Allen said:

> The reporter then goes on to mention UF honey, and suggest that some
> suppliers may be blending a percentage of UF honey into legitimate,
> non-UF honey in order to hide the substandard product, to lighten the
> colour of the real honey, to lower their costs, and to gain an unfair
> price advantage.

> If this is the case, such use of UF honey amounts to adulteration...

Clearly.

I found out this week that "the US honey industry" (such as it is),
does not appear to read Bee-L, and has never heard of isotope ratio
analysis of the water component of products claimed to be "pure".

I got a call from the president of the American Honey Producers about an
unrelated issue, and he apologized for not calling me sooner, explaining
that he had several pressing problem issues on his "AHPA" stack.  I asked
about his problems, just to be nice, and one of them was that "no one had
a way to detect the 'Ultrafiltered stuff'".  I'm not sure who they consulted,
but clearly none of them had ever put any money into orange futures.  (The water

isotope test is standard practice in the fruit juice business, and
"fresh squeezed" OJ is always tested to verify that it is not "from
concentrate".)

So, now that those with more at stake than most of us have a lead on a
practical test protocol, perhaps there will be some enforcement to back
up the FDA's ruling on this goo that I refuse to use the word "honey" to
describe.

...which will only shift the problem elsewhere.


                jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::