Susan Neilsen opined:

>I do not think pollen should be eaten by humans, and I do not think it
>is responsible for beekeepers to sell it.
>
>There.
>
>The reasons are these: While I don't question that pollen is a
>concentrated source of proteins, I recognize also that in flower
>pollen there is a concentration of materials from the environment
>of the growing plant. The pollen of a flower is just hanging out
>there while the flower develops. Anything sprayed on the plant,
>anything that drifts by, anything at all, sticks to the pollen
>and stays there. The bee collects it and takes it home and tucks
>it away in the cupboard. And there is a whole lot of stuff that
>drifts across the surface of a flower these days.

        1  I disclose my interest as a consultant to a retailer of 'bee
pollen' capsules.
        2  That role has not at all altered my attitude to pollen as a
human food supplement.
        3  Susan's theory would apply approximately to nectar also,
wouldn't it?  To the extent that nectar is less "hanging out there" than
anthers are, the concentration by evaporation would roughly compensate, I
theorize.  At this rate, honey is predicted to be so laden with toxins from
the environment that it becomes unfit for human consumption.

        Fact will always matter more than theory in such matters.  What are
the facts about toxins in pollen  -  and in honey?

R