Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. => Topic started by: thomashton on February 22, 2011, 06:09:39 pm
-
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14472620 (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14472620)
What do you think?
-
Very interesting may get rid of some of the shonkys
But not much use to us in Aus
-
I think he might be wrong about the shellfish allergy.
-
can't hurt. people in search of raw honey usually know the difference and don't look for it in the supermarket. interesting what the beekeeper said about honey crystallizing. pasteurized honey will also crystallize. just might take a little longer.
-
Having a standard of identity is generally a good thing. If words are not defined, they are ambiguous, it creates a space for confusion. An alternative is to explain on the label and marketing material how the honey undergoes processing - if a beek describes the room temperature crush and strain procedure, most people interested in raw/natural will understand that and can decide accordingly.
-
Looks like my comb honey is no longer considered raw. :roll:
That is one scary article. Pick any part you want. It's wrong from start to finish.
-
Why do you say that, Bjorn??
"In order to be labeled as raw under HB148, honey that is produced or sold in the Beehive State could not be pasteurized or heated above 118 degrees."
If you don't heat your comb over 118 degrees, it can be labeled as raw.
-
Put a jar of your RAW honey on the seat of your car, or the trunk, now
in July or August, park your car in down town Salt Lake City { bet you roll your windows up and lock it }
come back a few hours later.
Now is that jar of honey you have, Raw, Pure or Processed ?
Temperature upward to 150 degrees inside, You tell me how much has it been heated ?
Bee-Bop
-
Sure - that happens here in Florida, too (not just for two months in the summer).
The notion held by people who are looking for raw honey (and usually willing to pay a premium) is that high temperatures will reduce or destroy enzymes and other vital factors. Quite apart from any law, an honest honey producer selling to that niche should describe how the honey is processed, stored, etc. If that segment of consumers considers anything that goes above 118 to be pasteurized, don't sell them 'raw' honey if you know the temp went above 118. For bulk honey, if the customer doesn't care, it isn't an issue - heat it to dry it, so it flows, to reduce crystallization, etc.
Large thermos chests are pretty inexpensive, toss in a milk jug filled with frozen water, and the heat inside a vehicle is not an issue for honey stored in the thermos chest. It's an extra bother, but if one is going after the premium market, it is not a big deal.
-
I think he might be wrong about the shellfish allergy.
Maybe the bees visited the same plants that the butterflied shrimp did
-
Another law nobody can really enforce. It gives a definition, which is nice, but doesn't have any teeth, partly because of the money, but partly because as mentioned before - who can prove whether it is really "raw" or not?
-
Why do you say that, Bjorn??
"In order to be labeled as raw under HB148, honey that is produced or sold in the Beehive State could not be pasteurized or heated above 118 degrees."
If you don't heat your comb over 118 degrees, it can be labeled as raw.
Hey Vetch....slow down. I was referencing the entire article. Did you actually read it? Like the part mentioning that your honey should be solid to indicate "raw" and that liquid means it's processed. Are you telling me that liquid honey in comb is not raw? I have raw liquid honey running out my extractor all the time that is not solid. And for beekeepers to suggest that other beekeepers product is or is not, based on this vague self promoting definition, and to educate the public to such crap in an article, is just plain wrong.
I really loved the part that if the public really understood the power of pollen and honey, there would be no need for other allergy medicines. Here is a bit of unbiased research that shows that allergy sufferers may see significant relief in about 20% of those taking pollen or honey with enough pollen to make a difference. We may oversell the wonders of bees from time to time as beekeepers, but come on...where do you draw the line in "fluffery".
http://www.bjornapiaries.com/beereactionsallergies.html (http://www.bjornapiaries.com/beereactionsallergies.html) Bottom of the page.
Or the fact that they need exactly 26,000 dollars to enforce the bill. I've never known any forecasted figure put out by government officials to be correct. And I will not even get into who will pay for the enforcement or who it may harm. I can't wait for the average beekeeper to have to foot the Bill for this when it's 10 times more than some guy originally stated.
If the law was being formed, written, and based on the comments and opinions given in the article by these beekeepers, I can only imagine why they need help in Utah. :roll:
Now what part of the article did you think was correct that made you go after my opinion and comments?
-
Hey Vetch....slow down. I was referencing the entire article. Did you actually read it? Like the part mentioning that your honey should be solid to indicate "raw" and that liquid means it's processed. Are you telling me that liquid honey in comb is not raw? I have raw liquid honey running out my extractor all the time that is not solid. And for beekeepers to suggest that other beekeepers product is or is not, based on this vague self promoting definition, and to educate the public to such crap in an article, is just plain wrong.
Sure, I read it - did you?? The quotes from various beekeepers that the reporter dug up and mixed into her article had no direct connection to the actual law as I understand that article. Take away the local color and folklore, and all we know about the law is that it would define raw honey as honey that has not been heated above 118 degrees.
The part about raw honey crystallizing was a quote from some beekeeper that the person writing the article found... no indication that the law is based on that strange and faulty thinking. The comments on bee products being the only thing ever needed to treat allergies are also simplistic and ridiculous ... again, no indication that those beliefs have anything to do with the law, the reporter is filling her article with quotes she found from talking to a handful of people.
Now what part of the article did you think was correct that made you go after my opinion and comments?
You said "Looks like my comb honey is no longer considered raw." And I asked why you think that. I asked if you heat your comb honey. You can interpret that as "going after you" if you like. I was merely pointing out that from what the article said, they are simply creating a 'standard of identity' to define the term 'raw honey.'
-
Hey vetch....I NEVER said who or what my comments were in reference too. Although you make a good effort to assume as much.
I made a statement. I said that it looks like my honey is no longer considered raw. (based on other beekeepers perception of what raw honey should be)
Did I say it was going to be by the law? No. Maybe I was referencing the beekeepers comments, and suggesting that in other people's eyes, my honey is not considered raw.
My word...get a life. You nitpick another persons opinion and then rationalize it to a point to fit your understanding of a narrow viewpoint to the point of nausea.
I'm sorry....I read an ARTICLE and responded to it.
Maybe you should be less concerned about the bill, and focus more on the article where the real conversation should be. If we can't get beekeepers to do better than what's in the story, we should all bend over, ask for the politicians to run the show, and take one for the old gipper. Not on the right side.....and not on the left side.....but straight up the middle!
I originally made a comment about the article and you want to make a two day debate over it. Geeshh! Thomas posted an article, and asked "What do you think?" Never thought my reply would foster such response and debate. I even said the article was "scary". Perhaps indicating to the more intelligent folks I was referring to the article. Maybe I should of been more clear.
-
Whatever, dude. You should have been more clear. I should have been more clear.