# Cheap Chinese Honey and the threat to U.S. Beekeepers



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

"Why doesn't the AHB try to protect U.S. Beekeepers? It seems to me that they have lost their way...." because they are busy protecting the PACKERS. that is where their income and interest lie. IMO, beekeepers havent banded together because the same independent streak that steered them to beekeeping keeps them away.


----------



## bhfury (Nov 25, 2008)

AHB need to have someone take charge of this..... "will they" is the question.


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Isn't this just capitalism in action?


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

mrspock said:


> Isn't this just capitalism in action?


No, it's called fraud.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

deleted


----------



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

If you want to join the brawl, become a member of American Honey Producers Association. It takes a lot of money and time to do battle. AHPA is the ONLY organization representing beekeepers only. Make a difference and educate yourself even more. Lots of great people too.


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

If you want to know why they do nothing and even are behind the importing of cheap honey just look at who is on the board of the National Honey Board. The current Chairperson, Buddy Ashurst, is also or was the Presiding Chair for the Honey Packers and Importers Board. Now really...do you think they have American Beekeeper Producers interest in mind??? As a matter of fact, if you go to the National Honey Boards site and look at the members http://www.honey.com/nhb/about/
its a who's who of the Honey Packers and Importers Board. Check out the top dogs in this meeting minutes from 2008. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbS1Q2aAG8SjaqVHKcaH5NFZPt7YSA
No wonder we can't get decent prices for American Produced Honey. :doh:


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Following up...this article supports what I posted above.

"Some believe the new board, which has close ties to foreign honey suppliers, is in an ideal position to alert U.S. officials to incoming fraudulent or tainted shipments.

Not so, said Bob Coyle, a former honey importer from Bellevue who was named to the board in August.

"The board is there to market and promote honey. It's not a regulator, and it's not its job to address the adulteration," he said.

That outrages Adee.

"This board is now being run by the very people -- the importers and packers -- who profit from selling cut-rate foreign honey," he said."

Read entire article here: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/394199_honeybiz31.html


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

BIG money! BIG money and greed money controls everything! Lets take any major food chain. When they bid, they want a 12 oz honey bear....who is the cheapest??? They could care less what it taste like! So Packer A<B<C are forced to compete with packer D who only looks at $$$. (I could report names here but due to liable I better not) Recently I was talking to a large packer who told me years ago McDonalds wanted US light amber in their portion pack, then it was any LA honey except china, then it was any LA honey. He told me last month that the last time they didnt care what was in the pack...as long as it was light amber and "said" honey. Bad part is a youngster eats it and hates honey...we loose more sales. Thats why I believe the drop in honey consumption in US last year dropped (according to reports). I think both national organizations APHA and ABF are opposed to cheap imports. I do want to make one correction...honey is not only coming in at .75 as stated above but the crap coming in from China has been as low as the upper 20 cent range labeled as 49% for bee feed to avoid tarifs!!! (Didnt know anyone purchased honey and fed it too their bees) NOW according to my sources one of the biggest packers who is beekeeper owned is buying this crap! What a sham! There are suppose to be some inestigations ongoing....but FDA is a poorly run outfit like most govt agencys.


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

The real difficulty is the fact that tons of honey is an ingredient used by huge bakeries, food product companies, etc., and they probably could care less where the honey comes from, they are more concerned with price. We can have more initial success educating the john q. public's in our country who are regular users of honey, promoting the use of U.S. produced honey. I believe most American's prefer to buy food that is produced in this country if possible, especially with all the bad publicity in last couple years with tainted products from China. Education is the key, and all beekeepers need to do their part to preserve the quality of American made honey and let others know that paying more for it is worth it.


----------



## simplyhoney (Sep 14, 2004)

I agree with all said, however, perhaps we need to look at this from above. Where ya'll talk doom and gloom I talk hope and opportunity. You can put all your money in the ABF or AHPA or your local state Beek Freak club. But it all comes down to the consumer. Joe Shmoe and Mrs. Shmoe.The Chinese are producing honey for around .40/lb by the time it gets here it sells for .70 -1.00. Is this honey as good as ours. Of course not. We need to educate the consumer. Pump them so full of domestic honey propaganda so that they think Chinese(and all foreign honey) is pure poison. 
We start off by putting a little money into an investigation and have foreign honey tested for some chemical that is absolutly non-exsistant in the U.S. (this is key as we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot) Then when we find it(and we will) we go straight to Fox news and cnn, followed by Oprah and finally the Today's show. We follow this up with one more round of honey bee colony collapse, last beekeeper, pollen-nation, fruitless summer, peril of the honey bee story, shortage and .......... the only real healthy honey is from your local bee keeper story, and Viola! Insta spike on the 'ol domestic honey sales projection chart!
We are at a cross-roads here people! We can keep paying to have a lobbist in D.C. convince congress to put a tariff on imported honey just to have those tricky Chinese find a way to sneak it in. With a population ratio of 5 to 1, it is 5 times more likely that they find a way to get around the law, than it is for us to stop them. But influencing the masses and cutting the demand off....who is better than that than us Americans? Change comes from with-in not with out.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Simplyhoney has some good points. I would love to get the honey laundering newspaper articles and story on NIghtline, good morning america 60-60 or simular shows. (google seattle times honey laundering). The biggest disappointment in all this is that Sue Bee imports honey from china...and their a growers coop supposedly....Their beekeeper members have their head in the sand to let this happen in my opinion. But then I think alot of their members never look at what they are really recieving for their honey. If you join SUE they retain 10% of your crop for the first 8 or 10 years plus you get paid at certain times throughout the year. So how much do you get for your honey in net dollars considering you dont get all your money for many months and you bascially end up with a years crop being retained by the coop. A beekeeprs coop SHOULD BE PROMOTING US GROWN HONEY and not being like a big packer. Most sonsumers have no idea what Sue does. nor do alot of their members....they just let the directors do whatever and believe everything they are told. A good growers coop could help educate the consumer. While the NHB started out a good thing I believe they are now hurting consumption by the actions they are taking due to some of their board members. I was at the first NHB meeting when we started it in Denver in 1986. We were forced by the USDA to NOT promote US honey as imports were also paying the penny a pound. We were furious but our government forced us to not promote us honey and still does.(alot of people dont know this). Hopefully we will get a US board to promote US honey. My gripe with the board now is they should have forced BOB COYLE off the board immediately! They also should be concerned about the quality of honey as quality affects demand....but our great govt might be preventing this (chinese problem)or it could be the board members..guess I need to find out. I'll make some calls today to some people in the know.


----------



## bhfury (Nov 25, 2008)

suttonbeeman said:


> I'll make some calls today to some people in the know.


Excellent.... :applause:

and great job to you Simplyhoney...:applause:


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Allen Martens said:


> No, it's called fraud.


In a free market, the consumer is responsible for their purchases. Caveat Emptor. 

If people want to buy cheap/fake honey, let them. Consumers are generally happy to sacrifice quality if it will save cost. They will always get what they pay for, however. Despite this, there will always be room for "boutique".

As for the honey bee association... Why should they be expected to step in, when it's outside of their regulatory scope, and contrary to their financial interests?

It is unfortunate that this is adversely impacting American honey producers, but it seems to me that this is just collateral damage.


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

mrspock said:


> In a free market, the consumer is responsible for their purchases. Caveat Emptor.
> 
> If people want to buy cheap/fake honey, let them. Consumers are generally happy to sacrifice quality if it will save cost.
> 
> ...


 I agree. We as beekeepers overestimate the importance of honey IMO.

The large retailers (ie. WalMart) that are supposedly selling large volumes of inferior honey clearly realize that price and convenience is what drives their sales. The 5% of consumers that care about quality, locally produced honey, are the ones that wind up at the beekeepers farm gate.

The consumer needs to be lured to purchase locally produced honey by catering to what they have clearly indicated they want. 

Price and convenience ( in and out in 2 mins. without being subjected to a speech on the plight of the honey bee) will introduce the public to the added benefit of actually getting delicious honey.

This will lead to increased demand for local honey and the price will rise accordingly. Starting at the beginning is never fun, but I don't know of any other place to start.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I take issue with the above two post because MOST CONSUMERS WHO PURCHASE THE CRAPPY HONEY DONT KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERANCE!!! THEY NEVER BUY AGAIN....AND WE ALL LOOSE! packers, beekeepers, stores, all of us! Yes it our job to educate and I try...but I (we) cant talk to every consumer!!! And IT IS IMPORTANT TO beeekeeper organizations...if beekeepers dont make a profit then those orgaanizations dont get dues/dollars to operate. Imports, nafta gatt ect have killed out econony....I again I disagree with the above two post 110 percent!! most consumers who purchase that honey do not know there is any differance in honey!


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

suttonbeeman said:


> I take issue with the above two post because MOST CONSUMERS WHO PURCHASE THE CRAPPY HONEY DONT KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERANCE!!! THEY NEVER BUY AGAIN....AND WE ALL LOOSE! !


But we don't all lose - This is a boon to the chinese economy, to chinese agriculture, and to chinese beekeepers. 

I think there is a bit of fairweather capitalism going on here: Capitalism seems great, as long as it allows your team to dominate - But not so much fun when the other guy beats you out.

Consumer education seems like a reasonable response, but is it really possible to educate consumers to appreciate quality honey when they've been so methodically conditioned to embrace "value" over all other considerations?

Look at our food suppy - It too has become crap... and most people haven't noticed, or don't care.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

What threat? Its called an opportunity man!

Wake up! The longer that crap is sold under an American label and packed in USA, the easier it is for us medium sized and smaller beeks to charge a decent price for the real McCoy. 

Actually I am going to reveal for maybe the first time on the internet that there is a secret underground society of beekeepers that actually lobby to ensure that Chinese honey is being let into the country. Our goal is to see the absolute worst of this stuff gets into the country and sold to packers. 

We also have a "CCD is everywhere" campaign to keep that myth alive and we feel this has fueled some very good sales for this secret society of beekeepers. 

We plant trolls everywhere on the net to make sure the stories continue about the bees are dying and nobody knows what to do blah blah blah. Meanwhile our bees look better then in decades and we're getting $4 a pound wholesale! and double that retail. Let the good times roll!

Industrial Honey is a dead end and is rigged by the packers who make sure enough crap gets in that there is never a shortage of honey and even after the worst year ever in the USA (2009) for honey production the drum price has barely moved.


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

Suttonbeeman;

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. The question is, why don't they know the difference? If consumers buy the inferior honey once and never again, that is not being reflected in the chinese honey imports.

Farmgate sales are booming. I could have sold a semi-load of honey on top of what I produced. I had several offers from beeks to sell me all I want, at $2 a pound, add shipping and processing to that and it's not worth my time to sell it at $2.75.

If I raise my prices to $4, my customers buy their honey at the grocery store. At which point, I don't need a semi of honey.

I'm a lot closer to the end than I am to the beginning, but if I were early in my business life you can be sure I'd be looking into .75 Chinese honey.

