Peter said:

> ...how far honey could be filtered by conditioners/packers,
> whilst still being capable of showing that adulteration had
> not taken place.

> Realizing that limiting filtration of honey does not by itself
> protect  against adulteration - it does enhance the ability to
> indicate geographical origin of source material.  Also honey that
> has not undergone ultra filtration will indicate bodies such as
> yeast cells in quantities that point to previous quality and condition.

I have heard no one claim that this new process will increase "shelf life"
(delay crystallization) significantly over "standard filtration" currently
used by larger packers.  If it is true that "ultra filtration" will not
prevent crystallization any better than currently common approaches,
it seems clear that the sole purpose of such a process is to "improve"
the flavor of honey that would be otherwise unpalatable by removing
ALL flavors (and Lord only knows what else).

What other "value added" could such a process possibly offer?

Clearly, the process is hiding something serious.  What else
would warrant the capital investment in such an expensive process?
The burden of proof should not be eased simply to allow a process that
creates an end product that cannot be proven to actually be honey.

If we were talking about meat rather than honey, the difference would
be as clear as "steak" versus "stew beef".  Clearly, a butcher will
use the best cuts for "steaks", and use the poorest-quality cuts for
"stew beef".

Is stew beef identical to steak?  Clearly not.

If equal amounts of each are ground up in a meat grinder, one is
"steak tartar", and the other is "ground beef".  Not even "ground round"
or "ground chuck".  Most people can tell the difference with one taste.
Many can tell at a glance.

But "honey is honey is honey is honey", as those who wish to treat honey
and market honey as a fungible commodity would say.

Do consumers want flavorless, colorless, sweet syrup?  If they do, they
already have a wide variety of corn-syrup based products to chose among.
But these are not honey.

Are the bottlers of pure maple syrup worried that the "low end of the
syrup market" is owned by companies that mix corn syrup and chemicals?
Not a bit, since a simple taste test is all that is required for a
random person to recognize the difference between the "real stuff" and
the "fake stuff".  Too bad only isolated efforts are made to educate
consumers as to what real honey tastes like.

If one were to utilize this "ultra filtration", one could, in theory,
break it down further after filtration and, create 100% sucrose, and/or
100% fructose, and/or 100% glucose, each in different drums at the end
of the all the chemistry.  One might then take these "concentrates",
and make "reconstituted honey from concentrate", still professing that
one is selling "honey".  One need look no further than orange juice to
see that "from concentrate" has become acceptable to many consumers as
"legitimate orange juice".

In my view, the moment the water was added, the honey was adulterated.
Yes, they add water.  They dilute the honey, filter, and then (somehow)
remove the water later.  How is this NOT deliberate adulteration?

I understand the "need" to filter mass-market honey, and I understand the
production values inherent in heating honey to make it "run" faster
through one's mixing and bottling plant.

But the folks who heat and filter and even those who flash-heat and micropore
filter honey REFRAIN FROM ADDING ANYTHING.  If they added anything that was
not honey, they would be guilty of adulterating food if they labeled it as
"honey".

Both filtering and heating honey can be detected in the final product, but
neither process prevents one from verifying that the resulting product is
honey.  More important, a surprise health inspection of their production
facility (common in the US) can verify that there is no stock of non-honey
additives, nor is there equipment intended to add anything to the honey.

So, the answer is simple.  Allow filtering, allow flash-heating.  But the
limit on filtration is a practical limit that is enforced by one simple
rule - "add nothing to honey".

I think everyone should be able to get behind enforcement of existing
and long-standing prohibitions against the overt and deliberate
adulteration of honey, don't you?  :)


                jim

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