On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Robert Mann wrote:

>         3  Susan's theory would apply approximately to nectar also,
> wouldn't it?  To the extent that nectar is less "hanging out there" than
> anthers are, the concentration by evaporation would roughly compensate, I
> theorize.

I am not aware that anyone is harvesting and selling raw nectar.
Honey is a "product" in the sense that it is processed in order to
become honey. It changes its character in more ways than simply through
the evaporation of moisture.

> At this rate, honey is predicted to be so laden with toxins from
> the environment that it becomes unfit for human consumption.

This may be true. I would hope not. In any case, honey is tested (prehaps
not regularly, but at least sometimes) for the presence of contaminants.

>         Fact will always matter more than theory in such matters.  What are
> the facts about toxins in pollen  -  and in honey?

Correct -- so where are the facts regarding pollen? Show me that it
does not act as a dust mop, that tests demonstrate it is not contaminated
with environmental insults, and I will concede its safety. Not necessarily
its efficacy, but its safety.

Susan
--
Susan Nielsen                   | Beehive: If you build it,
[log in to unmask]            | they will comb.