SMIF

[Karol]

But not surprising

It might not be surprising. The point is that it is scientific evidence of a difference. How this attribute of provenance influences the debate on natural vs raw vs pure vs organic vs 'SMIFFED honey' I leave to those better in the know.

 

[Wilco]

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.

Two thoughts

1. Raw does not mean unprocessed. Raw steak will likely have been hung for a period of time to improve flavour and texture, in cold storage, before being transported to the butcher who will keep it cool and then slice it for sale.

2. We refer to it as steak at the point of sale, not raw steak, because all steak is raw at this point and so it's blindingly obvious and unnecessary.

 

[Poly Hive]

Not fed. What precisely? I know the implication is sugar but sheesh does that really matter? The precious people won't eat honey anyway. So I see a nuc that is struggling a bit and give them a stores comb. Did I not just fed them? ROFL

PH

 

[user 20297]

Two thoughts

1. Raw does not mean unprocessed. Raw steak will likely have been hung for a period of time to improve flavour and texture, in cold storage, before being transported to the butcher who will keep it cool and then slice it for sale.

2. We refer to it as steak at the point of sale, not raw steak, because all steak is raw at this point and so it's blindingly obvious and unnecessary.

1. It depends on another definition...."processed". Is straining honey to remove wax particles and bee-bits "processing"? I don't think so as it doesn't change the structure of the honey; wax and bee-bits are not a constituent of honey.

2. We refer to meats as being "cooked" the implication being that meat is otherwise "raw".....that's why labelling isn't needed...the natural state of meat is raw. As long as I have confidence in its provenance and the care taken in it handling by the beekeeper, honey bought from the gate is, by that perverse, (?) reverse thinking, raw.

 

[pargyle]

Two thoughts

1. Raw does not mean unprocessed. Raw steak will likely have been hung for a period of time to improve flavour and texture, in cold storage, before being transported to the butcher who will keep it cool and then slice it for sale.

2. We refer to it as steak at the point of sale, not raw steak, because all steak is raw at this point and so it's blindingly obvious and unnecessary.

It may not mean unprocessed to you ... But what the dissenters are all missing, in terms of honey that is unprocessed, is the perception of a growing percentage of discerning honey purchasers, that the term RAW implies something that they are seeking in their honey purchase.

Having spent a lifetime in sales and marketing I've come to realise that it is the perception of the product in the eyes of the consumer that is the critical factor that promotes the purchase NOT what the producer considers are the product attributes.

I accept, entirely, that some honey consumers are knowledgeable - I further accept that in face to face sales you can explain how your honey will meet their perception of the honey they are seeking - I can also accept that some people are just stuck in a corner having decided that, to them and their customers, raw is an unnecessary addition to the label. I'm fine with all this but ...

Anyone who would suggest that a label that says RAW HONEY on it DETRACTS from honey sales is flying in the face of reason - SO, the logic follows that if it does not detract from sales then the only other options are that it either has no influence on the consumer decision to purchase or it has a beneficial impact on the decision to purchase. Accordingly, if your honey meets your criteria for indentifying the product as 'raw' - I have no issue with anyone using the word.

The honey labelling regulations are inadequate for the current market place, they are loosely applied and the 'recommendation' is that they should be applied at local level at the discretion of the local inspectors - it's a farcical situation that should be resolved one way or the other.

 

[Wilco]

1. It depends on another definition...."processed". Is straining honey to remove wax particles and bee-bits "processing"? I don't think so as it doesn't change the structure of the honey; wax and bee-bits are not a constituent of honey.

2. We refer to meats as being "cooked" the implication being that meat is otherwise "raw".....that's why labelling isn't needed...the natural state of meat is raw. As long as I have confidence in its provenance and the care taken in it handling by the beekeeper, honey bought from the gate is, by that perverse, (?) reverse thinking, raw.

1. Straining is a form of processing, as is extracting. The natural state of honey is in the comb. To get a honey in a jar without wax etc, it must have been processed. The real issue is the degree of processing which the customer accepts.

2. And we have the term 'baker's' for honey which has been heated or fails on any of other specified criteria. So all honey is naturally raw thus the use of 'raw' is unnecessary.

 

[Murox]

I don't see any reason to knock the study ... anything that adds credence to what most of my customers already believe (that honey is, in many ways, beneficial to their health and well being) is a good thing in my book. I don't care whether they call it honey, raw honey or natural honey - it has to be good for all of us beekeepers. Save the knocking for something that are really dubious and discountable claims.

I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but it bears repeating. My grandfather was shot through the right hand in the first world war .. the wound became badly infected and despite having tubes draining the sepsis the doctors declared that he would need his hand amuputating (as a bricklayer before he joined up this was not what he wanted to hear). A french nurse who was atteniding him asked the doctor to delay and brought in some honey from her bees which she applied as a poultice, directly to the wound. The wound healed and a few weeks later he was back in the frontline. He survived the war, became a builder and had honey virtually every day of his life, living to a ripe old age. He used to show me the scars from the bullet wound and the scars where the drains were inserted into the veins in the back of his hand and he always regretted not being able to keep in touch with the nurse who saved his hand from amputation.

