Real honey at RHS Wisley,

[ericbeaumont]

Is not more to do with twisted and devious marketing speak that has been prevalent for several decades now?

Marketing blather may have misled consumers for years, but if beekeepers follow the same route (the everybody does it, so why not? argument) then we're lost. We should hold firm and be the voice that labels plainly and without the fluffy and legal ambiguity of raw and pure and so on. For sellers small or vast I reckon the best promotion is the location (which authenticates provenance) and the absence of processing of the product; anything else gets in the way (for us all) in the long term.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Marketing blather may have misled consumers for years, but if beekeepers follow the same route (the everybody does it, so why not? argument) then we're lost. We should hold firm and be the voice that labels plainly and without the fluffy and legal ambiguity of raw and pure and so on. For sellers small or vast I reckon the best promotion is the location (which authenticates provenance) and the absence of processing of the product; anything else gets in the way (for us all) in the long term.

 

[Murox]

Marketing blather may have misled consumers for years, but if beekeepers follow the same route (the everybody does it, so why not? argument) then we're lost. We should hold firm and be the voice that labels plainly and without the fluffy and legal ambiguity of raw and pure and so on. For sellers small or vast I reckon the best promotion is the location (which authenticates provenance) and the absence of processing of the product; anything else gets in the way (for us all) in the long term.

Ah, Now I am with you

 

[beeno]

Ah, Now I am with you

I do think we need to tell people if the honey is pasteurised or not as they do with milk.

 

[Murox]

I do think we need to tell people if the honey is pasteurised or not as they do with milk.

As long as you "label plainly and without the fluffy and legal ambiguity" and stick to the rules.

 

[SDM]

I do think we need to tell people if the honey is pasteurised or not as they do with milk.

How do you suggest consumers tell then.

 

[ericbeaumont]

I do think we need to tell people if the honey is pasteurised or not as they do with milk.

Raw milk is a completely different (and more complex) game: check out the raw milk regs. by the Food Standards Authority: consumption by certain groups is not recommended (similar to honey); raw milk is illegal in Scotland; farms are inspected for hygiene twice a year; milk samples are tested four times a year for which the farmer pays £63 each time. If that isn't enough, have a look at the FSA Guidance for food business owners on getting approval, registering, selling, sampling and testing raw cows' drinking milk - including information on tuberculosis and raw cows' drinking milk.

What this shows is that the sale of raw milk is framed by legislation and honey is not; given that vast difference we should avoid selling unprocessed honey by hijacking the legal reassurance given to customers of raw milk. If we do, sooner or later the disparity will be exposed and beekeepers who use raw may regret that they confused the customer and spoiled the game for all of us.

Of course, customers are already confused because I'm asked at every market Is it raw? I tell them it's unprocessed and that I'm the beekeeper; my price card states Direct from a local beehive and my label states that this unprocessed honey was harvested within two miles of wherever. That's usually enough; if they want more, we chat.

 

[enrico]

The word 'raw' is an adjective that describes my honey perfectly. It is far more understandable than the word 'pure'.
It means what it says.
I see no ambiguity or deception.
E

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

What this shows is that the sale of raw milk is framed by legislation and honey is not; given that vast difference we should avoid selling unprocessed honey by hijacking the legal reassurance given to customers of raw milk. If we do, sooner or later the disparity will be exposed and beekeepers who use raw may regret that they confused the customer and spoiled the game for all of us.

The word 'raw' is an adjective that describes my honey perfectly
I see no ambiguity or deception.
E

Or rather you don't want to see
As Eric says by trying to ape a legislatively controlled foodstuff description you are in danger of drawing the sights onto beekeeping so we end up with far more constraints and regulatory barriers than before.
There are a lot of career civil servants out there at the moment looking for a new hobby horse now that it looks like they won't have EC regulations to fiddle with.

 

[enrico]

Or rather you don't want to see
As Eric says by trying to ape a legislatively controlled foodstuff description you are in danger of drawing the sights onto beekeeping so we end up with far more constraints and regulatory barriers than before.
There are a lot of career civil servants out there at the moment looking for a new hobby horse now that it looks like they won't have EC regulations to fiddle with.

It is not a question of not wanting to see. There is none. It is a simple word of description. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill with regards this word. I totally understand the concern about added contents and words that are ambiguous. raw is not one of them.
E

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

In the context of food retailing/preparation it is no longer just 'a word' it is now almost a reserved description

 

[enrico]

For certain foods I accept that..... Such as milk..... But NOT for honey


E

 

[ericbeaumont]

and words that are ambiguous. raw is not one of them.

Can't go along with that, Eric, and this piece by the US HoneyBeeSuite describes that ambiguity: Raw: What it means to buyers and sellers. Here's a sample:

Because of all the confusion, the National Honey Board has come up with its own definition. They describe raw honey as “honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining without adding heat.” But as the honey board points out, this definition carries no legal weight.

The FDA website says, “It is widely accepted that raw honey is honey which was not filtered or heated above normal ambient temperature.” This, too, contains lots of ambiguity. Does “ambient temperature” mean outside on a hot day or can it mean inside a heated building? And where does straining stop and filtering begin?

Other sources say that raw means unpasteurized, and that the slight amount of heat used to facilitate straining and bottling doesn’t count. Wikipedia says that some “minimally processed” honey is sold as raw. Other sites argue that warming the bottled honey just before sale to make it liquid again also doesn’t count. So where do we draw the line? Is heated honey raw or not? How do you define “heated?” And what is “minimally processed?”

Beecraft would also disagree with you, stating that there is some ambiguity among beekeepers. But the ambiguity doesn’t stop there. It extends to the various food authorities and their approach to the term.

Even The Raw Honey Shop in Brighton is confused: We also only use unblended honey from individual beekeepers. Is unblended part of their definition of raw? Who knows? Who knows what they mean by coarse filtered - we will only ever carry completely unpasteurised, only coarse-filtered, completely raw honey - is coarse filtered the same as strained? Who is to say?

I have no idea which of this small sample of deeply ambiguous definitions are either useful and meaningful, or merely passing fads that will only succeed to deceive; I suspect the latter. As JBM said, if beekeepers want to avoid the legislative spotlight they had better choose their words with a thought for the consequences.

 

[enrico]

Collins dictionary
ADJECTIVE [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
Raw materials or substances are in their natural state before being processed or used in manufacturing

All the other arguements you put are other people's interpretation of what that means to them. But the defenition is clear in my eyes and without ambiguity and that is what I would quote if required. People can twist it as much as they like to mean whatever they want.thatcan be done with any words or phrases but the defenition is clear.

I honestly do see the other side of the coin and understand what you are saying, just not necessarily agreeing with it!

E

 

[Ian123]

Yes but it’s the bit that says before being processed that cause the issue, could be argued extraction is a process and how much heat/warming until you get to processed. If you can extract and bottle without heat your a better man than me....

 

[ericbeaumont]

But the definition is clear in my eyes

But not (unlike milk) in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of the next beekeeper down the road; those variables can only dilute the aim to foster a national USP of local honey (some hope, but must try).

I spin my honey, strain it and warm it if necessary; those interventions prevent my use (just supposing) of the word raw. On the other hand, the Ross Rounds I have could be called raw (they won't), as the product is self-contained and untouched by human hand or process.

 

[Monbees]

It is not a question of not wanting to see. There is none. It is a simple word of description. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill with regards this word. I totally understand the concern about added contents and words that are ambiguous. raw is not one of them.
E

Putting my head above the parapet, expecting to be shot down, but absolutely agree Enrico. Raw is an adjective not exclusive to meat or milk, (think vegetables) and, as you say, describes my honey too. No deception or ambiguity.

 

[WalnutTreeBees]

Can't go along with that, Eric, and this piece by the US HoneyBeeSuite describes that ambiguity: Raw: What it means to buyers and sellers. Here's a sample:

Because of all the confusion, the National Honey Board has come up with its own definition. They describe raw honey as “honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining without adding heat.” But as the honey board points out, this definition carries no legal weight.

The FDA website says, “It is widely accepted that raw honey is honey which was not filtered or heated above normal ambient temperature.” This, too, contains lots of ambiguity. Does “ambient temperature” mean outside on a hot day or can it mean inside a heated building? And where does straining stop and filtering begin?

Other sources say that raw means unpasteurized, and that the slight amount of heat used to facilitate straining and bottling doesn’t count. Wikipedia says that some “minimally processed” honey is sold as raw. Other sites argue that warming the bottled honey just before sale to make it liquid again also doesn’t count. So where do we draw the line? Is heated honey raw or not? How do you define “heated?” And what is “minimally processed?”

Beecraft would also disagree with you, stating that there is some ambiguity among beekeepers. But the ambiguity doesn’t stop there. It extends to the various food authorities and their approach to the term.

Even The Raw Honey Shop in Brighton is confused: We also only use unblended honey from individual beekeepers. Is unblended part of their definition of raw? Who knows? Who knows what they mean by coarse filtered - we will only ever carry completely unpasteurised, only coarse-filtered, completely raw honey - is coarse filtered the same as strained? Who is to say?

I have no idea which of this small sample of deeply ambiguous definitions are either useful and meaningful, or merely passing fads that will only succeed to deceive; I suspect the latter. As JBM said, if beekeepers want to avoid the legislative spotlight they had better choose their words with a thought for the consequences.

What a rubbish article. They quote a perfectly good definition of raw honey in the second paragraph (“honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, settling or straining without adding heat”) and then proceed to waffle on about other less satisfactory definitions, botulism and meat.

Blended or unblended has nothing to do with being raw. If you blend two raw honeys from opposite sides of the world the product will still be raw. It is not physically or chemically changed.

Coarse filtering vs straining is irrelevant because you are not affecting the honey, you are only removing contaminants e.g. pollen, wax, bee bits etc.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

Raw is an excellent term to describe high quality honey that has not been heated. I would suggest that it is a good term for small scale beekeepers to adopt in order to differentiate their product from the heated tasteless sugar syrup that fills the supermarket shelves.

 

[Ian123]

“Coarse filtering vs straining is irrelevant because you are not affecting the honey, you are only removing contaminants e.g. pollen, wax, bee bits etc.“................................raw honey filtered to remove pollen!!! That sounds like the supermarket. Do you heat your honey to bottle?

 

[pargyle]

The word 'raw' is an adjective that describes my honey perfectly. It is far more understandable than the word 'pure'.
It means what it says.
I see no ambiguity or deception.
E

I agree, my customers ask for raw honey, I sell them what they ask for and it says on the label what it is and where it came from. I see it as the preserve of the hobby beekeeper - one of the USP we have above and beyond the processors and packers of honey we see on supermarket shelves.

It is not heated beyond the temperature that the bees keep it at, it is not blended with anyone else's honey and it comes straight out of my hives and into the food chain. I explain that the only 'treatment' it gets is the mechanical extraction from the comb and coarse filtering to remove any wax flakes and people understand that.