Regarding the subject of adulteration - Betty McAdam seems surprised that adulteration of honey "is
rampant".

1. Take a look at the dossier produced by the SPMF (Union of French Prof. Honey Producers) at:
http://www.apiservices.com/spmf/adulteration.htm

2. Find out about the hassles that were gone through to try and protect honey when the latest
Codex.a. was being discussed and put in place.

3. Look at the new European Union Honey Directive that is going through its final stages.

4.Search in the archives of BEE-L for my comments on Ultra filtration of Honey.

Sorry I can not link the above as it is difficult to present in a concise manner, and if one has
real interest then a little searching isn't too hard!

These will show how honey producers have had and are having a very hard time trying to protect the
basic product against a large complex industry that uses honey but has not the same need to protect
its "characteristics" - in fact very often it is in their interest to be able to undermine the
regulations that define what honey is or should be.

Depending on what it is used for, protecting certain chemical/ physical properties associated with
honey is a plain hindrance - so arguments such as "ultra filtration is needed so as to remove
debris" are used, hard luck that it also removes one of the ways of determining geographical
provenance, also debris from adulterating material, plus evidence of fermentation.

If a honey like product  is required by the "market" , to be sold as honey then there is always
going to be somebody to supply, and if the "packer" can change the rules to allow it then they will
try.

This was evident in the "discussions" that took place between the so called powerful "Anglo-Saxon"
honey packers who imported vast tonnage of honey and the "Latin countries" in E.U. who are
considered as producers over here.(very interesting to listen to the position taken up by the
English - "yes" to ultra filtration etc. and the position taken up by the French/Italian/Spanish
producers).

I hope that beekeepers in England do not take offense - non meant, but I have pointed out several
times in relevant meetings - "this is where European problems are being discussed and there is no
body representing the English beekeeper" (Where is the representation that should be sent to the
European Professional Beekeepers Association meetings - even Sweden sends a delegate, in fact two!)
Oops! deviation, but it makes the point that the industry wishing for something to happen lobby, and
lobby hard. They are not going to wake up the opposition - tough if the beekeepers can't be bothered
to protect or just make a feeble complaint when it is too late.

It was impossible to stop the inclusion of many points that were put forward by U.S. packers lobby
during the last Codex.a. agreement due to the position of "If you don't agree then there will be no
agreement" - and seeing that the previous state of affairs was diabolical, the honey producers "were
over a barrel".
The E.U. in its deliberations for the new directive was also caught as if the regulations were
tighter than the Codex a.there was always the possibility of a complaint being presented as
contravention against free trade and GATT etc.!

Anyway, why worry , the client only likes clear, shiny, liquid honey - so we have got to supply it!
(Who mentioned Old Wives Tales) - even though its not honey! (What, rumours again!! Its not cricket
) - except after the latest display on the field, maybe that doesn't hold either!)

Peter