I'm not sure if you are a buyer of honey or not, but buying honey, making a reasonable mark up and developing a domestic market generally gets derailed by those who try to squeeze more value out of their product than practically exists.

Greed is not the sole domain of the packer.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

mrspock said:


> In a free market, the consumer is responsible for their purchases. Caveat Emptor.
> 
> If people want to buy cheap/fake honey, let them. Consumers are generally happy to sacrifice quality if it will save cost. They will always get what they pay for, however. Despite this, there will always be room for "boutique".


If your advocating for informed decision making, I'm fine with the above. If a consumer wants an inferior or substitute product--go for it. I'll try my best to educate the consumer. If someone else can produce and market honey for a cheaper price, I'm in trouble. That's capitalism.

However, in modern society we have consumer legislation that requires the seller to truthfully represent the goods being sold. We no longer allow sellers to totally misrepresent their products. That's the issue here. If it's syrup, call it syrup not honey. If it's Chinese honey, call it Chinese honey. Give the consumer a chance to make a decision based upon facts not lies. That's fraud.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Bud said " Industrial Honey is a dead end and is rigged by the packers who make sure enough crap gets in that there is never a shortage of honey and even after the worst year ever in the USA (2009) for honey production the drum price has barely moved. " I would have to agree with you Bud it seems to be very true.Seems to be a rather large difference between the shelf price and the producer price.Selling bulk honey has never been a real high margin or high profit buisness

The Packer's will find no sympathy from the producers here or anywhere else . Looking back at the history when Chinese honey first appeared, and till now it has been a blessing for all them using it and a curse on the producers competing with it, cause it lowers the price of ALL honey.

The winds of change are blowing, current USA honey stocks are 37.2 M lbs,( according to Ron Phipps) consumption is at least 375M PER year, maybe more...................What do packers pack when there is none..... none of that used to be readily available cheap good honey and that OTHER adulterated stuff. 37.2M represents less than one months supply of that total yearly USA consumption.Would packers let their inventory get that low?,no, there is a shortage of honey,and with them maybe knowing the present economic conditions,want to maybe keep inventories low, after all they have been getting their honey at fire sale prices up till now


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Seems to be a rather large difference between the shelf price and the producer price.Selling bulk honey has never been a real high margin or high profit buisness

The Packer's will find no sympathy from the producers here or anywhere else ._

Sounds like smart producers would be wise to produce a little less, and use that time savings to pack a little more. If packing pays more than producing, then pack your product.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Bud has somereally good points....for once we agree on something. 123456 Yep i agree with you to a point. I pack andsell all my honey in jars to specality stores, 5 gal buckets to other beekeepers and my Florida honey does go to a packer. My sales are booming also, BUT if greedy packers didnt sell that crap even beekeepers who sell by the barrell could ge a good price. My biggest worry is the generation coming up who havent tried "good" honey will never try it again. In general the public is becoming more aware of what they are eating, but alot still dont know. I the trend continues with consumers going more and more to the producer we have a bright future...I just hate thiefs, liars and greedy money hungry businsessmen who only care about the almighty$$.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Now back the honey board....Mr. Coyle is (was)under investigation. He has not been arrested or convicted so therefore he hasnt been removed from the board and could not legally be removed yet. I believe he should resign immediately.....or already should have resigned!


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

mrspock said:


> But we don't all lose - This is a boon to the chinese economy, to chinese agriculture, and to chinese beekeepers.
> 
> I think there is a bit of fairweather capitalism going on here: Capitalism seems great, as long as it allows your team to dominate - But not so much fun when the other guy beats you out.
> 
> ...


History demonstrated quite well in the last century when Capitalism goes head to head with any other economic form on anything resembling a level plaaying field, capitalism works and wins. We're not talking about any unfair advantages, we're talking about truth in packaging... 

You say the Chinese win? We don't hear about deaths from contaminated foodstuffs in China. And what about the Chinese toy recalls due to lead paint, and some really interesting chemicals? Nor about pollution, and other forms of "greed" manifest in their economy. 

What are the laws in Canada about imported honey? Contaminated honey? Do you have the same kind of playing field you chide us about complaining about? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

My favorite example of how we as beekeepers insist on shooting ourselves in the foot is ( and I've heard this hundreds of times over the years).....

'Yup, I sold a load of honey to a packer for $1.30 lb. Sold 20 barrels to a small beek for $1.90 lb.'

We pay lip service to the 'industry', but ultimately beeks are no less self serving than anyone else in business. :lookout:


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_We don't hear about deaths from contaminated foodstuffs in China. And what about the Chinese toy recalls due to lead paint, and some really interesting chemicals? Nor about pollution, and other forms of "greed" manifest in their economy. _

You have to remember that China is a communist country with a state controlled media. They don't report what they don't want you to know about. Corpses don't talk, and the living don't revolt if they don't know about the corpses.

What you DO hear about are Chinese CEO's who get sentenced to death for criminal activity against their fellow Chinese citizens. 

If China started punishing honey adulterers/polluters who do this to foreign markets, their honey would quickly become much cleaner. We'd also be in really big trouble - what would American honey producers do if the Chinese started producing quality honey at the prices they produce now?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> What you DO hear about are Chinese CEO's who get sentenced to death for criminal activity against their fellow Chinese citizens. 

I gotta laugh. Their only mistake is living in the wrong country. 

Over this way, they would have gotten multi-million dollar bonuses and/or a job in government 'regulating' themselves.

The Chinese beekeepers are not the enemy. Neither are the Chinese people. In fact, smart North American honey packers are selling INTO China.

I told the Honey Board a long time ago that they are advertising in the wrong country. There are far more potential customers in China and they are starved for good honey.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Countryboy said:


> If China started punishing honey adulterers/polluters who do this to foreign markets, their honey would quickly become much cleaner. We'd also be in really big trouble - what would American honey producers do if the Chinese started producing quality honey at the prices they produce now?


China producing only clean honey would raise honey prices. Chinese honey is not being kept out of the US. A lot of it is finding an alternate route through other countrys and being relabeled. 

My understanding is that a lot of Chinese floral source don't produce quality honey. That's why it is blended. If they could produce quality honey, the packers would maximize their profits by selling "pure" Chinese honey.


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

Suttonbeeman, earlier you mentioned bee feed honey from china in the upper 20 cent range. That's a lot less than the bee feed I give to my bees. So how do I get some of that bee feed honey at that price?

Jean-Marc


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

That was the DECLARED value, and it was labeled as bee feed in order to avoid the 
tariff. In all probability it was honey that may have been ultra filtered or adulterated with syrup(they think rice sugar) tahat was packed here by a packer in a blend of honey/syrup of for that matter as pure honey....who knows.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Allen Dick...you hit the nail on the head, how true...I love it!!!


----------



## DigitalBishop (Nov 11, 2009)

I don't get it. Chinese citizens don't have the economic strength individually like we do here in the States, or in the EU for that matter. I would think that the best thing to do is to export our honey to the EU. The Euro is stronger than the dollar and even though the EU has stringent honey quality rules we can meet them. Selling back to the Chinese doesn't make any sense. That just makes it one big economic Mongolian cluster. Am I missing something? Allen, could you elaborate?


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Allen Martens said "China producing only clean honey would raise honey prices. Chinese honey is not being kept out of the US. A lot of it is finding an alternate route through other countrys and being relabeled.

My understanding is that a lot of Chinese floral source don't produce quality honey. That's why it is blended. If they could produce quality honey, the packers would maximize their profits by selling "pure" Chinese honey. 

I agree Allen , if China produced a better quality product they would likely charge more for it.
I have heard they take honey, from the brood nest,one ,two frames at a time,to extract ,all colonies are one or two stories high, so honey supers as we know them do not exist (in the vast majority of outfits) My theory on the the next step is this honey is quite often not ripe so to prevent fermentation, sugar or rice syrup is added. I have heard a US packer tell me they do not like or commend this method of processing and I don't know any body in the business who would but it does not prevent a lot of packers from buying this inferior product
I am just guessing there are some larger beekeeping outfits that do have honey supers and extract ripe honey hence the better quality honey available.I have never heard of Chinese floral sources being inferior or poor, flowers are flowers, it is the pulling of unripe honey and the adulteration to keep it from fermenting that cause the inferior quality.Just My opinion or theory.

There is more of an explanation and some theories on market domination At http://www.beekeeping.com/spmf/adulteration_2.htm

But I think the bottom line is what Richard Adee told me almost 40 some years ago, this Chinese honey drags down the price of ALL honey in all markets


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

"...My theory on the the next step is this honey is quite often not ripe so to prevent fermentation, sugar or rice syrup is added..." after the revelation of poison milk and pet food from china, i submit their honey is adulterated simply because of GREED.


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

mike haney said:


> "...My theory on the the next step is this honey is quite often not ripe so to prevent fermentation, sugar or rice syrup is added..." after the revelation of poison milk and pet food from china, i submit their honey is adulterated simply because of GREED.


Your comment is very unfair. It's not like they're getting rich off of this. Globalization has created a highly-competitive world market, in which a small price difference/production cost can make the difference of staying in business or not.

In the end, the consumers have the say - And the consumers have made it clear that they'd much rather buy no-name product X from china and save a few pennies, than buy a higher quality product made locally. For years, we've been conditioned to demand "value", and producers are simply cutting any corner possible to deliver "value" demanded by consumers.

The type of value demanded, of course, isn't one of quality, but is determined by the lowest possible number on the tag.


This material is so well covered in the book "The price of a bargain": http://www.theglobeandmail.com/books/review-the-price-of-a-bargain-by-gordon-laird/article1353996/


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

"...Your comment is very unfair. It's not like they're getting rich off of this..." i submit that the RESULTS have no bearing on the MOTIVATION.


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

mike haney said:


> "...Your comment is very unfair. It's not like they're getting rich off of this..."
> 
> i submit that the RESULTS have no bearing on the MOTIVATION.


Then you probably shouldn't suggested that they are motivated by greed in the first place.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

sorry, dont follow you. many greedy people fail to get rich. are they any less greedy? the poison milk, in particular, had been cut with WATER to achieve more vollume (= profit) and a poison added to skew testing to appear to be of high food (protein) value. i submit that HONEY from china has been established as beeing cut with sugars, the only question is MOTIVE. GREED OR...? just my personal opinion, it is impossible to state one way or another catagorically.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Mr Spock....I disagree with you.....Most consumers have no idea there is chinese honey they are eating. Yes alot of people buy as cheap as they can,,but they are pinching pennies due to big companies cutting cost (wages, health care benefits) while ceo gets a multimillion bonus! Most consumers are getting wiser to the differance in local home grown honey and honey packed by big packers. Alot try it, dont like it and never buy honey again. BUT GREED is the problem....from the chinese adulterating the honey(more for money than to prevent adulteration), and from US big business who want that profit margin, ceo bonuses ect regardless of how they make it...yes its someones greed, lest take Kroger for example..I'll bet when they bid out a contract for 12oz honey bears....it is "who is the cheapest regardless of what it taste like...its still honey) Greed (big business)has gotten us in this mess.