I have no doubt about the healing benefits of honey and if it's good on the outside then there's no reason to believe that it won't work from the inside as well.

If commenting on making something more complex and difficult to understand by describing it as "a wordy technical pile of words" is seen as "knock the study" then I am guilty and will I continue to knock garrulous verbose sesquipedalianism when I come across it and can be bothered to respond.

 

[Wilco]

It may not mean unprocessed to you ... But what the dissenters are all missing, in terms of honey that is unprocessed, is the perception of a growing percentage of discerning honey purchasers, that the term RAW implies something that they are seeking in their honey purchase.

Having spent a lifetime in sales and marketing I've come to realise that it is the perception of the product in the eyes of the consumer that is the critical factor that promotes the purchase NOT what the producer considers are the product attributes.

I accept, entirely, that some honey consumers are knowledgeable - I further accept that in face to face sales you can explain how your honey will meet their perception of the honey they are seeking - I can also accept that some people are just stuck in a corner having decided that, to them and their customers, raw is an unnecessary addition to the label. I'm fine with all this but ...

Anyone who would suggest that a label that says RAW HONEY on it DETRACTS from honey sales is flying in the face of reason - SO, the logic follows that if it does not detract from sales then the only other options are that it either has no influence on the consumer decision to purchase or it has a beneficial impact on the decision to purchase. Accordingly, if your honey meets your criteria for indentifying the product as 'raw' - I have no issue with anyone using the word.

The honey labelling regulations are inadequate for the current market place, they are loosely applied and the 'recommendation' is that they should be applied at local level at the discretion of the local inspectors - it's a farcical situation that should be resolved one way or the other.

It doesn't matter what it means to me subjectively, it's what it means full stop. The 'dissenters' understand full well that buyers interpret 'raw' to mean something special about honey which it doesn't. Us dissenters reject the implication that if we're not using 'raw', our product is perceived as inferior when it's not. 'Raw' does not detract from sales of the one using it but does detract from the perceived value and thus sales of honey from those not using it. The customer is not always right.

My view is that the honey labelling regs are perfectly adequate, they're just not applied properly. Enforcement of the use of 'baker's' for a start. Adding bandwagon marketing terms will do very little, as per the gist of what @Ian123 says.

 

[user 20297]

1. Straining is a form of processing, as is extracting. The natural state of honey is in the comb. To get a honey in a jar without wax etc, it must have been processed. The real issue is the degree of processing which the customer accepts.

2. And we have the term 'baker's' for honey which has been heated or fails on any of other specified criteria. So all honey is naturally raw thus the use of 'raw' is unnecessary.

I accept that the use of the label "Raw" is unnecessary and illegal, but it's not possible to deny anyone the use of that concept in their thoughts, which is sort of what @pargyle is saying.
By your reckoning, can there even be such a thing as raw meat as most of us prefer to have the animal killed and cut into pieces before we buy it.....processed.
As far as I know, most people consider the wax of honeycomb to be a separate substance from the honey within and not to be the primary substance that they seek..."raw honeycomb" might be a thing?

 

[pargyle]

It doesn't matter what it means to me subjectively, it's what it means full stop. The 'dissenters' understand full well that buyers interpret 'raw' to mean something special about honey which it doesn't. Us dissenters reject the implication that if we're not using 'raw', our product is perceived as inferior when it's not. 'Raw' does not detract from sales of the one using it but does detract from the perceived value and thus sales of honey from those not using it. The customer is not always right.

My view is that the honey labelling regs are perfectly adequate, they're just not applied properly. Enforcement of the use of 'baker's' for a start. Adding bandwagon marketing terms will do very little, as per the gist of what @Ian123 says.

Those who consider that the customer is not always right are fighting a losing battle ... whether YOU think they are right or wrong is irrelevant ... what you have to do is remember that, in their mind, THEY are ALWAYS right.

 

[pargyle]

1. Straining is a form of processing, as is extracting. The natural state of honey is in the comb. To get a honey in a jar without wax etc, it must have been processed. The real issue is the degree of processing which the customer accepts.

2. And we have the term 'baker's' for honey which has been heated or fails on any of other specified criteria. So all honey is naturally raw thus the use of 'raw' is unnecessary.

Yet, as a Vet, you must be aware of the movement to feed dogs on a 'Raw Meat' diet ... and the packs of food being described as raw dog food ... even though, at times, it is sold frozen ...Is this misrepresentation or do you think it too should just be sold as Dog Meat ?

If we looking for spurious arguments to counter what is logical in consumer marketing terms - we could be here all day. Sadly, I will leave you all to it as I have to go to work ... the reality (for me at least) is.... frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn ..... Now there's one of the best movie lines ever. Let's move on and live and let live !

 

[user 20297]

It doesn't matter what it means to me subjectively, it's what it means full stop. The 'dissenters' understand full well that buyers interpret 'raw' to mean something special about honey which it doesn't. Us dissenters reject the implication that if we're not using 'raw', our product is perceived as inferior when it's not. 'Raw' does not detract from sales of the one using it but does detract from the perceived value and thus sales of honey from those not using it. The customer is not always right.

