....yet the NHB spent 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS co-promoting The Bee Movie as an educational film (where the girls tittered about, bees drove cars in the hive, and male bees harvest pollen with guns).
The industry has means....where is the will?
deknow
Printable View
....yet the NHB spent 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS co-promoting The Bee Movie as an educational film (where the girls tittered about, bees drove cars in the hive, and male bees harvest pollen with guns).
The industry has means....where is the will?
deknow
I agree with everything you said. However, I should have defined "local" as in the beekeeper personally selling their own honey, generally ala a farmer's market. I know not all farmer's market honey is legit, but that can usually be discerned in a conversation...same as with tomatoes, apples, veggies, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramona
I sure someone like you would have a tasting at one of the area groceries. At best, two chain groceries stock Virginia honey that tastes and appears like bulk package stuff. People buy honey thinking they're getting something they may or may not be.
The will to do what Dean? Educate over 300 million people about honey granulation with a budget that would be petty cash to McDonalds or InBev? Those packers that care about purity started TrueSource. It was started by packers committed to integrity who were tired of being underbid by the purveyors of rice syrup honey blends yet I even hear them getting bashed for selling honey that's not "real" simply because they are giving the consumer what they demand. I wish it was a simple task to educate a whole nation but it just isn't.
Well, if beekeepers and the whole beekeeping industry isn't willing to do it, it will never happen.
OTOH, beekeepers are willing to "educate" the nation that "local honey is good for your allergies" (apparently spring honey from area X helps with fall allergies in area X even though there is no common pollen content between the seasons....but honey from area Y is ineffective). If that kind of energy were spent (and note, this is not something that a lot of money gets spent promoting) regarding honey crystallization, a noticeable effect would be achieved.
deknow
I will do my part, you no doubt will do yours but the ignorance out there about honey is overwhelming. I can't even count how many times through the years I have had people tell me about the jar of honey they bought that spoiled even though it was kept in the refrigerator. :) But this is a nation where disclaimers are put on Viagra ads warning that their product doesn't protect against std's. good luck with a nationwide honey granulation lecture.
Goal or bottom line:...Selling imported honey in the United States of America and making profit.
Changing the definition of honey, redefining processing techniques, PR for the consumer to accept honey that looks and tastes like corn syrup, is all for that goal.
For the pitiful domestic beekeeper producer who does not add diatomaceous earth to their honey in preparation for removal of nasties like pollen, you are just bottling some quaint, uncouth product. Perhaps you will have to warn consumers that it contains allergic material.
If the Honey Board were really interested in representing the domestic producer, they would educate the consumer about "real" honey, not how they should accept processed, imported honey.
With regard to consumer education about honey, the California Milk Board alone spends $25-30 million dollars a year on milk advertising. Wisconsin spends a similar amount. Add in other diary states, and the Feds, and you have spending well over $100 million dollars a year on milk "education".
It will take many buckets (perhaps even totes):lookout: of money to re-educate the average consumer to prefer granulated honey.
(I'd post sources for my numbers, but consolidated figures are hard to come by. But Google "milk advertising budget" if you want.) :cool:
I am a bit "out of the mold" on the whole issue of imports. The US consumes around 400 million pounds each year, possibly even more. We produce around 150 million lbs. There are good people all over the world raising honey most of them small family owned businesses that includes many members here on Beesource. There are also greedy, dishonest folks trying to make some easy money importing a lot of stuff that isn't honey by any definition but is sold as such. I am in favor of importing legitimate honey as long as it passes testing protocols as being safe. Imports are not the problem it's the whole issue of honey authenticity.
Using an advertising model to perform education is not efficient. How much is spent in large advertising campaigns wrt local honey and allergies? How much was spent by the industry to bring the level of "CCD awareness" that we have today?
Generally, if something like the California milk board spends $25 million in advertising, it is mostly because they have a budget of 25million, not a demonstrated need for $25 million in advertising.
deknow
Jim...are you saying that your crystallized honey is moldy? :)
Seriously though, I agree with Jim...focusing on quality (and purity) rather than country of origin is much more important.
deknow
Proud to say, thanks to the hard work of Mr. Heatherly and Dr. Ambrose, NC now has a honey standard. See http://www.rtpnet.org/ncsba/Honey%20Standard.pdf. We've made every effort in NC to education our bee product purchasers and always suggest to them that they know their beekeeper!
....these standares are always problematic. For instance, from the one posted above:
Quote:
The sucroe content of honey must not be more than 5 grams per 100 grams of the product unless the honey is labeled as a particular floral source. In that case the sucrose content may be higher, if it is properly labeled as to floral source.
The above is both too specific and not specific enough. It is absurd that the same honey would qualify as legit with a high sucrose content as a specific floral source, and not legit if it were labeled as wildflower honey.
deknow
My opinion, if you start with honey going in, filtering etc....., you get honey out as long as you're not adding anything. Removing pollen meets a demand and produces a product for a specific market, just label it as such. Personally I hate granulated honey, it's hard to work with, especially if it's a large crystal granulation. A fine granulation is ok though, but again, when I'm in the kitchen the last thing I want to do is fight a bottle of honey for it's contents. Perhaps it's more of a packaging thing, really hard to get into those little mouth containers to scoop out granulated honey, which is why I stick to jars for mine.
I believe it's 3 floral sources that will not granulate. Tupelo (I think white tupelo specifically) being one of them, another is a tropical flower I believe, can't recall the 3rd. In the end, the glucose to fructose ratio is what drives the process, but other factors can speed it along, solids etc... that act as crystallization points (i.e pollen, wax, bee parts). The information is out there but it seems no one really wants to pursue it. Even with threads on this forum, a lot of people here do not know what drives crystallization, and a lot of people just think it's a byproduct of 'raw' honey.
"Several states are in the process of passing laws or regulations establishing a legal definition of honey because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ignored repeated requests to do so. A legal definition could result in a ban on the sale of honey where the pollen has been removed."
From the new article (February 2013): Honey laundering: fraud on the shelves?
http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/...aundering.html
Bravo!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tia
I am sorry, but if the bees make honey and some pollen is in it, it SHOULD be left in it. Remove the pollen, and it is no longer honey, but rather "Depollened honey" and should be labeled as such. If I removed the great smell of VSOP cognac, would be worth less? I did not remove much, just a little.
As to those that don't like large crystalled honey, buy honey with the pollen not removed, the pollen grains help to seed the crystals and make a smaller crystal.
I am not sold o Truessource. They count honeydew as honey.They Do however look for pollen, but only have one accredited lab that they work with, hmmmmmm. They should rather define the lab procedure, and let any accredited lab perform the procedure. Sounds like there will be a market in China for foreign pollen.
Crazy Roland
So far I have seen no links to any "Tests [which] Show Most Honey Isn't Honey". Where are the Links.
Hi MarkQuote:
Originally Posted by sqkcrk
I guess the source is in original post (I did not check):
"....
•100 percent of the honey packaged in the small individual service portions from Smucker, McDonald’s and KFC had the pollen removed. "
From: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/1.../#.UQ1sbh3m1n5
Boris Romanov
...."
It says that the pollen was removed. It didn't say that it isn't honey. The pollen was removed from the honey. If you remove pollen from honey, what remains? Honey, right? Therefore, I think his Thread Title is a misstatement, an inaccurate statement of facts.
I fully agree Mark.