# NYS Standard of Identity (SOI)



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Should NYS have a law that defines honey? 

Should any state have a law that defines honey?

Why do people feel a need or desire to have a law that defines honey? 

Cant we just look up the definition of honey in Websters dictionary?


----------



## jdmidwest (Jul 9, 2012)

Interesting. I know of a local guy that feeds Hi Fructose syrup all summer and bottles honey? Is it really honey?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BMAC said:


> Should any state have a law that defines honey?


Six or more State do, whether any should or not. I don't know.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

OK, take Webster's definition, what ever it is. How do you take that definition to a testing lab and have them verify that the sample is or is not honey, in a manner that can be repeated, and hold up in a court of law? We all know that honey is that which is collected from flowers, but how do you prove or disprove that? 

If you DO define honey in a manner that defines the lab tests, then if the sample fails a repeatable test, you CAN take it into a court of law and file for damages(you have been injured) against the individual that has sold a product as honey, that is not.. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...abel&p=861572&highlight=commercial#post861572

post # 13 and #15 says it all for me, I would go for the standard of identity, but it taking 5 years for something that most beeks want, and the consumer would want if they know what was going on is really to long. having only lived in N.Y. 10 years I can predict that N.Y. will never have a SOI or at least in my life time. Was a hot topic when floriday passed theirs, now not so much.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

You'll have to call Paul Cappy, NYS Apiculturalist, for the particulars, but I was told that a random selection of a sizeable number, maybe 100, of jars of honey were collected from across NYS, tested and no contamination or adulteration found. I guess I should call him myself and see if there is any kind of report to be had.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> but I was told that a random selection of a sizeable number, maybe 100, of jars of honey were collected from across NYS, tested and no contamination or adulteration found. I guess I should call him myself and see if there is any kind of report to be had.


I'll have to find the testing by the fda, trying out there new equipment, not in ny, but they only found a few that didn't/weren't contaminated.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

wildbranch2007 said:


> http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...abel&p=861572&highlight=commercial#post861572
> 
> post # 13 and #15 says it all for me, I would go for the standard of identity, but it taking 5 years for something that most beeks want, and the consumer would want if they know what was going on is really to long. having only lived in N.Y. 10 years I can predict that N.Y. will never have a SOI or at least in my life time. Was a hot topic when floriday passed theirs, now not so much.



Will legally defining honey prevent adulteration? Beekeepers and packers have been fighting adulterated honey in this country for well over 100 years. Will a new law magically prevent bad honey?

I understand the lawyers want new laws all the time. What is wroung with going after those offenders under mislabeling? Isn't the word PURE on the label adequate?

One comment at the annual meeting from a lady said she is all for the SOI so she can charge more money for her NYS Qualified honey. I thought about asking her why she dont just charge more for the honey now.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Good question Brian. I know people who already do. Nothing about the SOI will mean you can do that anymore in the future than now, imo.

I don't know why people don't just decide what they want for their honey and charge that price for it and see what happens. Every time I have raised my prices I sell more and I usually bottle evewry drop I produce This year I sold some buckets to another bkpr..

Nothing will prevent adulteration from happening. Packers have done it and been prosecuted and then do it again. Maybe not stiff enuf fines levied. (?)


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

I think you are correct about the stiffer fines. We can already chemical determine if something adulterated. 

I absolutely agree that beekeepers need to challenge the market price if they do NOT feel like they are getting enough for their honey. We do it fairly frequent with good results. We have never had an issue selling our honey.

Members there are worried about commercial beekeepers packaging their melter honey as buckwheat honey also. I dont know every commercial operation or what they do but I think it would be fairly easy to identify melter honey compared to buckwheat honey. 

In reality I dont believe we should put a new law in effect due to perception. Those who mentioned melter honey in or sold as buckwheat honey didnt identify any NYS commercial beekeeper who is guilty of doing such deceitful actions.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

When I bought some Buckwheat from Wixsons Honey Inc which Jerry said came out of Washington State. It sure tasted like Buckwheat to me. When I sold that to one customer in particular, by the case, he had me pick up the rest of the case the next time I was around because he and his customers didn't like the taste. Said it wasn't Buckwheat. So, I'm thinking that "Buckwheat" is the new Buckwheat. Were it labeled Wax Melter Honey I wonder is people would still like it as well?

