To conceal its origin?
Or as suggested by one packer, because that's what the consumer wants?
To conceal its origin?
Or as suggested by one packer, because that's what the consumer wants?
"It's no secret to anyone in the business that the only reason all the pollen is filtered out is to hide where it initially came from and the fact is that in almost all cases, that is China,"
'The Sioux Honey Association, who says it's America's largest supplier, declined repeated requests for comments on ultra-filtration, what Sue Bee does with its foreign honey and whether it's ultra-filtered when they buy it. The co-op markets retail under Sue Bee, Clover Maid, Aunt Sue, Natural Pure and many store brands.'
I think the authors of this article are confusing ultra filtered Chinese honey with how North American packers normally filter liquid honey, thru a filter
press,which just happens to remove all the pollen.The reason is to give the product a longer shelf life by not granulating .It just happens that both products do not contain pollen, the Chinese product contains considerably less honey attributes.Of course this similarity aids those who are packing both products
If, as stated in the article, the only way to determine the origin of honey is via pollen, then regardless of how it is removed there is no longer any way to determine its source. That surely opens the door for a load of opportunistic profiteering.
The other thing that this begs to question is, if we remove all of the pollen, have we not produced simply a sterile, albeit natrually created sweetener? And if that's the case, why should honey command a premium over granulated sugar?
I suspect that if the consuming public had any idea.....the market for grocery store honey would disappear.
Pollen grains are pretty large when compared to cellular debris. There's probably enough nucleic acids left to make a determination as to the origin.
Frankly, it makes it much easier if all of the pollen, with its load of polymerase inhibiting polyphenols, is already removed from the sample.
They can filter, but they can't hide.
Or, are you saying that a persistent investigator with access to the technology and unlimited resources could determine the origin without any remaining pollen?
If there's no pollen to examine, palynology wouldn't be possible.
And frankly, without palynology, other tests wouldn't have the kind of corroboration needed.
"Or, are you saying that a persistent investigator with access to the technology and unlimited resources could determine the origin without any remaining pollen?"
I'm not sure why you would think that a modestly equiped laboratory couldn't handle simple barcoding/fingerprinting chores.
It's not outrageously expensive to do. A well trained Palynologist is harder to find..
Besides, unless U.S. honey producers want to be overrun by funny honey, you're going to need to develop new testing options.
"The Sioux Honey Association, who says it's America's largest supplier, declined repeated requests for comments on ultra-filtration, what Sue Bee does with its foreign honey and whether it's ultra-filtered when they buy it. The co-op markets retail under Sue Bee, Clover Maid, Aunt Sue, Natural Pure and many store brands."
I wonder if our own Ted Kretschmann, whose company is a member of the Sioux Honey Association would care to comment.
None of this just hardly bothers me at all. Reason being, the way I see it, won't it only make OUR product of "the real thing" for lack of better terminlolgy for home produced raw honey, more in demand? Isn't all this publicity about smuggled honey possibly containing bad metals ect. good for us as beekeepers and local honey producers?
Don't get me wrong. I care about any dangerous food product on the market for the the comsumer here as anyone does because I'm a consumer too. I hope that last statement doesn't make me contridicting my own point.
I happen to be far more concerned about what Monsanto is doing.
Thanks for post the link, this is great marketing material.
250 Articles, reports on honey and its adulteration and detecting adulteration in honey from Dr White
It would seem with todays technology one should be easily able to discern what 's adulterated, in honey and with precisely what. I guess not.
I recently read an article article titled So is it honey or not? published on honeybeesuite.com on this subject. Apart from other claims and views, I was particularly interested with one statement made and asked (Deniz Ogut, being me) as a comment:
A reply was published (Rusty, most probably Rusty Burlew, copyright owner of the site):Quote:
December 4, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Part of the confusion stems from the definition of honey used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That organization states that if honey has been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen, it cannot be labeled as honey.
Where do they say this? Would you please mention a source?
