Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:52:23 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<000a01c634bb$83199b60$0600a8c0@workstation> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
>>>Are they all lying?
>>>
>>>
>
>No certainly not, however there is some that sneaks in under the radar.
>And for the imitation/mixed stuff that is labeled "correctly",
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was merely commenting on whether or not
honey, labeled as honey, contains honey as something other than a
primary ingredient as you had asserted. Nothing more. I beleive you
typed: "the cheap honey in the supermarket often contains honey as only
as a primary and often even secondary ingredient."
I am saying that this is not the case. I looked when I was shoppong
this AM. Not a one of the bottles labeled honey had anything else in
them. Are you still insisting that "the cheap honey in the supermarket
often contains honey as only as a primary and often even secondary
ingredient." We are not talkiing about "honey bunches of O's" we are
talking honey.
Am I a fan of the heated, highly filtered, bland honey I can find at
publix? No, mine's better - it tastes more interesting. But each and
every one of those bottles has a single ingredient - Honey. Now would
it not be disingenuous to suggest otherwise?
Keith
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|