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."