Buoyant roadside honey sales since lockdown

[enrico]

No, and no. Free Range has a specific meaning in conjunction with eggs, acting as the opposite of caged. There's a definition of what Free Range can then be so as not to confuse the consumer. It cannot be applied to honey.

The same thing applies to Raw. As per the honey legislation, honey can be prefixed with an adjective if it describes either a property or quality of it (blossom, soft set, runny, heather) - but this must be verifiable. There is NO definition in the legislation for Raw, therefore it is not verifiable. It is a gimmick marketing word for the latest in fad living.

Show me the law that says you cannot prefix the word honey with the word raw. I accept that I would not do so on the main label but show me proof that I cannot. The honey legislation say that the words they use to prefix must be verifiable . E.g you must be able to verify heather honey as heather honey but nowhere does it say you have to verify the word raw. You are guessing that that is what they mean without being able to prove your case.

 

[Patrick1]

Once again you are misquoting or misunderstanding, I have never described my honey as different to anyone else's honey. I am merely describing my product with the use of descriptive vernacular that I am happy to use and justify.
E

I cannot for the life of me see how anyone looking at the regulations can justify using any other terms other than the reserved ones. They are designed to protect our product and not let cowboys introduce misleading marketing terms to a simple quality product, If you do anything to the product then it is not "Honey" Why not just use the reserved terms what are the Raw honey brigade frightened of?

 

[enrico]

We are not here to debate the rules, they are what they are for a reason, the public can trust "Honey"

You are suggesting I am breaking the rules. I deny that allegation. You can trust me when I say my raw honey can be verified as raw!

 

[Patrick1]

There is no way in this world you can use that as an example. We all know the product is safe. I am not saying that my honey is safe or not. It is the descriptive words that are in question. I would actually go as far as to say that the example you use made me sad and cross. Thalidomide was a tragic outcome to a new product, not something that should be used as a comparison to honey sales!

I believe as extreme as the reply was it is exactly correct, "Raw Honey" is a new product. Maybe you would prefer to be eating Rowes so called honey, or perhaps you would prefer it before Rowes messed with it and call the Chinese honey "Raw Chinese honey" once you start to corrupt the words or the product who knows were it will end.
Just stick to the legally reserved terms.

 

[enrico]

I believe as extreme as the reply was it is exactly correct, "Raw Honey" is a new product. Maybe you would prefer to be eating Rowes so called honey, or perhaps you would prefer it before Rowes messed with it and call the Chinese honey "Raw Chinese honey" once you start to corrupt the words or the product who knows were it will end.
Just stick to the legally reserved terms.

It's called marketing, I will stick to what I decide to do thanks! You still haven't shown me the legislation.

 

[gmonag]

.. the public can trust "Honey"

Really?

 

[Patrick1]

It's called marketing, I will stick to what I decide to do thanks! You still haven't shown me the legislation.

Sorry I thought everyone knew were to find them on the government site
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1348/regulation/2/made

 

[Erichalfbee]

Does anybody think this thread might overtake Tonybloke’s one day?

 

[ericbeaumont]

You are suggesting I am breaking the rules. I deny that allegation. You can trust me when I say my raw honey can be verified as raw!

No man is an island, Eric, and though the winds are against the use of marketing flannel you decline to see beyond the horizon: you may be trustworthy but untrustworthy Rowse use the same words you do to describe their honey, for which reason the customer will not find it easy to differentiate between the two.

My edit of your label surely demonstrated that you don't need flannel to locate the integrity of your honey. That you choose to dig in your heels suggests that you'd rather stick to your point of view than join other beekeepers avoiding (with good reason) over-used descriptives.

If we're to differentiate local honey we must avoid the useless and empty words used by the mass market to over-promote its product. Ask yourself: why does it need to do so? The supermarket doth protest too much, methinks, but you need not join them.

 

[enrico]

Sorry I thought everyone knew were to find them on the government site
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1348/regulation/2/made

You misunderstand me, I meant the legislation that says that I cannot use the word raw!

 

[Patrick1]

Really?

Sure, why else would the general public buy so much of our product if they didn't believe it to be the best, as well as have the confidence with the description and rules around honey.

 

[enrico]

No man is an island, Eric, and though the winds are against the use of marketing flannel you decline to see beyond the horizon: you may be trustworthy but untrustworthy Rowse use the same words you do to describe their honey, for which reason the customer will not find it easy to differentiate between the two.

