. The USDA says yes you can do that to honey. The USDA also says that if some or all the pollen gets removed it's fine. 

It's honey. Get over it. Your opinion doesn't give you the right to accuse us of perpetrating a fraud. We are following the laws, rules, and traditions. 

That news peice was a fraud. It's a fraud to call my honey on the store shelf "NOT REAL"


----------



## cerezha

deknow said:


> ... honey crystallized prematurely because of the processing (extracting or crush and strain) and the resulting introduction of air bubbles....


 I am not sure about air bubbles provoking crystallization. It sounded OK, but I doubt. Why? A few reasons:
- when I crush-strain my honey I do not introduce any bubbles, my strained honey have no visible bubbles. Nevertheless, it crystallizes sometime rather quickly. Additional argument against bubbles is that I always "treat" my honey in exactly the same way (scientific education, I guess), nevertheless, different crops of honey crystallized with different speed. Last crop starts crystallizing in the bucket, while comb honey is still liquid... mystery of my honey. May be I have special bees?

- if bubbles responsible for crystallization - there is very easy way to remove them from the honey - vacuum it. Hey - packers, where you are? Fresh free idea - you may steal it from me. I would imagine that vacuuming could affect smell, but it would not affect physical state. Note that heating would work in similar way by removing air bubbles, but slower than vacuum.

- most "scientific" explanation of crystallization is that particulate matter including pollen works as an initiator(s) to start crystallization. The further crystallization as rightly mentioned above by many people, would depend from actual composition of the whole honey, storage conditions etc. In this case, unfortunately, the solution is to remove or minimize "initiators" from the honey with all consequences partially covered in this thread. Note, that I DO NOT recommend to modify honey in any way.


----------



## cerezha

ryan said:


> Boris
> Packagers buy honey, heat it, filter it, then sell it. The USDA says yes you can do that to honey. The USDA also says that if some or all the pollen gets removed it's fine. ....


 Did you try to sell *this *honey in California?


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> Boris,
> producer packer producer packer producer packer producer packer


I am curios, where is consumer in this chain? I afraid you omit most important part of the chain...


----------



## Ian

who said that was any type of chain,.?
Boris was confusing the two, in more than one occasion

But you draw out a very important point, its the consumer who we should be striving to satisfy. And its the consumer who ultimately decides what is and what is not suitable to buy. We work in a consumer driven market, we can not forget that very important part of the production chain


----------



## ryan

I don't think CA is getting any different honey than any other state. 

CA most certainly has honey on the store shelf that has been heated and filtered. Perhaps I don't understand your question.


----------



## Roland

This is really not that difficult. No one here has the power to define honey, only governments, thought hte commerce clause. Defining honey is a legal provess. The US has no legal definition of honey. The pdf file has DESCRIPTIONS. A legal definition has associated tests to verify if the item meets the legal definition. The Codex Alimentarus(sp?),, I believe, has definitions AND supporting tests. California and Florida I believe have a definition that pollen must not be removed, as well as sugar ratios and percentage moisture, derived from the Codex. Wisconsin is even more strict .

I believe the Cali case is Brod vs.Sue bee.

So Boris, what honey have you tested to show that ANY packer or producer has sold a product as honey that fails to meet the laws in you area??????? It does not matter what you believe, the law is the law. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> who said that was any type of chain,.?
> Boris was confusing the two, in more than one occasion
> 
> But you draw out a very important point, its the consumer who we should be striving to satisfy. And its the consumer who ultimately decides what is and what is not suitable to buy. We work in a consumer driven market, we can not forget that very important part of the production chain


 yet, you forgot to mention such important element as a consumer...


----------



## cerezha

ryan said:


> I don't think CA is getting any different honey than any other state.
> 
> CA most certainly has honey on the store shelf that has been heated and filtered. Perhaps I don't understand your question.


see post #428 - it looks like your ruling regarding honey may not work in California - than what are you talking about? What is the reason to post something without proper knowledge of the real situation? Roland posted at least twice in THIS thread that FL and CA require pollen in the honey. Apparently, YOUR honey is not real in CA! Sergey


----------



## Ian

Sergey, when did I forget to mention the consumer ?


----------



## ryan

Yes yes. I currently am paying cash from my pocket to fund that lawsuit. 
Guilty as charged, I'm a Sue member. 

I think it is silly to assume that decades of heating and filtering of honey ended the day someone filed a lawsuit. (? my proof is post #1? ) Perhaps some have changed the filter size. Either way the product on the shelf is most likely the same look feel and smell that it always was. 

Its a Good point. But I'm guessing not much has actually changed on the shelf. Please do tell if you know of any recent tests of honey. I'll cite post #1 as part of the reason I guess the way I do. But that article is so old I doubt many people will think it's relevant.


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> Sergey, when did I forget to mention the consumer ?


 Ian
I simply did not see any mentioning of customers by you in this thread if not count last two when you respond on my comment. If you feel, I am not right, than could you kindly provide the post numbers where you mention the word "customer" in this thread? It would be very useful for sake of clarity!


----------



## BMAC

cerezha said:


> You need to read posts more carefully,because I explained earlier my "theory" that wax may slow down the crystallization process inside the comb. This "theory" was proven to be not true because many people reported that honey, in fact, do crystallize in the comb. I accepted that. Sergey


I appreciate your opinion. However thats all it is, as I read posts here quite well. As for what I want from you: Nothing actually. You act as though folks here are stupid and should listen carefully to what you have to say about anything as you are obviously an authority in all matters because you hold a master's degree in human physiology along with a degree in _________. I left the blank becuase most of us could careless what degrees you hold from educational institutions.

However I brought up removing the pollen from honey and the relationship of changing the properties of honey in a scientific fashion being you are hung on theories and chemical names and pure substances. It appears that scientifically speaking honey with pollen removed is still honey as pollen is a non soluble so theoretically it can be removed from honey without actually altering the honey. It should not matter how pollen is typically removed from honey in the industry as that is simply a common practice.

This of course is simply a theory from your ignorant fellow beekeeper.


----------



## BMAC

Ian said:


> people keep saying trolling
> 
> what is trolling?


Its when I intentionally set my fishing line a specific depths in a body of water and slowly move the boat forward in an attempt to catch a fish.


----------



## Kieck

At the risk of sending this thread onward for another 10 pages...



> California and Florida I believe have a definition that pollen must not be removed, as well as sugar ratios and percentage moisture, derived from the Codex. Wisconsin is even more strict. -Roland


Do these states test honey for presence of pollen, do you know? I'm curious to know if they make provision for those instances like have been mentioned here when bees produce honeydew honey (which should be expected to have no pollen in it, if it's pure).


----------



## Ian

BMAC said:


> Its when I intentionally set my fishing line a specific depths in a body of water and slowly move the boat forward in an attempt to catch a fish.


That makes a lot of sense !


----------



## ryan

Brod vs sue bee. Case dismissed sept 2012. 
Ross vs sue bee. Case dismissed January 14, 2013. 

California courts rule my honey is OK as labeled, HONEY. 

Look them up, they are good reading.


----------



## beeman2009

I thought this forum was about beekeeping :scratch: Not about politics, grammer lessons, consumer affairs and the like. While you guys sit around aruging about whose OPIONION is right, your bees are dying! Does that mean anything? It's a sad state of affairs when good beekeepers let money, greed & power become their master.  Was hoping to learn something useful today, guess it won't be here.


----------



## lazy shooter

This thread is what the females refer to as a "who's the biggest contest."


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

beeman2009 said:


> I thought this forum was about beekeeping :scratch: Not about politics, *grammer *lessons, consumer affairs and the like. While you guys sit around aruging about whose OPIONION is right, your bees are dying!


Its "grammar", arguing", and "OPINION". :lookout: And my bees are _not _dying, AFAIK, thank you! 

I find discussions like this quite _entertaining _when I need a break from the shop from the after building more hive equipment. 

:gh:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

ryan said:


> Brod vs sue bee. Case dismissed sept 2012.
> Ross vs sue bee. Case dismissed January 14, 2013.


Here's a link:
http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-honey-of-litigation.html

There are more cases than just the two mentioned above. The end result is not always identical, depending on the state.


----------



## sqkcrk

beeman2009 said:


> I thought this forum was about beekeeping :scratch: Not about politics, grammer lessons, consumer affairs and the like. While you guys sit around aruging about whose OPIONION is right, your bees are dying! Does that mean anything? It's a sad state of affairs when good beekeepers let money, greed & power become their master.  Was hoping to learn something useful today, guess it won't be here.


Whose fault is it that you had such high expectations? Misplaced to boot.

Besides, my hives aren't dying, they're thriving.

When it all comes down to brass tacks, all this talk about what is honey and what isn't doesn't matter one bit. Most of y'all aren't selling honey to make a living or even buying honey. So, what is sold in grocery stores, labeled as HONEY, means little or nothing to what you do w/ your honey.

If you bottle and sell honey, you should be getting more than the shelf price for your honey. If not that is your fault not someone elses.

If you buy honey, and you are on beesource, which you are or you wouldn't be reading this, you know what you want and know how to ask for it and Pollenless Honey shouldn't bother you because you aren't eating it.

So, I really don't see what the hub-bub is all about. Control your own actions. That's all you can do, if that. Produce honey and sell it, and eat it. Don't buy honey from grocery stores. It's that simple.


----------



## sqkcrk

Tests show that most people who argue about whether something is honey or not aren't honey producers to any great extent. The Honey Producers know what honey is. It's what the packers pay us for. It's what the customers/consumers pay us for.


----------



## beeman2009

sqkcrk said:


> Whose fault is it that you had such high expectations? Misplaced to boot.


I actually do agree with most of what you said and am glad to hear that your bees are thriving. That tells me you could have some really positive imput for those wanting to learn this thing we call beekeeping. I meant no disrespect to anyone, but if you or anyone else thinks just because their bees aren't dying that things are fine, well time will tell. As to my expectations, I guess you may be right. To visit a forum call BEEsource and expect to maybe learn something or just to talk bees, I supposed is too much to expect. Thanks for proving what I said to bee correct.:applause:


----------



## sqkcrk

Yer welcome. Life is short at times, but, in the long run, little matters. If you want to learn beekeeping nothing will stop you. Best of luck.

Things are good if looked at from the right angle. Perspective and attitude are important.


----------



## jim lyon

There is a wealth of great info on here and a really deep pool of beekeeping experience. Select your topic, you will soon learn who knows of what they post and who just loves to post.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

I thought there was only One Todd Akin around until i started reading this thread, Geeez, how could so many of you be so wrong about what real honey is.


----------



## hpm08161947

jim lyon said:


> you will soon learn who knows of what they post and who just loves to post.


No truer words were ever typed on Beesource.....