Other people run their wax melter honey through the bulk tank w/ the rest of the honey and into the barrel. I don't know if the price balances out or not. It's still honey, so would one really need to label it Clover/Wax Melter Honey?


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

I would think the taste would come thru when they blend it as well. Maybe not. Maybe part of the issue is selling honey by color. That almost always forces packers and large beekeepers to blend their honey to the correct color. I know that is an industry wide practice. However selling melter honey as Buckwheat honey is still mislabeling. It's not adulterated, just mislabled and go under same existing labeling rules?

I have always sold mine to folks as just that, melter honey. Im sure some of the farmers I sold mine to mix it with corn (treat it as molasses).

Wont the consumer rectifier anyone who is producing low quality honey?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I would think so.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

I would like to believe customers will figure it out pretty quick. Especially those who go out of their way to get your honey. I know I have quite a few that come out to the house to buy it anywhere from 1 gallon to 5 gallons at a shot.

So speaking of mislabeling how many times have beekeepers said their spring early summer honey is clover honey and the fall honey as wild flower honey?

Isn't it all wildflower honey?

The honey I get from Ga is mostly gallberry and black gum honey. Of course there is some titi coming in and a few others. Should I label it as gallberry, or black gum? Nobody ever heard of black gum honey less you are producing it in the south. Most folks heard of Gallberry. 

What if we started calling the local honey dandelion and sumac honey?

Sometimes labeling can get pretty crazy.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If there is a difference in the color and taste I bet you could label it differently and charge more for it. I don't know who would check and how they would tell, beyond color and taste. Sure, if someone wanted to go to the expense of checking the pollen grains. But, realistically?


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

It would be expensive to send off each time I extract. Jerry has mentioned the cost of having a lab analyze it. It would also be scary to see what kind of other chemicals they maybe dragging in from things such as mosquito abaitment or other ag farming. 

Maybe we would find chinese honey is cleaner than our own honey?

I would like to think we can produce cleaner honey than china can produce but who knows?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

took me a while but I found the post I posted b/4.
I found where the usda was testing the method that they use for testing honey, I'll copy the interesting parts below and give the link.

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10...ND44027553.pdf <---- note this url no longer works I'll see if I can find it again.


Incurred Honey Samples. The performance of the method

was evaluated with incurred honey obtained from treated

beehives. For most of the analytes, two incurred levels (n ) 5)

were assayed. Fumagillin and oxytetracycline residues were

detected in the incurred honey, but their levels were below the

validated range of the method. The highest CVs of the incurred

levels are reported in Table 5. The repeatability errors for the

tested analytes in the incurred honey were less than 14%.



Only three

of the 15 retail honeys tested were totally free from all 17

antibiotics. The majority of the honeys contained either one or

two of the antibiotics, and one sample had as many as four

different antibiotics. The positive findings are as follows: tylosin

(8), lincomycin (3), oxytetracycline (2), chloramphenicol (2),

streptomycin (2), sulfathiazole (1), tetracycline (1), and danofloxacin


now I didn't read all of the document and they didn't say where the honey came from but only 2 of the above are legal in the USA that I know of, and fumidil doesn't show up in any. 
if anyone can read and understand the entire thing please let us know.

added they also said fumidil breaks down in light, my comment on that would be, if it actually made it into your jar of honey, wouldn't it then break down?? they also said at that time that they hadn't set a residual level yet for the legal chemicals, but that there is no legal level for the ilegal chems. if I read it correctly.


----------



## 2dumb (Nov 15, 2012)

The break down product from exposure of Fumagilin-B to UV is still efficacious for Nosema so it must still be an antibiotic in some form. The big problem we have in North Carolina is not adulteration but honey brought in from other states and countries being sold as local honey. We bottle our honey and sell it the end retail seller (stores, health food coops, farmer's market vendors, etc.). All of our major competitors in this state sell non-NC honey as local honey. Very few of them have any bees although most claim to have bees. The prime example is a guy who claims to have 10,000 colonies in two other states but actually has no bees. Its hard to compete with that when you are actually producing the honey with your bees. At least its easier to sleep at night.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't think that a state standard will help much.
I think it wiser to produce really good honey, market it well, and let those who can't tell the difference buy what they will.

