Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn’t Honey

[cerezha]

... 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... Offense is often taken where none was intended, at least in the first exchanges...

Well, welcome! This is really good place to ask a question. It is sometime not good place to receive friendly knowledgeable answer. In the best case, you may receive three answers: for, against and that both above are wrong... in the worse case, you will be a subject of "bulling" by "big boys"... it is sometime rough place... but, I have to admit - many people here are very nice, knowledgeable and sincerely trying to help - I deeply respect this part of the beesource.

[max2]

Very impressive, 133 kilos (~270 lb) per hive per year! In US, I believe, the average is 45-60 lb, which is roughly 23-30 kilos. If it is true, it just tells me that US beekeeping practices are not so efficient and may be it is time to learn from others?

I would never asume that I'm a " better" beekeeper then others on this forum. My climate is generally kind to us and I have trees and ground flora providing beeforage flowering most of the year.
In a decent year I can harvest about an average of 150 kg/hive and have never to feed the bees with supplements.

[max2]

Max2,

I like this part of your post: "... maybe simply not good enough to turn these young people onto honey?"
I wish you all the best in your business!

Boris Romanov

Thanks Boris. I do believe that our work of educating people - and young people specially - is never finished. When I grew up in Switzerland ( late 40's and 50's) we had little access to " bad" food. Honey was honey, milk was milk - we had no access to soft drinks or fast food. There are so many choices for children these days and buying food needs awareness.

[cerezha]

I would never asume that I'm a " better" beekeeper then others on this forum....

Why not - ability to learn is useful! If your bees produce 250-300 lb of honey without supplements - may be there is something, other people may learn from you. Also, your Swiss origin may bring additional "swiss" experience. My wife is 1/2 Swiss and she just returned from the trip to Switzerland. She was so impressed how Swiss people retain the taste to the natural food - fresh milk from actually cow, seems impossible in US these days and cheeeeeese! I love this!

[cerezha]

Originally Posted by Kieck
Wait. Hold on a minute. You eat ketchup, Boris? You worry about pollen counts and preservation of enzymes and possible contamination with HFCS in the honey ......

I have to admit that I also eat ketchup... and sometime other bad stuff... fries! The rationale is that because I have relatively healthy life-style AND eat raw, whole, 102% local honey - I create sort of "protection" for not so healthy stuff. I feel, I could eat ketchup from time-to-time without much harm to my body. I used to eat sugar - not anymore - honey, honey, honey... In my opinion, the benefits of the whole honey with all enzymes AND pollen in it compensate for ketchup and other stuff.

[Kieck]

It is sort of the joke on the usage the word "organic"... -cerezha

Sorry, Sergey. I thought maybe you were one of that extremely rare breed who had gone through the organic certification process. I hoped I might get a bit of the details on how the certification process works.

Ironic that I made such a mistake in a thread concerning labeling/mislabeling/incomplete labeling/overuse of generic terms in labeling, I guess.

I have to admit that I also eat ketchup... -cerezha

Make no mistake, I eat ketchup, too. And any number of other foods, processed and otherwise. But I'm not making public statements blasting businesses and individuals who produce and pack those foods. I tend to eat a wide range of things, and, I think, mostly in moderation.

I doubt that honey is a general health elixir or a panacea. As far as I know, roughly 80 percent of honey is sugars. Add another 17 percent for water, and sugars+water=~97%.

[Boris]

...I do believe that our work of educating people - and young people specially - is never finished...

The statements similar to this: "Generally, honey is classified by the floral source of the nectar from which it was made. Honeys can be from specific types of flower nectars or can be blended after collection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey
is also a part of consumer education.

Max2,

Is it legal in your country to sell honey without mentioning of the floral source of the nectar?
Please see my post #494.

Boris Romanov

[Kieck]

It does allow that if you don't know the nectar source, you can call it "wildflower honey"...

...when you buy a jar of honey at a retail store that says Pure Clover Honey, it should be pure clover honey.Just because the honey has a light color the producer of that honey should be made to back up that claim.

Seen honey on the shelf from a local producer the other day, in clear jars, who was selling clover creamed honey, and wild flower creamed honey. Both honeys were the same white honey colour. It would pass for maybe canola honey, but not wild flower honey. Wild flower honey typically is dark from around here.

But many years ago I did not see "unknown" Honey in my local stores.
And a truthful solution is very simple. For example, ... honey labeled as Wild Flower Honey.

The idea expressed in some of the posts in this thread that honey from undetermined floral sources should be labeled "wildflower honey" has been nagging at the back of my mind for a bit. I see this as really rendering the modifier "wildflower" meaningless. If "wildflower honey" could come from any undetermined floral source, how is the term any more accurate or truthful in labeling than simply calling it "honey?"

[lazy shooter]

How about labeling "stuff shook out of a bee hive?"

[apis maximus]

The idea expressed in some of the posts in this thread that honey from undetermined floral sources should be labeled "wildflower honey" has been nagging at the back of my mind for a bit. I see this as really rendering the modifier "wildflower" meaningless. If "wildflower honey" could come from any undetermined floral source, how is the term any more accurate or truthful in labeling than simply calling it "honey?"