----------



## beemandan

beeman2009 said:


> To visit a forum call BEEsource and expect to maybe learn something or just to talk bees, I supposed is too much to expect. Thanks for proving what I said to bee correct.:applause:


With a quick look, I see a multitude of threads that are informative and have input from knowledgeable beekeepers here. You’ve discovered one that has gone over the edge….and this is the one you use to judge the entire board by?
A pretty narrow view….to my thinking.


----------



## Boris

Ian said:


> ...Boris was confusing the two, in more than one occasion...


O.K. - looks like you are ready to find the truth..
Let's start...

“…Only two smaller Pacific Northwest grocery chains – Haggen and Metropolitan Market – both selling honey without pollen, weren’t bashful about the source of their honey. Haggen said right off that its brand comes from Golden Heritage. 
Metropolitan Market said its honey – Western Family – is packed by Bee Maid Honey (!), a co-op of beekeepers from the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia…”
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.UR1P5h3Whn4

So, Why "honey" packed by Bee Maid Honey WITHOUT POLLEN???


----------



## Ian

your too much Boris, got to stop this madness,

cheers


----------



## squarepeg




----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> O.K. - looks like you are ready to find the truth..
> Let's start...
> 
> “…Only two smaller Pacific Northwest grocery chains – Haggen and Metropolitan Market – both selling honey without pollen, weren’t bashful about the source of their honey. Haggen said right off that its brand comes from Golden Heritage.
> Metropolitan Market said its honey – Western Family – is packed by Bee Maid Honey (!), a co-op of beekeepers from the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia…”
> http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.UR1P5h3Whn4
> 
> So, Why "honey" packed by Bee Maid Honey WITHOUT POLLEN???


You are taking the word of a News article. Have you never read a mistake in a newpaper article. Stereotypically speaking, all you can expect is that they will get your name spelled correctly.

Don't believe everything you read.


----------



## Boris

Are you Ian?

"...The contents were analyzed for pollen by Vaughn Bryant, a professor at Texas A&M University and one of the nation’s premier melissopalynologists, or investigators of pollen in honey..."


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Boris said:


> “…Only two smaller Pacific Northwest grocery chains – Haggen and Metropolitan Market – both selling honey without pollen, weren’t bashful about the source of their honey. Haggen said right off that its brand comes from Golden Heritage.
> Metropolitan Market said its honey – Western Family – is packed by Bee Maid Honey (!), a co-op of beekeepers from the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia…”
> 
> So, Why "honey" packed by Bee Maid Honey WITHOUT POLLEN???


Boris, I suspect that you may not like this, but the answer to your question is that the store chain mentioned in your quote, _Metropolitan Market_, sells that honey under its own STORE BRAND name, _Western Family_. _*Since it is a store brand, the specifications of the product are controlled by the store chain*_. Metropolitan Market contracts for and controls the product, not Bee-Maid. Bee-Maid provides what its customer, Metropolitan Market, asks for!


----------



## jim lyon

You know how you can stand between two mirrors facing each other and see the reflection getting smaller and smaller and presumably never ending. Just the same unchanging image over and over and over and over getting smaller and smaller and smaller.........................


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> You know how you can stand between two mirrors facing each other and see the reflection getting smaller and smaller and presumably never ending.


I've gotta try that.


----------



## beeman2009

beemandan said:


> With a quick look, I see a multitude of threads that are informative and have input from knowledgeable beekeepers here. You’ve discovered one that has gone over the edge….and this is the one you use to judge the entire board by?
> A pretty narrow view….to my thinking.


beemandan,

Point well taken.:applause: You are right about there being quite a few knowledgable beeks on here and this is just one thread. I did not judge, nor have I ever judged anyone here or anywhere else. That's not my place. As to a narrow view, again you are right.  I have read hours of threads on here with post from beeks all around the country, and other countries. I agree with some, disagree with others. But that's ok. My thoughts are just that, MY THOUGHTS. If anyone agrees with me, ok. If not that's ok too. Take you for example; you accused me of having a narrow view. Not to insult you or anything else, but how would you know?:scratch: You don't know me or anything about me. All you know is I expressed my frustration & dissappointment over how many on forums just run things into the ground and usually they are only expressing opinion and you critized me for it. That's your opinion. Everyone has an opinion.

No hard feelings here, hope none on your end. Best to you and yours.


----------



## beemandan

No hard feelings here. I know very few of the posters on Beesource personally….so it is hard to take anything personally.
You wrote


beeman2009 said:


> To visit a forum call BEEsource and expect to maybe learn something or just to talk bees, I supposed is too much to expect. Thanks for proving what I said to bee correct.:applause:


That…to me was a very narrow view of Beesource. Anybody who takes a minute to look can find plenty to learn on Beesource….and plenty of opportunity to ‘talk bees’. And when I said it seemed like a narrow view….that’s what I meant. I have no other knowledge of you and wouldn’t even try to guess if you are generally open or narrow minded.


----------



## ryan

Hi Boris. 

You can have your opinion about how honey should be sold. That is totally fine. I wish you the best selling your product your way. You can even lobby to change the laws and standards. All fine. 


The USDA calls my product Honey. The United Sates District Court of Northern California has ruled in September and January that my product is honey. The burden falls on you to change the system. You could get the definition changed. It looks like that has to be done at the federal level. Until then, please understand I have every legal right to call it "honey". 

These legal cases are a hoot to read. Please keep posting any lawsuits that are pending. I've learned a lot. It's nice to catch up on Current news.


----------



## Barry

Boris said:


> Are you Ian?


No, he's Mark and he has every right to reply to any post.


----------



## Roland

Ahhhhh... we have a wise one...... Ryan figured it out. It is all about the law. Boris - take note - case closed. If you are still unhappy, do as Ryan suggested, contact you state and federal legislatures, and go harp on them, not us.

Crazy Roland


----------



## cerezha

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Here's a link:
> http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-honey-of-litigation.html
> 
> There are more cases than just the two mentioned above. The end result is not always identical, depending on the state.


 did you see this: 
This blog site is intended to disseminate the Authors’ personal, defense-oriented views of various issues that arise in the context of prescription drug and medical device product liability litigation and related topics. No representation is made about the accuracy of the information, which solely constitutes the Author’s personal view on these issues. The information contained in this blog site is provided only as general information and personal opinions, and blog topics may or may not be updated after being initially posted.
http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html


----------



## cerezha

ryan said:


> I don't think CA is getting any different honey than any other state.
> 
> CA most certainly has honey on the store shelf that has been heated and filtered. Perhaps I don't understand your question.


 I have to admit that you were right - your opinion is supported by a few court decisions on the basis that CA could not implement different rule if FDA have no definition of honey. Personally, to me it is stupidiest thing one could imagine - to prevent local laws, but this just speaks about quality and bias in US law. 

Now, my personal line of defense would be to tell all my friends etc. that based on court decision, CA law does not protect us from fraudulent honey labeling. Thus - honey is not necessary a honey, it may be something else. Be aware!


----------



## cerezha

ryan said:


> ...The USDA calls my product Honey. ... You could get the definition changed. It looks like that has to be done at the federal level. Until then, please understand I have every legal right to call it "honey".


 I am not sure, it is true that USDA called your product honey. Based on my reading of the law suits, US courts (4 out of 5) permitted to call your product "honey" because FDA have no definition what is honey. In US, Federal law prevails over local.


----------



## Boris

squarepeg said:


> ...i wonder how often processed sugar gets into honey via hummingbird feeders or other beeyards.


It's a drop in the ocean in comparison with some "beekeeping" practices similar to this:

"A pump equipped tanker delivers over 40,000 pounds of syrup to our farm. Three 1250 imperial gallon tanks hold the syrup until needed. Syrup keeps well for a month or more. After that, slow fermentation is possible in warm weather. In cold weather, over time some sugar will precipitate out onto the bottom. An ordinary honey pump is adequate to fill our truck tanks for daily use."
From: http://www.honeybeeworld.com/misc/syrup/feed.htm


----------



## hpm08161947

Boris said:


> It's a drop in the ocean in comparison with some "beekeeping" practices similar to this:


I believe you left off a little piece of the article:



> *Sugar should never be fed at any time when it is possible that it will be stored in the honey supers and extracted with honey*
Click to expand...


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> It's a drop in the ocean in comparison with some "beekeeping" practices similar to this:
> 
> "A pump equipped tanker delivers over 40,000 pounds of syrup to our farm. Three 1250 imperial gallon tanks hold the syrup until needed. Syrup keeps well for a month or more. After that, slow fermentation is possible in warm weather. In cold weather, over time some sugar will precipitate out onto the bottom. An ordinary honey pump is adequate to fill our truck tanks for daily use."
> From: http://www.honeybeeworld.com/misc/syrup/feed.htm


This is like discussing Biblical passages, according to some they make quite a bit more when read fully in context. What you quoted is just a snap short of the whole. It isn't called "Feeding Syrup to Honeybees [For Honey Production]".


----------



## Boris

hpm08161947 said:


> I believe you left off a little piece of the article:


I did not left anything, because I know some standard recommendations from the producers of plastic frames (foundations, Supers-size frames are included) 

As you can see here: http://www.beebehavior.com/pierco_plastic_frames_foundations.php 
I like Pierco frames, and especially Deep-size foundations, that I use even for honey production. 
I prefer to use supers for comb honey production only:
http://www.beebehavior.com/romanov_comb_sections.php

Nevertheless, I'm against the Piergo's introduction instruction, therefore I posted my NOTE for the visitors of my web site. You can see this note below:

"NOTE: I'm completely against this recommendation from above mentioned instruction: "We recommend feeding the bees heavily (!!!) with sugar syrup at this time to stimulate comb building."

Boris Romanov


----------



## Boris

sqkcrk said:


> This is like discussing Biblical passages...


Let's be specific.

Mark, I prefer ketchups with the "No High Fructose Corn Syrup" label...
Could you show us please the real proof, that a final product with your honey doesn't contain any syrup or syrup's traces.

P.S. An acceptable proof - a test result from any laboratory that is certified by FDA.


----------



## Roland

Boris - I am quite like Sqkcrk - similar size(commercial), geography(similar latitude, different longitude), and short of migrating, methodology. Our honey easily passes sugar ratio and ISCRA tests. I am confidant that Sqkcrk's would too.


Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

Boris said:


> Let's be specific.
> 
> Mark, I prefer ketchups with the "No High Fructose Corn Syrup" label...
> Could you show us please the real proof, that a final product with your honey doesn't contain any syrup or syrup's traces.
> 
> P.S. An acceptable proof - a test result from any laboratory that is certified by FDA.


No, of course not. Who can afford such tests and why would I? Can you do the same for yours? I have nothing to prove about my Honey. The "proof" is in the Account Books and the Bank. Your question is rediculous.