We don't have a standard now, and the honey i sell is going for well above commodity honey price.

If people can't tell the difference between what a guy produces and adulterated honey, how is his honey actually higher in value?

I know many will probably say SOI is for protecting the consumer, but truly, we are protecting the honey commodity market.


----------



## 2dumb (Nov 15, 2012)

It all depends on how regulations are actually enforced. Usually by design or default its by the Keystone cops. North Carolina has given authority for initial investigative and enforcement actions to the state hobby beekeepers association. It is like letting everyone with a 10 gallon aquarium regulate (and potentially ruin the business of) commercial fisherman. Currently, if you pay the hobbyists $25.00 a year and swear "honest *****" you can buy unlimited "Certified North Carolina Honey" stickers from them as long as you buy them from "their vendor". No honey testing - no verification that you have any colonies. What a joke. One of the principals on the "Honey Standards Committee" is by his own admission one of the worst violators. That's where most attempts at regulation end up.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

some one stated:

I think it wiser to produce really good honey, market it well, and let those who can't tell the difference buy what they will.

That is fine, but do you think you might get even more for your REAL honey if the buyers of funny honey had to buy the real think instead? Look at how much enters this country that is of questionable character, and what the price would be if it was halted.

Crazy Roland


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I read through some of the NC literature....seems to lack a definition of "pure honey".
But I don't see any enforcement there unless you want to use their labels.

...if you use their labels, you cannot call your honey "raw" or "organic" . If I were running my business in NC, I would not get certified, and I would point out to my customers that the beekeepers in NC have decided for some reason that they can't produce raw honey, and that they have set up a silly certification system so they won't have to compete with raw honey.

Deknow


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Confirming honey is honey is done accurately through carbon isotope testing - We send samples to Sirtech to be tested (www.siratech.us.com) as we have other large beekeepers near us and some may open feed which during a flow could get into our hives. If we buy any honey we certainly will test. It's cheap - about $45 bucks a sample, results in a week and good advertising. I'm certain one of our more chemistry minded beekeepers here can better explain the process than me.

I think as an industry we need to maintain standards and keep the government out of it.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

There are a number of tests....none of them will detect less than 5% sugar adulteration (I think the isotope test is 10% or 15% if I remember correctly).

The wrench in the works with the isotope testing is also rice syrup adulteration.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

One of the Court Cases sited at the eshpa Fall Mtng was barrels of Chinese Honey which had been labeled Rice Syrup. So it was funny honey, it was intentionally mislabeled to avoid tarif.


----------



## 2dumb (Nov 15, 2012)

800,000 lbs. of Chinese honey laden with pesticides was seized in just one seizure at our port this year. That honey all goes up the river about 35 miles to a forwarding plant where it is either bottled for sale in the US or liquified at shipped in tankers to the Midwest. I agree with Roland about the effect of the foreign honey. This year was a terrible honey year in NC. Lack of availability should drive up price but it won't due to the handful of guys here who have no qualms about selling foreign or out-of-state honey as local honey. One just bought 90 barrels out of GA but I guarantee you it will be sold as honey produced in his NC locality.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Deknow wrote:

The wrench in the works with the isotope testing is also rice syrup adulteration.

Can you explain that ?

Joel - are you doing Internal Stable Carbon Isotope Ratios, or just Carbohydrate Carbon ratios?

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

2dumb said:


> 800,000 lbs. of Chinese honey laden with pesticides was seized in just one seizure at our port this year. That honey all goes up the river about 35 miles to a forwarding plant where it is either bottled for sale in the US or liquified at shipped in tankers to the Midwest. I agree with Roland about the effect of the foreign honey. This year was a terrible honey year in NC. Lack of availability should drive up price but it won't due to the handful of guys here who have no qualms about selling foreign or out-of-state honey as local honey. One just bought 90 barrels out of GA but I guarantee you it will be sold as honey produced in his NC locality.


Shelf price has nothing to do w/ what was produced or not in any one given State or region of the country. Honey comes from all over the world(it's a saying, not literally) and we don't even produce half of what is consumed, so where do you think it's supposed to come from? Nature, and commerce, abhores a vaccum, it will be filled.

