Ari wrote:
> Dear Aleksandar, your microbiologist has mixed up facts. Only active
> bacteria deactivate by heating in less than 100 decrees C.<

No, the microbiologist was categoric and clear about activation, not
deactivation. (Or we all would be dead long ago!)

For the source of infant botulism, premise is declared that it: "results
from growth and toxin production by C. botulinum within the intestinal
tract of infants rather than from ingestion of preformed toxin"
(http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-17.html).

But it is obvious that everybody believes in this "truth" by deduction only
because now there is not any other prove that this is actually happen.

Since 1976 when botulism in infants was documented and link with honey was
established, on every reported case EVERY mother is asked wheter she EVER
fed the infant with honey - answer was Yes in 15% of all cases (in USA)
(http://www.epi.hss.state.ak.us/bulletins/docs/b1987_10.htm). For the rest
of 85%, source for this infant's botulism remains unknown. So small honey
positive percent inevitably invite logic: what if even in those 15%, source
is not honey? (Or: spores instead of preformed toxin)

My point is that is not scinetifically justified to put "NOT for infants"
label on honey!

What we will do with this fact: "It is clear that many infants who are
diagnosed with infantile botulism are primarily breast-fed."
(http://home.coqui.net/myrna/botu.htm)

Can we recommend not to breast-fed infants?

Other side of this medal is fact that many, many infants are fed with honey
and never had symptoms of botulsm. In some Istern countries (according to
Mladenov) in fact, honey is regularly used - on breast, when babyes refuse
to feed from their mothers breasts.

Aleksandar,
Macedonia

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