----------



## Kieck

Wait. Hold on a minute. You eat ketchup, Boris? You worry about pollen counts and preservation of enzymes and possible contamination with HFCS in the honey you buy, and then you're buying that processed olio of ingredients known as "ketchup" that is commonly used to conceal a multitude of sins when it's used as a condiment on other processed foods?


----------



## sqkcrk

Actually Kieck, I believe that Boris wrote that he doesn't buy honey. I don't know what his beef is. Maybe he feels the same way about beef that he does about honey. I sure hope that it isn't just honey that he is so radically adiment about. But that's what happens. People get on a jag about one thing and then they smoke and drink and drive fast and all sorts of other things. But, darn it, honey has to be what I say it is or it isn't really honey. Give me a break.


----------



## Kieck

Maybe so, Mark, but then why worry so much about how honey is labeled? I don't feel deceived by labeling or lack of labeling on products that I don't purchase.


----------



## Roland

I have plenty of honey I can sell him, with certified lab test, State documentation, and without any trace of miticides. A real deal at one dollar an ounce. Put your money where you mouth is.

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk

Unsubscribing this Thread from my Subscribed Threads List.


----------



## Boris

Roland, please read my post # 471 more carefully, especially this note:

"P.S. An acceptable proof - a test result from any laboratory that is certified by FDA."


----------



## Boris

The very specific question was raised by squarepeg 

Ian's reply "...So even if a neighbouring bee yard was robbing a neighbouring yards pail spills, that syrup will be going into the nest, not into the supers" looked very funny to me. It's very interesting to see how bees were trained to do this...

To reply to squarepeg I posted some additional info in the post# 467

Mark posted his comments on it voluntarily, therefore I asked him to reply to my post.

Mark's failure to answer to my post #471 and his capitulation is a type of the answers too...


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> Wait. Hold on a minute. You eat ketchup, Boris? You worry about pollen counts and preservation of enzymes and possible contamination with HFCS in the honey ...


Reminder - no answers to your questions without real proofs that you are a beekeeper, who has LIVE bees...


----------



## Beregondo

jim lyon said:


> You know how you can stand between two mirrors facing each other and see the reflection getting smaller and smaller and presumably never ending. Just the same unchanging image over and over and over and over getting smaller and smaller and smaller.........................


You can do that Jim.
But only the FIRST one is your REAL reflection in each mirror...


----------



## jim lyon

Beregondo said:


> You can do that Jim.
> But only the FIRST one is your REAL reflection in each mirror...


It now appears that was a bad analogy as this thread has morphed into whether a substance (an adulterant) has been added instead of whether a substance (pollen) can be subtracted. I could point out that there are no disagreements on this and that all major packers test the honey they are buying before accepting it but insertion of logic on this thread would only be fodder for another sort of bizarre argument that would be interesting for a short time but then it would go on and on and on and on......... Don't let yourself get suckered again folks and listen to Mark's advice. 
Wait a minute isn't a real reflection just a reflection? Nope not going there.


----------



## Kieck

> Reminder - no answers to your questions without real proofs that you are a beekeeper, who has LIVE bees... -Boris


By your same logic, you've never offered proof that you have "LIVE" bees, either, Boris.

And, by that same logic, you haven't demonstrated any evidence that you are a processor and canner of tomatoes, yet you're offering opinions on ketchup.

Seriously, I did send you everything you need to verify that I have bees. I sent you the links to the location and registration maps for the state is South Dakota along with my name. I sent you the phone number of the state apiarist here and told you to contact him and verify that I have bees. And I posted in this thread that I had done so. Your failure to verify this for yourself looks very poorly for your ability to fact check, I think.

I also invited you to come visit and witness my apiaries for yourself. When can I expect you, Boris?


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> ... I sent you the links to the location and registration maps...


Not acceptable - read my post #481 more carefully...


----------



## hpm08161947

Unsubscribing this Thread from my Subscribed Threads


----------



## rhaldridge

Well, I've read almost 500 posts and feel quite a bit dumber than when I started, but despite this, I still have a couple of questions.

Is anyone concerned that the relative lack of standards in American honey may be a source of consumer disillusionment at some point? Could it end up hurting American producers if folks come to believe that there's no way they can know where their honey was produced, and under what management and processing procedures?

I understand that in a number of other first-world countries, it is is illegal to sell honey which has had the pollen removed. I wonder if some forum members from these countries would be willing to chime in and say what, if any, problems these regulations have caused producers.

I guess I'm asking if there is a severe downside to being able to confirm where and how honey was produced? I guess consumers would have to be re-educated to accept lesser clarity, but maybe that wouldn't be impossible. I have to say that the raw honey I've tried is almost always a lot better tasting than the commodity honey I used to buy at the supermarket.


----------



## Beregondo

Frankly, I think that it is not the function of government to tell us what honey is.
Further, I believe that market pressure is sufficient to police inferior products - that when a consumer compares one product to the other only products that provide adequate value for their money will be repurchased.

I think we have been depending too much on Big Brother to tell us what we produce, and been too lax in our marketing if consumers can't tell what real honey is.

A superior product properly priced to reflect it's value will always sell better than an inferior fraudulent one priced as if it were good, so long as that superior product is properly marketed.

If a consumer can but once be induced to try real honey, he will never be satisfied by a diluted imitation.

Let's solve our own problems through quality product and marketing.
The government is no good at solving problems anyway, they usually just make them worse.

And let us not presume that just because the government says a thing, that their saying so makes it true, as in "If it doesn't have pollen, it is not honey."

We all know what honey is, and we all know that pollen isn't honey.

And honey with pollen filtered out is _*honey *_with the pollen filtered out, not something else.

Let consumers decide if they are satisfied with that junk, and let us produce such good honey that we make sure they're not!


----------



## cerezha

I love "commodity honey"!
As for the lack of standards, US is ahead of many "first-world countries" - I find it very disturbing that US standards related to health (if any) often 10x worse that European or Japanese. In many cases, the standards just do not exist as for honey. It seems to me, the interests of big companies prevail in US policies. As I explained in my previous post - since there is no regulation on honey and honey is commodity without a standard, I will recommend to my friends, family etc. do not purchase the product labeled just "Honey", because it may be anything. I will also provide free of charge the whole, raw, unheated, 102% _edit:_ "organic" honey from my beehives in Santa Monica to all my friends and family.


----------



## rhaldridge

I have to admit that I'm often dubious about the government when it comes offering help. But I think there's a place for regulation, too. If there was no regulation at all, what would prevent a canny businessperson from selling flavored and colored syrup as honey? It might not be very tasty, but it would to some extent diminish the ability of legitimate producers to sell real honey. I guess the best thing to hope for is that regulation strikes some sort of happy medium between too much and not enough. That's why I was wondering how producers in other countries that require honey to have pollen think that policy has worked out. 

In looking into this further, there was a weird EU court case that ruled that GMO pollen in honey rendered it unsalable... but that seems to be yielding to common sense now.

How did you feel about the tariffs placed on Chinese honey? Was that a legitimate use of government power?

BTW, I spent the first couple years of my life in Elmira, where my grandfather was a sideline beekeeper. He's been gone fifty years, so I doubt you'd have known him, but he was a great man.


----------



## Beregondo

Tariffs on foreign goods in general, and dubious ones in particular are:
1) good for the economy in general, and give consumers motivation to buy goods produced here, and 
2) one of the few legitimate means of the federal government to raise revenue.
Before property and income taxes, tariffs were the primary revenue source...and there were times when they had a budget problem: what to do with the surplus revenue.

If you want to discuss political things, though, probably ought to PM or pick up the conv on the Coffee Klatch forum, I expect


----------



## max2

"Is anyone concerned that the relative lack of standards in American honey may be a source of consumer disillusionment at some point? "

I posted this experience elsewhere on besource..

We had a bunch of US students staying here in January for a few days. Many purchased honey from me ( with pollen, I may add) to take home and commented that they never tasted honey of this quality at home. Most would not have access to a beekeeper and the stuff they buy at super markets maybe simply not good enough to turn these young people onto honey?


----------



## Kieck

> Is anyone concerned that the relative lack of standards in American honey may be a source of consumer disillusionment at some point? Could it end up hurting American producers if folks come to believe that there's no way they can know where their honey was produced, and under what management and processing procedures? -rhaldridge


Finally. Good questions, rhaldridge. Important questions, I think.

As far as a lack of standards, I believe the standards are in place. Just within the U. S., these standards have been set up the USDA:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...STELDEV3011895

When was the last time you saw "U. S. Grade A Light Amber Honey" labeled and offered for sale as such? The failure, I think, is not on the part of the standards. The failure is on the marketing side to market honey clearly labeled to those standards. Nothing prevents honey packers from putting such labels on their products.

To take it a step further, if you chose to differentiate your honey in the marketplace by labeling it (just as an example): "U. S. Grade A Honey, Dark Amber, Extracted, Unfiltered, Unheated," I see no reason that you couldn't.

Of course, I doubt many packers would want to label their honey to the grade standards if their product is even U. S. Grade B. Similar grades are used for other products. How often do you see Grade B cheese in grocery stores? How often do you see Grade B eggs labeled as such? The immediate perception in the minds of buyers is "Grade A is better than Grade B."

As far as labeling for where honey is produced, I see a real marketing advantage in doing just that. "Locavore" movements are catching on. Any number of people seem to want food produced nearby, for various reasons. The point here, I think, is that labeling of this sort shouldn't have to be legislated.



> I understand that in a number of other first-world countries, it is is illegal to sell honey which has had the pollen removed. -rhaldridge


The U. N. has standards for honey, found here (and, like the USDA standards, linked in posts earlier in this thread): http://www.codexalimentarius.org/inp...0/cxs_012e.pdf.

How and where enforcement occurs, I'm not sure. But the standards are in place.

The problem that comes with deliberately removing pollen is that it removes the evidence of where that honey was produced. However, as has been pointed out already in this thread, pollen is really a contaminant in honey, both from pollen introduced environmentally in the hive and pollen introduced in to the honey through the extraction process. And some honeys may naturally have not pollen (i. e., honeydew honey).

In some instances, honey is ultra filtered to remove antibiotic and pesticide residues, and the pollen obviously is removed at the same time. My guess is that if honey that was handled in this fashion was required to be labeled as such, at least some consumers might even seek it out. "Ultrafiltered" carries a connotation in the minds of quite a few people that it must be better. "Ultrafiltered" sounds like an improvement over "filtered," doesn't it?