Raise your own price. Don't pay so much attention to what others do. Sell your own honey. Set the price high. You might take all year to sell your whole crop, but so what. You will make more profit.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

I agree with Mark. Set your price and sell your honey. 

We don't need a legal SOI to sell our honey. We may just need to register with the USDA so we can get harrassed by Dept of Homeland Security.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

deknow said:


> There are a number of tests....none of them will detect less than 5% sugar adulteration


As the natural sucrose content of honey varies between 2.5% and 7%, how would you interpret a sucrose content of 5% in honey?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

It isn't just a test for the presence of sucrose, it looks at the (I think carbon) isotopes that make up the sugars.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...ask your friendly neighborhood testing lab if they can detect rice syrup adulteration well enough to pit it on a report.
Deknow


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Websters definition of honey has nothing to do with laws that govern what is being sold as honey. it is about penalties for selling things that do not comply with the law. It is about protection of the consumer and the producer.

I don't think it should be illegal to sell "Honey Products". Laws that cause non honey products to me labeled as not real honey for example yes. but consumers have the right to buy fake honey and producers have the right to supply it. Consumers should have the ability to know what they are buying though. Most still won't.

Not having such labeling hurts the honey producer in that consumers simply get discouraged and stop buying any honey at all. because they know a lot of it is fake and can't tell the difference. Honey producers will never cause the changes. consumers will if they make enough of a stink about it.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Don't we already have laws about labeling in effect? Isn't that why we label our honey as "PURE Honey"? The word pure meaning no adulteration?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I know one leading honey packer that is using SIRA (stable isotope ratio analysis) for determining authenticity of honey. I am not knowledgable enough to know much about the specifics but I have read it is being used to judge purity for many other food products as well.


----------



## No-sage (Mar 14, 2009)

Here is a defining law :http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&[email protected]+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=52149647+&TARGET=VIEW

Here is a selling law: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&[email protected]+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=52149647+&TARGET=VIEW


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Doesn't the above two laws cover selling adulterated honey?


----------



## No-sage (Mar 14, 2009)

Article 17: ADULTERATION, PACKING, AND BRANDING OF FOOD AND FOOD PRODUCTS 

It seems it covers branding and packing too. The honey definition seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

as it should be.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Stable Isotope Ratio Analysis is what is being done for us at Siratech. I also spoke with Venture Labs this year ( Kentucky I think) adulteration can be identified at well below the 10% range. I'll see if I can reconfirm what the numbers are and get back.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

No person or persons shall package, label, sell, keep for sale,
expose or offer for sale, any article or product in imitation or
semblance of honey depicting thereon a picture or drawing of a bee,
beehive or honeycomb, or branded as "honey," "liquid or extracted
honey," "strained honey" or "pure honey" which is not pure honey. <--- there is no definition of pure honey that could be used in a court of law, thats why you need the soi

<---- just saying it must come from plants won't cut it. now saying it must have pollen in it, no unauthorized chemicals in it, would make the consumers alot less nervious.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Attaboy Wildbranch, You have identified the crux. Until you have a defined test on the books, you are just peeing into the wind. You may think it is or isn't honey, but you need a legal definitive lab test to support you claim.

Crazy Roland


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

wildbranch2007 said:


> <--- there is no definition of pure honey that could be used in a court of law, thats why you need the soi
> 
> <---- just saying it must come from plants won't cut it. now saying it must have pollen in it, no unauthorized chemicals in it, would make the consumers alot less nervious.


According to what No-Sage posted from our NYS ag and markets site which I am posting below you are incorrect:

§ 205. Defining honey. The terms "honey," "liquid or extracted
honey," "strained honey," or "pure honey," as used in this article,
shall mean the nectar of flowers that has been transformed by, and is
the natural product of the honey-bee, taken from the honeycomb and
marketed in a liquid, candied or granulated condition.


It would seem to me as though honey is adequately defined. If you create a law that states honey has to have pollen in it your adulteraters will figure out a way to blend in pollen dust into corn syrup and now its LEGALLY honey cause they can identify the pollen source. 

