Hi Bill,
If I understand your email correctly you want to know what the standard
method is and alternative methods for detecting honey adulteration?
This paper (from 2014) is trying to answer a difficult question "why does
the internationally accepted method for detecting adulteration get it wrong
sometimes" and it offers a number of proposed solutions to minimize this
issue. The paper is using AOAC 998.12, which is still the current
internationally accepted method for detecting adulteration of honey with
sugar.
The basic underlying principle for the method is to measure the difference
between Carbon 12 (C12) and Carbon 13 (C13) isotopes in the sugars and
proteins found in the honey. If that ratio is out of wack then adulteration
is likely to have occurred. These isotopes are traditionally used to
"carbon date" archaeological finds to see how old they are. For example I
supplied capping wax to my local University so that they could get a year 0
reference to date bees wax found in aboriginal artifacts.
Not to be confused with the above, C4 refers to the way plants like
sugarcane and corn fix carbon into sugar via C4 photosynthesis. Most nectar
that bees source is from C3 plants. This c3/c4 process is what causes the
different ratio between C13 and C12 isotopes in the fixed sugars. As you
might expect the difference is small, so small things like dust or grass
pollen in the honey can cause the method to get it wrong.
Now recently, there has been a lot of talk of using Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (NMR) methods. This is just another instrument that also measures
isotope ratios. I'm not a fan, I have used both isotope Mass spec and NMR
for this kind of work in the petroleum industry. Its like replacing your
mazda with a jaguar, they both get you to the store to buy your beer but
one of them costs about ten times as much to run.
So what alternatives are available for determining adulterated honey? Well
not much! Isotope analysis is the best, most accurate way to determine if
your honey has C4 sugars in it. But I think a lot more needs to be done
around educating buyers and sellers how to interpret a "fail" as it does
not necessarily prove or mean adulteration has occurred and we need
alternative (cheap, fast) tests that are not based on isotope analysis for
clarification of the results. All fails cost money and time but most
importantly reputation, so education around test results is a key
fundamental here.
Now there is some interesting work being done in the Manuka industry. These
guys are primarily concerned about "origin" and I've seen methods looking
at developing "micronutrient" fingerprints for different regions. These
appear to be robust cheap methods, but require a lot of work building the
fingerprint libraries for the different regions. Dont know how accurate
these methods would be for proving adulteration
Also in the wider food industry, there are companies looking at genetic
tags or bacteria that they have a genetic fingerprint on (think yogurt or
yeast cultures). You add these to your food and can tell with a handheld
tester which farm the food has come from and if its been diluted somewhere
down the line. I don't know how the consumer or the industry will respond
to products like this but its a pretty secure way to monitor your supply
chain.
Karl
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:48 PM Bill Hesbach <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >For us old country boys could you explain what is the current test and
> what are the 'different testing methodology'.
>
>
>
> >Investigating C‑4 Sugar Contamination of Manuka Honey and Other New
> Zealand Honey Varieties Using Carbon Isotopes
> >Karyne M. Rogers,* Mike Sim, Simon Stewart, Andy Phillips, Jannine
> Cooper, Cedric Douance, Rebecca Pyne, and Pam Rogers
>
> >
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karyne_Rogers/publication/260380568_Investigating_C-4_Sugar_Contamination_of_Manuka_Honey_and_Other_New_Zealand_Honey_Varieties_Using_Carbon_Isotopes/links/59e42fb60f7e9b97fbeb0f6c/Investigating-C-4-Sugar-Contamination-of-Manuka-Honey-and-Other-New-Zealand-Honey-Varieties-Using-Carbon-Isotopes.pdf
>
>
> Bill Hesbach
> Cheshire CT
>
> ***********************************************
> 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
>
***********************************************
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
|