> Many purchased honey from me ( with pollen, I may add) to take home and commented that they never tasted honey of this quality at home. -max2


Possibly. Or possibly they tried a food that they simply had never chosen to purchase in the past. I've watched enough people shopping in grocery stores to believe that few people really consider the quality of various items. If it's displayed prominently and labeled attractively, and if the product is an item that the person has consumed in the past, a grocery item needs to quality statement to appeal to consumers, I think. Look at any number of items. Processed cheeses sell well. Artificial pancake syrups sell well. White bread sells well. Any number of other items could be listed similarly.

And, in the U. S., much more honey is consumed than is produced domestically.


----------



## Boris

cerezha said:


> ... I will recommend to my friends, family etc. do not purchase the product labeled just "Honey", because it may be anything...


In my opinion a situation on the honey market is getting worse.
During my last visit to the local ShopRite superstore, I have seen some products from ShopRite and BeeMaid that were labeled as Honey without mentioning/indication of the floral source of the nectar.

Formally, it's legal: " The name of a plant or blossom may be used if it is the primary floral source for the honey."
http://www.honey.com/honey-industry...labeling/?/nhb/industry/labeling-information/

But many years ago I did not see "unknown" Honey in my local stores.
And a truthful solution is very simple. For example, my honey labeled as Wild Flower Honey.
http://www.beebehavior.com/bees_and_flowers.php

Boris Romanov


----------



## Kieck

At the risk of sending this thread down yet another rabbit hole and sending it onward another 500 posts (maybe I should just start a new thread), I'm interested in this aspect of it:



> ... organic honey from my beehives ... -cerezha


I've read through the standards for certification, and I'm finally in a position to run hives on land that could likely qualify (at least as I read the standards), but I'd like to know how the certification process actually goes. Would you be willing to provide some details? How often do you have to submit records and samples for testing? What sorts of things would you advise for someone starting into the process?


----------



## rhaldridge

Good reply! I actually started a new thread on this subject yesterday, and was quickly informed of the existence of this one. In embarrassment, I asked the mod to delete my thread, and went to this one, hoping to get the answers I'd wanted from the one I started. Unfortunately, there was a lot more heat than light. Some useful stuff mingled in here and there, but as someone pointed out, online discussions are not at all like face-to-face ones. Offense is often taken where none was intended, at least in the first exchanges.

max2: is Australia one of the countries that require honey to have pollen?

Beregondo: No politics intended, I swear. You said, if I understood you correctly, that the government shouldn't interfere with the honey market, and I offered an example of interference that I thought acceptable.


----------



## max2

max2: is Australia one of the countries that require honey to have pollen?

I tried to check but could not find an actual description.

We sell honey ( we only have about 15 hives and produce about 2000 kg a year) from home, at farmers and other markets and onr super market.
At stall we display educational material showing how WE produce honey and people can taste our honey. it works for us.
The super market sells processors honey as well as honey from a number of beekeepers. They buy quite a lot of honey from us. Our honey has moved from the botton shelf up. We have a simple but attractive label and mostly depend on repeat sales.


----------



## Boris

max2 said:


> "Is anyone concerned that the relative lack of standards in American honey may be a source of consumer disillusionment at some point? "
> 
> I posted this experience elsewhere on besource..
> 
> We had a bunch of US students staying here in January for a few days. Many purchased honey from me ( with pollen, I may add) to take home and commented that they never tasted honey of this quality at home. Most would not have access to a beekeeper and the stuff they buy at super markets maybe simply not good enough to turn these young people onto honey?


Max2,

I like this part of your post: "... maybe simply not good enough to turn these young people onto honey?"
I wish you all the best in your business!

Boris Romanov


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> ... I've read through the standards for certification


"... organic honey from my beehives ... -cerezha " 

Kieck, you misrepresent my statement. I stated that I CALL my honey "100 and 2%" organic. In my case, "organic" is referred to "organic matter" and have nothing to do to "organic" products in the market. It is sort of the joke on the usage the word "organic" - in fact, my honey contains 2% of additional organic matter (bee parts, wax, mud etc). I would never claim that any honey is organic in the sense how it is used on the market (organic milk etc).


----------



## cerezha

max2 said:


> .... We sell honey ( we only have about 15 hives and produce about 2000 kg a year) from home...


 Very impressive, 133 kilos (~270 lb) per hive per year! In US, I believe, the average is 45-60 lb, which is roughly 23-30 kilos. If it is true, it just tells me that US beekeeping practices are not so efficient and may be it is time to learn from others?


----------



## cerezha

rhaldridge said:


> ... and went to this one, hoping to get the answers I'd wanted from the one I started. Unfortunately, there was a lot more heat than light... Offense is often taken where none was intended, at least in the first exchanges...


 Well, welcome! This is really good place to ask a question. It is sometime not good place to receive friendly knowledgeable answer. In the best case, you may receive three answers: for, against and that both above are wrong... in the worse case, you will be a subject of "bulling" by "big boys"... it is sometime rough place... but, I have to admit - many people here are very nice, knowledgeable and sincerely trying to help - I deeply respect this part of the beesource.


----------



## max2

cerezha said:


> Very impressive, 133 kilos (~270 lb) per hive per year! In US, I believe, the average is 45-60 lb, which is roughly 23-30 kilos. If it is true, it just tells me that US beekeeping practices are not so efficient and may be it is time to learn from others?


I would never asume that I'm a " better" beekeeper then others on this forum. My climate is generally kind to us and I have trees and ground flora providing beeforage flowering most of the year.
In a decent year I can harvest about an average of 150 kg/hive and have never to feed the bees with supplements.


----------



## max2

Boris said:


> Max2,
> 
> I like this part of your post: "... maybe simply not good enough to turn these young people onto honey?"
> I wish you all the best in your business!
> 
> Boris Romanov


Thanks Boris. I do believe that our work of educating people - and young people specially - is never finished. When I grew up in Switzerland ( late 40's and 50's) we had little access to " bad" food. Honey was honey, milk was milk - we had no access to soft drinks or fast food. There are so many choices for children these days and buying food needs awareness.


----------



## cerezha

max2 said:


> I would never asume that I'm a " better" beekeeper then others on this forum....


 Why not - ability to learn is useful! If your bees produce 250-300 lb of honey without supplements - may be there is something, other people may learn from you. Also, your Swiss origin may bring additional "swiss"  experience. My wife is 1/2 Swiss and she just returned from the trip to Switzerland. She was so impressed how Swiss people retain the taste to the natural food - fresh milk from actually cow, seems impossible in US these days and cheeeeeese! I love this!


----------



## cerezha

> Originally Posted by Kieck
> Wait. Hold on a minute. You eat ketchup, Boris? You worry about pollen counts and preservation of enzymes and possible contamination with HFCS in the honey ......


 I have to admit that I also eat ketchup... and sometime other bad stuff... fries! The rationale is that because I have relatively healthy life-style AND eat raw, whole, 102% local honey - I create sort of "protection" for not so healthy stuff. I feel, I could eat ketchup from time-to-time without much harm to my body. I used to eat sugar - not anymore - honey, honey, honey... In my opinion, the benefits of the whole honey with all enzymes AND pollen in it compensate for ketchup and other stuff.


----------



## Kieck

> It is sort of the joke on the usage the word "organic"... -cerezha


Sorry, Sergey. I thought maybe you were one of that extremely rare breed who had gone through the organic certification process. I hoped I might get a bit of the details on how the certification process works.

Ironic that I made such a mistake in a thread concerning labeling/mislabeling/incomplete labeling/overuse of generic terms in labeling, I guess.



> I have to admit that I also eat ketchup... -cerezha


Make no mistake, I eat ketchup, too. And any number of other foods, processed and otherwise. But I'm not making public statements blasting businesses and individuals who produce and pack those foods. I tend to eat a wide range of things, and, I think, mostly in moderation.

I doubt that honey is a general health elixir or a panacea. As far as I know, roughly 80 percent of honey is sugars. Add another 17 percent for water, and sugars+water=~97%.


----------



## Boris

max2 said:


> ...I do believe that our work of educating people - and young people specially - is never finished...


The statements similar to this: "Generally, honey is classified by the floral source of the nectar from which it was made. Honeys can be from specific types of flower nectars or can be blended after collection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey
is also a part of consumer education.

Max2,

Is it legal in your country to sell honey without mentioning of the floral source of the nectar? 
Please see my post #494.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Kieck

> It does allow that if you don't know the nectar source, you can call it "wildflower honey"...





> ...when you buy a jar of honey at a retail store that says Pure Clover Honey, it should be pure clover honey.Just because the honey has a light color the producer of that honey should be made to back up that claim.





> Seen honey on the shelf from a local producer the other day, in clear jars, who was selling clover creamed honey, and wild flower creamed honey. Both honeys were the same white honey colour. It would pass for maybe canola honey, but not wild flower honey. Wild flower honey typically is dark from around here.





> But many years ago I did not see "unknown" Honey in my local stores.
> And a truthful solution is very simple. For example, ... honey labeled as Wild Flower Honey.


The idea expressed in some of the posts in this thread that honey from undetermined floral sources should be labeled "wildflower honey" has been nagging at the back of my mind for a bit. I see this as really rendering the modifier "wildflower" meaningless. If "wildflower honey" could come from any undetermined floral source, how is the term any more accurate or truthful in labeling than simply calling it "honey?"


----------



## lazy shooter

How about labeling "stuff shook out of a bee hive?"


----------



## apis maximus

Kieck said:


> The idea expressed in some of the posts in this thread that honey from undetermined floral sources should be labeled "wildflower honey" has been nagging at the back of my mind for a bit. I see this as really rendering the modifier "wildflower" meaningless. If "wildflower honey" could come from any undetermined floral source, how is the term any more accurate or truthful in labeling than simply calling it "honey?"


Good point.Well, the term multi-floral could be used. In some European countries, specially those that have Latin at the root of their language, honey that comes from many, or a multitude of floral sources are labeled MultiFloral. France is one of those countries...Also Italy....Look up the word multi as a prefix in the English language. Or, the term *poly* (Greek: many, much; too many, too much, excessive; often used as a prefix) is used to designate honey from multiple floral sources in some places. Romania, which also has Latin as the base of its language, but also uses a lot of prefixes from Greek, uses the term PolyFloral Honey.


----------



## Kieck

Why not just "honey?"


----------



## apis maximus

Kieck said:


> Why not just "honey?"


Fine by me
So, if someone does try to offer single source floral honey ( which for sure cannot be always 100% uni/single-source but could be close enough)...just call it honey?

OK, why don't they? 

Orange Blossom Honey...Carrot Blossom Honey...Blueberry Honey...Blackberry Honey... and on and on for all the varieties so intensely marketed out there. They are all honey no doubt. But clearly, they look different, taste different...are different. Or not?


----------



## Kieck

I see no reason why they couldn't just label them all "honey." However, I expect they get a premium price for varietal honeys that appeal to certain portions of the market, which would encourage identification if and when possible.