Besides that craziness last time I checked pollen is pollen and honey is honey. Honey is not pollen.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

BMAC said:


> It would seem to me as though honey is adequately defined. .


acccording to the (SOI) people working on it in N.Y. I am correct

http://www.eshpa.org/index.php/nys-honey-definition/honey-definition-q-a-a

this from our fellow beeks at the empire state honey producers assc. 


1) Q- What is a Standard of Identity for Honey (SOI)?
A-The SOI would provide a technical description of honey that is sold in New York. It just defines the word HONEY, that is all. When someone buys honey here in New York, it should meet certain standards to ensure that consumers are buying pure honey (Truth in Labeling). Olive oil and vinegar have technical definitions, yet honey does not.

2) Q- Why is a honey standard needed?
A-To help prevent the sale of adulterated honey .There have been far too many instances of adulterated and contaminated honey entering the United States, much of it from China. Currently, if diluted honey is discovered, there are no laws on the books adequately describing what honey is. The current definition of honey (NYS Ag & Markets, circular 911 section 205) is a one sentence statement unchanged since 1902. <--- definiton was written in 1902, time for a rewrite don't ya think


3) Q- Why is a honey definition important?
A- Truth in Labeling. When someone buys honey in New York State, they can have some assurance that they are buying real honey. Having a Standard of Identity for Honey will protect the image and integrity of honey as a pure, natural food and increase the confidence of the consumer. It also would help to prevent the dumping of cheap, imported honey, which would depress the price of honey for the beekeeper producer and packer.

besides when every other state has one, all the junk/adulterated honey will flow to N.Y. making the packers happy, the producers, not so much.

since the state still has the list of registered beeks, why not just make it easy and put it to a vote, I can live with the results either way.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Though their intent is good the wording of the actual SOI isn't that good.

This will NOT protect from adulterated honey anymore than the current laws we have on the books. Crooks are crooks. Locks dont stop thieves, cops generally dont stop thieves either.

They want to have the SOI as the legal definition of honey. Yet they don't adequately define terms used within the SOI while defining honey. 

Reality is we dont need a new law to stop selling Chinese honey. We have laws in place and if our law enforcement would actually uphold the laws we wouldnt see illegal honey entering this country. Every other state does NOT have an SOI in place and I bet a couple of them are regretting the one they put in place.


So picture this. We actually get this on the books and then we all have to send samples off to a lab to check for pollen and make sure no chemicals and such are in our honey and make sure that sucrose if 7% and so on. Then we have to start relabeling honey on the shelves in the markets to conform to the new rules to include our TESTED honey. Now the consumer starts to question all honey they see on the shelf because they dont really understand what just happened in the world of peddling honey in the markets. Then our sales plummet because consumers now question our integrity.

The above is just speculation but definitely is NOT out of the possible result.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

BMAC said:


> .
> 
> Reality is we dont need a new law to stop selling Chinese honey. We have laws in place and if our law enforcement would actually uphold the laws we wouldnt see illegal honey entering this country. Every other state does NOT have an SOI in place and I bet a couple of them are regretting the one they put in place.


the intent is to stop selling adulterated honey, not just chinese honey. go back a read the post about all the antibotics found in honey, nothing says it was chinese honey or us honey. here is a good article about testing of honey and looking for pollen I haven't finished yet.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

That article looks like its all about anti dumping of chinese honey here on our shores.

I agree with stopping the importation of honey from China. While reading the QA's above it states "There have been far too many instances of adulterated and contaminated honey entering the United States, much of it from China." Which the intent is GREAT. ESPHA is trying to resolve an importation issue for the state of NY. Actually its quite a controversal topic as everyone is NOT on board and shouldn't be on board.

Have you ever sent your honey from your hives out to be tested for antibiotics, or chemicals? I personally have never wasted my money on sending it out, but I bet you would find chemicals in all our honey if you look hard enough due to the enviroment we live in and have our bees in. It drifts in everytime a neighbor decides to spray pesticides, or the bees could drink out of a swimming pool and bring back residual chemical water. What about bees drinking out of mud puddles and such?

