Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

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

24K views 112 replies 30 participants last post by  AndreiRN 
#1 ·
I keep on reading on how big of a threat transshipped Chinese honey is. They try every trick in the book and some of them are pretty obvious. Honey coming in from places that don't have the hives to produce the amount being shipped. Barrels labeled as syrup or something else. It just seems that every time someone blows the whistle it's not really taken seriously. Or that's the way it seems. The Chinese government isn't going to do a thing about it. It's not in their best interests to. Money coming in means money for the government. Our Government isn't going to do anything about it because cheap honey benefits the packers. It does so more ways than one. Cost of supply. They pay .75 cents a pound for the cheap stuff as opposed to the domestic stuff. Importing the honey serves to keep domestic prices down. I commend anyone who makes a decent living just selling honey to the packers. The big question is why isn't the Government really doing something about this? Why doesn't the AHB try to protect U.S. Beekeepers? It seems to me that they have lost their way. Why haven't U.S. Beekeepers banded together and screamed about their livelihood being whittled away bit by bit?
 
#75 ·
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
 
#76 ·
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.
 
#77 · (Edited)
...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
 
#81 ·
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
 
#82 ·
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.
 
#85 ·
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".:rolleyes:

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.:sleep:

deknow
 
#90 ·
Unfortunately, his business has suffered quite a bit at the hands of U.S. producers who are selling HFCS adulterated honey as "pure".:rolleyes:

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?
 
#87 ·
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
 
#89 ·
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.
 
#88 ·
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)
 
#91 ·
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 :rolleyes: 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
 
#97 ·
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
 
#92 ·
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
 
#93 ·
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.
 
#99 ·
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."
 
#100 ·
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
 
#101 ·
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?
 
#102 ·
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.
 
#106 · (Edited)
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.
 
#107 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top