----------



## brooksbeefarm

How about Raw unheated,strained, not filtered honey from local nectar and pollen sources. From the bees to the beekeeper to you.


----------



## Kieck

Sure. To my way of thinking, honey packers can use labeling to differentiate their product from the rest of the market. As long as what you use to describe it is accurate, I don't see any harm in it.

I might leave off the "pollen" in that list. Honey is not made from pollen. And "local" is relative. If you ship a case of honey 200 miles, is it still "local?" I'd opt for putting the location where the honey was collected on the label instead. Let the consumers determine if it's "local" to them. But those are just my biases.


----------



## apis maximus

Kieck said:


> However, I expect they get a premium price for varietal honeys that appeal to certain portions of the market, which would encourage identification if and when possible.


Sure they do. Variety is great. Since we are communicating through words and signs and symbols...you would have to say/write something to differentiate all that variety -of honey in this case- that exists and it is marketed out there. 
Labeling, in a broad way...makes sense. People like to believe that if it says one thing on the label, it must be true...It used to be in this country, where one's word was enough. Trust is a very fine thing...in very limited supply nowadays. 
Sadly, in many circumstances...one's word...written or not...has become an illusion. A fake... Of course none of us here would fake it...from the honey we sell...to what we say on the labels on those beautiful jars. Of course not. 

But since US is consuming approx 400 mil lbs...but only produces 150 mil lbs...there lies a great opportunity...and why not...a great temptation.

It's not just with honey...look at the food in general...horse meat or donkey meat anyone? Nothing wrong with either one...as long as the label will call it what it is.

And like you said in a previous post about maple syrup...If you read on the label that it was maple syrup, and you liked it, you never assumed it was not maple syrup...because the label said so. And it should ALWAYS be like that. Sadly it is not the case.

Deception, misdirection, misinformation, disinformation and fraud...is something we did not invent today...it has been out there forever. 

Get informed as the saying goes...Right? 

But here we are, beekeepers, and after +500 posts, still have a hard time agreeing on what honey is or what is not. USDA, FDA, EU-Codex...all kinds of definitions, all kinds of descriptions...sure enough. 
Get informed. Yeah...Good luck on that.


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> .... Honey is not made from pollen. ....


 Honey made mainly from nectar on the bee-kitchen hidden in the beehive. You DO NOT know what else was added to initial nectar to convert it into the honey. Since girls "kitchen" apparently quite messy and girls did not wash their legs when work honeycomb - pollen unavoidably get into the honey purposely or by accident. It is stupid to repeat again and again that pollen is not integral PART of the honey. It is you, who publish here UN standard - it includes pollen in the honey. Healthy value of the whole raw honey is in the pollen, proteins, beneficial chemicals and other micro-elements, which together constitute may be 1% of the honey content. But, these "elements" made honey different from syrup.


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> I see no reason why they couldn't just label them all "honey." ...


 Sure, let's call all American cars just a "car", no brand names, no make etc. You guys speak to non-sense - any normal customer wanted to see as many details on his/her purchase as possible, it made them feel good.


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> .... I eat ketchup, too. And any number of other foods, processed and otherwise. But I'm not making public statements blasting businesses and individuals who produce and pack those foods....


 I do not see any problem when somebody exhibit concerns regarding the quality of the product. I was not aware that honey minus some ingredients is equal "honey". The situation in packaging business was very educational to me. If this thread would not exist, I would not know WHAT fellow beekeepers called "honey". I feel, this thread made it very clear who is who in this battle and smart consumers will made their decisions partially based on this thread, which is searchable via Internet and available to everyone.


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> ... I doubt that honey is a general health elixir or a panacea. As far as I know, roughly 80 percent of honey is sugars. Add another 17 percent for water, and sugars+water=~97%.


 *You wrong! * Honey is known to be used in medicine for probably 2000 years. It is mentioned in literally all known ancient sources as beneficial to human health. Please, do not ask for references, just search Google. You just contradict yourself: if it has no benefits, why consumers must pay premium price for "honey" rather use just a syrup? My logic is that because, consumer feels that "honey" is more than simple syrup. So, they agree to pay more for something, that makes honey better than syrup. 

Proverbs 16:24 ESV
Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.


----------



## Kieck

> You DO NOT know what else was added to initial nectar to convert it into the honey. -cerezha


Honey is carbohydrates (sugars) collected, modified and stored by bees. Pollen is a protein source for bees. I've seen bees make honey from honeydew. No pollen was needed in that to make it into honey (I guess if you exclude honeydew honey from your definition of "honey," this line of reasoning becomes meaningless). Therefore, I do not consider pollen to be essential for the production of honey.

Stating that honey is made from "nectar and pollen" implies that pollen is necessary in the modifications of collected sugars to make honey. If you wish to go that level of detail, why not state, "made from nectar, pollen and ash?" 



> Sure, let's call all American cars just a "car", no brand names, no make etc. -cerezha


I'm sorry. You lost me on this one. Are you agreeing that labeling all undetermined honeys as "wildflower honey" is just as much a failure to label them truthfully as simply labeling them "honey?" Or are you suggesting that all beekeepers be required to submit samples of honey for pollen analysis before selling any so that it can be labeled accurately? Or are you saying that consumers are refusing to buy products only labeled as "honey?"


----------



## Boris

apis maximus said:


> ...Well, the term multi-floral could be used...


We are living in the 21st century.
It is very easy to refer your customers to your web site. For example, all my labels contain this advice: "Visit as at: www.beebehavior.com"
And consumers of my honey know how the seasonal information (always posted on my labels as Spring, Summer, Automn ) correlated to/with the blooming data, posted on my web site:
http://www.beebehavior.com/bees_and_flowers.php
In other words it is not to difficult to specify sources of nectar even in situation with Wild Flowers. 

From the other hand, in general, honey from commercial beekeepers relate to a mono culture or some mono cultures. 
And I saw many times labels with statement similar to this: "A select blend of ...honey").
Therefore in my opinion "unknown Honey" - is a "gray area" for manipulations...

I hope a new Honey standard will be more consumer friendly, but not the honey industry friendly.

Boris Romanov

P.S. - Related info
"This is a surprise to many people because most honey purchased in supermarkets in the United States is made from unidentified blends of honey with a similar taste and appearance between brands (!!!). Once you have tried unblended honey from a single flower source or location, you will discover the variety and taste sensations that will amaze and delight. The United States, although relatively new to honey production compared to the rest of the world is the source for many of the finest single flower honeys."
http://www.honeytraveler.com/types-of-honey/


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> Honey is carbohydrates (sugars) collected, modified and stored by bees. Pollen is a protein source for bees. I've seen bees make honey from honeydew. No pollen was needed in that to make it into honey (I guess if you exclude honeydew honey from your definition of "honey," this line of reasoning becomes meaningless). Therefore, I do not consider pollen to be essential for the production of honey...


 Honeydew contain the pollen mainly from wind-pollinating plants. Surprise: it has more pollen grains from wind-pollinating plants than from nectar producers. Total amount of insoluble matter in honeydew is lower than in whole honey, which is expected. From this prospective, honeydew *to me *has less health benefit than ordinary raw whole honey. In my personal opinion, honeydew needs to be called "honeydew", not "honey". Since, it is partially result of excretion by "animals" (other than bees), it is probably rich in organic matters and microelements - as any animal excretion. You need to be more careful and do not manipulate the words - I stated that honey naturally contains pollen and * honey with pollen* provides some health benefits. I did not state that honey * is *made from the pollen - do you see a difference? Such manipulations, in social networks have specific name. Do you know the name?


----------



## cerezha

Kieck said:


> ...I'm sorry. You lost me on this one. ... simply labeling them "honey?" ....


 The same - just manipulating words. I could repeat it again (if you did not pay attention for previous 10 repetition) - I strongly believe that ANY consumer product must be properly labeled. It should contain the content (specify, what is in it); the origin; information on any harmful substances * known * to be in the product (lead,pesticides etc)... Such information does not hurt honest producer - it even makes the product looks better in consumer view. Hiding information by generalization is always suspicious. Playing words as you do - would not make your product better. But, even commodities usually specify what it is - unleaded fuel, 90 octane rate; fuel contains 10% ethanol ... raw sugar; sugar-rafinade; brown sugar... I do not know what is your agenda at this thread, but you flood the whole thread with manipulative words. If your point was to support packers in not disclosing the content of their jars - you did everything possible to attract people's attention to this issue and therefore work against big packers, who would prefer to stay in the shade... look, no one is participating in this anymore, where Mark and others?


----------



## jim lyon

cerezha said:


> The same - just manipulating words. I could repeat it again (if you did not pay attention for previous 10 repetition) - I strongly believe that ANY .. look, no one is participating in this anymore, where Mark and others?


I think Kieck just has a bit higher pain threshold than the rest of us


----------



## cg3

oh man


----------



## beemandan

cerezha said:


> look, no one is participating in this anymore, where Mark and others?


Light bulb turns on……


----------



## Boris

cerezha said:


> ... where Mark ...


I hope Mark is still trying to obtain some real proofs to reply to my post # 471...


----------



## beemandan

Boris said:


> I hope Mark is still trying to obtain some real proofs to reply to my post # 471...


Light bulb is still off......


----------



## Boris

beemandan said:


> Light bulb turns on……


...


beemandan said:


> Light bulb is still off......


...

Are you a bulb switcher?


----------



## deknow

....the new fluorescent light "bulbs" are not bulbs at all....they are not bulbous in shape, and to call them "light bulbs" would be to misidentify them to tne public as "bulbs"

Deknow


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Boris said:


> I hope Mark is still trying to obtain some real proofs to reply to my post ...


Get a clue .....

Mark gave up on any hope of you making sense _long ago_. From post #478:



sqkcrk said:


> Unsubscribing this Thread from my Subscribed Threads List.


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> ....the new fluorescent light "bulbs" are not bulbs at all....


I stand corrected.
My statements should have read...
Light producing device has been enabled
and
Light producing device has yet to be enabled.


----------



## deknow

I think that technically speaking, it converts electrical energy into light....it does not "produce" light, but emits light. This action requires more than the device, it needs an entire system in place supplying electrical current....the correct term to describe the light emmission would be energized and deenergized or relaxed.

Deknow


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Well, "bulbs" that emit light don't necessarily have to use any electricity. Here's one example:


----------



## jim lyon

I disagree Dean. It actually turns electrical energy into two things heat energy and light energy. A very important distinction I believe. I am confused, though, as to whether this energy is truly electrical current or perhaps processed and transformed electrical energy.


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> it does not "produce" light


Once energy is applied....they produce light...right?
produce: _to give being or form to: bring about._


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> whether this energy is truly electrical current or perhaps processed and transformed electrical energy.