----------



## Happy Honey Farm (Feb 14, 2010)

I agree with Bud Dingler with all the advertising about CCD People ask me constantly about whats going on with the bees and are happy to pay me five dollars a pound so let ride the train and make as much as we can while we can.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I'm sure I'll take some flack for this, but nonetheless....

It's easy to blame China, but China is not the problem.

Is all domestic honey "good"? Is all domestic honey "pure"?

The findings by Penn State that trapped pollen from the U.S. (that has never been in the hive) is contaminated with fluvalinate and coumaphos makes a fairly tight case that the honey/nectar that the bees are taking from the hive to pack the pollen with is contaminated no? If not, how did that pollen get contaminated?

Do we believe that all U.S. produced honey is free from HFCS adultration? Do we believe that this is what the U.S. consumer thinks they are paying for?

Poor quality honey (domestic or imported) is the problem...and there is plenty of that produced right here in the U.S. by those doing pollination, and who are happy to dump the waste product (HFCS run through the bees, contaminated with legal and illegal treatments) to a packer so that they don't have to face the consumer directly...for this privilege, the producer is happy to take a low price (or perhaps a high price if you consider the quality of the product). This is not to say that all migratory producers are guilty (I've recently seen a lab report from a treatment free migratory operation's broodnest honey...with zero residue of anything), some are certainly interested in producing quality honey....even among those who use treatments (even illegal ones).

The packers generally rely on this subpar product (both to purchase directly, and to lower the price of the higher quality product), _and_ on the reputation that honey enjoys as a "clean, natural product"...perhaps the last pure product of U.S. agriculture (as opposed to feedlot cattle, overcrowded beakless chickens, heavily sprayed veggies, etc).

The other shoe is poised to drop, and the big packers who rely on this "buy low, sell high, and happily mislead our customers" are worried...hence this from a NHB press release from last year:


> The “Honey Simplified” brochure has been created in response to disturbing findings that have recently been uncovered by National Honey Board sponsored market research. Among these findings are the facts that among even the most frequent and dedicated honey users there is widespread confusion as to what ingredients might be found in a bottle of pure honey. Anywhere from 30-percent to 40-percent of frequent honey users believe that other sweeteners, water, or even oils are added to pure honey once it is extracted from the comb. Another disturbing finding is that a large percentage of honey consumers feel that there is a major difference in terms of purity in what can be found in “supermarket honey” versus “farmer’s market honey.”


Do we think the consumer is that dumb? Well, perhaps, but it doesn't take much to point out that sweeteners and oils (hfcs, thymol, etc) are added to some honey _before_ it is extracted from the comb.

The above is an attempt by the NHB to commidify honey as if it were cement. Is all honey equal? Would you trade a barrel of your crop even with a barrel of honey from an unknown source? It's akin to taking a class in school where students are given the option to get a letter grade or a pass/fail. If you are getting an A, you will obviously want to see that A on the report card....but if you are getting a D, a "pass" is much more attractive.

The problem is not Chinese honey, it's the effort by the NHB, and the bad actors in the U.S. honey production industry that want their products seen as equivalent to that produced with care. If the good actors don't stand up to the NHB and the bad actors (I assume that some of these are members of the AHPA, and that the AHPA represents their interests along with those of the good actors...if this is the case, they are not the solution).

Education of the consumer is paramount, and I don't know how it can be done without casting those with poor practices (WRT producing a pure honey product) in a bad light...even if they are Americans...even if they are friends.

Blaming China is the easy thing to do, but it is the NHB, the packers, and some segment of U.S. beekeepers that are to blame. If what was sold as domestic honey in this country was universally a superiour product, the conflict would be more akin to real maple syrup vs. Mrs. Butterworth...a real difference that the consumer can taste.

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Am I missing something? Allen, could you elaborate?

Two things, and two Allens.

1.) Europe is in much worse trouble than the US, if you can imagine that, and the Euro is headed back to less than a buck. (88c seems like a good bet).

2.) There are many more Chinese that Americans and the ones who have money, have lots of money and like to spend it on good things. I don't know if you have even bought honey in China, but the honey I have tasted sold there was not honey or anything like it. I can see how a good pack would sell off the shelves there quickly.

As for the other talk of how Chinese honey is produced, there is a wide variation in the degree of sophistication, from very advanced to very primitive. In the latter case, people move their bees around the country as best they can and extract single combs in tents. That does not necessarily mean a bad product, but those facilities do not measure up to our local expectation. To compensate for that the honey exporters have very advanced plants which are designed to take that variable product and turn it into a product that has lost any undesirable original character.

From our perspective over here which is based on the idea that any weak link in the production chain condemns a product and that blending or filtration or other chemical treatment to rectify deficiencies is not acceptable, and often illegal, this is not fair play because it occurs outside our system.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

deknow....I find it hard to believe a major packer was suprised to find the consumer thought there was major differance between farmers market honey and store shelf honey....geez are they really that stipid? Dont they taste that crap they put in a jar? The NHB started off to be a good thing.... the intent was good, and in my opinion would have been alot better if the USDA hadnt made them promote honey generically...and prevented them from promoting US honey. Now thats its a packer board guess they are getting a education... it sounds like it anyway and needless to say they need one!


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

deknow said:


> Education of the consumer is paramount, and I don't know how it can be done without casting those with poor practices (WRT producing a pure honey product) in a bad light...even if they are Americans...even if they are friends.



This is always the key when trying to distinguish one product from another. Individual producers need a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" or "Underwriters Laboratory" style of certification for quality that consumers can rely on to assure them of quality. 

Trying to get beekeepers to cooperate for their own good seems to be a nearly impossible task however, which provides the packers and international suppliers with the leverage they need to take advantage of the situation.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Sutton...it gets even more amazing than that. Here is a quote from the NHB April 2009 board meeting minutes (it's amazing that they put this online for us to read):


> There was a discussion of what market research has recently revealed in regard to a common consumer misconception of pure honey having something added. Wolk said consumers are now differentiating between honey sold at farmer’s markets versus honey available in supermarkets. To that end, we have produced a “Honey Simplified” brochure explaining to consumers what is in a bottle of honey. Wolk emphasized that this mis-perception about what is in a bottle of pure honey is a serious trend that must be addressed.


Mis-perception? Really?

I haven't looked closely at the honey standards that are being floated around, but if pure honey gets defined as anything that is extracted from the comb (be it nectar, HFCS, or coumaphos), then this is all "pure honey". We might as well define Pi as equal to 3 for convenience.

Barry...IMHO, the minute we have some "seal of approval"...be it "good housekeeping" or "organic", whatever the certifying agency is ripe to lower it's standards so that the less good producers can be in the same category as the better ones.

I find myself in the position of actually being a honey packer (yes, we have a fully certified and inspected facility). We have just finished up at the 3rd Organic Beekeeping Conference in Arizona. We had two organic certifiers speak (and come hang out at Dee's for a bit), and there are some new developments on the certification front. Most notably, the USDA now considers bees to be livestock, and absent of a specific honey standard, the general livestock rules apply to honey. We could now get some (or all) of our product certified, but we won't do it...and it has nothing to do with the fees. 

The product we sell (according to our own standards set by my wife Ramona and myself) exceeds the standards that will be eventually adopted for honey (probably 2 years or so best I can tell), and we see no reason to put our product in the same class (with the same usda organic stamp) as what we see as a lesser qualtiy product.

By no means do I think that everyone will (or should) have the same criteria for quality as we do. But our customers have come to trust us for a high quality product. We trust our suppliers for a high quality product that meets our standards. We give our customers what they want, and they appreciate it (some have become beekeepers, some think what we are doing is important enough to help us).

My point is that trusted (and trustworthy) brands are what we need (not certification, not a seal of approval, not a grade from the USDA), and there seem to be few packers that are willing to put the quality of the product first, are willing to pay for it, willing to charge for it, and willing to take the effort to educate customers so that they are willing to pay for a premium product.

deknow


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

deknow...exactly right. Even it the honey onthe shelf is pure it still taste like crap...doesnt that or should I say doesnt any packer or board member understand taste matters. I'll bet they would if they got a bad tough steak..It would still be pure meat.....maybe they wont ever get it and us small producer/packers canmake some good $$ as stated earlier.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

deknow said:


> Barry...IMHO, the minute we have some "seal of approval"...


Perhaps "seal of approval" is misleading in the context of this thread. We're talking about distinguishing US honey from Chinese honey, which brings us back to Country of Origin labeling. 

American beekeepers need to do a better job of informing the public about honey produced here. Think Florida orange juice, California raisins, etc. I think that the beeks themselves would have to do this as they are the only ones who stand to benefit from a shift in consumer demand from whatever happens to be on a shelf to a distinctly American produced honey. The almond growers did a pretty good job of it with their product.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Hi Barry,

I think we are "two ships passing in the night" here.

I don't buy the distinction:
American produced honey good
Imported honey bad

There is plenty of poor quality American produced honey available on the bulk and retail market (see my post above), and it does those who are producing a quality product no good to team up with those that are producing a poor quality product to differentiate from the imports.

Barry, if I offered to trade you your entire crop (including what goes on your breakfast table) with an equal amount of honey from another U.S. beekeeper (without specifying who), would you do it? Is there U.S. produced honey that you wouldn't want to eat? That you wouldn't buy (and put your name on) to hold your accounts in a bad year?

IMHO, we have to be careful who we align with in any conflict. Certainly the NHB is not our friend....but then again, neither is the migratory operator who extracts hfcs and sells it as honey to the highest bidder. This operator damages the reputation of U.S. honey, and devalues your product. Sure, the Chinese honey devalues your product also, but a quality Chinese honey (even if it were cheap) would at least boost the market for honey (based on a good experience by the consumer).

deknow


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

deknow is right. For example on a couple of occasions I have mad some redbud honey....if a producer sold it as table honey..well there is nothing worse. Taste like caster oila nd used motor oil mixed togather! All honey is not table honey! I think it just happens that chinese honey for the most part is of poor quality, maybe not all but a large part of it either becauce it taste bad or is adulterated. THere is some excellant honey inported, but what killes the market(both price and quality) makes up a large part of imports at present. Eu gets aloteof the high quality. We as american beekeepers need to sell as our bottled honey floral source and high quality. The rest should go to bakers. ANd purity should be utmost in iportance.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...just in case i haven't stuck my neck out far enough yet...

poor tasting or burnt honey is fine for baking...but what about honey containing ag chemicals and miticides? perhaps ethanol to run the bee truck?

deknow


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

deknow, good comments, but I disagreee that there alot or a few bad actors producing an adulterated product in the USA or Canada for that mater.Testing is done by reputable packers as well as on the store shelf.Adulterated sugar profiles in honey are unmistakable, I believe you might possibly be able to have 7 %adultration with present detection systems, would this be cost effective or the risk be worth it. If there are a few bad apples ,their volume of honey is a drop in the bucket to the shear volume of chinese honey


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

deknow has a point on the bad tasting honey. Some of the portion packs at restaurants taste so bad there are no words to describe it! porbable mostly imports but I'm sure there is some US too.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

This might be the proper time for a story that mu father told me. If any of the recollection is NOT fact, please notify so that I may edit.

