From: "Tim Townsend" > I would like to comment here that if you are feeding
to draw,  that's
> fine, but make sure you don't extract that honey, there has been enough
> adulteration of honey without it being done in the name of drawing
> foundation.

What do u do with a super that is full of sugar honey if u do not extract
it?  Wasn't the purpose of feeding to draw the combs so u could get empty
combs ready for the flow - so they sure have to be emptied first!  Then u
should flush the sugar honey down the loo - but are we sure everyone does
that?

Bill Truesdell said : "It may be unnatural and
unethical to sell the honey as natural but it is honey. Bees do not care
where they get the nectar. They process it into honey, in this case it
is corn syrup, hcfs or cane sugar honey. It is still honey."

What Bill omitted is that , as well as unethical, 'honey derived from bees
fed on sugar syrup, candy etc, is not legally honey in any of the countries
here considered' - I quote Eva Crane in her momumental 600 page 'Honey, a
comprehensive survey', 1975, para 13.67.  She outlined the regulations (in
1975) in Europe, Americas, Australasia .  'France, Germany, Spain,
Switerland, and Latin Codex countries expressly say such honey would be
illegal.........This does not exclude the use of sugar to feed bees, but it
does not recognise as honey any product stored by such bees during the
period of sugar feeding .  In germany, such a product may not even be called
artificial honey but in France it may be sold as sugar honey.'   In USA,
honey was defined  in Food and Drug Act 1906 as' Honey is the nectar and the
sugary exudations of lants which have been collected, modified and stored in
combs by honeybees' - which does not include hive-fed factory-processed
sugar as a source.

So for Bill to say 'It is still honey' is not only wrong - it is dangerously
misleading to the inexperienced.

Padding out floral honey with sugar honey is something of a world-wide
problem.  Serious problems in Greece were reported in Beekeepers Quarterly
last spring -  a beekeepers who had has a phenominal harvest has ordered a
complete container of sugar for next year.  Beekeepers who knowingly sell
honey containing sugar honey are committing fraud and are CROOKS.

I have long feared that this particular manifestation of human greed may
deal honey production a body blow.  Ann Harman in Bee Biz Apr 2003 reviewed
the USA National Honey Board survey on why people bought honey. 'Consumers
consider honey to be good value because it is a natural product that is
nutritious.  .... Information about honey is usually obtained from the
media - magazines, newspapers, and some from TV.'   There is a great
opportunity to sell more honey in the current scare about the health effects
of eating sugar - and the rise in obesity and diabetes, even in children.
But when the food writers find 'honey' may contain 'sugar' , the public who
have paid 12 times the cost of sugar will feel cheated. And it will be
totally an own goal.

Quite often on Bee-L there are posts that clearly indicate sugar is being
fed in ways that must result in sugar honey in supers - such as to draw out
plastic foundation.  Sometimes, any sign of criticism has been  shouted down
as liable to create a scare. Sort of   ' We will be alright if noone
realises what is happening'. Small hope!

Small beekeepers have got away with suspicious processes because their crop
size has not justified the cost of testing.  Now in UK, Ministry Inspectors
are starting to test samples of beekeepeers honey for residues and
contamination.

I quoted the honey heavyweight, Eva Crane.  If regulations defining honey
have changed materially since 1975, no doubt someone will say.

Robin Dartington

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::