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 ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::