BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Stevens <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:29:56 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
It has long been my contention that there is nothing more positive that
the National Honey Board could do for the beekeepers it purportedly
represents than clean up the false advertizing by major corporations of
honey as an ingredient Simply get an FDA ruling that any concoction
using honey in in its name or in its advertizing must have honey as its
primary sweetener. Imagine the wool board tolerating a sweater with a
miniscule amount of wool in it being advertized as a wool sweater.
          My honey board representative, Mr. Hackenberg told me they
wouldn't want to do that because it would cut down on the sale of
industrial honey because many companies simply wouldn't want to raise
their prices to incorporate a larger percentage of a more expensive
sweetener like honey. My contention is that if their were fewer falsely
advertized honey products, and more genuine honey products, it might
actually result in more honey being used. It certainly would enhance
honey's reputation.  I suspect that the real reason the honey board is
not interested in standards for honey use in a product is that most
industrial honey is imported and that is where they get the bulk of
their revenues to pay their own salaries.   Bob Stevens

ATOM RSS1 RSS2