Bob said:
> Ultra filtration makes it very hard to catch adultrators of honey.
Not at all! It is a big red flag. They might as well
stencil the drums "Funny Honey".
Finding that honey merely shows the characteristics of
"ultra-filtration" is clear and compelling proof that
either:
"adulteration, damage, or inferiority has been concealed."
[US FFDCA, "Adulteration", Section 402 (b)(3)]
or:
" a substance has been... mixed.. so as to... make it
appear better or of greater value than it is."
[US FFDCA, "Adulteration", Section 402 (b)(4)]
Either one is clearly adulteration.
You see, at least in the USA, evidence of "concealment" alone
is enough to get a specific shipment of food seized and returned
or destroyed. Read the section on "Adulterated Food" in the
US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact4.htm
"SEC. 402. [342] A food shall be deemed to be adulterated
...(3) if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any
manner; or
(4) if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed
therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its
quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater
value than it is."
Here is a typical example of what happens when "evidence of
concealment" is the only hard evidence that the FDA has
when looking at honey.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia3601.html
Yes, they eventually got confirmation from an outside lab
that the sugars mix was highly unusual, but they made the
decision to reject the honey based solely upon the evidence
of "concealment" alone.
There have been many similar cases with foods more common
than honey where the "evidence of concealment" is the primary
or sole evidence available, a classic one being the
manipulation of orange juice:
Citric and amino acids are added to orange juice to
"conceal damage and inferiority" [402(b)(3)] or to
"make the food appear to be of greater value" [402(b)4)].
Why would one do this? To cover up the adding of
cheap sugars. It matters not that both citric and
amino acids are "found in natural orange juice".
In fact, the mere evidence that the packer bought
a quantity of citric acid is enough evidence.
But if the clear and simple language of 402(b)(3) is not
enough to convince you that we have a solid footing, we
can go further. Ultra-filtration is also clear and compelling
evidence of "attempting to enhance the appearance", which is
illegal under 402(b)(4).
Let's walk through it slowly:
"if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed
therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its
quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater
value than it is."
So, let's compare the process to the law:
a) The water is mixed with the honey.
b) The water is later removed.
c) The result is honey with a "better" color grade.
d) The result is honey with a "better" moisture content.
e) Honey with a "better" color grade is worth more.
f) Honey with a "better" moisture content is worth more.
g) Therefore, the process makes the honey appear "better
or of greater value than it is."
Note that the law does not say that its ok to add something
and then attempt to remove it later in the process. The
adding or mixing alone is all that matters. We are aware
that the net result of this adding and mixing makes "dark"
honey appear to be "water white". That's deception.
The names and numbers for color grades vary from country
to country, but "light color" honey is worth more than
"dark" honey, both at wholesale and retail.
Since it is clear that ultra-filtration has no purpose other
than to artificially "enhance" the color and "enhance" flavor
by removing inferior flavors, it clearly has a wide range of
applications that would be unethical.
It is easy to detect, due to the startling lack of components
that would be found even in honey filtered by flash-heat and
micropore filtration.
> The common practice of filtering with DI earth is allowed so
> how could you ever stop the using of only water to filter
> with when the end product has the same amount of water as
> when the filtration process started.
Filters made from "diatomaceous earth" are simply filters.
One runs the honey THROUGH the DI earth, and no DI earth
remains in the end-product honey. In the case of the water
added to honey, it should be clear to even the casual observer
that some of the added water WILL show up in the final end-product.
It is statistically impossible to add so much water, and then
remove only the added water, some portion of the original water
is replaced by the added water in this process.
This is complicated, so let me explain. Let's take some
honey (which contains H2O), and add lots more H2O. Then,
we will remove all but 18.6% of the water. But which water
is which? One clearly cannot claim that one somehow removed
only the specific water added, leaving the specific water
that was there at the start of the process. Therefore, the
end-product honey has been adulterated. This may be a highly
"technical" view, but anyone who wants to argue the point can
quickly be exposed as a person with something to hide.
> I see the move to ultra filtration to solve a problem with
> honey and has nothing to do with the safety of the consumer.
"Safety" may be the biggest stick with which we can beat
ultra-filtration about the head and shoulders.
Let's assume for a moment that something unfit for human
consumption is contaminating a large lot of honey. While it
is technically possible to use ultra-filtration to remove the
contamination, it is illegal to do so, since one may not
"de-contaminate" food once it has been contaminated.
But is the mere use of this filtering technology evidence
that the honey was contaminated with something nasty?
Not directly, but why ELSE would one go to the additional
trouble and expense of this newer and more robust filtering?
There is also the direct evidence of overt adulteration that
is inherent in the process itself. Read the beginning of
Section 402
"SEC. 402. [342] A food shall be deemed to be adulterated...
(2)(A) if it bears or contains any added poisonous or added
deleterious substance..."
Is "moisture" and "water" a "deleterious substance"? Most
countries have standards for Honey "Grades". (This is not
the same thing as "color grade") in the USA, the grades have
to do with water content:
"US Grade A", "Fancy" 18.6% moisture max
"US Grade B", "Choice" 18.6% moisture max
"US Grade C", "Standard" 20.0% moisture max
"U.S. Grade D", "Substandard" more than 20% moisture
So,
a) Clearly, water in excess of 20% is a "deleterious substance"
in regard to honey.
b) Clearly, water in excess of 20% is added to the honey
in ultra-filtration.
c) Later, attempts are made to conceal the adulteration,
by removal of the water.
Don't like the above? Think I'm pushing it, and reading too much
into the law? Let's see what the law says in 21 CFR 71.22:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/cfr71-22.html
"The Commissioner shall refuse to issue a regulation
listing a color additive, if in his judgment the data
before him show that such proposed use would promote
deception of the consumer or would result in misbranding
or adulteration within the meaning of the act."
So, is water a "color additive"? Heck yes!!! You add water, you
filter, you remove water, and for sure, the color is suddenly
"better". (Is this "bleached honey"? What else might you call it?)
Does the process that used water as color additive "promote
deception of the consumer"? Again, not only yes, but heck yes!
They get what looks like "water white" honey, but never was.
But let's slog on through the legalese:
"The issuance of a regulation for a color additive authorizing its
use generally in or on a food, drug, or cosmetic shall not be
construed as authorization to use the color additive in a manner
that may promote deception or conceal damage or inferiority."
So even though water is permitted generally in or on food, the
use of water in this manner is not legal, in that it "may promote
deception or conceal damage or inferiority." Note that one need
not prove that it >>IS<< "promoting deception". One only need
observe that it >>MAY<< promote deception.
Slogging further:
"The use of a color additive to promote deception or conceal
damage or inferiority shall be considered as the use of a color
additive for which no regulation has issued pursuant to section
721(b) of the act, even though the regulation is effective for
other uses."
So, no matter what other regulations might say, if it >>MAY<<
"promote deception or conceal damage or inferiority", then it
is not legal.
So, to review:
We need not even claim that any specific lot of honey is
or was contaminated, substandard, or adulterated.
We need not test any further than is required to show that
the honey was "ultra-filtered". The ultra-filtration itself
is inherently deceptive.
We need no new regulations or laws. Existing regulations
clearly prohibit this process in multiple ways, and on
multiple grounds.
So, who is going to explain this "ultra-filtration" to the poor
overworked guys who do enforcement and inspection of imports?
Anyone know these folks? I don't.
Once someone explains the process, the result will be a slam dunk.
jim (Who speaks legalese fluently, and loves 4-move checkmates)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