The setting was WWII, things where being rationed, and prices fixed. A packer from Chicago, by the name of Straub(?), was on the board that set the price of raw honey from the beekeeper, and the price of honey in a jar. Being a shrewd man, he set the price of raw honey low, and the price of bottled honey high, ensuring himself a fortune. Well, it seems he was not quite as shred as the beekeepers, because they most all proceeded to set up farm stands, and sell their honey in jars. The sign out side my Grandfather's house read "Halt, yee will find your honey here". Oh, and Mr Straub had a hard time finding anyone to sell him honey.

It's a good thing history NEVER repeats itself(wink,wink,wink)

Roland Diehnelt
Linden Apiary Est. 1852


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Hi Irwin,

I don't disagree that there are reputable packers that will not buy adulterated honey...but when they reject a load, what happens to it? I've only heard of one load of honey being destroyed, and that was bees that got into discarded pharmaceuticals (my recollection is that the manufacturer paid for the honey). So, what happens to a rejected load (either domestic or imported)? I assume someone buys it at a low price and either puts it in a bottle, or in some "healthy" granola bar.

I have no experience working for a large migratory beekeeper, but I have made it a point to talk to as many who have as I possibly can. In every case, I'm told that HFCS is fed to stimulate brood rearing (pollen sub as well), and that the "honey" (from bees being fed HFCS with little forage available) is removed before shipping the bees to the almonds (for obvious shipping weight issues). 

I've never been told that this is kept for bee feed. I've never been told that it is used to make ethanol. I've never been told it was dumped down the drain. It _has_ to end up somewhere. Some of these operations run tens of thousands of colonies.

I'd love to be convinced that this does not end up in food for humans (either in a jar or in breakfast cereal)...please convince me, I'd feel much better about everything. But somehow we have to account for what happens to this "honey" that is being "produced" domestically by some segment of our migratory industry.

By no means do I think the Chinese honey problem should be ignored, but by focusing on Chinese honey, we are missing the bigger picture that quality (and purity) is what we really care about. Chinese honey is only part of the problem, and s long as we are going to address the problem, we might as well focus on what we really care about.

deknow


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

deknow said:


> I have no experience working for a large migratory beekeeper, but I have made it a point to talk to as many who have as I possibly can. In every case, I'm told that HFCS is fed to stimulate brood rearing (pollen sub as well), and that the "honey" (from bees being fed HFCS with little forage available) is removed before shipping the bees to the almonds (for obvious shipping weight issues).
> 
> I'd love to be convinced that this does not end up in food for humans (either in a jar or in breakfast cereal)...
> deknow


I don't know who you are claiming to be talking to or about, and wonder how many "as many as I possibly can" actually is. If you are presenting your survey as evidence of widespread adulteration by US beeks in general and almond pollinators in particular I would have to disagree. This sort of blanket statement should be backed up by verifiable sources. But I suspect naming names would get you sued. 

I know a lot of commercial beeks and none of them feed sugar and then extract it to cut weight for trucking. I am appalled by your implication that it is common practice. 
In our case, we feed syrup and sub in fall in Wisconsin, and in California to stimulate brood rearing for almonds. This is after supers are off. Bees are often fed upon leaving the almonds as well. This is before supers are on. We don't extract the brood boxes. In addition to that, most (all?) packers of any size sample and test their incoming honey. They don't want to pay high honey prices for corn syrup or be liable for distributing honey contaminated with chemicals and they test to make sure they do not. Those reports are passed along to the producer; beekeepers know they are being tested. No beekeeper that I know would risk the publicity of trying to pass syrup as honey. 

That said, would I vouch that there are never sweetheart deals where a packer _knowingly_ buys adulterated honey? NO. 
Would I bet my life on the purity of all honey on grocery store shelves? NO.

Hopefully the honey definition regs being passed in some states will prove a useful tool to expose anyone producing or packing "honey" that is not "honey" or advertising a product as containing honey when it does not. Anyone doing this should be treated like the crooks they are, whether they are beekeepers, importers or packers.
If nothing else, perhaps the potential for bad publicity and legal consequences will encourage some to clean up their act.
Sheri


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Very well said sherri!


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> I know a lot of commercial beeks and none of them feed sugar and then extract it to cut weight for trucking. I am appalled by your implication that it is a wide spread practice.


Sherry, I'm embroiled in a situation right now. Bought several trailer loads of Chinese Tallow honey from Louisiana. The stuff crystallized very fast...faster than my customer could use it. They send it back, I liquify it, they send it back again crystallized, a month later. From all I've talked to, Tallow is a slow crystallizing honey.

I'm not going to name any names. That's a private affair. But...last summer this beekeeper with 15,000 colonies had an excluder and a super on all his colonies on Maine Blueberries...and a HFCS feeded full of syrup.

Also, I know another in Florida with some 12,000 colonies who does feed feed feed and treat treat treat...and then extracts the brood chambers to lighten the 20 some loads going to California Almonds.

In talking to a state apiculturist who is stuck in the middle of this, I was told that the packers are now testing every load for adulteration and finding it widespread...testing for adulteration is cheap, about $25 per sample. They are sending samples to Coastal Science Laboratories, in Austin Texas. You could call and ask what they are finding. Ask Ken Winters (512-288-5533) about the SIRA analysis they are running on samples sent in by the large packers.

So I lost my biggest customer...used to buy 28,800 lbs a month...the sound you hear is the sound of me sucking air. They've held back more than $10,000 claiming problems with the honey. I still owe that much to the producer and he's getting pissed. Oh effing well. The next honey I get back...provided I do get it back...is going straight to Coastal Science.

Sherry, don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing you or anyone else except for the two I know about. You're an honest hardworking beekeeping family. And that's what you know...your operation. But believe it. There is plenty of adulterated honey out there...not necessarily adulterated by beekeepers adding HFCS to the honey tanks directly, but...by feeding and extracting the broodnests or feeding with supers on while in the Blueberry Barrens of Maine.


----------



## mike haney (Feb 9, 2007)

"...By no means do I think the Chinese honey problem should be ignored, but by focusing on Chinese honey, we are missing the bigger picture that quality (and purity) is what we really care about..." this is my point about chinese honey-while there may be instances of american honey having been cut with HFCS i dont recall EVER hearing of an american food product cut with POISON. if the chinese will do it to milk, all their food products should be suspect.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Michael Palmer said:


> Sherry, I'm embroiled in a situation right now. Bought several trailer loads of Chinese Tallow honey from Louisiana. The stuff crystallized very fast...faster than my customer could use it. They send it back, I liquify it, they send it back again crystallized, a month later. From all I've talked to, Tallow is a slow crystallizing honey.
> 
> I'm not going to name any names. That's a private affair. But...last summer this beekeeper with 15,000 colonies had an excluder and a super on all his colonies on Maine Blueberries...and a HFCS feeded full of syrup.


I would doubt HFCS would cause the honey to crystallize quickly. When I used to fall feed HFCS it was still not crystallized in spring and if that hived died and the brood chamber wasn't used for a year, it was still not crystallized. Now something like canola, you look away from the drum and look back and it's rock hard. I've had all my pipes "frozen" in the extracting room after a 3 day weekend because of canola honey.

I'm not at all familiar with floral sources in Louisiana but my bets would be on a floral source being responsible for fast crystallization not HFCS.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

mike haney said:


> "... if the chinese will do it to milk, all their food products should be suspect.


Remember Chloramphenocol? And Aplastic anemia?

And just why is their honey full of that antibiotic...along with the farm raised prawns and salmon?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I often wondered why the Chinese would use an old fashioned and potentially harmful antibiotic like chloramphenicol, and what were they treating with it? We have approved in the US oxytetracycline, tylosin, and fumagillin. Why use chloramphenicol? Turns out it's very cheap, much cheaper than these others. So in order to save money a cheap dangerous antibiotic is used. This is common practice in many so called third world countries, where the laws are weak and unenforced. Unfortunately, in the US the laws are also evaded. Beekeepers use a wide variety of unapproved and untested chemicals, although usually not antibiotics. The registered antibiotics seem cheap enough and effective enough to warrant avoiding going "OFF LABEL".


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

deknow said:


> Hi Barry,
> 
> I think we are "two ships passing in the night" here.
> 
> ...



I'm saying that US producers can differentiate their product in many ways, one being "Produced in the USA". They haven't, as a group, made any discernable effort to do so. I've never seen a single print or broadcast ad promoting US honey, but I've seen a bunch promoting other ag products from the US. I think it's something consumers respond to these days.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Lots of good stuff here on honey analysis, honey sugars , granulation, etc

http://www.honey.com/nhb/white-archive/date/ 

here is an abstract on an honey adulteration study, old one but good, I think things have even got better in detection and less adulteration is going on in north america by producers .I think these studies were funded by the NHB ,who today is the enemy from within.



Dr. Jonathan White
Article Archives

* HOME
* By TITLE
* By JOURNAL
* By DATE
* By TOPIC
* Document TYPE
* HONEY.COM

Position Paper - Adulteration in Domestic and Imported Honeys for NHB Steering Committee
Published in: 1992

Dec 14-15, 1992



Excerpt:

Following my retirement from USDA in 1978, the American Beekeeping Federation requested that I set up a lab to analyze honey for adulteration. This was done (Honey tech, Inc.) and during
1979 I personally analyzed samples submitted by the Honey Industry Council (HIC) (as well as others) for added sugars by TLC and for HMF. Isotope Ratio was used for confirmation only, since it was
more expensive and done at my expense only when needed. A flat charge was made for each sample. During 1979, 28 samples were analyzed for the HIC; 9 were adulterated (32%). An agreement was
then made between Honey tech and HIC under which they guaranteed payment (in advance) for 100 samples per year, to be solicited by them and the American Beekeeping Federation.



Download a PDF file of the full article

(Most of the PDF files are 1-2 Mb in size and will take a while to download)
Contact
National Honey Board
11409 Business Park Cir
Suite 210
Firestone, CO 80504

E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: 303.776.1177
Tel.: 303.776.2337



© National Honey Board, 2010


"The result has been a massive transfer of wealth, with its centerpiece the greatest theft from the public purse in history. This campaign has been far too consistent and calculated to brand it with the traditional label, “spin”. This manipulation of public perception can only be called propaganda. Only when we, the public, are able to call the underlying realities by their proper names—extortion, capture, looting, propaganda—can we begin to root them out." Yves Smith, ECONned Jesse's Café Américain


----------



## DigitalBishop (Nov 11, 2009)

Everything we discuss eventually goes back to broaching the subject of bringing the beekeepers together. However when someone brings it up another says it's like herding cats. We have the AHPA but apparently that's not bringing us together or they're doing a terrible job of it. Is it a matter of money? Why is it so hard for beekeepers to come together in the name of protecting their product? Diary has done it. Almond growers have done it. Avocado growers have done it. Citrus growers have done it. We haven't. The packers count on American beekeepers to be fractured. Every time the subject is brought up everyone says it can't be done or they say "Ok, *you* do it."