We must also concern ourselves with convention. Are we dealing with current flow (positive to negative) or electron flow (negative to positive). These are important issues.....
The debate continues.....NOT


----------



## jim lyon

beemandan said:


> The debate continues.....NOT


:thumbsup:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Some power company electricity used to produce light comes from "_green_" renewable sources like solar panels. And then there is "processed" electricity  that comes from those evil coal-fired plants that, _by law_, should be labeled as "_Processed Electricity_."

http://www.greenelectricity.org/renewables.php

:lookout:


----------



## rhaldridge

I don't think light-emitting devices made many appearances in this thread. A lot of space heaters, maybe.

That's a shame, from my point of view, because the reason I was interested in the subject has to do with my feeling that in the US, the labeling system is not good for beekeepers, because it does not adequately distinguish between imported commodity honey and that which is produced here by conscientious American beekeepers. I'm not saying anything bad about beekeepers in other countries in general. But a lot of, for example, Chinese honey is not the best honey. There ought to be ways that the consumer can tell the difference.

I guess I'll have to start another thread.

Apologies in advance!


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> I guess I'll have to start another thread.


You were unable to find what you wanted in the 500+ posts in this thread?
Good luck with that new one.


----------



## rhaldridge

Dan... did you find anything useful in this thread?

My take on all this is that in the US, the present marketing requirements are not very helpful to beekeepers. Even the biggest beekeeper in the country, Richard Adee, apparently feels that way too, so maybe I'm not wrong. (Though I often am.)


----------



## deknow

rhaldridge said:


> ...the reason I was interested in the subject has to do with my feeling that in the US, the labeling system is not good for beekeepers, because it does not adequately distinguish between imported commodity honey and that which is produced here by conscientious American beekeepers.


It is in the interest of the "industry" for honey to be a simple commodity product.
It is in the interest of anyone producing or selling something that is "better than the average" to differentiate their products from the commodity lines.

I'm not interested in promoting US honey as "good" and foreign honey as "bad"....there is too much yin in the yang, and too much yang in the yin to split things in half in such a simplistic manner and have it be meaningful.

The commodity market is a classic "race to the bottom"....see who can provide something that the public will accept as "honey" at the lowest cost and highest margin. I have no interest in competing in that market at all....it is about volume and market share, not about quality product.

The US labeling system is useless to me....I go out of my way to buy "US Grade B Male Syrup", and I don't grade honey. You are free to differentiate your product however you like, and free to buy product from someone you trust to tell you the truth....but you probably won't find that at Wall Mart for $3/lb.

deknow


----------



## Kieck

> * It is in the interest of the "industry" for honey to be a simple commodity product.
> It is in the interest of anyone producing or selling something that is "better than the average" to differentiate their products from the commodity lines. -deknow*


Bingo. Well said, Dean.


----------



## sqkcrk

Amen Dean. 

This should be everyone's Mantra. "Sell your own Honey".


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> .i go out of my way to buy "us grade b male syrup"


tmi...


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> Dan... did you find anything useful in this thread?


No.
I don't think starting another thread will bear any new fruit either.
Good luck, again.


----------



## rhaldridge

deknow said:


> It is in the interest of the "industry" for honey to be a simple commodity product.
> It is in the interest of anyone producing or selling something that is "better than the average" to differentiate their products from the commodity lines.
> 
> I'm not interested in promoting US honey as "good" and foreign honey as "bad"....there is too much yin in the yang, and too much yang in the yin to split things in half in such a simplistic manner and have it be meaningful.
> 
> The commodity market is a classic "race to the bottom"....see who can provide something that the public will accept as "honey" at the lowest cost and highest margin. I have no interest in competing in that market at all....it is about volume and market share, not about quality product.
> 
> The US labeling system is useless to me....I go out of my way to buy "US Grade B Male Syrup", and I don't grade honey. You are free to differentiate your product however you like, and free to buy product from someone you trust to tell you the truth....but you probably won't find that at Wall Mart for $3/lb.
> 
> deknow


This seems exactly right, and pretty much what I'm trying to get at with the new thread: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?278478-Honey-labeling-requirements-good-enough


----------



## cerezha

beemandan said:


> We must also concern ourselves with convention. Are we dealing with current flow (positive to negative) or electron flow (negative to positive). These are important issues.....
> The debate continues.....NOT


 Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeel
The current in your house I believe is alternating (AC), which meant, it alternates direction 60 times per second (DC in your car) ... It was decided before you. As for lights - I feel, the lights are all extinguished and we should conclude this thread. I would propose that we will have last chance to express opinion (if any) without any commenting, just a statement. And after that Barry will close the thread. Of coarse if you support this idea. I feel honored contributing to this monster! Thanks so much to all, who contribute!


----------



## sqkcrk

Unless you get overtly contentious and personal beesource doesn't work that way Sergey. Not usually anyway.


----------



## Boris

I'm glad that some bad persons and honey-processing companies were caught.

ICE alleges imported honey scam
U.S. individuals, processors charged with evading fees on Chinese product

"Five persons and two domestic honey-processing companies were charged Wednesday in a federal probe targeting a multimillion dollar smuggling operation bringing Chinese-origin honey into the United States.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-led investigation — known as “Project Honeygate” — uncovered what ICE said was the misdeclaration of Chinese-origin honey as other commodities as it was imported into the United States and shipped through other countries to evade anti-dumping duties.
Altogether, the seven defendants are accused of evading duties totaling more than $180 million.
“These businesses intentionally deprived the U.S. government of millions of dollars in unpaid duties,” said ICE Deputy Director Daniel Ragsdale. “Schemes like this result in legitimate importers and the domestic honey-producing industry enduring years of unprofitable operations, with some even being put out of business. We will continue to enforce criminal violations of anti-dumping laws in all industries so American and foreign businesses all play by the same rules.”
The new charges represent the second phase of an ICE investigation that began in June 2011 when an undercover agent assumed the role of the director of procurement at Honey Holding I Ltd., which by then was cooperating with the investigation. Honey Holding, doing business as Honey Solutions of Baytown, Texas, and Groeb Farms Inc., of Onsted, Mich. — two of the nation’s largest honey suppliers — have both entered into deferred prosecution agreements with the government.
Honey Holding agreed to pay $1 million and Groeb Farms agreed to pay $2 million in fines. Both companies have also agreed to implement corporate compliance programs as part of their respective agreements.

Also charged were three honey brokers, the former director of sales for Honey Holding, and the president of Premium Food Sales Inc., a broker and distributor of raw and processed honey in Bradford, Ontario.

In December 2001, the Commerce Department determined that Chinese-origin honey was being sold in the United States at less than fair market value, and imposed anti-dumping duties. The duties were as high as 221 percent of the declared value, and later were assessed against the entered net weight, currently at $2.63 per net kilogram, in addition to a honey assessment fee of one cent per pound of all honey.

In 2008, federal authorities began investigating allegations involving circumventing anti-dumping duties through illegal imports, including transshipment and mislabeling on the supply side of the honey industry. The investigation resulted in charges against 14 persons, including executives of Alfred L. Wolff GmbH and several affiliated companies of the German food conglomerate. They were charged with allegedly evading approximately $80 million in anti-dumping duties on Chinese-origin honey. Authorities seized and forfeited more than 3,000 drums of honey that illegally entered the United States.
The second phase of the investigation involves allegations of illegal buying, processing and trading of honey that illegally entered the United States on the demand side of the industry. Some of that honey was adulterated with antibiotics not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). None of the charges allege any instances of illness or other public health consequences attributed to consumption of the honey. The investigation is continuing.
“Trade fraud can have significant implications for the U.S. economy and consumers,” said U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Chief Operating Officer Thomas S. Winkowski. “These products take jobs away from American workers and frequently violate U.S. health and safety standards, potentially endangering the public. CBP is committed to fighting these fraudulent actors alongside our government partners.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/20/ice-alleges-imported-honey-scam/

So, in my opinion this thread will be relevant for a long period of time...


----------



## cerezha

sqkcrk said:


> Unless you get overtly contentious and personal beesource doesn't work that way Sergey. Not usually anyway.


 Mark, I am glad you back!
I remember, once Barry closed the thread... was it contaminated wax thread? but it was his decision... I do not mind to continue once people who have something to say is back!


----------



## Boris

Some details, related to my last post # 552 

"Founded in the 1940’s as Hignite Packing Company, Honey Holding dba Honey Solutions is one of the largest processors and marketers of industrial honey in the United States. At our primary facility located on six acres just outside of Houston, Texas, Honey Holding provides approximately 22 million #’s (10,000 m.t.) per year of honey coast to coast to America’s premiere bakers and food processors. To insure our customers’ continuity of supply, we complement our domestic Texas & Louisiana honey production with a myriad of foreign sources obtained from both highly respected (!?) international honey traders and directly from overseas beekeepers and their processors. This global sourcing combined with quality products processed to exacting specifications and delivered on company owned trucks & tankers has allowed Honey Holding to successfully service its growing customer base."
http://www.honeylocator.com/locator/profiles/display/honey-holding-i-ltd-dba-honey-solutions/

"Worldwide leadership in honey processing and best-in-class producer of wholesome food ingredients, industrial sweeteners, food service products, and value-added retail products.
Our efforts are focused on food quality, safety, and sustainability while providing the value and service all customers should demand. We serve the U.S. consumer through our supply of pure honey to further manufacturers and directly with Control Label and our Company Brands of Groeb Farms and Miller’s. This is a responsibility we take seriously (!?) The Groeb Farms production facilities operate in strict compliance with risk-based quality control procedures and are certified by BRC, the definitive certifying body for global food safety."
http://www.groebfarms.com/

"In its own press release, DOJ today announced the two former executives of Groeb Farms "purchased Chinese-origin honey for processing" and "engaged in fraudulent practices despite the company's own audits and inspections that raised substantial concerns that the honey was illegally imported." The executives "also provided false information to the company's board of directors, customers and the public...
...Senior executives who were responsible for Groeb Farms' purchasing and mislead (!) the Board of Directors, customers and the public about transshipping are no longer with the company...
...We take full responsibility for and deeply regret any errors that were made in the past regarding the import of honey," said Rolf Richter, the new Groeb Farms CEO..."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/groeb-farms-reaches-agreement-authorities-223800218.html

Reminder: "Honey Holding agreed to pay $1 million and Groeb Farms agreed to pay $2 million in fines.


