Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:03:11 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> if a beekeeper feeds in such a way that feed gets into the honey in some
> amount, then should the label _really_ read pure honey? ...at .0005%?
> .5%? 5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? Obviously there should be a number at which
> it is no longer considered "pure honey".... I know of at least one case
> where someone with a corn allergy has reacted to baked goods made with
> honey (and no corn products). The honey supplier claimed that honey only
> had to be 60% pure to be labeled as pure (I'm sure this isn't the case...
I share your concerns. The question of purity seems inconsequential until
we consider that some people have extreme sensitivities. A few molecules
seems to be all that is required to cause discomfort or worse.
Then there is the ethical issue...
We had a similar problem with sulfa. At the time, at one part per million,
the MRL seemed vanishingly small and we scoffed, but today we know
differently. People were experiencing sensitivities to honey and pollens
were blamed. I'm thinking now that it might have been the sulfa.
Perhaps the answer is in the designation, "organic" or "natural".
People expect these products to be produced by more austere methods and
therefore pay a higher price to compensate for the lower production levels
or spoilage that often accompany the reduced use of commercial methods,
stimulants, feeds, pesticides, preservatives and materials in the pursuit of
enhanced product quality and purity.
One large concern mentioned here already is that although we may question
standards in developed countries, when we start importing from less
regulated countries, no one really knows what is in the products except by
analysis which can be fooled by sufficiently clever and determined cheaters.
It is an open secret that at one time buyers of orange juice concentrate
winked at the addition of sugar in the exporting country to lower the price
paid while allowing the buyer/packer to advertise no sugar added because
that firm didn't add it and could claim to know nothing about it if the
topic came up. Is this still going on? Don't know.
Some time back someone asked why beekeepers in China were charged some much
for sugar and paid so little for honey. The answer (whether true or not)
was that a big price difference resulted in moral hazard and that more sugar
would be directly added to honey by beekeepers. I think this was discussed
on BEE-L. (What hasn't been?).
I'm not picking on Chinese beekeepers here -- they are no different from
others -- because we know there are unscrupulous people in every country and
that people can come to rationalise almost anything if there is sufficient
profit in it.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
|
|