Then, I posted another comment, which was not published and seems to be unapproved/deleted for some reason.:scratch: For sure, every site owner has the right to approve or not to approve a comment, but -in my opinion- there's something wrong if we use this right not to make public the facts which are not supporting what we've said. Anyway; my comment/question was something like as follows (I haven't saved a copy for myself):Quote:
December 5, 2011 at 7:58 am
The statement was made in a letter from FDA press officer Tamara Ward to honey industry leaders. It was meant to clarify the definition of adulterated food, which can be found in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Section 402(b)(1). That citation reads, “A food shall be deemed to be adulterated if any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom.”
So I came back to my hive, beesource.com Forum.:D Any comments?Quote:
When I was asking my original question, I had "United States Standards for Grades of Extracted Honey published in the FEDERAL REGISTER of April 23, 1985 (50 FR 15861)" in mind. Its available for download on USDA Web site. There clearly states that, there's nothing wrong with filtering honey to the extent that it contains no pollen: "§52.1393 Styles. (a) Filtered. Filtered honey is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed." Even further, the more you filter the higher grade you get for "filtered honey". From your reply I get the impression that there's no official statement such as "if all the pollen is filtered out of honey, we can not call it honey anymore", made by FDA. Yet, its still interesting if a press officer of FDA stated such -even in a letter clarifying, commenting on a general rule. A letter of a press officer is not of equal value with a federal standard regulation, but it might be a standing point for further discussion and maybe for altering the standard itself. Is it possible for you to supply us with a source we ordinary Internet users can reach regarding that letter of the press officer?
There may be a number of different levels to discuss might be but not restricted to:
* Regulations regarding ultrafiltration of honey
* Is there any rule againgst filtering all the honey from honey by means of a) ultrafiltration, and b)any other method other than ultrafiltration
* Apart from federal regulation, what's your opinion on filtering honey (as opposed to straining)
* In your opinion is some amount of pollen particle a must for honey to call it honey?
* Is there anybody who knows something on that alleged letter of "the press officer"?
No, I don't think there is a rule, regulation or law against filtering all pollen from honey. There is no ingresdient list on honey. Like Ice Cream. But, there is no Standard of Identity defining what honey is and what it must conyain to qualify as honey.
I don't filter mine. I strain. So, I don't really have an opinion, other than, "How can it really be honey w/out pollen present?" I also think it would be impossible for honey producers to meet pollen content requirements, unless they were pretty wide.
I think we must define "ultra filtering" or" ultra-filtration"
From wiki a definition
Ultrafiltered honey is processed by very fine filtration under high pressure to remove all extraneous solids and pollen grains. The process typically heats honey to 150–170 °F (approx. 65–77 °C) to more easily pass through the fine filter. Ultrafiltered honey is very clear and has a longer shelf life; it crystallizes more slowly because the high temperature breaks down sugar seed crystals, making it preferred by the supermarket trade.
I think the Chinese refined this process by adding water before filtering and evaporating it after filtering and were able to remove chloramphenicol , heavy metals and other undesirable contents to below detectable levels.The product was along ways from what we call honey
I was fairly shocked to see that the major stores carry these kinds of honey, but thankfully I have been using local honey for years.
"The reason is to give the product a longer shelf life by not granulating "
Does granulation affect shelf life?? I belived it only changed consistency?
"I don't filter mine."
- excellent and important point. I tell my customers that my smallest screen is 1/16 inch. It will definitely let the pollen through but may keep the " bees knees" in.
In NC, the Standard of Identity for Sourwood Honey states that if Labeled "Sourwood" 50% of the honey in the jar has to be Sourwood Honey, maybe it is 51%. How would anyone determine percentage once the honeys are mixed? And, if someone takes their honey off in the fall and extracts the whole crop at once, then labels it sourwood, who is to say it isn't? How do they establish that it isn't? As long as it tastes like Sourwood.