----------



## Boris

More details were released by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois (names, fines, possible sentences and so on)

Two Companies and Five Individuals Charged With Roles in 
Illegal Honey Imports; Avoided $180 Million in AntiDumping Duties
CHICAGO — 

"Five individuals and two domestic honey processing companies have been charged with federal crimes in connection with a nationwide investigation of illegal importations of honey from China that was mislabeled as coming from other countries to avoid antidumping duties or was adulterated with antibiotics not approved for use in honey. Altogether, the seven defendants allegedly avoided antidumping duties totaling more than $180 million.
None of the charges allege any instances of illness or other public health consequences attributed to consumption of the honey.
The charges represent the second phase of an investigation led by agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). In June 2011, an undercover agent assumed the role of director of procurement at defendant HONEY HOLDING I, LTD., which by then was cooperating with the investigation.
Honey Holding, doing business as Honey Solutions, of Baytown, Tex., and defendant GROEB FARMS, INC., of Onsted, Mich., two of the nation’s largest honey suppliers, have both entered into deferred prosecution agreements with the government, subject to court approval, with Honey Holding agreeing to pay a $1 million fine and Groeb Farms agreeing to the payment of a $2 million fine. Both companies have agreed to implement corporate compliance programs as part of their respective agreements.
The individual defendants include three honey brokers, as well as DOUGLAS A. MURPHY, former director of sales for Honey Holding, and DONALD COUTURE, president of Premium Food Sales, Inc., a broker and distributor of raw and processed honey in Bradford, Ontario.
In December 2001, the Commerce Department determined that Chinese-origin honey was being sold in the United States at less than fair market value, and imposed antidumping duties. The duties were as high as 221 percent of the declared value, and later were assessed against the entered net weight, currently at $2.63 per net kilogram, in addition to a “honey assessment fee” of one cent per pound of all honey. In October 2002, the Food and Drug Administration issued an import alert for honey containing the antibiotic Chloramphenicol, a broad spectrum antibiotic that is used to treat serious infections in humans, but which is not approved for use in honey. Honey containing certain antibiotics is deemed “adulterated” within the meaning of federal food and drug safety laws.
In 2008, federal authorities began investigating allegations involving circumventing antidumping duties through illegal imports, including transshipment and mislabeling, on the “supply side” of the honey industry. The investigation resulted in charges against 14 individuals, including executives of Alfred L. Wolff GmbH and several affiliated companies of the German food conglomerate whose U.S. honey-importing business was based in Chicago, and others for allegedly avoiding approximately $80 million in antidumping duties on Chinese-origin honey. Authorities seized and forfeited more than 3,000 drums of honey that entered the country illegally.
The second phase of the investigation, announced today, involves allegations of illegal buying, processing, and trading of honey that illegally entered the U.S. on the “demand side” of the industry. The investigation is continuing.
“We applaud the efforts of HSI, Customs and Border Protection, and other agencies involved in this complex, long-term investigation to enforce the laws that exist to protect U.S. consumers and the honey market,” said Gary S. Shapiro, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
“These businesses intentionally deprived the U.S. government of millions of dollars in unpaid duties,” said ICE Deputy Director Daniel Ragsdale. “Schemes like these result in legitimate importers and the domestic honey-producing industry enduring years of unprofitable operations, with some even being put out of business. We will continue to enforce criminal violations of antidumping laws in all industries and ports of entry so American businesses and foreign producers of goods all play by the same rules.”
Also announcing the charges were Gary Hartwig, Special Agent-in-Charge of HSI Chicago; William A. Ferrara, Acting Director of Field Operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Chicago, and Daniel Henson, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration operates a toll-free number for consumer inquiries: 1-888-INFO-FDA (463-6332).
The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros.
The public is reminded that indictments and informations contain only charges and are not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, courts must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines. Three of the five individuals charged have authorized the government to disclose that they intend to plead guilty to the charges against them.

Details of the six separate cases follow:

United States v. Groeb Farms, Inc., 13 CR 137
GROEB FARMS, INC., of Onsted, Mich., described as the largest industrial honey supplier in the United States, was charged with buying 1,578 container loads of Chinese-origin honey between February 2008 and April 2012, knowing that it was illegally imported into the United States to avoid more than $78.8 million in antidumping duties.
The company has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which it accepted and acknowledged responsibility for its conduct and that of its current and former executives and employees. The agreement requires the company to continue cooperating fully for two years, to pay a $2 million fine based on its ability to pay, and to dispose any illegally-entered Chinese-origin honey in its possession.
The company admitted in a factual statement that two former executives purchased Chinese-origin honey for processing at its facilities and sold that honey to its domestic retail, foodservice, and industrial customers as mislabeled non-Chinese honey, and at other times, as Chinese honey, all while knowing that it had been illegally imported to avoid antidumping duties and, at times, honey assessment fees. The honey was variously described falsely as sugars and syrups instead of Chinese-origin honey, and as having originated in Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam, instead of China.
The two former executives engaged in fraudulent practices despite the company’s own audits and inspections that raised substantial concerns that the honey was illegally imported. They also provided false information to the company’s board of directors, customers, and the public regarding Groeb Farms’ involvement in knowingly purchasing, processing, and selling illegally smuggled Chinese-origin honey.
The corporate compliance program is designed to ensure that Groeb Farms maintains supply chain integrity and conducts reasonable inquiries to safeguard against any illegal activity.

United States v. Douglas A. Murphy and Honey Holding I, 13 CR 138
DOUGLAS A. MURPHY, 56, of Kingwood, Tex., and HONEY HOLDING I, LTD., doing business as Honey Solutions, a large industrial honey supplier based in Baytown, Tex., were charged together with violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for allegedly purchasing discounted Polish-origin honey containing the prohibited antibiotic Chloramphenicol from Alfred L. Wolff USA in 2006. Murphy was director of sales between 2003 and 2008 and was responsible for the purchase of wholesale quantities of honey, maintaining relationships with suppliers, and the sale of honey to U.S. customers.
DOUGLAS A. MURPHY, 56, of Kingwood, Tex., and HONEY HOLDING I, LTD., doing business as Honey Solutions, a large industrial honey supplier based in Baytown, Tex., were charged together with violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for allegedly purchasing discounted Polish-origin honey containing the prohibited antibiotic Chloramphenicol from Alfred L. Wolff USA in 2006. Murphy was director of sales between 2003 and 2008 and was responsible for the purchase of wholesale quantities of honey, maintaining relationships with suppliers, and the sale of honey to U.S. customers.
Murphy pleaded guilty today and, under the terms of his cooperation plea agreement, subject to court approval, he will receive a sentence of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of $26,624 when he is sentenced on May 31.
Honey Holding has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which it accepted and acknowledged responsibility for its conduct and that of its employees and agents. The agreement requires the company to continue cooperating fully for two years and to pay a $1 million fine based on its ability to pay. The agreement describes Honey Holding’s “extensive cooperation, including its agreement to allow an undercover law enforcement agent to assume the role of [its] director of procurement in an undercover capacity since June 2011.”
The company admitted in a factual statement that Honey Holding defrauded its downstream customers of approximately $26,624 by purchasing, processing, and selling the Polish-origin honey that was adulterated with the antibiotic.
The company also admitted that it purchased Chinese-origin honey from at least seven shell and front companies that were controlled by various Chinese honey producers and manufacturers. These illegal honey imports avoided more than $33.4 million in antidumping duties.
Honey Holding also agreed to establish a corporate compliance program to ensure that it maintains supply chain integrity and takes steps to safeguard against any illegal activity.

United States v. Jun Yang, 13 CR 139
JUN YANG, 39, of Houston, who brokered the sale of honey to Honey Holding among others, and who operated National Honey, Inc., which did business as National Commodities Company in Houston, was charged with brokering the sale of illegal Chinese-origin honey, which was misrepresented as originating in India, into the United States to avoid antidumping duties.
Yang, through his attorney, has authorized the government to disclose that he will plead guilty, admitting responsibility for fraudulently avoiding antidumping duties totaling as much as $37.9 million on Chinese-origin honey that entered the country illegally as Malaysian and Indian honey between 2009 and 2012. Yang has agreed to pay a fine of $250,000 and restitution totaling $2.64 million, in addition to whatever other sentence is imposed by the court. The government has agreed to recommend a sentence of 74 months in prison.

United States v. Urbain Tran, 13 CR 140
URBAIN TRAN, 78, of Culver City, Calif., an agent of Honey Holding who brokered honey transactions for the company since 2006, was charged with two counts of brokering the sale and transportation of illegal Chinese-origin honey, which was misrepresented as originating in Malaysia and Vietnam, into the United States to avoid antidumping duties.
Tran, through his attorney, has authorized the government to disclose that he will plead guilty under the terms of an agreement calling for a fine of $500,000 and restitution totaling $204,403, in addition to whatever other sentence is imposed by the court. Tran faces a maximum of 20 years in prison on each fraudulent sales and transportation count.

United States v. Hung Yi Lin, 13 CR 125
HUNG YI LIN, also known as “Katy Lin,” 42, of Temple City, Calif., was charged in a federal grand jury indictment returned yesterday with one count of transporting 10 container loads of Chinese-origin honey through the Chicago area after it entered the country illegally. Lin owned and operated KBB Express Inc., of South El Monte, Calif., and served as the U.S. agent for at least 12 importers that were controlled by Chinese honey producers and manufacturers. She was initially charged in a criminal complaint and arrested on Feb. 9 in California. She was released on a $100,000 secured bond and will be arraigned on a later date in U.S. District Court in Chicago.
According to the indictment, between 2009 and 2012, Lin schemed to falsify the contents of hundreds of shipping containers of Chinese-origin honey by misrepresenting them as sugars and syrups during the importation process. As a result, the honey, which had an aggregate declared value of nearly $11.5 million when it entered the country, avoided antidumping duties and honey assessments totaling $39.2 million, the charges allege.
The charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

United States v. Donald Couture, 11 CR 781
DONALD COUTURE, 60, of Bradford, Ontario, the president, owner, and operator of Premium Food Sales, Inc., a Canadian broker and distributor of raw and processed honey, was indicted on four counts of violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In May 2009, Couture allegedly caused four container loads of his company’s honey that were rejected by one U.S. customer because of the presence of a prohibited antibiotic, Tetracycline, to be delivered to a second U.S. customer without disclosing that the honey contained the antibiotic. The honey was shipped through the Chicago area when it was transported from one customer to the other.
An arrest warrant was issued in the U.S. for Couture. Couture was initially charged in a sealed complaint in November 2011 and the complaint was unsealed after he was indicted last week. Each count carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine."


----------



## Boris

The interesting finding.

This info is from my last post:
"DOUGLAS A. MURPHY, 56, of Kingwood, Tex., and HONEY HOLDING I, LTD., doing business as Honey Solutions, a large industrial honey supplier based in Baytown, Tex., were charged together with violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for allegedly purchasing discounted Polish-origin honey containing the prohibited antibiotic Chloramphenicol from Alfred L. Wolff USA in 2006. Murphy was director of sales between 2003 and 2008 and was responsible for the purchase of wholesale quantities of honey, maintaining relationships with suppliers, and the sale of honey to U.S. customers.
Murphy pleaded guilty today and, under the terms of his cooperation plea agreement, subject to court approval, he will receive a sentence of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of $26,624 when he is sentenced on May 31."