What would happen if we were able to pull together? Positive things I would guess. Some unintended consequences, maybe.


----------



## mrspock (Feb 1, 2010)

Michael Palmer said:


> Remember Chloramphenocol? And Aplastic anemia?
> 
> And just why is their honey full of that antibiotic...along with the farm raised prawns and salmon?


If my honey's going to be full of prawns, they may as well be farm raised.

Nothing I'd pay extra for though.


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

DigitalBishop said:


> Everything we discuss eventually goes back to broaching the subject of bringing the beekeepers together. However when someone brings it up another says it's like herding cats. We have the AHPA but apparently that's not bringing us together or they're doing a terrible job of it. Is it a matter of money? Why is it so hard for beekeepers to come together in the name of protecting their product? Diary has done it. Almond growers have done it. Avocado growers have done it. Citrus growers have done it. We haven't. The packers count on American beekeepers to be fractured. Every time the subject is brought up everyone says it can't be done or they say "Ok, *you* do it."
> 
> What would happen if we were able to pull together? Positive things I would guess. Some unintended consequences, maybe.


Beekeepers are no different than ony other business people. We want to sell honey for as much as possible and buy it for as little as possible. It's called business, it's survival of the fittest. 
I've never had a beek offer me $2+ lb in the barrel because they think that's what honey is worth, but I've had a few try to sell it to me for that :no:


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

"I've never had a beek offer me $2+ lb in the barrel because they think that's what honey is worth, but I've had a few try to sell it to me for that "

Seldom does a packer or buyer ask me "what do you want OR what will you take for your honey," but it has happened , only when the supply was scarce.

Why does China do what it does, adulterate honey, sell way below the market price, transship honey, the answers are probably many,from poor production techniques,to trying to get better value for a product that doesn't sell that well at home,to wanting to be the dominate player in such a small commodity market at any price, ............... there is a market for this junk, always will be as long as there are unscrupulous buyers

Heard that one of the arrested people who worked at L Wolff Co , in exchange for a lighter sentence was offering proof that all the buyers knew exactly what kind of honey they were buying over a long period of years . The lawsuits, litigation will last for years, but in the end there will probably be quite a few less buyers of this Chinese honey



"I'm speaking for all of us. I'm the spokesman for a generation.

I'm just glad to be feeling better. I really thought I'd be seeing Elvis soon.

I like America, just as everybody else does. I love America, I gotta say that. But America will be judged". Bob Dylan


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

123456 said:


> We want to sell honey for as much as possible and buy it for as little as possible. It's called business, it's survival of the fittest.
> I've never had a beek offer me $2+ lb in the barrel because they think that's what honey is worth, but I've had a few try to sell it to me for that :no:


Well, I learned how to do business from my grandfather who had a small grocery store in New Bedford, MA....started with a hot dog stand at Horseneck Beach, and rented a storefront on a handshake.

What good is a business deal if one of the parties feels like they got cheated? My business relies on my suppliers, and the quality of the product I can provide to my customers. If my suppliers can't make a living and run their business based on the price I pay them, they will be out of business, and can't supply the honey that my customers want.

The prices we pay to our suppliers has nothing to do with "what the market will bear", and we do pay over $2/barrel...not because our suppliers asked for it, but because our business model can support such prices...can support the producer, can support us, and allows for a reasonable wholesale discount for the stores we sell at.

In my previous life, I made handmade orchestral piccolos...top of the line and expensive. In the flute business, China is a big influence...I can buy a brand new flute in a case for less than the cost of repairing/repadding a worn flute in need of repair of similar quality that was made in the U.S. The Chinese companies are getting better and better at making something that resembles a U.S. handmade flute ($10,000+), and the U.S. companies are in a race to the bottom with workers that earn a small fraction of what craftspeople in the U.S. earn. Anyone that wants to play that game....competing for the lowest wholesale price is welcome to it...have fun and go broke.

There is always a market for a premium product (even in a down economy). The honey business relies on the reputation that honey is a pure, unadulterated product. Those that can't offer that will have a problem when the other shoe drops.

Meet the other shoe....


deknow


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

In the scenario you presented, sounds like the piccolo players were the winners. 
Selling for more is fine, paying suppliers above market prices is great ( I'm sure your pm inbox will be full shortly ) but somewhere along the line someone winds up with less. 
I enjoy making available a premium product at a less than premium price to folks who seldom can afford that luxury. That's my business model.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> But I suspect naming names would get you sued.


One can be sued for anything, all it takes is filing in a court. One is not guilty of slander or libel (which is I think what you are talking about) when the claims one makes is true. "Naming names" would violate the tacit agreement I have with those whom I talk to, my honesty and confidentiality is _why_ people trust me, and are willing to talk to me. You are welcome to think I'm lying if that's your perception, and you (or anyone else) is welcome to "sue me" if you feel that is appropriate.

I can certainly believe that in your circle such things are unheard of (or not spoken of). It's a little bit like being at a party where some people are snorting cocaine in the bathroom...generally those who do not partake are not aware of what is going on behind closed doors.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

123456 said:


> In the scenario you presented, sounds like the piccolo players were the winners.


In a sense, yes. Instruments are cranked out at low prices. ...but there have been great improvements in terms of features and playability in the piccolo in the last 20 or so years, none of which has come from makers that are competing in terms of low price. If one is happy with the piccolo as it is, this is fine, if one wants the instrument improved, then the market needs to support makers who can pay workers who can do more than solder keys together. I don't know a piccolo player (and I've made instruments for some of the finest in the U.S, Japan, Korea, Europe, etc) who doesn't want better instruments, who doesn't see room for improvement that would serve their art.

In terms of beekeeping, the "race to the bottom" has made it difficult for the best beekeepers to focus on producing a quality (and pure) honey crop, because they have to compete in the market with the lower quality "byproduct of pollination"...in large part because the NHB extracts money from them (with government enforcement) in order to launch PR campaigns that try to "prove" that all honey (including adulterated foreign and domestic crops) is of the same quality, and has equal value. :applause:



> Selling for more is fine, paying suppliers above market prices is great ( I'm sure your pm inbox will be full shortly ) but somewhere along the line someone winds up with less.


First, we are all set for the year. Secondly, the "market prices" to which you refer is based solely on the presumption that all honey is of equal quality...IT IS NOT. We pay what we think the crop is worth. Our customers always have the option of purchasing less expensive honey if they so choose. The other day I was set up at a local health food store. A customer came by my table with a 1lb jar of one of the prominent local brands in his basket (a brand he usually buys). After tasting the honey I had on my table, and talking to me, he put that jar back, bought a 1/2lb jar from me at 3X the price per pound. Did he lose? Well, if it was the same product in both jars he would have...but it wasn't. If it was, than anyone buying a quality steak is "losing" because they could get a $1 double hamburger at McDonalds.

I should also note that we only purchase honey from treatment free operations. Fumidil, essential oils, sugar dusting, "aromatherapy", and organic acid users need not apply.



> I enjoy making available a premium product at a less than premium price to folks who seldom can afford that luxury. That's my business model.


Our suppliers also feel this way...but they also never thought they were getting a fair price for the work they do. Stopping treatments, rotating out contaminated comb, making their own foundation, and talking losses in the process is expensive, and it is our sincere goal to help create a market that will support such practices. At least on the limited scale we are currently working at, it seems to be working.

I don't know any beekeeper who has pride in the honey they produce who doesn't think they should get more than $1.50/lb. I'd rather clean toilets for a living (which I have done in the past) than feel like my hard work and dedication is so undervalued.

If you think your honey is worth less than $2/lb in the barrel, that's fine with me...If you don't value your product, why should I?

deknow


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

I guess when discussing price one should also have an idea of the volume of honey we're talking about. 
Setting up in a health food store certainly will get you a premium price but, well, come on deknow, this is the commercial thread.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Yes, this is a commercial forum. Our suppliers make their livings producing honey. My wife and I make our livings selling their honey. 

Our producers do not use illegal immigrants as a labor force, and we have no employees. We buy in barrel quantities, and rent/maintain a commercial food production facility for which we pay rent and are licensed/inspected by the state and local health departments (which we built up from scratch ourselves). We also have a book coming out which paid an advance (we made no effort to make this happen, we were approached by the publisher), and we run a treatment free beekeeping conference (this will be our second year) with international speakers (Europe, not Canada/Mexico) and attendees, and we do not expect our speakers to "volunteer"...we pay them a speaking fee (which based on our understanding of what other conferences pay is considered generous...I don't think it's enough for their valuable time, and I wish I could pay more) and pay all travel expenses and food.

We are not rich by any means...we own a 3 family house (and have tenants), and share a 1996 Honda wagon (as our only vehicle) with a bashed in door, and I buy used tires for it at the local junk yard. When we need a truck, we rent it.

We bottle the honey ourselves (sometimes until 5am) in a facility without heat (in December, in Massachusetts).

We spend our spare time fighing with the USDA to keep them from injecting 150,000-650,000 trees with Imidacloprid because of the Asian Longhorn Beetle (of which 29 beetles were found in 2009), against the interests of the local bee inspector who likes being involved in a "research project" run by Jeff Pettis...he considers us "lucky" to have this research done in our county. The people we are fighting with are getting paid to deal with us, we have do it on our own time.

If you are interested in the specifics of our business (how many barrels we buy and from whom, how much we charge, etc), you can find some of this information by searching the web...but if you want me to lay it out here, I'd first like a look at your books and taxes....seems only fair.

If you want to play "more commercial than thou", that's fine...but somehow I doubt you are as large as some of the players out there...so what's the point?

So, yes, I spend time in health food stores selling honey (as well as farmers markets and similar venues),...but doing so allows me to pay my suppliers more/barrel than you seem to be getting (even when selling at a standard wholesale discount at the store).

deknow


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

No offense intended deknow. 
It's just that when you outlined your business model of paying suppliers more than they ask for, you never mentioned it was based on direct selling your honey at health food stores and farmers markets. Certainly makes more sense now.

Personally I retail all mine at my farmgate. But at 50-60,000 lbs, theres probably folks on here that spill more than that on the floor.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...I'm not really sure what your point is. We operate lean and make a living at what we do while paying non-migratory beekeepers that don't use treatments in their hives enough that they are not on beesource moaning about the low price that bulk honey brings on the market, or the competition from Chinese honey. 

I should also add that although we have a brand name of our own, it is in small print on our label, while the name of the beekeeper that produces the honey is in large print. We don't pretend to be producing honey that comes from someone else (and please, let's not have anyone say that this isn't standard practice...from farmers market vendors buying by the pail, to large national brands buying by the truckload). If our suppliers decide to market their honey themselves in the future, we have already done the work to help promote their name (which is something that their previous buyers would never do).


