BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Ultra Filtration
From:
T & M Weatherhead <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 May 2003 07:08:05 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines) 
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 ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2