> [snip] > >You are missing the point altogether. By your definition I can heat my >honey, then filter it to the point that it has very little color and no >pollen, then label it as natural honey so long as it is not contaminated or >adulterated. This is basically true in the USA. Some states are beginning >to set some standards for grades of honey. > >My point is that under present law highly processed honey can be and is >labeled as raw honey. That is the point. We have laws that carry stiff >penalties for selling adulterated or contaminated honey. What we do not >have are laws that define what is raw, or what is natural, what is filtered >etc. This is what needs to be resolved so that the consumer knows what he >or she is buying, real raw honey or a product that has been so processed >that it barely resembles honey. > >Frank Humphrey >[log in to unmask] >Frank Humphrey >[log in to unmask] > Hi Frank; I aggree to some extent, but the real reason that we need to retain the original P-fund (colour scale) reading is to maintain the reading standard of the honey as prepared by the bees. If this reading is changed this means that you as a beekeeper, when sending your honey to a packing company reduces your honey from light amber to dark amber or such, therefore reducing your return as a beekeeper. Thanks from : [log in to unmask] http://www.eastend.com.au/~goble [log in to unmask] ( David Goble ) American Beach Kangaroo Island South Australia