Real honey at RHS Wisley,

[ics19]

Considering the National Honey Board defintion, is "Raw Soft Set" an oxymoron? e.g.:

https://www.vitalifehealth.com/hilltop-honey-raw-british-soft-set-honey-227g-htp30

What's ended up in the jar is somewhat different to what was in comb, would raw apply here? It's (hopefully) not been warmed so high that it's pasteurised, and unlikely to have been filtered any more than to remove cappings etc, but it has likely been warmed more than hive temperature to decrystallise if was OSR

 

[thorn]

The very fact that Eric can point to a number of definitions means that Enrico is wrong. He's simply settling on his definition and ignoring all others.
If a word is capable of being interpreted in more than one way, we should avoid using it.

 

[enrico]

Just a couple more points.i have never heated my honey before or during extraction or before and during bottling.not in 40 years! Better man?
And finally just because several people come up with different definitions it doesn't make any of them right or wrong. It can be done with every word in the English language.
I stand by what I believe to be right.
I shall say no more but thanks for the debate
E

 

[Ian123]

Lol but with only 3 hives you could bottle the lot in 1 go..... don’t your store in buckets how do you bottle if it’s set in the bucket!

 

[enrico]

Lol but with only 3 hives you could bottle the lot in 1 go..... don’t your store in buckets how do you bottle if it’s set in the bucket!

I must update it....... To 5 lol . In fairness that is now.in previous lives I have had many more but I accept your comments.
I am not saying that to heat or not changes the meaning of RAW. What I am saying is don't heat my honey so it IS RAW. I can only comment on my honey and what I believe it to be. I believe mine is RAW and have no worries about calling it so. If you have doubts about yours then obviously don't call it something it clearly is not!
Sorry, couldn't keep quiet!
E

 

[Ian123]

On the contrary I think mine is as raw as the next blokes...........so if you don’t heat how do you bottle

 

[enrico]

On the contrary I think mine is as raw as the next blokes...........so if you don’t heat how do you bottle

I bottle 24 hours after extraction but I don't extract everything at the same time. I do supers as they are filled, several extractions a year. That way I get different tastes and textures. It's just the way I do it!
E

 

[ericbeaumont]

Considering the National Honey Board defintion, is "Raw Soft Set" an oxymoron? e.g.: URL="https://www.vitalifehealth.com/hilltop-honey-raw-british-soft-set-honey-227g-htp30"]https://www.vitalifehealth.com/hilltop-honey-raw-british-soft-set-honey-227g-htp30[/URL]

What's ended up in the jar is somewhat different to what was in comb, would raw apply here?

Good example of confusion! Hilltop may have discovered by chance a natural soft set sufficient to sell in quantity, but I doubt it, which means that it's likely to have been processed by the Dyce method. In the US they refer to Dyce as creaming (thankfully forbidden in the UK, as it suggested that cream had been added) and pasteurise the honey; the excellent Youtube guide by Stewart Spinks of the Norfolk Honey Co. shows the Dyce similarly: how to grind the starter in a pestle and mortar for 40 minutes and heat it to 65C to kill yeasts (yes, pasteurisation) then heat again to 49C to mix; The Apiarist avoids the high temps and includes the grinding, and the Devon Beekeeper makes no mention of temps but does include grinding.

None of this, by any stretch, could be termed anything other than the processing of honey and about as far from the meaning of raw as you could get. Still, as beekeepers are as confused as retailers and retailers as confused as consumers, the oxymoron raw soft set honey will undoubtedly pass by unnoticed.

 

[charlievictorbravo]

Going back to the first post in this thread, it seems to me that the second photograph shows evidence of a contravention of the Honey (England) Regulations 2015. The contents are described as Honey but clearly the pollen has been added and the small supplementary label to one side makes this clear. The main label should say something like "Honey with added Pollen". With the addition of something to the honey, the product may well require to full nutrition analysis treatment to deal with the constituents of the added pollen.

The other observation I have is that the producer says he is a "Reg'd Beekeeper". I'd like to be one of those. Where do I sign up?

CVB

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

The other observation I have is that the producer says he is a "Reg'd Beekeeper". I'd like to be one of those. Where do I sign up?

CVB

I know of a few who need to be certified.

 

[Repwoc]

The other observation I have is that the producer says he is a "Reg'd Beekeeper". I'd like to be one of those. Where do I sign up?

He's probably registered on Beebase.

 

[Murox]

Going back to the first post in this thread, it seems to me that the second photograph shows evidence of a contravention of the Honey (England) Regulations 2015. The contents are described as Honey but clearly the pollen has been added and the small supplementary label to one side makes this clear. The main label should say something like "Honey with added Pollen". With the addition of something to the honey, the product may well require to full nutrition analysis treatment to deal with the constituents of the added pollen.

The other observation I have is that the producer says he is a "Reg'd Beekeeper". .

