Hervé Logé wrote:

> Respectfully, it seems to me this assertion should be
> demonstrated. 1% saccharose content, in my fields of
> practice, is not considered as trace. In ppb, in ppt,
> yes, it may be considered as trace. Moreover, when
> measuring saccharose, you do not take into account
> saccharose that has been broken down into fructose and
> glucose (assumed to be honey then... but not from
> nectar which is inconsitant with the legal
> deifinition)

This discussion (thanks to my error) has gone far afield. I do not think
you are saying that sucrose is a contaminant of honey, since it is a
component of nectar and in some plants, the dominant and nearly
exclusive sugar. In essence, those plants are producing "sugar syrup".

I do not know how you can separate the sucrose in cane sugar syrup from
the sucrose in nectar since sucrose is sucrose. So if any sugar syrup
"honey" ends up in a super it would be undetectable as an added sugar,
and truth is, would have little effect over all since it would be
overwhelmed by the sucrose already present in the nectar brought in by
bees. Especially if the bees were collecting from plants whose nectar
was primarily sucrose.

I have some difficulty with any definition of "pure" honey since it gets
us into the morass of "organic" and the like. Honey that comes from
nectar (and aphids) can also have other collected "nectars" (like soft
drinks) as has been noticed by most beekeepers. We do not treat that
Honey as impure since the bees are just doing what they do best, which
is collect sugars in solution and convert it into Honey.

They, obviously, are breaking the law since they are not collecting
exclusively from plants.

Maybe we should call it "Free Range Honey", since we usually have little
idea just where it did come from.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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