Labels - so how can this possibly be legal?

[REDWOOD]

I was at Bushmill's last year and apparently they use real honey, as it comes from the west/southwest of Ireland.

It looks honey coloured to me !

 

[Tom Bick]

It may prove that it's perfectly legal for them to call their product Honey.
Note the product name is honey or Irish honey or American honey. The other bit is brand or company name. There should. Be an . answer from trading standards on Monday . If that's the case then we need to ask the politicians why this so. Please ignore my previous messages and take no action until the position is clarified. Any unfounded accusations of illegality could result in them taking legal action against those posting.

so you have obviously had one or two replies to your letters and emails.

 

[itma]

It may prove that it's perfectly legal for them to call their product Honey.
Note the product name is honey or Irish honey or American honey. The other bit is brand or company name. There should. Be an . answer from trading standards on Monday . If that's the case then we need to ask the politicians why this so. Please ignore my previous messages and take no action until the position is clarified. Any unfounded accusations of illegality could result in them taking legal action against those posting.

The use of the name "honey" in the name of a food is severely restricted by law.
One defence is indeed that of distinction from actual honey.
The fact that at least two of the posters on hotukdeals thought that the name "Three Barrels Honey" referred to a honey rather than an alcoholic product confirms that this distinction is not entirely clear. And the subsequent change of thread title on that forum suggests that a moderator over there also felt that clarification was worthwhile.
I take that as independent evidence that there is a reasonable doubt in the case of "Three Barrels Honey" that the name is not universally recognised as indicating a product that is not claiming to be honey.
Where the brand name is better recognised, this defence would be stronger.



Secondly, I understand the Honey Regulations to further restrict the use of the word "honey" in a product name to those products for which actual, real, passing all the test criteria, honey itself is an ingredient.
According to the product labelling, the claim for Three Barrels Honey is NOT that it is actually made with real honey, merely "honey flavouring".
I remain to be convinced that it is within the law to use the word "honey" without qualification in the name of a food product which merely contains "honey flavouring" and not real honey.



On a different track, I do rather wonder what the legal department of the importer would do if they were to discover a British beekeeper called Jack Daniels who decided to label his product "Jack Daniels' Honey" … Would there be any possible confusion?



And on a much happier note, I can confirm that using a bit of cheap supermarket brandy to rinse out your cappings and honey buckets does make for a very pleasant tipple indeed.
Perhaps if you happened to have three honey buckets to clean, you could make up some "Three Buckets Honey" as a Christmas gift for special friends …

 

[Moggett]

I suspect nothing will happen as Trading Standards will be looking for any reason not to take on a multi national company that can afford expensive legal teams. The cost of rebranding, withdrawing stock etc. would be huge so they would take it to court.

On the other hand a bunch of beekeepers will cost nothing to ignore and will accept being told to sod off, so there's your answer.

 

[Swarm]

Good grief! I can't believe this.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Well - I think we should be campaigning even harder - forget about distillers mislabelling what is obviously an alcoholic beverage with the name 'Honey' only a complete id!ot would think it was anything but a honey flavoured alcoholic drink what about the new Zealanders labelling pots of creaosote flavoured hive scrapings as 'Manuka honey'.
And whilst we wring our hands on the audacity of the distillers (what next, taking Foster's on for rudely calling their beer amber nectar?) the small hive beetle marches steadily nearer and hardly anyone seems bothered enought to sign the petition.

Fiddling while Rome burns?​

 

[Margaret Elisabeth]

What Petition?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

What Petition?

See what i mean

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32004

 

[Margaret Elisabeth]

Thanks Jenkins I have not been on here a lot recently, must have missed this one catching something else. I am surprised 38 degrees have not sent anything to me I seem to get something every three days at the mo.

 

[psafloyd]

There was a story of a woman who was being pursued by Burt's Bees for her own trademark which was only sold direct and not even similar to Burt's Bees at all.

If I remember where I saw it, I will post it, as it goes to show how petty big business can be.

The use of the name "honey" in the name of a food is severely restricted by law.
One defence is indeed that of distinction from actual honey.
The fact that at least two of the posters on hotukdeals thought that the name "Three Barrels Honey" referred to a honey rather than an alcoholic product confirms that this distinction is not entirely clear. And the subsequent change of thread title on that forum suggests that a moderator over there also felt that clarification was worthwhile.
I take that as independent evidence that there is a reasonable doubt in the case of "Three Barrels Honey" that the name is not universally recognised as indicating a product that is not claiming to be honey.
Where the brand name is better recognised, this defence would be stronger.



Secondly, I understand the Honey Regulations to further restrict the use of the word "honey" in a product name to those products for which actual, real, passing all the test criteria, honey itself is an ingredient.
According to the product labelling, the claim for Three Barrels Honey is NOT that it is actually made with real honey, merely "honey flavouring".
I remain to be convinced that it is within the law to use the word "honey" without qualification in the name of a food product which merely contains "honey flavouring" and not real honey.



On a different track, I do rather wonder what the legal department of the importer would do if they were to discover a British beekeeper called Jack Daniels who decided to label his product "Jack Daniels' Honey" … Would there be any possible confusion?



And on a much happier note, I can confirm that using a bit of cheap supermarket brandy to rinse out your cappings and honey buckets does make for a very pleasant tipple indeed.
Perhaps if you happened to have three honey buckets to clean, you could make up some "Three Buckets Honey" as a Christmas gift for special friends …

 

[user 6228]

The word from Basingstoke trading standards is that so long as there are some words somewhere on the label that say its not honey or says that it contains some trace of honey anyone can call their product the single word or a phrase ending in the word

HONEY
​

and not have to obey none the honey regulations

HOWEVER if it is "honey"
you have to obey all of the honey regulations.

so this rebranding of golden syrup would be legal

TATE & LYLE
HONEY
sugar syrup with a hint of honey​

but this is illegal if it is Honey

Delicious Honey​

 

[Moggett]

I did say they'd fob you off.

Now if you'd made a mistake on your labels that would be another matter.....

 

[user 6228]

Anyone know some one who can produce an excellent youtube video on how to identify honeybee parasites

 

[Hivemaker.]

so this rebranding of golden syrup would be legal

Tate & Lyle would take you to court for using their name on your product.

Just use...sugar syrup honey.

 

[user 6228]

Tate & Lyle would take you to court for using their name on your product.

Just use...sugar syrup honey.

I'm suggesting TATE&LYLE could do this and any major brand could invent something and call it honey . No protection just regulation of those daft enough to produce the real thing. honey will just mean a sweet caramel flavoured generic
Watch out for :
Baileys Honey
Guiness Honey
bulmers Honey
Stella Honey
Coca Cola Honey
Pepsi Honey
Hershey Honey
Cadbury honey
Danone Honey
Nestle Honey
McVities Honey
Durex Honey
Heinz Honey
McDonalds honey
Big Mac Honey

 

[Hivemaker.]

Durex Honey

You dirty old rascal, Derek.

 

[priono]

I am still wondering why the so called honey for £1.49 for 12oz in my foreign off licence with a whopping 80% fructose glucose sirup in front of honey in the ingredients list is called honey

It also comes in a clip to jar.

 

[rayz_x]

It looks like that is common practice in US (If this link is to be believed) but is it sold here as well?
http://www.foodrenegade.com/your-honey-isnt-honey/

Another link here to what seems a more objective article. This doesn't mention adulteration, just 'ultra-filtering' to disguise origin.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.VIIv-E1ybVI

Ray

 

[alanf]

I am still wondering why the so called honey for £1.49 for 12oz in my foreign off licence with a whopping 80% fructose glucose sirup in front of honey in the ingredients list is called honey.

It's not honey. In theory it is illegal to sell it in the UK. There have been a few court cases, but not many. The restrictions are not the same everywhere, so small time wholesalers get a few cases of illegally labelled jars. You could report it to trading standards. If they investigated it might result in it being taken off the shelves. Unlikely more unless it's part of a bigger operation to produce fakes, but the fact it has ingredients listed probably means it is within the law somewhere.

 

[user 6228]

I am still wondering why the so called honey for £1.49 for 12oz in my foreign off licence with a whopping 80% fructose glucose sirup in front of honey in the ingredients list is called honey

It also comes in a clip to jar.

Can you send details & pictures