Dear Andy
I am not sure that I agree with all that you say here, not because I
am Australian but because I have been a Quality manager for dairy
products.
>
> If true its sad and really is one way of stopping the sale of
> "unpasteurized apple juice" as we have done with unpasteurized milk.
> I guess it is not enough today to provide information to the
> consumer about "risks" and let us make up our own minds as we may
> make the wrong choice according to some bureaucrat or academic.
Apple Juice I agree with as when it goes off it usually ferments and
tastes different until it turns into either a natural cider or
vinegar. The British grew up on this over the centuries. Perhaps a
case of over zealous testing. If my memory serves me correctly
botulism only grows at a pH greater than 4.6 and under that it is
dormant, if not dead.
>
Milk , now days I agree but there have been many great plagues
carried by milk including typhoid, tuberculosis and others. This
was due to either poor handling or infected cows. This is
basically not the case now but as milk is the perfect growth medium
testing goes on
.
> I think its called dumbing down,
I am not sure I agree here. It is really knowing whats in the
product and then making an informed decision on the results.
>
> If this<<< dumb>>>(I would remove this word) labelling was applied to
packaged honey that would not
> bee good other then most commercial honey is also pasteurized and
> filtered in the packaging process and I would assume that would
> reduce the problem but would not help in the case of a open
> container at the consumer level that will receive the natural
> botulism spores that are in dust from the home.
Whilst not knowing how many bugs you need for an infective growth of
botulism there is a chance that in a commercial food producing
set up that there can be a growth of a bug far in excess of a home
use operation. So monitoring the potential disease causing bugs is a
smart move in my opinion. If you know they are there you can find
them and get rid of them.
>
> Honey at the producer level does contain several nasty sounding
> things such as:
>
> "Osmophilic Yeast <100/gm (this is a yeast that grows in high sugar
concentrations. I have seen concentrated apple juice drums 44
imperial gallons, 50 US gallons blow up to exploding point on this)
Total Aerobic Mesophilic <1000/gm these are bugs that grow in the
presence of oxygen and at temperatures between approx.. 10 to 45
Degrees C.. a general indication of the cleanness of the
manufacturing plant
Sulphite Anaeroobic Reducing Spores <100/gm
Not sure what these represent except that they don't need oxygen
Coliforms <1/gm
These are indicator organisms that indicate if fecal (SHIT)
contamination has taken place and if so then you may guess that
there are other nasties there. (Now days they normally indicate
that there is a cleaning problem some where in the plant and there is
some innvestigative work to be done)
Clostridium
> Botulinum <1gm"
This is the nasty one that can kill I have no Idea of the frequency
in honey but figuring that it has been eaten for millions of years I
figure it is not so much of a problem.
Is there anyone with data on the frequency of this bug in honey???
>
> At least the honey produced in Australia does according to the
> information advertised for the world to see on their web page as
> "Australian Honey Quality Specifications":
If you look at the page you will see that these guys have a quality
certification although they don't say who has issued it. In the food
industry this sort of thing is becoming necessary to enter most
markets. This ties in with the ISO standards 9000 - 3 which say
document every thing you do and prove that you are doing what you
say you are doing.
I figure that they are testing for Botulism because of the
advertising on the net and the old wives tales that are going
through as well ie this thread. So forewarned is forearmed.
>
> http://www.wescobee.com/Netscape/fi.htm
>
> To label this kind of information as "quality specifications" would
> seem to be a mistake, at least to me, in the English translation as
> by inference any honey that does not contain these contaminants is
> of less quality, and value, which puts the good conscientious honey
> producer who takes care in how honey is handled at a disadvantage or
> is this just taking honesty in advertising to a new level. I wonder
> if Australia will also volunteer to include this information on the
> containers for honey they export? I can see it now,,,,
>
We have to put all information like this to export to Jap[an
(Dairy products) (You don't have to worry because the land of the
Free wont let any of our products in to compete on an equal basis)
> PURE H-O-N-E-Y PRODUCED IN AUSTRALIA Guaranteed to contain both
> botulism and coliform!
>
> Sure sounds like some of the stuff the UN is looking for in Iraq
> doomsday weapons. Our babies are doomed, but not to worry in America
> new chemicals everyday are being allowed in honey and in time adults
> will also catch up with the infants and Dr. Death will include honey
> in his "end it all cocktail" for us old timers.
In the competitive world he who has the best weapons wins, these
weapons being trade barriers, volume production that can pay
for the testing the "Customer" wants and or advertising.. I agree
that some times it goes too far but that is life. look at
computers and soft ware, video recorders, Cars that use petrol not
diesel or steam.
So if you can't afford to test then you cant claim as others can.
then you have a disadvantage. Then it is time to Stick together as
you suggest and form a co-operative so that you can be competitive.
And so the world goes round.
My point here is that if we are to produce lots of Honey or other
things then we need to update not only production techniques but
also the monitoring techniques as well to Keep up with the Jones'
who may have to compete more to get a market share.
Take care
Andrew Weinert
Atherton, Tropical North Queensland
Australia
17.17 Degrees South, 145.30 Degrees East
|