Should I feel guilty that my business isn't bigger? I'm buying, packing, wholesaling and retailing honey. Let's not lose site of the topic of this thread, which is adulterated and poor quality Chinese honey and how it affects U.S. beekeepers. I'm doing something about it while making a living and helping U.S. producers that have a superior product to not be caught in this "race to the bottom" that has every beekeeper I know upset. We differentiate their product from the inferior and adulterated product on the market (both domestic and foreign). I don't know of anyone else that is doing anything but complaining...certainly not anyone in the packing business, no matter what the size. We've solved these problems for the producers we work with while making us all a living....and offer our customers a product that they want at a price they are willing to pay.

Jiffy Lube may be a bigger business than the local garage, but does that make the local garage less relevant? Less of a business? Less important to the auto repair industry? Less valuable to a consumer that wants quality service?

deknow


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

deknow said:


> I have no experience working for a large migratory beekeeper, but I have made it a point to talk to as many who have as I possibly can. In every case, I'm told that HFCS is fed to stimulate brood rearing (pollen sub as well), and that the "honey" (from bees being fed HFCS with little forage available) is removed before shipping the bees to the almonds (for obvious shipping weight issues).
> 
> 
> 
> deknow


Just so you know. I have worked for large beekeepers and in every case there are no supers on when HFCS is feed for brood rearing. We don't extract any honey from large frames either so even if they packed it on it is refed to the bees in the spring or for splits. It is usually fed when they come out of almonds before the bloom is on and snow is still on the ground. Once the snow melts and flowers start to bloom no more feed is fed. (would be a huge waste of money). I have also never heard of anyone removing honey from bees going to almonds because of them being heavy. You want them heavy as there is nothing for them to forge on in Calf. until the Almond bloom. You send them light and they end up dead or under frame count and you have just lost the money for that hive. Just wanted to clear that up.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

alpha6 said:


> ...and in every case there are no supers on when HFCS is feed for brood rearing.


I never said (nor implied) that this was a universal practice. I think that others have confirmed what I was saying earlier in the thread.



> I have also never heard of anyone removing honey from bees going to almonds because of them being heavy. You want them heavy as there is nothing for them to forge on in Calf. until the Almond bloom. You send them light and they end up dead or under frame count and you have just lost the money for that hive. Just wanted to clear that up.


I've never shipped bees (besides driving nucs myself), but my understanding is that it is (at least in some cases) it is cheaper to extract the "honey" for sale so that more hives can be fit on the semi...and HFCS is delivered by the tanker to the bees once they are in California.

deknow


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Guess things are done different all over. Out west here we try and keep things simple.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I find it "interesting" that Mike, wearing his honey broker hat, has cited 2 specific instances of HFCS adulteration (and provided a phone number to talk to the lab that he claims is finding HFCS adulteration commonly)...yet no one else knows of any?

I've never heard anyone call Mike a liar, and somehow I doubt folks here (even those that have accused me of lying about saying the very same thing) will start now.

It reminds me very much of what happens to us at the farmers market. We talk to potential customers about treatments going in the hive. Every week there is always at least one customer who buys honey from a beekeeper they know, and they are absolutely sure that "their beekeeper" would never put anything in the hive (there is a "knowing smirk" that is characteristic...one that comes with a slight head shaking as if we are telling them that a UFO landed in our backyard last night, and they are too polite to tell us we are crazy). Of course, we all know better...and I'd be willing to bet that some reasonable percentage of the beekeepers cited by these customers are selling honey that they didn't produce.

No one knows because no one wants to know.

If we want folks to have a loyalty to "U.S. produced honey", we have to be able to assure them that the product is pure...that's what the customer thinks they are paying for.

Because I can't control what U.S. beekeepers do, and because I know that _some_ is not pure (and let's face it, the obviously misleading wording that the NHB uses to claim that HFCS is not added to the honey _after_ it is extracted from the comb shows that they know something about honey adulteration that the commercial beekeepers here don't seem to know), I can't recommend (or buy) honey simply because it is domestically produced.

If I'm aware of these issues, and Mike is aware of these issues (both of us isolated on the east coast, far away from the almonds and where most commercial honey crops are produced), I don't think there is a good excuse for others not to open their eyes and see the problems that we see.

The big difference between Mike and us is that his brokering business is being severely damaged by the adulteration of honey, while our business benefits. If you don't like what I have to say here, help Mike and harm me by helping to discover, expose and eliminate these practices.

deknow


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

deknow said:


> provided a phone number to talk to the lab that he claims is finding HFCS adulteration commonly)...yet no one else knows of any?


Well maybe it's like our local high school. My daughters told me that kids were smoking weed and getting into some serious petting in the hallways. 

When I went to high school, there were always hallway monitors...both student and teacher. Nowadays, there's no one. 

If you don't see what's happening, it isn't.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

That actually sounds pretty healthy. I had to go outside to smoke weed in high school, and I'm sure it contributed to catching cold at least once!:lookout:

deknow


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

evidently you smoked too much deknow in your younger days.............your still hallucinating


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Um, O.K....care to be specific? As far as I can tell, Mike has backed up everything I've said in this thread....but I understand that it's easier to pick on me than him. Unfortunately, his business has suffered quite a bit at the hands of U.S. producers who are selling HFCS adulterated honey as "pure".

But, I'm happy to be taken to task on any of the thousand+ posts I've made on Beesource (I'll even stand behind anything I've ever said in the Tailgater forum...but some of that will be hard to prove "true or false")...just do me the courtesy of being specific please, otherwise I'll have to start letting loose with "your momma" insults to raise the level of discourse.

I'll happily apologize for any facts I've misstated on the condition that you quote me. (This is the part of the discussion where everyone says, "Dean, you are so far off, it isn't worth my time to point out all the misstatments you've made)....I've been through this a few times, and I know how it works.

deknow


----------



## 123456789 (May 24, 2009)

It seems Mr. Palmer is dealing with a situation first hand. To me, your information is hearsay/gossip/ unsubstantiated theory.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Yes, Michael is dealing with this firsthand. ...and how are his fellow commercial beekeepers supporting him? How is the NHB supporting him? How is the honey packing industry supporting him?

In all cases, the answer seems to be by denying that he has a problem. I'm willing to bet that not a single person has called the number he provided to talk to the lab that is doing the testing. Again, no one wants to know.

Who is supporting him?

"Nothing to see here...Move along...All is well"

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*A little math...Re: Cheap Chinese Honey and the threat to U.S. Beekeepers*

Ok, so Mike, a non-migratory beekeeper in Vermont who brokers honey as well...someone with a stellar reputation as a beekeeper, queen breeder, and an honest person is reporting in this thread that he knows of 27000 colonies that produced HFCS adulterated honey last year...some of which he purchased as "pure honey".

There are what, about 2.4 million commercial bee hives in the country these days?

We are talking about just over 1% of the commercial migratory colonies in this country producing HFCS adulterated honey as reported by one person. It's simply not reasonable to think this is the extent of the problem. So what is going to be done about it? What will this eventually do the public perception of honey? Who is going to suffer?

deknow (who smoked pot in high school, but never drank this flavor kool-aid)


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

deknow said:


> How is the honey packing industry supporting him?


By testing all honey that they buy. I understand from McLure's Honey and Maple (Dutch Gold subsidiary) that the industry is finding so much adulteration that all honey is tested. The test is cheap. Way cheaper than tests for chemical contamination.

I have no idea how much adulterated honey is out there...how many beekeepers are producing honey that gets contaminated. I'm certainly not pointing fingers at anyone but the two large operations that I know personally. There are many honest beekeeping operations out there. Too bad that a few don't care about anything but the bottom line.

The Florida operation is contaminating their honey by extracting broodnests after feeding heavily in winter to build population before almonds. Two former employees of mine who worked for the company, saw it happening. Feed, treat, extract.

The operation that I am having a dispute with was caught with supers on while feeders were full. Nothing was said to regulators. Should I assume that they destroyed anything that was extracted from these supers? If they're feeding HFCS with supers on in the blueberry barrens, they're doing it on Tallow. Heck, they sent me a load of honey that they never even weighed. When the barrel weights came up -27, -5, +23 pounds different than the written weights I became suspicious. They never apologized, and said..."oh well, at least they drums are averaging out."


This is from a state inspector I am close friends with. Makes you wonder...

Mike,
Have you ever had your honey tested by a lab? I ask because a beekeeper sent me 2 lab reports from Coastal Science Labs, Austin, TX. A load of honey sent to McLures was rejected. 

Sira - tests for sugar level. Readings are supposed to be," more negative then -23.5" "Mesquite and orange sometimes fall in the -22 range." "A good acceptable range is -23.5 to -27.0"

One analysis has readings of -23.3, -23.2 (FL orange)

The rejected report has -21.8, -22.0 and numbers for protein at -25.3, -25.2 and states "about 22% adulteration...acceptable range 
-23.5 - 27" 

I have no idea what this means. I though you might know or have some info for me before I contact Dutch Gold and the lab so I can translate this crap into language that both me and the beekeeper understand.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

deknow said:


> Unfortunately, his business has suffered quite a bit at the hands of U.S. producers who are selling HFCS adulterated honey as "pure".
> 
> deknow


Alledgedly or suspected to be HFCS adulterated honey. Unless I missed the post in which Mike said that he got positive results from submitted samples.


Hey Mike. What a kick in the ----. Lost them for good?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Dean, I'm not accusing you of lying. I am questioning the breadth and relevance of your "survey" and wondering what positive you see in smearing our industry. Can it be pure altruism and sincere concern for the safety of our food chain is your primary motive here, given the negative impact of such statements? 

The NHB would love nothing better than for beekeepers themselves to help tear down the wall of perceived differences between domestic and imported honey. How better to do this than to foster the believe that adulteration and contamination is a wide spread practice. After all, why should the consumer complain about shoddy imports if they are convinced domestic is no better. Beekeepers shouldn't be dancing to that self serving (to some importers/packers) song: "All honey is trash, so buy the trash I make the most profit on". 
We agree that the NHB is not our friend, but by more blatantly reinforcing their position, that there is no difference between "us" and "them", you are aiding the enemy. 

It is suggested I am naive at best, in some sort of pollinator HFCS induced conspiracy at worst  because I don't give much credence to whispered accusations by anonymous sources given to a packer seemingly eager to believe the worst. If you were in our shoes, wouldn't you call it naive to take these perhaps embroidered reports at face value? Be honest now.

You are accusing beekeepers as a whole of turning a blind eye. I suggest there might not be as much to see as you imagine. Of course there is beekeeper committed fraud, but I don't accept it as being widespread and common practice. 27000 colonies is a bunch and will compute to a larger percentage of total colonies but it is still just one operation of many. Instead of using this or other isolated cases to hammer the reputation of the entire domestic honey crop, this bad actor should be dealt with, whether it is just sloppy beekeeping or outright fraud. Even the largest beek in the country, if doing something like this, would be just one individual operation, not the entire industry.

