>
[snip]
>
>You are missing the point altogether.  By your definition I can heat my
>honey, then filter it to the point that it has very little color and no
>pollen, then label it as natural honey so long as it is not contaminated or
>adulterated.  This is basically true in the USA.  Some states are beginning
>to set some standards for grades of honey.
>
>My point is that under present law highly processed honey can be and is
>labeled as raw honey.  That is the point.  We have laws that carry stiff
>penalties for selling adulterated or contaminated honey.  What we do not
>have are laws that define what is raw, or what is natural, what is filtered
>etc.  This is what needs to be resolved so that the consumer knows what he
>or she is buying, real raw honey or a product that has been so processed
>that it barely resembles honey.
>
>Frank Humphrey
>[log in to unmask]
>Frank Humphrey
>[log in to unmask]
>
Hi Frank;
 
        I aggree to some extent, but the real reason that we need to retain
the original P-fund (colour scale) reading is to maintain the reading
standard of the honey as prepared by the bees. If this reading is changed
this means that you as a beekeeper, when sending your honey to a packing
company reduces your honey from light amber to dark amber or such, therefore
reducing your return as a beekeeper.
Thanks from :
                        [log in to unmask]
                 http://www.eastend.com.au/~goble
            [log in to unmask] ( David Goble )
           American Beach Kangaroo Island South Australia