And this info is from the archive of the U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC v. Douglas A. Murphy (!), David G. Kay and Lawrence H. Theriot, Civil Action No. H-02-2908 (S.D. Texas):

"Previously, on October 6, 2004, a federal jury in Houston, Texas, found Murphy and Kay guilty of authorizing over $500,000 in bribes to Haitian customs officials during 1998 and 1999 to illegally reduce American Rice's import taxes in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The jury also found defendant Murphy guilty of obstruction of justice in connection with a parallel civil investigation of the bribery payments by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Murphy was American Rice's president (!) at the time of the violations . Kay was an American Rice vice president of operations and reported to Murphy. This criminal action, brought by the Department of Justice, arose out of a joint investigation with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action against Murphy and Kay in the Southern District of Texas. The Commission's complaint alleges, among other things, that Murphy and Kay violated the civil provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Commission's civil action has been stayed pending completion of the criminal proceedings.
" http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19293.htm

Looks like Douglas A. Murphy, who was mentioned in the two different cases is the same person?
From the Rice fraud to the Honey fraud???


----------



## Boris

New findings

"PLENTY OF HORNE
Milwaukee’s Global Honey Scam
Milwaukee-owned honey far
By Michael Horne, http://urbanmilwaukee.com/

"A government sting uncovering massive illegal shipments of Chinese honey has the nation’s 2,000 commercial beekeepers abuzz, and has a Milwaukee venture capital firm facing millions of dollars in potential criminal and civil penalties.

In February, 2013, the US Department of Justice criminally charged Groeb Farms, Inc., of Onsted, Michigan with the illegal purchase of 1,578 container loads of Chinese-origin honey from February 2008 to April 2012. Groeb, the largest honey packer in the nation, is owned by Horizon Partners, Ltd. of Milwaukee.

In a deferred prosecution agreement, Groeb admitted the illegal importation of the honey to avoid paying “no less than $78,866,216” in anti-dumping duties and paid a $2 million fine. Charges will be dropped in 2 years if the firm no longer violates the law.

Horizon Partners was not named in the criminal complaint against Groeb, but is a defendant in a federal civil class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in April by three honey producers on behalf of all members of their class.

The suit notes that all violations occurred after Horizon’s 2007 purchase of Groeb, which had been a family-owned firm since 1973. According to the suit: “Horizon exercised its control over Groeb in such a manner as to commit fraud by knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly directing Groeb to purchase, package, distribute, and sell falsely labeled honey in order to increase profits for Horizon and its investors.”

Groeb describes itself as “a global leader in honey processing and best-in-class producer of food ingredients, industrial sweeteners and food service products.”

Horizon Partners was founded in 1988 by Robert M. Feerick, of the prominent Milwaukee funeral home family. He is Horizon’s CEO and also serves on the board of Groeb, and did so at the time of the fraud, according to court records.

According to the Horizon’s website, “Horizon Partners, Ltd. is a private investment holding company which acquires and builds private companies. … Horizon gives management wide latitude in running the companies. Over time, Horizon provides management teams the opportunity to acquire significant direct ownership in its companies.”

But according to the suit, Groeb’s managers, perhaps eager to acquire their “significant direct ownership” were “under constant pressure by Horizon and its executives to provide more profits,” which they thought they found in a complicated transshippment ruse that led to the criminal charges and the civil complaint.

HOW TO LAUNDER HONEY
US investigations dating to 1994, known colloquially as “Honeygate,” determined that China was dumping honey at less than market prices. While American honey costs about $1.20 – $1.40 a pound to produce, the Chinese can produce honey for as little as $0.22 a pound. This is due to a number of reasons, including prematurely harvested honey, which has a higher water content, and to other factors, like adulterating honey with cheap sweeteners. The Chinese also used US-banned chemicals to maintain hive health.

As a result of this unfair advantage, the United States government imposed an anti-dumping duty on Chinese honey of as high as 221 per cent to retain the competitiveness of the domestic product.

After the ban, official Chinese exports decreased, yet its honey production capacity increased, a red flag to prosecutors.

WHERE DID THE CHINESE HONEY GO?
In order to circumvent the duties imposed by the US, exporters shipped Chinese honey to second countries, which then shipped it to Groeb, accompanied by “fake and fraudulent bills of lading, invoice, packing list and country of origin certificates,” indicating the honey was from those countries.

These nations include Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Mongolia, Thailand and Vietnam, “all countries with virtually no commercial beekeeping operations,” according to the civil suit. [Emphasis original.]

The suit quotes Jill Clark, a sales executive for a honey company who told a magazine writer, “we saw a flurry of honey starting to come into the US from countries — Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines — that had never been exporting to the US before. … All of a sudden they had millions of pounds of honey to sell, at very cheap prices.”

In India, for example, there were no honey exports in 2000, while the country was the supposed source of origin for 13,137 metric tons in 2009 — a remarkably short time for a 29-million pound honey industry to develop, and equal to the production of about 290,000 commercial hives.

Malaysia, which also had no U S honey exports in 2000, was credited with 9,068 metric tons in 2009.

U S customs duties thus evaded amounted in aggregate to some $200 million between 2009 – 2010. Of that, Groeb Farms purchases represented $78.9 million of the losses to the treasury.

Groeb and others further complicated the scheme by “falsely and fraudulently describing honey as a product other than honey, including sugar and syrups.” The adulterated honey “contained inexpensive sweeteners and was sometimes blended with high fructose corn syrup and other additives,” according to the civil complaint. (It perhaps says something about the quality of Chinese honey that this subterfuge was not readily detected by taste.)

MARKERS OF HONEY ORIGIN REMOVED
Traditionally filtered natural honey will remove “bee parts, wax and debris, but will leave pollen in place,” according to the civil suit. The pollen in honey is a reliable indicator of its origin, which can be traced to the source plants and their growing environments.

However, melissopalynologist Vaughn Bryant, who is, as his title indicates, an investigator of pollen in honey, undertook a test for pollen when he bought more than “60 jars, jugs and plastic bears of honey in 10 states and the District of Columbia” in 2011 for Food Safety News. His article, “Test Shows Most Store Honey is not Honey,” found that 76 percent of all grocery store samples, 77 percent of samples from big box retailers and 100 percent of all honey sold in drug stores had no pollen residue whatsoever. (The US FDA rules state that any product thus ultra-filtered is not, in fact, honey.) This astounding level of filtration was cited by manufacturers as evidence of the American consumer’s desire for clear honey, but the government saw it as an attempt by China to hide the source of the honey. In any event, it is clear that a tremendous amount of Chinese honey is in the marketplace. (Of the 300 million pounds of honey that must be imported to the US in excess of its 148 million pound domestic production, 35 percent is for the home market. The rest goes to “industrial use” in cereals, baked goods, sauces, beverages — hundreds of different processed products.)

According to the civil complaint, beginning in 2009, after its purchase by Horizon, “Groeb began conducting 100 percent lot testing on all of its raw honey through a state-of-the art testing laboratory and employed specialty testing personnel to perform testing at its Florida facility. While Groeb easily could have tested for the presence of various pollens, it chose not to do so. Horizon knew this.”

Groeb also claimed to be on the cutting edge of “traceability” of honey origins and claimed to conduct audits of its suppliers. “Those audits would have revealed to Horizon and the Board of Directors that Groeb was purchasing honey from China,” the complaint alleges. “As Groeb expanded and profits rose, Horizon either knew or deliberately chose not to inquire further to determine that Groeb was breaking the law and fraudulently importing, packing, and re-selling illegal Chinese honey.”

As a result, the complaint says, “Horizon profited from, endorsed, and supported the illegal and fraudulent transshipping scheme. As a result of this conduct, the corporate veil must be disregarded and Horizon held liable to Plaintiffs for the damages outlined below.”

The complaint asks for relief on the grounds of False Advertising, Unfair Competition and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization as violations of the Lanham Act and the RICO Act.

ABOUT HORIZON
Horizon Partners, Ltd. is a Wisconsin corporation organized in 1988 by Robert M. Feerick with an address of 825 N. Jefferson St., Suite 300. Its principal office is located in Naples, Florida, where Feerick spends much of his time in a $1.7 million home, which he owns in addition to a Mequon condo.

According to the firm’s website, “Horizon Partners, Ltd. is a private investment holding company which acquires and builds private companies. Horizon focuses on the acquisition of medium size companies that are privately held or divisions/subsidiaries of larger corporations. In general, the companies have a history of sales and earnings growth. On occasion, Horizon will consider turnaround situations. The purchase prices for such acquisitions are in the $3-50 million range.

Horizon’s investment strategy is to build long-term equity value in its portfolio companies through strategic add-on acquisitions and improvements in operating performance.”

In addition to Groeb, Horizon currently owns Climax Portable Machining and Welding Systems of Portland, Oregon, which provides portable machining services (acquired in 2005) and Xymox Technologies of Milwaukee, a manufacturer of membrane switches which it bought from Brady Corp. in 1993.

The company provides a complete acquisition history on its website.

ABOUT ROBERT M. FEERICK
Feerick is a member of a prominent family of Milwaukee funeral directors; however, he does not practice the family trade. Here is his biography from the Horizon website:

Mr. Robert M. Feerick is the Principal and Chairman at Horizon Partners, Ltd. Mr. Feerick is also the Founder of the firm. Mr. Feerick has a broad background in private equity capital investments and acquisitions. Prior to this, he was the Chairman of The Corporate Development Group. In this capacity, Mr. Feerick assisted numerous corporations and management groups in evaluating, structuring, and financing acquisitions and venture capital transactions. Previously, he was a General Partner at Frontenac Company. Mr. Feerick serves as Director of Climax Portable Machine Tools, Inc., Groeb Farms, Inc., Karl’s Event Services, Inc, Xymox Technologies, Inc., and Lantor International, Inc. He served as a Director of First National Bank of the Gulf Coast from October 2009 to June 2012. He was a Director of the Orval Kent Food Company, Inc., Universal Blanchers, LLC, Image Conversion Systems, Inc., and WinterQuest, LLC. Mr. Feerick received an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Georgetown University."

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2013/pr0220_02b.pdf

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ahpane...pa_documents/class_action_lawsuit_filed_c.pdf


----------



## John Smith

So Dr. Fessenden got it half right with his now famous "buy your honey from someone you trust."

The other half he needs to add is this: "Sell your honey to the people who are going to eat it." By that I mean, quit supplying a system that uses your real honey to keep your price down by diluting it with anything else that is cheap.

Cheers,

JohnS


----------