Come work with us or any of a hundred other commercial honey producers/pollinators for a year. You will see the majority work hard to produce pure quality honey. You will see why we roll our eyes at the idea of extracting HFCS that was just fed last week (maybe with expensive Fumagillan in it) for winter survival in order to lighten the truck. Where would all this "HFCS honey" be sold? I suppose they could export to China, but here, honey is very stringently tested by most packers, with counts for bacteria, pesticides,and antibiotics and corn syrup. Did your sources tell you the packers forge the papers and pay the going price of honey even if it _is_ corn syrup? 

Pollinators are not in a conspiracy of silence or burying their heads in the sand. The fact that some are whispering about it shows it is not the everyday taken for granted practice you are implying. Just because they all can't spend hours at a time defending themselves from scattergun attacks on bulletin boards doesn't mean they are complacent on the issue. Remember, this is a busy time of year, they may be a little distracted, being busy with the pollination of your food supply and all. 
Don't be fooled by the fact that they may be too busy trying to compete with cheap Chinese honey to give you their full attention. They too have been victimized by adulterated and contaminated honey from China, for quite a few years now. They are not complacent when faced with the unfair competition of fraudulent imports and I don't really think they would knowingly put up with it from the beek down the road. I sure wouldn't.

Why can't we agree that we are all victims of adulteration, from producer to packer to consumer, yes, even including importers? All honest players here want a level field. 
We all benefit from tightening definitions, regulations and enforcement. A simple economical means to determine purity and enforce labeling laws needs to be widely implemented. We need to up the consequences for fraud and make cases like's Mike's more easily resolvable. I agree Mike should (and does) have our full support against this fraud. Do we not all deserve this support? 
Sheri


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Well said John K and Sheri

I used to think all the dishonest crooks were in the import, packing, brokerage end of this business and I still do, just maybe some of the "wisdom " from that corrupt end of this business has led a few producers astray with stupid logic.Along the lines of "If we can't win being honest with these players then we will beat at their own game, by being like the Chinese," It's all about money and the world is a very evil place and the honey industry, I guess is no different than any other sector.



I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.
Winston Churchill


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Geez, you used some awful big words there Sherri< I'll have to get out the dictonary for one of them! Sherri hit the nail on the head. In any industry the are some rotten eggs, but just because we have a few rotten eggs doesntmake all the eggs rotten. There is a beekeeper who for the past 9 years I've seen feeders on his hives all the way thru orange bloom, but that doesnt make MY orange adulterated! THe honey board is NOT what we envisioned when it started. I was at the first meeting in Denver in 1986(man I'm getting old), our plan was to promote good US honey. THe govt(USDA) FORCED us to promote honey generically(imports/us with no differance). THeir reasoning was that imports payeda penny so we couldnt just promote US. If that had been known I thinkthe origional law would have been written differant. Ad now since the big packers control the board it is bascially useless to promote good honey. THere is some good from it....they have had some good PR. I just wonder if we woudl benefit from letting the truth be know what is in imported honey(seattle times article). Some think people might stop bying honey, however I tink it would help us as most understand if it has CHINA onit it is crap! NOt all imported honey is bad, but our honey onthestore shelf has enough bad honey in it to make anyone not want to buy more of it! Lets hope this local trend continues.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Anyone remember Pilgrim Honey? That stuff was in every town in the country. That was the most flagrant example of this sort of thing. I guess they made lots of money, but what a total lack of ethics!
http://www.questia.com/googleSchola...pq3nM2Z!-556194323!139884862?docId=5002230524


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah, I remember those crooks but I was thinking they were from GA. My apologies, Georgia.
Did these guys ever actually serve time in jail? $20,000 seems like a mere slap on the wrist when you consider the profits they made over the years prior to "making an example of them". Some example. 
Sheri


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> Alledgedly or suspected to be HFCS adulterated honey. Unless I missed the post in which Mike said that he got positive results from submitted samples.
> 
> 
> Hey Mike. What a kick in the ----. Lost them for good?


You're correct Mark. I haven't submitted any samples yet. If and when I get honey back, I certainly will. I'm still trying to recover either the money or the honey. It's been months and months, and all I get is the runaround. I don't have proof yet that this honey was adulterated, but consider...

Chinese Tallow is slow to crystallize. This honey crystallized in a month from filling the biuckets. This producer was found to have full feeders and supers on in blueberry. Makes you wonder, no? 

Yes, a kick in the nads, but in a way better. I'm now selling to small packers who appreciate quality and are willing to pay more. I've begun selling queens and made almost as much at that as buying drums of honey and repackaging it for the salad dressing industry. And...I have orders for 200 nucs. That with the sale of 500 queens will make me more than dealing with a big company...and it's more fun to boot. I'm just hoping to get the 10 grand back.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> Why can't we agree that we are all victims of adulteration, from producer to packer to consumer, yes, even including importers? All honest players here want a level field.
> We all benefit from tightening definitions, regulations and enforcement. A simple economical means to determine purity and enforce labeling laws needs to be widely implemented. We need to up the consequences for fraud and make cases like's Mike's more easily resolvable. I agree Mike should (and does) have our full support against this fraud. Do we not all deserve this support?
> Sheri


Thank you Sheri. I've tried hard not to slam commercial beekeepers in this thread. I'm just relaying what i've found in my investigation. I'm not sure how widespread this adulteration goes. I will say...if the packers like McLure (Dutch Gold) feel that every load has to be tested, then I think it fair to assume that there is a significant amount of adulteration out there. 

We'll see where this leads.
Mike


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Could be the Chinese studied the "Pilgrim Business Model " before embarking on exporting 'honey' to the world. Maybe a few shady operators here noticed it too:no:


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

China not the only adulterant of HONEY


May 2004

Raw honey prices continue to decline under pressure from cheaper imported honey but the problem remains that much of the imported honey is still questionable quality.

Ultra-filtered sweetener adulteration is rampant. Argentina honey imports are down due to higher prices and possible nitro-furans contamination. Chinese and Argentina honey is finding its way into the US through other countries to avoid duties and to hide adulteration. Large volumes of adulterated and contaminated Chinese and Argentine honey is finding its’ way into Canada, either direct or circumvented thought other countries, and then make its way into the US.

FROM http://skamberg.com/honey.htm

This from http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/sanford/apis/apis99/apoct99.htm#3 , 11 years ago, the last time the NHB was concerned enought abut adulterated honey to do a study
ECONOMIC ADULTERATION SURVEY:

Dr. Gary Fairchild of the Food and Resource Economics Department at the University of Florida has completed a study on honey economic adulteration funded by the National Honey Board. The information is based on a survey of honey packers and interviews with other segments of the industry. The time period queried for was three years (1996-98). There was an 86 percent response rate to the survey, representing volumes of honey purchased in 1996, 1997 and 1998 of 164, 162 and 184 million pounds respectively. The United States honey crop is estimated to be 220 million pounds per year, but consumption is higher. Fifty-eight percent of respondents (88 percent of volume) routinely test for economic adulteration, principally using SCIRA <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apsep98.htm#5>. All of those testing did it for other reasons in addition to economic adulteration; 71 percent used the same test criteria for both domestic and imported product. Cost of testing averaged 0.1123 cents per pound, with a range of 0.047 to 0.177. The cost per sample ranged from $40 to$50, and cost as a percentage of purchase price was 0.057 to 0.222 percent.

The principal adulterant in all cases was corn syrup. Average detected levels ranged from 7 to 23 percent (1996), 7.3 to 43 percent (1997), and 5.7 to 25 percent (1998). Sources of adulterated product were China, Argentina, México (1996) and Argentina and China (1997). Honey from Argentina <http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis98/apsep98.htm#4> and China revealed 70 and 25 percent adulterated product respectively in 1998. The domestic product was reported to be 5 percent adulterated that year.

Only 25 percent of respondents were satisfied with their ability to detect adulterants, part of the reason many don’t test. Eighty-five percent of those testing were not satisfied. Reasons given include the need to detect more than corn syrup and lower levels of adulteration. Cheaper, more accurate, appropriate, and simple tests, therefore, are required if voluntary detection efforts are to increase.

Over half of respondents believed economic adulteration created unfair competition. There were reports of unscrupulous dealings from all industry segments (producer, packer, importer). Honey buyers are becoming much more particular in their purchasing, relying more on reputation and importance of relationships. In the final analysis, most agreed adulteration hurt not only competitiveness, but the industry in general. They suggested the following measures to help control economic adulteration: more and better testing measures, standardized protocols (domestic and international), random testing, and public and buyer education. http://catalog.heifer.org/bees.cfmhttp://catalog.heifer.org/bees.cfm

Seventy-five percent of those responding said economic adulteration was a very important issue because it damages the product’s image, expands the supply and decreases the price. Firms not affected believe the problem resides elsewhere. Observations by those contacted ranged widely as to how important the issue was to the industry. Seventeen percent of respondents indicated economic adulteration was somewhat important, and 8 percent said they didn’t know. Most agreed confusion resulted from lack of adequate tests and protocols. Others indicated the problem had diminished in recent years; respondents in fact reported adulterated honey as a total of volume purchased was decreasing. It was 2.6 percent in 1996, 1.3% in 1997, but only 0.8% in 1998. This could result from generally declining prices, which reduce the economic incentive to adulterate, and/or adulterating honey below detectable levels.

Dr. Fairchild has estimated how honey price affects quantity; or has what economists call "elasticity." Thus, at the retail level a 1 percent price increase results in a 0.26 percent reduction in sales volume; at the producer level the volume reduction is 0.2 percent. Price flexibility also exists; a 1 percent increase in supply results in a price reduction of 3.9 percent at the retail level and a whopping 5.1 percent decrease at the producer level.

According to Dr. Fairchild income elasticity also affects sales; a 1 percent income increase results in a 2.5 percent increase in purchases. Honey is basically a luxury good, and sales correlate with income. The importance of quality and image, therefore, cannot be overemphasized, nor can implications of negative publicity. Tastes and preferences for honey, according to Dr. Fairchild, are increasing, but at a decreasing rate, emphasizing the need for increased promotional efforts. Consumption is also highly seasonal; December sales are traditionally highest. For an earlier analysis of honey marketing see the study by Shehata <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/scripts/htmlgen.exe?DOCUMENT_AA243>.

The effect of adulterated product in the marketplace is significant, Dr. Fairchild says, as the resulting increase in supply affects all levels of the industry. Thus, a 1 percent increase in quantity or supply (adulterated or not) results in a producer price decrease of 5.07 percent and a retail decrease of 3.88 percent. Just a 5 percent quantity increase results in a 25.35 percent lower price for the producer and a 19.40 percent reduction for the retailer. A 10 percent increase in quantity will result in over a 50 percent price decrease at the producer level and 38.80 percent at retail.

Florida orange juice is another product in the same league with honey, Dr.Fairchild says. Both compare favorably, having a healthy, natural, and pure image. The Florida Citrus Commission <http://www.floridajuice.com/floridacitrus/intro.html>, however, has a 50-year head start over the honey industry (National Honey Board <http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/digital/1999/column10.htm>) in promotional efforts. The Commission’s annual budget is $75-$80 million, and so citrus has more than 20 times more resources annually to influence consumers. Both products are economic-adulteration targets and can learn from each other’s efforts in this area.

