SMIF

[Erichalfbee]

Some of you are really hard to convince that some things may actually be better. but it does not matter - the only people who are disadvantaged by obstinacy are yourselves.

For some things it certainly is but once an author adds cancer to that list it becomes suspect if not dangerous.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Raw honey is not a honey description is it?
Most people that argue for it use “not heating above hive temperature” as the gold standard

You have just added another
It just adds to the confusion.

And has no foundation in truth, fact or reality

 

[pargyle]

Raw honey is not a honey description is it?

Only in the UK and as not mentioned in the UK Honey Labelling Regulations as a descriptive.

 

[Erichalfbee]

But if you add not feeding your bees to the criteria?

 

[pargyle]

But if you add not feeding your bees to the criteria?

What to the criteria for describing honey as raw ?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Yes

 

[user 20297]

Just because "Raw" is not a permitted, legal descriptor for honey doesn't mean that it isn't possible for your own, unadulterated, non-heat-treated, unfiltered honey, actually to be raw.
Does anyone ever print "Sweet" in front of the word "Honey" on their jar labels? If you don't, does that make it not sweet?

 

[Erichalfbee]

Just because "Raw" is not a permitted, legal descriptor for honey doesn't mean that it isn't possible for your own, unadulterated, non-heat-treated, unfiltered honey, actually to be raw.

What is the definition of raw? Mr Dartington has thrown not fed into the ring.

 

[pargyle]

Yes

Well you could add a whole host of criteria ... add in treatment free, foundationless frames - the Soil association seem to be insisting on hives being made from 'natural' materials for their organic classification .... I don't know where you draw the line. The argument over what was/is a 'natural' beekeeper has raged on for years and I suspect the same will be said for the raw honey terminology.

My premise has always been that nothing goes into my hives unless the bees bring it in ... so, on the few occasions when I've felt my bees needed feeding ... it still meets my criteria as the bees bring it in. I don't feed excessively and only in the autumn.

Raw (or lack of it) in tems of the UK Honey labelling regs is an anomaly that needs sorting out. Having seen what some people do with their bees honey about half the 'Honey' sold should be relabelled baker's honey !

In the meantime, it comes under my live and let live philosophy. If you feel your honey warrants the descriptive raw then that's fine with me ... if you don't ... that's also fine with me. It's a big market and there's room for everyone ..

 

[Ian123]

Just because "Raw" is not a permitted, legal descriptor for honey doesn't mean that it isn't possible for your own, unadulterated, non-heat-treated, unfiltered honey, actually to be raw.
Does anyone ever print "Sweet" in front of the word "Honey" on their jar labels? If you don't, does that make it not sweet?

Unfortunately with no legal description there is no definition as to what raw is. Then there’s the question of who would enforce any claims. Quite frankly do you need to put raw on your label to know it’s good stuff.
Let’s just say there’s a beekeeper near me that puts raw on his labels, he does several markets and has a few outlets. Not only is his honey raw it’s never heated and not filtered or pasteurised according according to the labels!
His runny honey is clear with no signs of setting even in winter! His set of which there are a few varieties is smooth and shows no signs of frosting.
Clearly he’s very talented

 

[pargyle]

What is the definition of raw? Mr Dartington has thrown not fed into the ring.

That's the problem.... there is no definition of raw honey ...

 

[pargyle]

Unfortunately with no legal description there is no definition as to what raw is. Then there’s the question of who would enforce any claims. Quite frankly do you need to put raw on your label to know it’s good stuff.
Let’s just say there’s a beekeeper near me that puts raw on his labels, he does several markets and has a few outlets. Not only is his honey raw it’s never heated and not filtered or pasteurised according according to the labels!
His runny honey is clear with no signs of setting even in winter! His set of which there are a few varieties is smooth and shows no signs of frosting.
Clearly he’s very talented

Precisely ....I've seen stuff on retail shelves with all sorts of descriptions attached to it ... that is, just by looking at it, clearly highly processed and probably not even 'pure' honey. But ... those honeys still pale in comparison to the stuff that comes out of the hives of most UK beekeepers.

 

[Ian123]

That's the problem.... there is no definition of raw honey ...

It’s no problem it’s not needed

 

[pargyle]

It’s no problem it’s not needed

Like I said ..it's an argument that will run and run ... Do I care ? Notalot..

 

[Ian123]

Part of the issue is when do you stop, there is a legal definition of honey and quality, if you allow the latest BUZZ word. What happens when a new one comes along. I new a guy once that had Free Range on his labels
Using the latest gimmick phrase will not improve any of the final product! Nor will it alter poor beekeeping practices. But I am sure adding more bs on the label will NOT make any difference

 

[user 20297]

What is the definition of raw? Mr Dartington has thrown not fed into the ring.

My own definition of some of my honey for which I have complete control over the production and harvesting is, as I said above, "(my) own, unadulterated, non-heat-treated, (and) unfiltered."
I wouldn't sell it as "raw" or even describe it verbally or in any way try to pass it off under that descriptor. But I think it's a bit blinkered and pedantic to tell oneself that because there is no legal definition for raw honey, that makes it impossible to be a raw product. Raw food products are always ones that are unprocessed in any way other than cleaning of impurities that are not part of the nutritional value of the food.
In this, I think I'm saying the same as @rdartington, but in a less concise way.

 

[pargyle]

Part of the issue is when do you stop, there is a legal definition of honey and quality, if you allow the latest BUZZ word. What happens when a new one comes along. I new a guy once that had Free Range on his labels
Using the latest gimmick phrase will not improve any of the final product! Nor will it alter poor beekeeping practices. But I’m sure all the bs on the label makes all the difference.

I don't think raw is a new buzz word in terms of honey ...it's been around in beekeeping for decades - whether it was picked up from consumers seeking honey as it comes out of the hive or whether it came from beekeepers seeking to differentiate their honey from industrially processed products is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, it has become a term that is recognised as having some value and credence in the eyes of some consumers. You can argue about it as long as you like ... the reality is that it's out there and like it or not ... some consumers (and I rather think they are the more discerning honey consumers) are already using the word and seeking out the product. The cat's out of the bag ...

 

[user 20297]

Unfortunately with no legal description there is no definition as to what raw is. Then there’s the question of who would enforce any claims. Quite frankly do you need to put raw on your label to know it’s good stuff.
Let’s just say there’s a beekeeper near me that puts raw on his labels, he does several markets and has a few outlets. Not only is his honey raw it’s never heated and not filtered or pasteurised according according to the labels!
His runny honey is clear with no signs of setting even in winter! His set of which there are a few varieties is smooth and shows no signs of frosting.
Clearly he’s very talented

Exactly...you don't need to put "Raw" on your label because you and any discerning customers already know that it is.

 

[Karol]

Reading the reactions to the article has been as fascinating as the article itself.

Whilst I find the article (reluctant to call it a scientific paper) fascinating, I don't put much credence to the claims being made. The acronym SMIF doesn't particularly evoke an air of integrity. I can't see "SMIFFED Honey" being an attractive strap line!

What's fascinating is that it's a peer reviewed 'paper' published in a journal. Just goes to show that peer review frequently isn't what it's cracked up to be and quite rightly the quality of the journals in which papers appear requires scrutiny before forming any opinions.

The one fascinating nugget in the review in case any of you missed it is the scientific paper published in Veterinary Microbiology 2007 which should be of interest as it's a respected publication and the paper reported the notable observation that honey samples provided directly from apiarists showed significantly better antimicrobial activity than honey samples provided from honey packers. Now that IS interesting!

 

[Erichalfbee]

Now that IS interesting!

But not surprising