Aleksandar Mihajlovski wrote:

> 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.

This issue has been around and discussed at length (see the archives).

I think the key is that infant botulism is not the same as adult
botulism poisoning. (See the link above.) An infant can recover and
often displays symptoms that are easily mis-diagnosed by a parent. The
toxin is produced in the infant, not in the food eaten, as with an
adult. In the case of an adult, it often is fatal.

We do not see children dying from infant botulism so think there is no
problem.

Two different symptoms with two different mechanisms but the same name.

I agree the liable may be a bit threatening and that honey may not be
the source in all cases, but it can be. Is it really that big of an
issue if there is a slight probability that a child could be harmed? The
issue has been with us for years and does not seem to cause any problem
with sales.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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