> if a beekeeper feeds in such a way that feed gets into the honey in some 
> amount, then should the label _really_ read pure honey?  ...at .0005%? 
> .5%?  5%?  10%?  30%?  50%?  Obviously there should be a number at which 
> it is no longer considered "pure honey".... I know of at least one case 
> where someone with a corn allergy has reacted to baked goods made with 
> honey (and no corn products).  The honey supplier claimed that honey only 
> had to be 60% pure to be labeled as pure (I'm sure this isn't the case...

I share your concerns.  The question of purity seems inconsequential until 
we consider that some people have extreme sensitivities.  A few molecules 
seems to be all that is required to cause discomfort or worse.

Then there is the ethical issue...

We had a similar problem with sulfa.  At the time, at one part per million, 
the MRL seemed vanishingly small and we scoffed, but today we know 
differently.  People were experiencing sensitivities to honey and pollens 
were blamed.  I'm thinking now that it might have been the sulfa.

Perhaps the answer is in the designation, "organic" or "natural".

People expect these products to be produced by more austere methods and 
therefore pay a higher price to compensate for the lower production levels 
or spoilage that often accompany the reduced use of commercial methods, 
stimulants, feeds, pesticides, preservatives and materials in the pursuit of 
enhanced product quality and purity.

One large concern mentioned here already is that although we may question 
standards in developed countries, when we start importing from less 
regulated countries, no one really knows what is in the products except by 
analysis which can be fooled by sufficiently clever and determined cheaters.

It is an open secret that at one time buyers of orange juice concentrate 
winked at the addition of sugar in the exporting country to lower the price 
paid while allowing the buyer/packer to advertise no sugar added because 
that firm didn't add it and could claim to know nothing about it if the 
topic came up.  Is this still going on?  Don't know.

Some time back someone asked why beekeepers in China were charged some much 
for sugar and paid so little for honey.  The answer (whether true or not) 
was that a big price difference resulted in moral hazard and that more sugar 
would be directly added to honey by beekeepers.  I think this was discussed 
on BEE-L.  (What hasn't been?).

I'm not picking on Chinese beekeepers here -- they are no different from 
others -- because we know there are unscrupulous people in every country and 
that people can come to rationalise almost anything if there is sufficient 
profit in it. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm