Laurence Edwards' petition to allow the use of the word "Raw" to describe unheated, non-pressure filtered honey.

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
increased migration of people from areas of the world where TB is more common than in the UK
But as you say - it's not the only reason - the cluster which was discovered just down the road from me not long ago were all indigenous locals with minimal contact to any outside hotspots, there has also been a correlation with the increase in what many can only describe as slum landlords, I remember reading a report on the many sub standard and downright disgusting hovels that many people, especially near destitute or homeless are forced to live in in the Swansea area. These are also the 'luxury hotels' that the average gammon claim refugees get awarded when they first claim asylum in this country, so if they have come from a country with a higher level of TB risk than ours then being dumped in places like this it's just going to help incubate the disease and help in its spread.
 
I don't think Laurence expected many people to actually sign it. He understands how publicity works.
I agree but having it in the public view for 6 months keeps the publicity on the boil!
 
I avoided my BCG at school. Having a surname beginning with Z I was at the end of a very long queue and by the time I got near the front I’d watched too many people squeal and faint so I ran away.
At Vet school we were all tested before starting clinical work. There was a high proportion of positive tests in students from dairy farms.
These days TB in the UK has begun to rise due to a combination of factors. These include increased migration of people from areas of the world where TB is more common than in the UK and the increased mobility of the UK population. An ageing population and the emergence of HIV and antibiotic resistance have also added to this increase.

Human TB (M. tuberculosis) cases rising as per your post but human cases of bovine TB (M. bovis) are staying relatively low due to pasteurisation IIRC. Most cases of the latter are in those exposed via industries such as dairy farming, as per your experience. Given we gave up on actually eradicating bTB when we could have and now everyone is squeamish about killing badgers (which was going on on a large scale when they nearly eradicated it), plus other factors, it's only going to keep increasing in cattle. Hence why I'm cautious about 'raw' milk.

Honey is a very different substance and is not an ideal carrier medium for most microbes, unlike milk. Would be cautious to use the latter as an example in the honey labelling context.
 
Flour is raw and you can get a nasty tummy eating bits of raw dough. Then there’s eggs

Not sure I follow the connection here? Flour isn't normally described as raw and eggs would be similar to milk in terms of culture media rather than like honey - hence we tend to cook eggs before eating them.

You could still catch a nasty dose of AFB though - or nosema!

Or if you're human, potentially Clostridium if you're unfortunate.
 
You could still catch a nasty dose of AFB though - or nosema!

To where you catch it? To own nose or...
They are bee diseases and we know that issue.

We know, what Clostridium does to human. Over 1 year old people have natural resistancy to it. No heating.

Raw sugar cane juice may have poisonous bacteria.

We know lots of food microbia, which may generate poison to humans.
 
Last edited:
Is the local one definitely not produced in what could reasonably be considered a local area to the store it is sold in and claiming to be so? If so that would be a very straightforward matter for TS to deal with and probably should be reported.
However if it is the brand name "the local honey...." then its muddy waters I think as that's a trading name and not a claim on the product.
Regardless of the word raw that label does not meet ANY of the honey labelling requirements ... origin, weight ? Weight should be prominent and on the visible portion of the label for a start ...
 
Weight should be prominent and on the visible portion of the label for a start ...
the weight can be anywhere - it's probably on the back with all the other mandatory bits. All the regulations stipulate is that all the mandatory stuff is in the right font size and all in the same field of vision (apart from the BBE/Lot numbers - they can be elsewhere as long as where is again indicated in that one field)
 
the weight can be anywhere - it's probably on the back with all the other mandatory bits. All the regulations stipulate is that all the mandatory stuff is in the right font size and all in the same field of vision (apart from the BBE/Lot numbers - they can be elsewhere as long as where is again indicated in that one field)
I stand corrected ...
 
There is no compelling economic reason to tell the truth, using a word like HONEY is like a government information release, a political speech or a mystery thriller no body will hold you accountable. Adding RAW to the mix, makes little difference to those who already contemptuously **** a snook at the rules.
 
We seek it out. I drink nothing else.
I suspect that 'raw' milk was the unpasteurised stuff that gave me bovine TB 85 years ago for which I wound up in Gt. Ormand St for a while? No problem since and well past my sell-by date thanks to pasteurisation and the NHS. :LOL: :LOL:
 
I stand corrected ...
or there again ... perhaps I don't ?

Quantity information

You must put the net quantity in grams, kilograms, millilitres or litres on the label of:
  • packaged food over 5g or 5ml
  • packaged herbs and spices
Solid foods packed in a liquid (or an ice glaze) must show the drained net weight.

The net quantity must be close enough to the name of the food that you can see all this information at the same time. This also applies to the alcoholic strength for alcoholic drinks.

You do not have to show the weight or volume on foods sold by number, for example 2 bread rolls, provided that you can clearly see the number of items inside the packaging.

Source:
https://www.gov.uk/food-labelling-and-packaging/food-labelling-what-you-must-show
 
or there again ... perhaps I don't ?

Quantity information

You must put the net quantity in grams, kilograms, millilitres or litres on the label of:
  • packaged food over 5g or 5ml
  • packaged herbs and spices
Solid foods packed in a liquid (or an ice glaze) must show the drained net weight.

The net quantity must be close enough to the name of the food that you can see all this information at the same time. This also applies to the alcoholic strength for alcoholic drinks.

You do not have to show the weight or volume on foods sold by number, for example 2 bread rolls, provided that you can clearly see the number of items inside the packaging.

Source:
https://www.gov.uk/food-labelling-and-packaging/food-labelling-what-you-must-show
Does it say anywhere there that it has to be on the front?
I checked and double checked with various authorities including TS (I had a friend, who at the time was head of TS/EH of Carmarthenshire), the legality was also checked when I was judged in the commercial section at the National Honey show (and discussed later with the judge)
As I said in my last post All the regulations say is that all the mandatory stuff must be in the same field of vision - it doesn't matter where on the jar that is (mandatory, in our case also means the description 'Honey')
Have a look at the majority of items on supermarket shelves and you will see that weights etc, are usually on the side or the back of the package.
 
I suspect that 'raw' milk was the unpasteurised stuff that gave me bovine TB 85 years ago for which I wound up in Gt. Ormand St for a while? No problem since and well past my sell-by date thanks to pasteurisation and the NHS. :LOL: :LOL:
My wife had serious gastric problems that finally got identified due to the pasteurisation of the milk. Changed it for unpasteurised milk and it cleared up almost overnight. In the 1980.'s we just collected milk from the local farm and our children were brought up on it. When we moved we drank normal bottled milk and that is when the problems started. We are really lucky having a raw milk farm less than half a mile away. Proper testing and certified etc.
A risk we are prepared to take!
 
Human TB (M. tuberculosis) cases rising as per your post but human cases of bovine TB (M. bovis) are staying relatively low due to pasteurisation IIRC. Most cases of the latter are in those exposed via industries such as dairy farming, as per your experience. Given we gave up on actually eradicating bTB when we could have and now everyone is squeamish about killing badgers (which was going on on a large scale when they nearly eradicated it), plus other factors, it's only going to keep increasing in cattle. Hence why I'm cautious about 'raw' milk.

Honey is a very different substance and is not an ideal carrier medium for most microbes, unlike milk. Would be cautious to use the latter as an example in the honey labelling context.

Off topic.
There is a vaccine for bovine TB and it could have prevented the needless slaughter of cattle and badgers. However the vaccine has never been approved as it it is impossible to tell the difference between active and inactive (immunised) positives with the current crude skin test. It would need a serological test to determine the antibody profile and therefore status of infection which would cost more and need approval and acceptance in any country the UK export cattle to. Its not a difficult scientific activity, just doesn't seem a priority. Plenty of evidence the current skin test is a fairly arbitrary test
 
Off topic.
There is a vaccine for bovine TB and it could have prevented the needless slaughter of cattle and badgers. However the vaccine has never been approved as it it is impossible to tell the difference between active and inactive (immunised) positives with the current crude skin test. It would need a serological test to determine the antibody profile and therefore status of infection which would cost more and need approval and acceptance in any country the UK export cattle to. Its not a difficult scientific activity, just doesn't seem a priority. Plenty of evidence the current skin test is a fairly arbitrary test

I know but I didn't bring TB up... Just got pedantic about a difference in increasing cases of human and bovine variants.

It would also take a very long time bit like with badgers and BCG vaccine (which is not very effective anyway) as it doesn't help those already infected. There's currently a promising DIVA vaccine candidate being worked on by DEFRA, was in the news a year or two ago but not heard much since. Current skin test is pretty effective and when combined with badger culling and a few decades back was sufficient to basically eradicate bTB from most of the country except a couple of very small hotspots. It was then deemed not worth the money to go all the way, plus PoBA and public sentiment about killing badgers as well as potential effect of restocking following FMDV and look where we are now... IMO we need to get tough, wipe it out properly even if short term a lot of animals are sadly killed, then we can avoid killing far greater number badgers and cattle plus avoiding all the suffering from affected a animals as it would no longer be festering on indefinitely. Worth noting that in some UK areas deer have a large burden, wild boar are a major reservoir on the continent (feral UK population in some areas) and I think there was a recent sheep case. Sadly can't see any UK government actually fixing this. Anyway, I digress... Again!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top