CVB

Or - Certified Lunatic and Master of the Impossible -

 

[ericbeaumont]

Going back to the first post in this thread, it seems to me that the second photograph shows evidence of a contravention of the Honey (England) Regulations 2015. The contents are described as Honey but clearly the pollen has been added and the small supplementary label to one side makes this clear. The main label should say something like "Honey with added Pollen". With the addition of something to the honey, the product may well require to full nutrition analysis treatment to deal with the constituents of the added pollen.

I agree; it's likely that the beekeeper saw a commercial opportunity to add pollen (perhaps asked to do so by the RHS buyer) but had already printed the honey labels and was unwilling to print more to reflect the new product. That's no excuse not to do so, but it underlines the careless way some go about selling honey.

On the other hand, I disagree with WalnutTreeBees, who sees the labelling and description of UK honey as a molehill; it has never been a molehill and will always be a mountain. If you're unsure, take a walk: from the top you'll be able to see that our collective descriptions and labels influence the perception of our product the length of the nation. You won't be able to do that standing on a molehill.

 

[For want of a better word]

He's probably registered on Beebase.[/QUO

OR taken his BBKA Basic and has the Certificate to prove it?

 

[enrico]

I agree; it's likely that the beekeeper saw a commercial opportunity to add pollen (perhaps asked to do so by the RHS buyer) but had already printed the honey labels and was unwilling to print more to reflect the new product. That's no excuse not to do so, but it underlines the careless way some go about selling honey.

On the other hand, I disagree with WalnutTreeBees, who sees the labelling and description of UK honey as a molehill; it has never been a molehill and will always be a mountain. If you're unsure, take a walk: from the top you'll be able to see that our collective descriptions and labels influence the perception of our product the length of the nation. You won't be able to do that standing on a molehill.

Eric, you seem to be missing our point. Some people are calling their honey raw when it clearly is not. Others are calling their honey raw when it clearly is. The first is wrong, the second is not.
You can say it is morally wrong to call any honey raw but that is an opinion.
E

 

[ericbeaumont]

Some people are calling their honey raw when it clearly is not. Others are calling their honey raw when it clearly is. The first is wrong, the second is not. You can say it is morally wrong to call any honey raw but that is an opinion.

There lies the problem, Eric, and it would take legislation to exclude individual opinion (including yours and mine ) and oblige beekeepers and retailers to work to a common agenda; if that were to happen, our product integrity and the the consumer would benefit.

If a word is capable of being interpreted in more than one way, we should avoid using it.

I think Thorn found the core of the issue.

 

[Hebeegeebee]

There are few beekeepers who sell honey that don't have to warm it to get it in the jars or althernatively they'll have honey that sets in unsightly ways in jars which most customers would not buy. ("Yeah, it looks crap but it's RAW crap" would just not work!). No one will disagree that absolutley unheated honey is raw. Warmed honey is not cooked but is it raw? Possibly if a limit on the temperature and time at temperature was used - it might give a definition that could be agreed upon. (although no one would probably know whether the figure had been exceeded). It would be lower than the HMF level we have to abide by for legal sale.
Specification: Max temperature and time. Simple.

Similarly if we consider straining and filtering, it's the size of the particles that can go through that would, presumably, be the differentiator. Straining through a standard 2 part stainless thing from Thormes or the other usual suppliers might be fine (should be fine) - passing through a finer mesh might be a no no for something that is to be considered as un-processed.

Specification: Size of the particle that can go through the filter. Simple.

 

[MerryBee]

And on the subject of mis-labelling of honey I found a jar of Littleover Apiaries honey in Sainsburys.

The label on the honey states "Produce of EC and non-EC countries" and also that the honey is unblended. These two statements are clearly contradictory. There appears to be an attempt to conceal the country of origin in breach of section 17 of The Honey (England) Regulations 2015 which requires the country of origin to be stated on the label.

I contacted Littleover and received a very unsatisfactory response, along the lines of "it might be from Bulgaria or it might be from Brazil ... it is not a blend".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1348/regulation/17/made

The design of the label gives the impression to an unwary consumer that the honey is English.

 

[Beersmith]

And on the subject of mis-labelling of honey I found a jar of Littleover Apiaries honey in Sainsburys.

The label on the honey states "Produce of EC and non-EC countries" and also that the honey is unblended. These two statements are clearly contradictory. There appears to be an attempt to conceal the country of origin in breach of section 17 of The Honey (England) Regulations 2015 which requires the country of origin to be stated on the label.

I contacted Littleover and received a very unsatisfactory response, along the lines of "it might be from Bulgaria or it might be from Brazil ... it is not a blend".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1348/regulation/17/made

The design of the label gives the impression to an unwary consumer that the honey is English.

Well spotted. I suspect you'd get a positive response if you drew this to the attention of Sainsbury's, as like most supermarkets, they dislike the publicity and harm to their reputation when foods they stock are mislabelled. Horse meat burgers anyone?

 

[Repwoc]

The label on the honey states "Produce of EC and non-EC countries"

It should be "Produce of EU and non-EU countries" according to the regs.