On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:30:20 -0500, Eric Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>As an aside, I don’t mean to dispute Bill’s statement that tests of organic
>and non-organic honey have shown no differences at all, but I don’t think
>we should limit our definition of quality to what we can prove in a lab.

>All this to say that it’s in this holistic sense that I say the quality of
Brian’s honey is better.

I am sorry but I simply cannot let this pass. To say that one man's honey is
better, is to say that another's is worse. I know many beekeepers selling
honey in stores and at stands. They follow all the rules of conventional
beekeeping. They use only approved chemicals in approved ways, they do not
overheat their honey and have no way to filter it, even if they wanted to.

These people are producing a product of excellent quality though it would be
condemned by the so-called "organic" crowd. What is the problem? I have
overheard people say "Oh, you shouldn't eat honey. It has chemicals in it".
 Honey is still a wonderful product that is relatively free of pesticide
residues, especially compared to the fruit and vegetables we eat every day. 

I am no fool and I know we depend too much on pesticides, but misinformation
does nobody any good. If people want to pay extra and feel good about
products produced under rigorous specifications, that is their prerogative.
But why do we need to create a false sense of superiority by disparaging our
neighbors?

Herve

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---