Mike Tooley wrote >If the > Australians are looking and testing for it,this implies that they have > decided it is not meeting the legal definition of honey.Is that true? I think everyone agrees UF honey does not meet the Codex. It has all the solids taken out including things like ash. So it is easy to detect and being UF does not meet the Codex definition for honey. So it is not "honey" any longer. A bit like oils ain't oils (if you have that ad in the rest of the world). Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::