Wait a minute isn't a real reflection just a reflection? Nope not going there.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney
By your same logic, you've never offered proof that you have "LIVE" bees, either, Boris.Reminder - no answers to your questions without real proofs that you are a beekeeper, who has LIVE bees... -Boris
And, by that same logic, you haven't demonstrated any evidence that you are a processor and canner of tomatoes, yet you're offering opinions on ketchup.
Seriously, I did send you everything you need to verify that I have bees. I sent you the links to the location and registration maps for the state is South Dakota along with my name. I sent you the phone number of the state apiarist here and told you to contact him and verify that I have bees. And I posted in this thread that I had done so. Your failure to verify this for yourself looks very poorly for your ability to fact check, I think.
I also invited you to come visit and witness my apiaries for yourself. When can I expect you, Boris?
Unsubscribing this Thread from my Subscribed Threads
"If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."
Well, I've read almost 500 posts and feel quite a bit dumber than when I started, but despite this, I still have a couple of questions.
Is anyone concerned that the relative lack of standards in American honey may be a source of consumer disillusionment at some point? Could it end up hurting American producers if folks come to believe that there's no way they can know where their honey was produced, and under what management and processing procedures?
I understand that in a number of other first-world countries, it is is illegal to sell honey which has had the pollen removed. I wonder if some forum members from these countries would be willing to chime in and say what, if any, problems these regulations have caused producers.
I guess I'm asking if there is a severe downside to being able to confirm where and how honey was produced? I guess consumers would have to be re-educated to accept lesser clarity, but maybe that wouldn't be impossible. I have to say that the raw honey I've tried is almost always a lot better tasting than the commodity honey I used to buy at the supermarket.
Frankly, I think that it is not the function of government to tell us what honey is.
Further, I believe that market pressure is sufficient to police inferior products - that when a consumer compares one product to the other only products that provide adequate value for their money will be repurchased.
I think we have been depending too much on Big Brother to tell us what we produce, and been too lax in our marketing if consumers can't tell what real honey is.
A superior product properly priced to reflect it's value will always sell better than an inferior fraudulent one priced as if it were good, so long as that superior product is properly marketed.
If a consumer can but once be induced to try real honey, he will never be satisfied by a diluted imitation.
Let's solve our own problems through quality product and marketing.
The government is no good at solving problems anyway, they usually just make them worse.
And let us not presume that just because the government says a thing, that their saying so makes it true, as in "If it doesn't have pollen, it is not honey."
We all know what honey is, and we all know that pollen isn't honey.
And honey with pollen filtered out is honey with the pollen filtered out, not something else.
Let consumers decide if they are satisfied with that junk, and let us produce such good honey that we make sure they're not!
I love "commodity honey"!
As for the lack of standards, US is ahead of many "first-world countries" - I find it very disturbing that US standards related to health (if any) often 10x worse that European or Japanese. In many cases, the standards just do not exist as for honey. It seems to me, the interests of big companies prevail in US policies. As I explained in my previous post - since there is no regulation on honey and honey is commodity without a standard, I will recommend to my friends, family etc. do not purchase the product labeled just "Honey", because it may be anything. I will also provide free of charge the whole, raw, unheated, 102% edit: "organic" honey from my beehives in Santa Monica to all my friends and family.
Last edited by cerezha; 02-19-2013 at 09:43 PM. Reason: organic => "organic" clarification
I have to admit that I'm often dubious about the government when it comes offering help. But I think there's a place for regulation, too. If there was no regulation at all, what would prevent a canny businessperson from selling flavored and colored syrup as honey? It might not be very tasty, but it would to some extent diminish the ability of legitimate producers to sell real honey. I guess the best thing to hope for is that regulation strikes some sort of happy medium between too much and not enough. That's why I was wondering how producers in other countries that require honey to have pollen think that policy has worked out.
In looking into this further, there was a weird EU court case that ruled that GMO pollen in honey rendered it unsalable... but that seems to be yielding to common sense now.
How did you feel about the tariffs placed on Chinese honey? Was that a legitimate use of government power?
BTW, I spent the first couple years of my life in Elmira, where my grandfather was a sideline beekeeper. He's been gone fifty years, so I doubt you'd have known him, but he was a great man.
Tariffs on foreign goods in general, and dubious ones in particular are:
1) good for the economy in general, and give consumers motivation to buy goods produced here, and
2) one of the few legitimate means of the federal government to raise revenue.
Before property and income taxes, tariffs were the primary revenue source...and there were times when they had a budget problem: what to do with the surplus revenue.
If you want to discuss political things, though, probably ought to PM or pick up the conv on the Coffee Klatch forum, I expect
"Is anyone concerned that the relative lack of standards in American honey may be a source of consumer disillusionment at some point? "
I posted this experience elsewhere on besource..
We had a bunch of US students staying here in January for a few days. Many purchased honey from me ( with pollen, I may add) to take home and commented that they never tasted honey of this quality at home. Most would not have access to a beekeeper and the stuff they buy at super markets maybe simply not good enough to turn these young people onto honey?