Good point.Well, the term multi-floral could be used. In some European countries, specially those that have Latin at the root of their language, honey that comes from many, or a multitude of floral sources are labeled MultiFloral. France is one of those countries...Also Italy....Look up the word multi as a prefix in the English language. Or, the term poly (Greek: many, much; too many, too much, excessive; often used as a prefix) is used to designate honey from multiple floral sources in some places. Romania, which also has Latin as the base of its language, but also uses a lot of prefixes from Greek, uses the term PolyFloral Honey.

[Kieck]

Why not just "honey?"

[apis maximus]

Why not just "honey?"

Fine by me
So, if someone does try to offer single source floral honey ( which for sure cannot be always 100% uni/single-source but could be close enough)...just call it honey?

OK, why don't they?

Orange Blossom Honey...Carrot Blossom Honey...Blueberry Honey...Blackberry Honey... and on and on for all the varieties so intensely marketed out there. They are all honey no doubt. But clearly, they look different, taste different...are different. Or not?

[Kieck]

I see no reason why they couldn't just label them all "honey." However, I expect they get a premium price for varietal honeys that appeal to certain portions of the market, which would encourage identification if and when possible.

[brooksbeefarm]

How about Raw unheated,strained, not filtered honey from local nectar and pollen sources. From the bees to the beekeeper to you.

[Kieck]

Sure. To my way of thinking, honey packers can use labeling to differentiate their product from the rest of the market. As long as what you use to describe it is accurate, I don't see any harm in it.

I might leave off the "pollen" in that list. Honey is not made from pollen. And "local" is relative. If you ship a case of honey 200 miles, is it still "local?" I'd opt for putting the location where the honey was collected on the label instead. Let the consumers determine if it's "local" to them. But those are just my biases.

[apis maximus]

However, I expect they get a premium price for varietal honeys that appeal to certain portions of the market, which would encourage identification if and when possible.

Sure they do. Variety is great. Since we are communicating through words and signs and symbols...you would have to say/write something to differentiate all that variety -of honey in this case- that exists and it is marketed out there.
Labeling, in a broad way...makes sense. People like to believe that if it says one thing on the label, it must be true...It used to be in this country, where one's word was enough. Trust is a very fine thing...in very limited supply nowadays.
Sadly, in many circumstances...one's word...written or not...has become an illusion. A fake... Of course none of us here would fake it...from the honey we sell...to what we say on the labels on those beautiful jars. Of course not.

But since US is consuming approx 400 mil lbs...but only produces 150 mil lbs...there lies a great opportunity...and why not...a great temptation.

It's not just with honey...look at the food in general...horse meat or donkey meat anyone? Nothing wrong with either one...as long as the label will call it what it is.

And like you said in a previous post about maple syrup...If you read on the label that it was maple syrup, and you liked it, you never assumed it was not maple syrup...because the label said so. And it should ALWAYS be like that. Sadly it is not the case.

Deception, misdirection, misinformation, disinformation and fraud...is something we did not invent today...it has been out there forever.

Get informed as the saying goes...Right?

But here we are, beekeepers, and after +500 posts, still have a hard time agreeing on what honey is or what is not. USDA, FDA, EU-Codex...all kinds of definitions, all kinds of descriptions...sure enough.
Get informed. Yeah...Good luck on that.

[cerezha]

.... Honey is not made from pollen. ....

Honey made mainly from nectar on the bee-kitchen hidden in the beehive. You DO NOT know what else was added to initial nectar to convert it into the honey. Since girls "kitchen" apparently quite messy and girls did not wash their legs when work honeycomb - pollen unavoidably get into the honey purposely or by accident. It is stupid to repeat again and again that pollen is not integral PART of the honey. It is you, who publish here UN standard - it includes pollen in the honey. Healthy value of the whole raw honey is in the pollen, proteins, beneficial chemicals and other micro-elements, which together constitute may be 1% of the honey content. But, these "elements" made honey different from syrup.

[cerezha]

I see no reason why they couldn't just label them all "honey." ...

Sure, let's call all American cars just a "car", no brand names, no make etc. You guys speak to non-sense - any normal customer wanted to see as many details on his/her purchase as possible, it made them feel good.

[cerezha]

.... I eat ketchup, too. And any number of other foods, processed and otherwise. But I'm not making public statements blasting businesses and individuals who produce and pack those foods....

I do not see any problem when somebody exhibit concerns regarding the quality of the product. I was not aware that honey minus some ingredients is equal "honey". The situation in packaging business was very educational to me. If this thread would not exist, I would not know WHAT fellow beekeepers called "honey". I feel, this thread made it very clear who is who in this battle and smart consumers will made their decisions partially based on this thread, which is searchable via Internet and available to everyone.

[cerezha]

... I doubt that honey is a general health elixir or a panacea. As far as I know, roughly 80 percent of honey is sugars. Add another 17 percent for water, and sugars+water=~97%.

You wrong! Honey is known to be used in medicine for probably 2000 years. It is mentioned in literally all known ancient sources as beneficial to human health. Please, do not ask for references, just search Google. You just contradict yourself: if it has no benefits, why consumers must pay premium price for "honey" rather use just a syrup? My logic is that because, consumer feels that "honey" is more than simple syrup. So, they agree to pay more for something, that makes honey better than syrup.

Proverbs 16:24 ESV
Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.