NYS Standard of Identity (SOI)

[wildbranch2007]

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]

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]

<--- 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]

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-h...finition-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]

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]

.

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/2011/1...ey-isnt-honey/

[BMAC]

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]

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

[sqkcrk]

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]

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]

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]

Paper trail.

[wildbranch2007]

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]

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]

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]

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-liti...er-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]

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]

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]

Here is a recent example of ag chemicals getting into honey (vietnam) and the consequences. http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/po...le.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]

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