Finally. Good questions, rhaldridge. Important questions, I think.Is anyone concerned that the relative lack of standards in American honey may be a source of consumer disillusionment at some point? Could it end up hurting American producers if folks come to believe that there's no way they can know where their honey was produced, and under what management and processing procedures? -rhaldridge
As far as a lack of standards, I believe the standards are in place. Just within the U. S., these standards have been set up the USDA:
When was the last time you saw "U. S. Grade A Light Amber Honey" labeled and offered for sale as such? The failure, I think, is not on the part of the standards. The failure is on the marketing side to market honey clearly labeled to those standards. Nothing prevents honey packers from putting such labels on their products.
To take it a step further, if you chose to differentiate your honey in the marketplace by labeling it (just as an example): "U. S. Grade A Honey, Dark Amber, Extracted, Unfiltered, Unheated," I see no reason that you couldn't.
Of course, I doubt many packers would want to label their honey to the grade standards if their product is even U. S. Grade B. Similar grades are used for other products. How often do you see Grade B cheese in grocery stores? How often do you see Grade B eggs labeled as such? The immediate perception in the minds of buyers is "Grade A is better than Grade B."
As far as labeling for where honey is produced, I see a real marketing advantage in doing just that. "Locavore" movements are catching on. Any number of people seem to want food produced nearby, for various reasons. The point here, I think, is that labeling of this sort shouldn't have to be legislated.
The U. N. has standards for honey, found here (and, like the USDA standards, linked in posts earlier in this thread): http://www.codexalimentarius.org/inp...0/cxs_012e.pdf.I understand that in a number of other first-world countries, it is is illegal to sell honey which has had the pollen removed. -rhaldridge
How and where enforcement occurs, I'm not sure. But the standards are in place.
The problem that comes with deliberately removing pollen is that it removes the evidence of where that honey was produced. However, as has been pointed out already in this thread, pollen is really a contaminant in honey, both from pollen introduced environmentally in the hive and pollen introduced in to the honey through the extraction process. And some honeys may naturally have not pollen (i. e., honeydew honey).
In some instances, honey is ultra filtered to remove antibiotic and pesticide residues, and the pollen obviously is removed at the same time. My guess is that if honey that was handled in this fashion was required to be labeled as such, at least some consumers might even seek it out. "Ultrafiltered" carries a connotation in the minds of quite a few people that it must be better. "Ultrafiltered" sounds like an improvement over "filtered," doesn't it?
Possibly. Or possibly they tried a food that they simply had never chosen to purchase in the past. I've watched enough people shopping in grocery stores to believe that few people really consider the quality of various items. If it's displayed prominently and labeled attractively, and if the product is an item that the person has consumed in the past, a grocery item needs to quality statement to appeal to consumers, I think. Look at any number of items. Processed cheeses sell well. Artificial pancake syrups sell well. White bread sells well. Any number of other items could be listed similarly.Many purchased honey from me ( with pollen, I may add) to take home and commented that they never tasted honey of this quality at home. -max2
And, in the U. S., much more honey is consumed than is produced domestically.
During my last visit to the local ShopRite superstore, I have seen some products from ShopRite and BeeMaid that were labeled as Honey without mentioning/indication of the floral source of the nectar.
Formally, it's legal: " The name of a plant or blossom may be used if it is the primary floral source for the honey."
But many years ago I did not see "unknown" Honey in my local stores.
And a truthful solution is very simple. For example, my honey labeled as Wild Flower Honey.
Last edited by Boris; 02-20-2013 at 08:45 AM.
At the risk of sending this thread down yet another rabbit hole and sending it onward another 500 posts (maybe I should just start a new thread), I'm interested in this aspect of it:
I've read through the standards for certification, and I'm finally in a position to run hives on land that could likely qualify (at least as I read the standards), but I'd like to know how the certification process actually goes. Would you be willing to provide some details? How often do you have to submit records and samples for testing? What sorts of things would you advise for someone starting into the process?... organic honey from my beehives ... -cerezha
Good reply! I actually started a new thread on this subject yesterday, and was quickly informed of the existence of this one. In embarrassment, I asked the mod to delete my thread, and went to this one, hoping to get the answers I'd wanted from the one I started. Unfortunately, there was a lot more heat than light. Some useful stuff mingled in here and there, but as someone pointed out, online discussions are not at all like face-to-face ones. Offense is often taken where none was intended, at least in the first exchanges.
max2: is Australia one of the countries that require honey to have pollen?
Beregondo: No politics intended, I swear. You said, if I understood you correctly, that the government shouldn't interfere with the honey market, and I offered an example of interference that I thought acceptable.
max2: is Australia one of the countries that require honey to have pollen?
I tried to check but could not find an actual description.
We sell honey ( we only have about 15 hives and produce about 2000 kg a year) from home, at farmers and other markets and onr super market.
At stall we display educational material showing how WE produce honey and people can taste our honey. it works for us.
The super market sells processors honey as well as honey from a number of beekeepers. They buy quite a lot of honey from us. Our honey has moved from the botton shelf up. We have a simple but attractive label and mostly depend on repeat sales.
Last edited by Boris; 02-19-2013 at 05:29 PM.
Kieck, you misrepresent my statement. I stated that I CALL my honey "100 and 2%" organic. In my case, "organic" is referred to "organic matter" and have nothing to do to "organic" products in the market. It is sort of the joke on the usage the word "organic" - in fact, my honey contains 2% of additional organic matter (bee parts, wax, mud etc). I would never claim that any honey is organic in the sense how it is used on the market (organic milk etc).