What if we actually found antibiotics in our honey where the bees might have brought it in from the water source they stopped at? I would imagine the city beekeepers would see more of this type impact than I would. They want pollen in the honey to positively identify the source of the nectar. Who says the nectar comes from the same source as the pollen? The pollen only tells them what pollen the bees were collecting. Do we really know enough about honey bees to adequately state the source of the pollen is the source of the nectar?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

guess we will have to agree to disagree. the soi however written and implimented will apply to everyone as it should.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

wildbranch2007 said:


> since the state still has the list of registered beeks, why not just make it easy and put it to a vote, I can live with the results either way.


Not a bad idea, but that list has not been updated in ages and was never all that complete. There are lots of unregistered beekeepers in NY State.

Not to mention the lack of info and understanding, what would people vote on?


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

what would people vote on? The club voted on writing up an SOI. 

Has anyone in the club actually had their honey analyzed to see exactly what is detected in it?

It would be interesting to see just what pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and whatever else is floating in the air actually gets in our honey.

I for one certainly hope it never gets written into law the way its currently written.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

OK, all you non believers, How do you prove, in a court of law, that a jar of adulterated honey is adulterated? How do you prove that is NOT as the bees collected it? 

Crazy Roland


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Paper trail.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

BMAC said:


> It would be interesting to see just what pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and whatever else is floating in the air actually gets in our honey.


if you take a look at the studies and articles written on the subject, in almost all the ones I have looked at, the majority of the contamination in the hives is beek chemicals.
If my honey was analyzed, I would expect no contamination as I have rotated out all the comb that had apistan and checkmite in it. thats in theory, except that the foundation that I buy still has it in it. But remember all "legal" chemical have a tolerance assigned to them, it's all the "illegal" chemicals that they can get you for. 
Anyone have any idea how the law suits in Florida turned out when the lawyers started sueing target etc?

as to what for the beeks to vote on, you could vote on if you want a (SOI) an/or after its written if you agree with it as written. If the state advertised the fact to the bee clubs they probably would get a lot more sighned up as registered beeks, if ny still had registration
got to start some where. as an after thought, don't you think that when the lawyers get done sueing target etc, that you will have an (SOI) anyway? If target etc lose don't you think that they will require all honey they sell to conform to some standard, the key question is do you want that standard to be Florida's ,N.Y., or whomevers, for you commercial guys that sell accross state lines I would think you would like to know what the restrictions are going to be b/4 you sell. My morning coffee must have kicked in, I was going to leave this thread alone.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

I glad you didn't leave the thread alone as this is important and will impact us all. Below the is the proposed SOI:

Proposed "New York Standard of Identity for Honey"

The acceptance of this should provide that no added cost or responsibility shall be 
required of the State of New York or to any business in the state of New York. 

Section 1. 

(a) “Honey” means the natural sweet substance produced by honeybees from the nectar of
plants or excretions of plant sucking insects on the living parts of plants, which the bees
collect, transform by combining with specific substances of their own, deposit, dehydrate,
store, and leave in the honeycomb to ripen and mature.
(b) “Blossom honey” or “nectar honey” means the honey that comes from nectars of
plants.
(c) “Honeydew honey” means the honey that comes mainly from excretions of plant
sucking insects (Hemiptera) of living parts of plants.
(d) Honey consists of different sugars, predominantly fructose and glucose as well as
other substances such as organic acids, enzymes, and solid particles derived from honey
collection. The color of honey can vary from nearly colorless to dark brown. The
consistency can be fluid, viscous, or partially to completely crystallized. The flavor and 
aroma vary but are derived from plant origin.
(e) Honey sold as described in subdivision (d) shall not have added to it any food 
ingredient, including food additives, nor shall any other additions be made other than
honey. Honey shall not have any foreign matter, or any flavor, aroma, or taint absorbed 
from foreign matter during its’ processing and storage. Honey shall not have begun to
ferment or effervesce and no pollen or constituent particular to honey may be removed 
except where unavoidable in the removal of foreign organic or inorganic matter.
(f) Honey shall meet the following standards:
1. Honey shall not be heated or processed to such and extent that its’ essential 
composition is changed or its’ quality impaired. 
2. Chemical or biochemical treatments shall not be used to influence honey 
crystallization. 
3. Honey shall not contain more than 18.6 percent moisture content. 
4. Honey shall not contain less than 60 percent fructose and glucose, combined. 
5. Honeydew honey and blends of honeydew honey with blossom honey shall not 
contain less than 45 percent fructose and glucose, combined. 
6. Blossom honey shall not contain more than 5 percent sucrose, except for the 
following: 
(A) Alfalfa (medicago sativa), citrus spp., false acacia (robinia pseudo acacia), French 
honeysuckle (Hedysarum), Menzies banksias (Banksia meniscii), red gum (Eucalypsis 
camaldulensis), leatherwood (Eucryphia lucida), and Eucryphia milligani may contain up 
to 10 percent sucrose. 
(B) Lavendar (Lavandula Spp.) and borage (Borago officinalis) may contain up to 15 
percent sucrose. 
7. Honey may contain the hive products beeswax and propolis.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

