John Edwards wrote:
>
> The general opinion where I used to work was "If anybody ever runs 
> systematic analyses of honey (USA or worldwide), the beekeepers are in 
> big trouble".
>  

I thought the EU and Japan do just that and the US to a lesser degree 
when honey enters the country. The commercial folk can comment on US 
packers and if they do any testing. I recognize it is not 100% tested, 
since that is cost prohibitive, so some will always get by.

We have had many posts on high honey HMF and the EU (and Japan) blocking 
shipments as well as Chinese honey entering the US contaminated  with 
antibiotics. So testing is going on.

There was a test of organic vs non-organic honey ( it is in the 
archives) and there was no difference between them as far as any 
additional ingredients. But that holds up in most of the tests made by 
independent organizations like Consumer's Union. You get the good and 
the bad in both groups. Often, not because of ethics but procedures 
employed. They know what happens to a company when contamination is 
discovered. Spinach, anyone?

We tend to think the worst of our fellow man but not of ourselves. Most, 
granted not all, commercial beekeepers think they are doing the right 
thing, but some ethical beekeepers may be wrong through ignorance or 
neglect. They are not in business to go out of business. They want to 
sell a good product and make a profit. Both go hand in hand. They (and 
we) may use things that are approved by the government and later find 
they are bad, but there is no ethical lack there.

Even those in government think they are doing the right thing, but they 
do not have to worry about the outcome since they do not go out of 
business. Just raise taxes to cover any losses.

Bill Truesdell 
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************