>No beekeeper knows what their bees worked, what chemical are in the honey, and at what levels. So lets stop fooling ourselves. Unless we submit samples and pay for the analysis, nobody can say they have "pure" honey. And lets cut the crap on ever-changing terms to fool the public like "Treatment Free". Everyone's honey is contaminated.. Period!
So we should just dump in whatever we want, it won't matter anyway...
But I AM in control of what *I* put in the hives... but I guess I am not responsible for that... And all honey is the same no matter what we put in the hive... right?
Way off base MB.
I never said anything about just dumping in whatever.
This conversation, or at least from what I started, and the quotes you mention, has to do with beekeepers pointing fingers and pulling stuff off of other beekeepers websites and making wide accusations, while conveniently using any number of "terms" on their own label in attempts to fool the consumer themselves.
Point is, many things are considered contaminates. When I mention Chemicals, I an referring to beekeeper based mite treatments, not the rarely used feeding of HFCS on a small number of non-honey producing nucs. But if I'm going to be called out and called a liar by someone who is calling the kettle black, I think we should just pony up to the bar and be honest with ourselves.
Nobody knows knows what is in their honey. You can throw around terms like "Treatment free" and about a dozen other terms. The industry allows the buying consumers to assume that the honey is pure from such contaminates, and to my knowledge, no beekeeper here actually tests their honey ( I do... ;) ) for such things as chemicals, etc.
Every beekeeper out there has bees that will collect from soda cans, commercial sugar sources, chemical tainted nectar sources, and about every other nasty thing you can think of. The industry has for years fought the actual testing of honey by the average beekeeper and large operations alike. Better for everyone that they not look was always the standard thought. They may bee looking at imports for tainted honey, but that for me is to protect those big guys and their interests. Certainly has little to do with the 99% of the smaller guys or the buying public, that is for sure.
Anyways, when beekeepers start breaking up into small groups and standing on different corners, attacking others because of the terms they use, or the marketing involved, and sometimes with ridiculous accusations such as what was thrown my way, maybe it's time we all fess up. And maybe we should realize that standing pointing fingers at others, while one provides no proof of the purity of your own honey, is about as hypocritical as it gets.
I don't think there is anyone that can suggest they have pure honey, without clear testing. Yeah, some will try to paint this as a "HFCS" debate, or by using ever-changing descriptions on their own label, try to suggest they are one step ahead (or above) everyone else. But they are not.
It's as if, and what was mentioned, that "we use this way to describe our honey" and for what purpose? So they can tout not actually lying to consumers, but by mentioning management tactics, that have nothing to do with the purity of the honey produced. So in the end, stating "Chemical free" is nothing more than a marketing term at best, with the realization that that honey being sold under that labeling, may or may not be any better than the guy down the street that same very beekeeper is attacking.
It's not about about dumping honey. It's about an industry not knowing what IS in the honey, beekeepers not knowing what is in their honey, yet standing pointing fingers attacking others.
Very simple concept.