My view is that the honey labelling regs are perfectly adequate, they're just not applied properly. Enforcement of the use of 'baker's' for a start. Adding bandwagon marketing terms will do very little, as per the gist of what @Ian123 says.

Taking this thread even more seriously astray: whilst we all do our usual dancing on the heads of pins about a three-letter word that most of us don't even use on our labels because regulations say that we can't, from some quarters there have been concerns that more basic wrongs are being done in the labelling of honey and that the Honey Regulations are actually supporting that. In describing the sources of blended honey, HAN UK petitioned the Government to tighten the rules and to ensure that the actual countries of origin of honey are specified on labels. This is because some countries have a reputation for exporting "honey" that is more likely to be neither raw nor entirely honey.

The Goverment response was, that demanding that slight change in labelling could: "”be highly burdensome” on producers.

So on the one hand we, who represent a tiny percentage of the honey supplied in this country are piously abiding by a precise labelling law that some of us think is pedantic, whilst commercial importers are permitted to use a very vague descriptor for the source of their honey because slightly changing the wording of their labels is seen as a significant challenge.

Just to be an awkard sod, I'm minded to start putting the word "Raw" on my labels to see what happens.

 

[rdartington]

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.

‘Raw’ is rather an old word I would say that is applied to many articles - the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives it about 3 inches - ‘uncooked / not or not completely manufactured. ‘Raw material’ is ‘that out of which any process of manufacture makes the article it produces’ - so raw honey is pure (no residue from sugar fed to bees) unheated honey (not above hive temperature). No confusion.
Raw honey is produced by crushing and draining honeycombs as some ‘natural ‘ beekeepers do. I think myself that it stretches to fully capped combs extracted in a centrifugal extractor but that does add air bubbles that rise as froth and has to be removed from a settling tank.

 

[Murox]

Just to be an awkard sod, I'm minded to start putting the word "Raw" on my labels to see what happens.

Think I'll put an extra little label on mine as well "WAR".

 

[Ian123]

Think I'll put an extra little label on mine as well "WAR".

And then when everyone puts raw on the labels we’ll have some starting to use Extra Raw extracted by virgins under a full moon……when does it stop!

 

[user 20297]

"Virgin Honey"

 

[Karol]

If commenting on making something more complex and difficult to understand by describing it as "a wordy technical pile of words" is seen as "knock the study" then I am guilty and will I continue to knock garrulous verbose sesquipedalianism when I come across it and can be bothered to respond.

Sounds like envy for long kilts!

 

[Murox]

5 yards or 8 yards is largely down to personal preference

 

[Wilco]

I accept that the use of the label "Raw" is unnecessary and illegal, but it's not possible to deny anyone the use of that concept in their thoughts, which is sort of what @pargyle is saying.
By your reckoning, can there even be such a thing as raw meat as most of us prefer to have the animal killed and cut into pieces before we buy it.....processed.
As far as I know, most people consider the wax of honeycomb to be a separate substance from the honey within and not to be the primary substance that they seek..."raw honeycomb" might be a thing?

Raw and unprocessed are two separate things. Raw refers to heating, not processing. Malappropriation of the word raw is another reason I dislike it being used to describe honey in this way. I would also contend that @rdartington is referring to purity when talking about not feeding sugar to bees. Using 'raw' in a way that deviates from its usual meaning, to cover multiple possible additional meanings, none of which are consistently meant across suppliers, is not a good way to ensure quality and consistency in the food chain.

Not sure it's an illegal term, just not a legally recognised descriptor?

Those who consider that the customer is not always right are fighting a losing battle ... whether YOU think they are right or wrong is irrelevant ... what you have to do is remember that, in their mind, THEY are ALWAYS right.

I also have discretion on who I want to sell to. The customer who is pushy and always thinks they're right is not one I want. I've been on the receiving end of too many of those in clinical work and they aren't worth it. Respect should be mutual.

Yet, as a Vet, you must be aware of the movement to feed dogs on a 'Raw Meat' diet ... and the packs of food being described as raw dog food ... even though, at times, it is sold frozen ...Is this misrepresentation or do you think it too should just be sold as Dog Meat ?

If we looking for spurious arguments to counter what is logical in consumer marketing terms - we could be here all day. Sadly, I will leave you all to it as I have to go to work ... the reality (for me at least) is.... frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn ..... Now there's one of the best movie lines ever. Let's move on and live and let live !

As above, raw refers to having been heated rather than being frozen and subsequently thawed: the food is given to the dogs uncooked thus is still raw. I think that as we have a history of people referring to tinned dog food as dog meat, in that case 'raw feeding' is a useful descriptor as it describes a deviation from the norm, rather than describing the norm. Not a fan of raw feeding but that's another topic... The principle is use of an additional descriptor when the product deviates from the normal state.

Sharing your sign off- I disagree with using any term to boost my sales as it goes against my own standards. If it doesn't sit well with me, I'm not going to do it. Have a good afternoon!

 

[Anduril]

"Virgin Honey"

Extra Virgin honey from the Flow hive.