honey content - legal requirement

[oliver90owner]

Did you get to the end of my post before you replied ?

Yes I did. But I noted your continued use of the word 'ingredient', even if in inverted commas, and so required clarification. As I said, an item is not the same as an ingredient; constituents is probably better than contents but, all the same, honey or cut comb 'contains' ... is about the same as 'made up of'.

 

[wessexmario]

I continued to use the word ingredient because while we agree that the English language use of the word isn't the most appropriate in terms of understanding, I was pointing out that if the contents of a food are listed on the label, the word "Ingredient" is required by law.

The subject of this thread is the legality of the label, not the semantics of the English. It's not legally acceptable to substitute any of your suggestions.

 

[oliver90owner]

It's not legally acceptable to substitute any of your suggestions.

If it is honey, it is an item, not an ingredient. Got it yet? Not only no need for ingredients, but does not have any. No more so than a cabbage would.

 

[BeeJayBee]

The only time I've seen something that looked like honey that needed a list of ingredients was this, which is a piece of partly capped comb floating in "glucose-fructose syrup".

The company also sells cut comb with no additives http://www.aytac.co.uk/aytac/product.php?Code=32370&brand=HASBAL

 

[itma]

... I was pointing out that if the contents of a food are listed on the label, the word "Ingredient" is required by law.

And it has been pointed out, and seemingly accepted by yourself, that the word "ingredient" is NOT required by law on anything labelled as "Honey" - since it can have only one 'ingredient' (honey) and any adulteration is legally prohibited.

Its not about WHICH word is legally required for honey - NO such word is "legally required".

I know, its getting close to the start of winter, but you are pointing out things that apply to OTHER foods, NOT honey.
WTF are you quibbling about?

The subject of this thread is the legality of the label, not the semantics of the English. It's not legally acceptable to substitute any of your suggestions.

Actually, the OP reported strange wording on the labels of "cheap honeys" in what he called "foreign shops".
The (UK) legality of those labels (and the contents of the packs) remains in some significant doubt.
No one should feel tempted (let alone feel "legally required") to follow such a curious and dubious example.

 

[Erichalfbee]

The only time I've seen something that looked like honey that needed a list of ingredients was this, which is a piece of partly capped comb floating in "glucose-fructose syrup".

Yummy!!! Any brood in it?

 

[thorn]

It's always wise though to put a warning on the label 'may contain nuts' as this is the fashionable allergy at the moment

I wasn't aware that the workers castrated the drones before evicting them.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

No need nowadays - i believe MAQS does the job for them