Ensuring quality, Dr. Fairchild concludes, is the only viable option for a high-value, image-oriented product like honey. This has been seen in other industries. For example, businesses that have achieved quality assurance certification through ISO-9000 <http://fox.nstn.ca/~cottier/overview/ISO_9000/iso.html>, have shown an increase in profitability (48 percent), operational efficiency (89 percent), marketing opportunities (76 percent) and export sales (26 percent). However, these gains have not been accomplished without effort and investment. Thus, the honey industry must be proactive in ensuring quality, by taking the offense rather than reacting on defense, continually preparing for potential crises (from increased economic adulteration to contamination), and realizing that this is a long-term, never-ending effort.

Dr. Fairchild’s personal note, coming from long experience with the orange juice and now honey trade, is an eloquent testimony to his conclusions:

"Where financial incentives can be found, economic adulteration will surely abound,
For the enchanting siren-call of money, is bound to yield some funny honey.
So, will you merely carp and scorn those who stoop to substitute corn?
Or will you rise and take a stand to support a quality assurance plan?
The choice is simple, it’s up to you. No one can tell you what to do.
But to simply shrug and sigh, is to kiss your future good bye."


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Mike, we sell most of our honey to big packers and they have all been testing for quite a few years now. Not just for sugar but for chems and meds as well. It isn't a new thing. We have gotten the test results some years but I think we need to ask for them. I think some have in-house labs and do their own testing. At least one packer even gives out bonuses based on cleanliness/quality as measured by their testing.

If you think about it, wouldn't a crook, if he knew about this testing, try to find someone who _didn't_ test? And he probably does know because he had loads rejected. It is a shame it comes to this, but the beeks that sell their own honey would be most vulnerable to this, if they purchase honey from others. Again, I really don't think it is widespread but if you were to buy from him it would have serious impact. 
I think it was Dean who asked, (paraphrased) "Would you trade your honey for another's?" I admit I would be nervous, if I didn't know a particular producer and his ethics/practices. Maybe anyone who resells honey will have to add testing to their cost of doing business. I really hate to quote R Reagan, but didn't he say "trust, but verify"?

We really need harsh consequences for those trying to pawn off junk. When are we going to come down hard on these folks? A producer's load shouldn't be rejected it should be confiscated and destroyed. Or if not destroyed, perhaps forcefully relabeled and sold for what it is, at sherrif's auction. If it is shipped back, it will be sold to to someone else down the road.
Same for importers or packers. It wouldn't take too many lost loads and even the slow learners might find another way to make a living.
Sheri


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Sheri, you've made many excellent points. So how does the industry get to the point where adulterated honey is confiscated? And the profit thus removed from the ones seeking to profit from that crime?


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

If we had strict laws and hefty fines in place what would happen to the beekeeper whose bees found a outside source( another beeyard with open drums of syrup). If we use any artificial feeds at all for the bees we have to worry about some of it ending up in our honey crop. I know there is a difference between purposely doing it(adultering) and accidently having it happen. HFCS in the honey is not wanted at any amount but it can happen. If the bees have the broodnest full they can and will move that honey/syrup up when supers are given to make room for expansion and crop processing. I guess the reason I bring this up is because of all the fist pounding to hang those that are purposely adding HFCS to there honey. Does that mean those that are guilty because of something(outside source nearby) they were not aware of or didn't have much control over should be hung too? Guilty is guilty wether you tried to do it or not right? I wouldn't dare to purposely adulter my product but I would hate to be run out of business for something I couldn't control.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Good point, Beeslave. I will try to keep that in mind if I get the chance to help write the administrative code for Wisconsin. Don/t want to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Roland


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Palmer said:


> I don't have proof yet that this honey was adulterated, but consider...
> 
> This producer was found to have full feeders and supers on in blueberry. Makes you wonder, no?


Won't the salad dressing co. let you have a sample to have tested? Or are they too pissede off?

Yes, it does make you wonder.

I was a little surprised when I orderede my feeders and was told that the woodencovers and ladders were so you could feed your bees before loading them on a semi and that the syrup wouldn't slosh out while you were loading. That was the first time that I had heard of someone doing that. But I guess it must be somewhat common for that to be brought to mind as a selling point.

Best of luck. Perhaps your misfortune will turn out to be a blessing. Let's hope so.

Saw you article in BC. Good one. I'll have to read it again.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Palmer said:


> ...if the packers like McLure (Dutch Gold) feel that every load has to be tested, then I think it fair to assume that there is a significant amount of adulteration out there.
> 
> Mike


Adulteration or contamination or not, just like milk companies or any other food processor, they need to verify what they are buying. They can't afford recalls and other problems.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Beeslave, I've seen what you describe.Supers still on one outfits hives at the end of summer,and another beekeep putting out open drums of syrup a couple miles away.I dont know how much syrup would actually make it back but I know bees can fill a deep with nectar from fields 2 miles away.
Only saw that 1 time .The next year there were feeders on top, so maybe something was said. I doubt anyone wants to feed someone elses bees, but the possibility is there.


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

loggermike said:


> I doubt anyone wants to feed someone elses bees, but the possibility is there.


That's my point. It's not just the beekeeper next door that is on the ball with supers removed and open feeding while we had trouble and are behind so our supers are still on. Our bees have access to many things(you name it they are exposed to it) in the field that are way beyond our control and it is going to get to the point with testing and restrictions we will all be put out of business when a years worth of hard work to make a crop of honey is poured down the drain and we are heavily fined. While at the same time Joe Schmoe cash cropper and his chemical ladden crops that ran us out of business leave his pockets full and the doctors in business. HFCS in our honey isn't our only worry. Enough studies have been done that show what is brought back to the hive. Google it and you will find plenty of info.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Beeslave said:


> That's my point. Our bees have access to many things(you name it they are exposed to it) in the field that are way beyond our control


They certainly do.

In 1986, we had the worst honey crop ever. 2.5T from 800+ colonies. I was paying off my yard rents when I talked to one farmer when paying him. The yard on his property was the only one that filled their supers...filled with white honey. No, not like clover white...like milk. The honey looked like thick milk. The next yard down the road had some too, but only in the burr. He asked how the year was and I told him...and that his yard was the only one to make an honey. He laughed, and said, "I told Mother that these bees would be the fattest in the county." ?????

Come look here he told me. Behind the barn was a mountain of cardboard 10 gallon drums...with "Waste Sugar" written on the sides. The contents were waste sugar from a pharmaceutical company (Ayerst), and was used as a pill coating. Sucrose, titanium dioxide, microcrystalline cellulose, and dyes.

Sure enough the bees had filled up on the waste. Much of the honey I was able to harvest from other yards was contaminated. Crystallized instantly. I called Ayerst. They couldn't help me as the farmer had signed a release...the company gave him the syrup to feed his cows. 

Lucky my Dad had worked as Tax Manager for American Home Products...who owned Ayerst. I used to caddy for a foursome of my Dad, and the officers of the company. Only one left alive was the treasurer...in Greensbor, NC. I called him and the next day I received a call from the manager of the Ayerst plant. "What can we do to help"? They payed me more than $10,000 for my ruined honey.

So, I am fully aware of what can happen...been there, experienced that. And I suppose a beekeeper can unknowingly contaminate the crop by feeding and having the bees move syrup up. But what I am talking about in this thread is, to me, deliberate. Feeding bees with supers on, or extracting broodnests after feeding is certainly a horse of a different color.


----------



## be lote (Mar 26, 2008)

the key is bein able to prove due diligence.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

I sure don't know all the answers. We don't want beekeepers being penalized for something they didn't purposely do, but we don't want even accidental adulteration in the food supply either. Culpability might be easy confirmed sometimes and other times not be so obvious.
In either case, if a load is adulterated or contaminated we still need to somehow make sure it doesn't find it's way back into the food chain by means of another packer, who maybe hasn't felt the necessity of testing yet or maybe just doesn't want to find out the cheap "honey" he bought isn't honey at all. Benefit of the doubt can be given to a importer/beekeeper/packer as to purposeful contamination but that syrup still needs to be "recalled", like any other contaminated product. If that particular importer/beekeeper/packer continues to offer syrup contaminated honey there is a problem with the local the bees are working, management practices, or the ethics of someone or other. Whichever the case, the problem needs to be figured out. I would imagine inspections would be more frequent and more stringent in repeated cases of importing/producing/packing a mislabeled product.

Maybe the laws can be something like when you are found to be in possession of stolen goods. In the case of stolen goods, maybe you paid so little for the item there could really be no doubt you knew. but sometimes the person left holding the goods is totally innocent and the end victim. In both cases items are confiscated. The careful route would be to make sure what you are buying or selling is legit, especially if your reputation is on the line. 

Maybe, while the goal would be to stop all adulteration, the small, accidental or infrequent cases might slip through. The fact that there is a system in place to at least try to protect the purity of the product and deter and punish purposeful adulteration will maintain confidence of the consumer and give those victimized by the adulteration a means to gain compensation.

Lots of maybes on my part. Just thinking out loud here I guess. 

I am no chemist but I understand it is difficult to detect a small amount of syrup in honey (did I hear less than 10%)? This would seem to be a problem too, if smaller amounts couldn't be easily detected. Can anyone explain how precise the testing is.
Sheri


----------



## Polarmetrics (Aug 23, 2010)

*Detecting syrups in honey is a very difficult challenge for 2 main reasons;*
1. Honey can be made from different floras and therefor can be quite different chemically from region to region.

2. HFCS, inverted beet, tapioca, rice and cane syrups have extremely similar sugar profiles as honey.

In August of 2010 *Polarmetrics Corp*. released an analyzer that; detects above syrups rapidly, the instrument is extremely easy to use and the unit is some what portable.

The only means to stop the practice of adulteration is if distributors, large food companies, large outlet stores, honey organizations and governmental agencies start testing products for purity. If no one will test the purity of honey then there is no deterrent to those that add the syrups. The analogy I use is; it is illeagle to speed but if there is no one patrolling the roads then the law means nothing. You can't just patrol one section of road either but in multiple places (just like the entire honey supply chain)

Past testing procedures were laborious, time consuming and quite frankly not very accurate. Now that honey can be tested by anyone within 5 minutes there is no reason why the bad guys can't be caught but only if those interested parties invest in routine testing. Again, if there are no police on the roads don't expect speeding to stop just because it is against the law. Honey adulteration is a + billion dollar market so there is a high $$ incentive to do it.

Should anyone want further information on rapid honey adulteration analysis please e-mail *[email protected]*


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

Whats one of these testers, analyzer's worth?


----------



## AndreiRN (Jun 13, 2008)

We blame the chinese for everything but I would like to do an audit of the US honey producers on this subject.
Just like the ones that sell at the farmers market but buy bulk at the werehouses.


----------

