James Fischer wrote:
> OK, here's what I don't "get" about "sugar sensitivity":
>
> 1) There is a very simple and well-known process for
>    the metabolization of sugar, honey, fructose, and
>    other carbohydrates.
> 2) To simplify, your body can't really tell the difference
>    between a Life-Saver candy and a spoonful of honey.
>
> 3) To go further, I am glossing over only a few details if
>    I say that your body can't tell the difference between
>    sugar, honey, HFCS, and a potato.

You corrected me in my comment about "all sucrose is sucrose" by noting
that there are isomers of sucrose. We also know from the literature that
bees tolerate cane sugar better than beet sugar or invert sugar.

So, maybe there are people whose makeup allows them to handle one isomer
but not another.

When we look at the function of the human body, we look at what we
consider a normally functioning body. However, there are those whose
bodies do not function normally. We have a good friend whose daughter is
PKU and cannot eat most of the foods we call part of a normal diet. PKU
is caused by the absence of an essential enzyme. Enzymes are associated
with allergies in the inability of the body to convert some foods.

I am going to take a stretch here, but if a normal body can handle any
isomer of sucrose, then there might be some who lack one or more enzymes
or whose enzymes are slightly different and cannot handle isomers. That
would answer the problem with cane sugar allergies and not beet sugar as
well as the reverse.

Allergy is an inability of our system to handle something which most
people have no problem with.

> Bottom line, I'm going to feed my bees rather than let them
> starve, and I'm not going to overfeed and perhaps sully my
> crop with sugar simply because I don't want to increase my
> costs by feeding too much. (I think that "sully" is a more
> appropriate term than "contaminate".)

As will I and I agree with the your choice of terms.

The problem with sugar allergies, if they do truly exist, is that in all
the sites I visited, the ones that took a semi-scientific approach, did
not have much to support the claim that sugar allergies were the fault
of sucrose and not something else that may have been in the sugar. The
test was a classic food allergy test which was to shift to a
"non-allergic" diet and slowly add different known allergens until you
get a reaction. It is a good test as long as you know that the added
food is as advertised and "pure". It probably was, but I can only assume
that from what I read on those sites.

The bottom line is that sugar "allergies" are really not a problem for
the general population, and even those who proclaim a sugar allergy seem
to be able to function well, even if they eat it. It is not life
threatening. (There are sites that say otherwise but they all had an
agenda, usually to buy something.)

The larger problem was pointed out by Jim in his comments about the
Atkins diet. Food fads are always around. Just check the internet about
the deadly effects of white sugar or white bread. If you could tie, even
remotely, honey to a health issue, it would seriously impact the
industry. Alar and apples is classic. Forget science. Instead you are
faced with anecdotes and proselytizers, a combo not foreign to this
list.  You cannot combat them since their minds have been made up and no
amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. There are no shades
of gray. There is only pure ignorance.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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