My edit of your label surely demonstrated that you don't need flannel to locate the integrity of your honey. That you choose to dig in your heels suggests that you'd rather stick to your point of view than join other beekeepers avoiding (with good reason) over-used descriptives.

If we're to differentiate local honey we must avoid the useless and empty words used by the mass market to over-promote its product. Ask yourself: why does it need to do so? The supermarket doth protest too much, methinks, but you need not join them.

I am not flanneling, I am stating a fact, flanneling suggests that it is a lie. If Roswse can be proved to be lying then they should face the music. Just because they miss out the words raw and pure does not make their honey better than it was before. It is the quality of the product that speaks for itself but the marketing of such a product is key to getting people to try it in the first place.
I am not protesting too much, I just like a good debate and still no one is able to prove to me that I am breaking any law by using the word raw. I am merely being tarred with the same brush as someone who used it and produced a product that you allege was not raw or pure.

 

[enrico]

Sure, why else would the general public buy so much of our product if they didn't believe it to be the best, as well as have the confidence with the description and rules around honey.

The regulations and rules that you describe are there specifically to set out what titles can be used. For example heather honey, or Somerset honey, not what descriptions can be used in marketing. Do you agree with that?

 

[Patrick1]

I think we have done this to death now, thanks everyone for your input it has been enlightening to hear how some people can see the same thing so differently to the rest of us.
Welcome to planet earth

 

[enrico]

I think we have done this to death now, thanks everyone for your input it has been enlightening to hear how some people can see the same thing so differently to the rest of us.
Welcome to planet earth

I agree that it was a good debate. It is wonderful up here in the stars looking down on those that think they know best

 

[ericbeaumont]

You misunderstand me, I meant the legislation that says that I cannot use the word raw!

In post 223 the FSA pdf Criteria for the Terms Fresh, Pure, Natural etc do not forbid the use of the word raw, but the the qualifying paragraph is as relevant to beekeepers, so here it is again:

Where a claim is potentially ambiguous or imprecise, the likely understanding of an average consumer should prevail and if consumer and trader interests conflict, the interests of consumers must take precedence.

I believe that descriptives such as raw are ambiguous and imprecise and have the potential to mislead; at least some TSOs agree with that view which is why they have taken action against beekeepers. You prefer to take advantage of the letter rather than the spirit of the law, Eric, but to do so does not benefit the profile or reputation of local honey.

PS: there's life in this old nag yet, Patrick!

 

[enrico]

In post 223 the FSA pdf Criteria for the Terms Fresh, Pure, Natural etc do not forbid the use of the word raw, but the the qualifying paragraph is as relevant to beekeepers, so here it is again:

Where a claim is potentially ambiguous or imprecise, the likely understanding of an average consumer should prevail and if consumer and trader interests conflict, the interests of consumers must take precedence.

I believe that descriptives such as raw are ambiguous and imprecise and have the potential to mislead; at least some TSOs agree with that view which is why they have taken action against beekeepers. You prefer to take advantage of the letter rather than the spirit of the law, Eric, but to do so does not benefit the profile or reputation of local honey.

PS: there's life in this old nag yet, Patrick!

The words " I believe" sum it up really. I don't believe they are ambiguous or imprecise. Simple as that.
The funny thing is that this whole thread started on wether you needed a label or not when selling from the gate. It was proved to me that you don't need a label. So now I am being told what I must or must not put on the label I don't have to have!!!!
I say again. I do not label my honey with anything other than the word honey as per the regulations. The optional label that I have chosen to put on , which I don't need, but I think adds an understanding to my product, contains descriptive words chosen by me. They are my choice and I believe them to be true.
I also believe that they benefit the profile and reputation of my honey.
Thanks Eric. We can agree to disagree if nothing else.
Good to have a reasoned discussion without it getting too personal!
E

 

[Amari]

Does anybody think this thread might overtake Tonybloke’s one day?

= 27,724 posts yet to come. Judging from the entrenched views above, I fear so. Do the Moderators have an axe?

 

[Erichalfbee]

= 27,724 posts yet to come. Judging from the entrenched views above, I fear so. Do the Moderators have an axe?

Yes. I think I’m about to wield it