Peter Bray knows his biochem, and pointed out something that I neglected to explain clearly: > In fact water is not just water. Today isotope ratio analysis is > starting to have immense impacts in all facets of food industries. > Here in New Zealand it has been successfully used to determine that > water was added unlawfully to wine. Many people have heard about "isotope ratio tests" being done on honey before, but what Peter mentioned is NOT the (perhaps) better-known "carbon isotope ratio" test, which is good for finding HFCS or other sugars that have been added to honey. I'll try to explain both tests in plain English, since I can see a need to create a formal definition for honey that is based upon the tests that all agree can be used to detect adulteration. (Yes, this implies that the "definition" becomes subject to change with each new generation of test equipment, but it would be better than what we have now, which is no formal definition at all.) The CARBON isotope ratio test: exploits the fact that honey comes from plant nectar. Plants use photosynthesis, and the overwhelming majority of nectar-producing plants use "C3" type photosynthesis. As luck would have it, both sugar and corn plants use only "C4" photosynthesis. I'm not going to bore everyone with a long-winded description of the differences between "C3" and "C4", as the whole process of photosynthesis and the "Calvin cycle" is very complex. Just accept that the two processes that metabolize sun, CO2 and water are very different, and produce very different mixes of carbon isotopes. Because the two processes are different, one can look at values that (for nectar-based sugars, like honey) range from "20 to 30", but for non-nectar-based sugars, range from "10 to 16". Since there is no overlap in the results of testing the output of "C3" and "C4" plants, a mix of the two (honey and HFCS, for example) can be detected with very high accuracy, since "mixing" does not create a true "even mix". Now, some producers, notably China, have taken issue with tests like the carbon isotope test, claiming that the plants that produce nectar in their ecosystems are somehow "different" from the rest of the planet, and therefore produce different profiles and ratios. (Yeah, right. Howcome they never send us any plants to test?) But look out con artists - here comes the WATER isotope ratio test, which is impossible to argue or handwave away: It is even more subtle, and has not been around very long. It depends upon the fact that evaporation of water in plants takes place through "transpiration" via leaves and fruit. The water component of fruit juices and nectar is higher in Hydrogen and Oxygen-18 than the water drawn in by the roots. ("O-18 is an isotope of oxygen, the 3 major isotopes of dissolved oxygen are "O-16", "O-17", and "O-18"). Plants really do make "special" water. It would be really tough and expensive to try and counterfeit this isotope ratio for adulteration purposes. There is very little difference between one plant and another in the method of transpiration of water, so the water isotope test is not subject to much variation due to plant species, and is therefore not subject to argument about "my plants" versus "your plants". So, if someone claims that orange juice "from concentrate" is really "fresh-squeezed", you can test the isotopes of the water, and easily prove that the water in the juice came from a water-treatment plant rather than from a leaf-bearing plant. Even if they use distilled water, it would stick out like a sore thumb. So, if someone uses the "ultra-filtration" method, we can clearly detect that the honey contains water from non-plant sources. Since there is no scenario where anyone would deliberately add water to honey in any legitimate honey-processing, any "non-plant" water would be a dead give-away. The water isotope test cannot be argued away, since water all over the planet has well-known isotopes, defined by the various "meteoric water lines", none of which are even close to the ratios you get from any plant source. And if someone tries to play the "water in wine" trick, you can nail them, too. (We have no samples to test the "water INTO wine" trick, but no one has demonstrated the process for several thousand years.) jim (who, after all that, needs a drink) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::