wildbranch2007 said:


> if you take a look at the studies and articles written on the subject, in almost all the ones I have looked at, the majority of the contamination in the hives is beek chemicals.
> If my honey was analyzed, I would expect no contamination as I have rotated out all the comb that had apistan and checkmite in it. thats in theory, except that the foundation that I buy still has it in it. But remember all "legal" chemical have a tolerance assigned to them, it's all the "illegal" chemicals that they can get you for.
> 
> the key question is do you want that standard to be Florida's ,N.Y., or whomevers, for you commercial guys that sell accross state lines I would think you would like to know what the restrictions are going to be b/4 you sell. My morning coffee must have kicked in, I was going to leave this thread alone.


I dont see anywhere in the SOI where it points out what legal and illegal chemical tolerance is in honey.

I do however see

"(e) Honey sold as described in subdivision (d) shall not have added to it any food 
ingredient, including food additives, nor shall any other additions be made other than
honey. Honey shall not have any foreign matter, or any flavor, aroma, or taint absorbed 
from foreign matter during its’ processing and storage."

Which clearly states there shall NOT be any other additions. So if they find chemicals not related to nectar but could be as minor ag chemical from lawn treatment its added unnaturally to the honey.

You make a good point about crossing state lines. That is another reason most commercial guys are against this. We dont want to be banned from selling our honey in Ohio or Kansas or anywhere else. If the lawyers determine we really need an SOI I dont want any STATE SOI but rather a national SOI so we dont interupt commerce.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

I have to go back and read bmacs stuff but wanted to post something I found this A.M. but didn't have time to do, in searching for the florida stuff found this from Calif.


http://www.perkinscoie.com/food-litigation-newsletter-11-01-2012/
Court Stings Plaintiff Who Claimed Honey Wasn’t “Honey”

In Brod v. Sioux Honey Assoc., No. 3:12-cv-01322 (N.D. Cal.), the court granted Sioux Honey's motion to dismiss in a proposed class action alleging that Sioux Honey violated state law by marketing its "Sue Bee Clover Honey" as "honey" even though the product contains no pollen. The court held that a California statute that essentially prohibits a product from being labeled as honey if it contains no pollen was preempted by federal law that allows foods not otherwise subject to specific regulatory definitions to be labeled with their common or usual names. Because there is no specific regulation pertaining to honey, federal law requires Sioux Honey's product to be labeled as “honey" in clear conflict with the state statute. The court noted that neither party disputed that Sue Bee Clover Honey meets the typical definition of honey found in dictionaries and that no definition requires honey to contain non-filtered pollen. The court dismissed defendants’ argument that plaintiff lacked standing, holding that "California law recognizes an injury when a product is mislabeled in violation of the law and consumers rely on that labeling in purchasing the product or paying more than they otherwise would have." A copy of the opinion can be found here. 


so I guess we would now have to get Webster to change the dictionary!! I do love this country, really!!!


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

BMAC said:


> I dont see anywhere in the SOI where it points out what legal and illegal chemical tolerance is in honey.
> 
> I do however see


thats because that come from the Fed's where when they let you use chemical/approve chemicals they say that food(honey) can't have more than xxppb. parts per billion or what ever. are we having fun yet, I talked to someone who was working on the writting of the SOI, so I didn't have much hope to start with. so when the farmer sprays his apples with gruthion and it gets in your hives as long as the ppb of your honey is below the label your golden. now if there is no label, or you exceed the allowed amount then you fail. go back to the post on antibiotics in honey, my original post was for the levels of fumidil found in the hive, I can't remember the exact words but the level found was below the acuracy of there testing and the things that it breakdown into can't/aren't tested for. It also says in the article that (as I read it) the light going through the bottle would continue to degrade fumidil further. I to would rather see a federal SOI, but don't bet on it.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Understand difference between state and feds. The proposed state reads 

"(e) Honey sold as described in subdivision (d) shall not have added to it any food 
ingredient, including food additives, nor shall any other additions be made other than
honey. Honey shall not have any foreign matter, or any flavor, aroma, or taint absorbed 
from foreign matter during its’ processing and storage."

State regs need be equally or more stringent than fed regs. With the statement "nor shall any other additions be made other than honey." clearly states it will only be honey. Regardless of the PPB of acceptable chemicals according to the feds the state says no other additions. Being these chemicals dont naturally occur in honey, then it is an addition.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Here is a recent example of ag chemicals getting into honey (vietnam) and the consequences. http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/portal/article.php?id=2907
Honey sells because of its reputation for being a pure product. but realistically, nothing is pure as the driven snow....
realistic tolerances should be set for honey , same as everything else, or just dont open that can of worms.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

BMAC said:


> Understand difference between state and feds. The proposed state reads
> 
> 
> 
> State regs need be equally or more stringent than fed regs. With the statement "nor shall any other additions be made other than honey." clearly states it will only be honey. Regardless of the PPB of acceptable chemicals according to the feds the state says no other additions. Being these chemicals dont naturally occur in honey, then it is an addition.


thats what I always thought but <---- I hate that word, in the Calif. case thats not what I read the court decided.
The court held that a California statute that essentially prohibits a product from being labeled as honey if it contains no pollen was preempted by federal law that allows foods not otherwise subject to specific regulatory definitions to be labeled with their common or usual names


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Wildbranch - can you site a court and case number? I am not aware of such a ruling, and thought there where cases pending in California and Florida over ultrafiltered honey.

crazy roland


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Roland said:


> Wildbranch - can you site a court and case number? I am not aware of such a ruling, and thought there where cases pending in California and Florida over ultrafiltered honey.
> 
> crazy roland


Brod v. Sioux Honey Assoc., No. 3:12-cv-01322 (N.D. Cal.) If you do a search on this you get some hits, one is a pay site that will probably give you more, two others haven't been verified by my security system so I don't go there. it was a federal court, and I saw no information on appeals, since it was federal I assume the Florida lawsuits will use it to get them thrown out also.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

You da man!!! I'm on it!!

crazy roland


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

In thinking about the results that Sioux Honey Assoc achieved, may not be what the commercial honey producers were looking to get out of the (SOI). would seem to me what Sioux achieved is to allow all that China ultrafiltered honey to enterer the country, so my theory is the price will start droppping as soon as they can start transhipping through vietnam etc.
Maybe what Sioux want but probably bad for the rest of us.:s


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

wildbranch2007 said:


> thats what I always thought but <---- I hate that word, in the Calif. case thats not what I read the court decided.
> The court held that a California statute that essentially prohibits a product from being labeled as honey if it contains no pollen was preempted by federal law that allows foods not otherwise subject to specific regulatory definitions to be labeled with their common or usual names


We may not have seen any appeals for this yet but I bet one is in the works based on the fed law.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

BMAC said:


> We may not have seen any appeals for this yet but I bet one is in the works based on the fed law.


who would do the appeal? small beeks don't care, large beeks and packers don't want pollen in honey, chinese don't want pollen in honey, the consumer? they don't even know about what is going on, lawyers? they want the easy win not the fight up to the supreme court, some state agency? they did there job and wrote the SOI?? The feds? they didn't want to write the SOI in the first place.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I gave the case number to my buddy who has access to case info. It appeared that they had a few miss steps, not proving an injury, and Federal law trumping state law. It looked to my like the plaintiffs where working on fine tuning there complaint by asking for an extension. I will report back when I have more accurate info.

This thing could blow up any direction, but no matter what, i think we are in for a bumpy ride, on the cusp of change.


Crazy Roland


----------

