Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fancy honey might not actually be honey

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#41

Post by jerkstate »

I grew up eating hyper-local honey (from my backyard) and the decline of honeybees is a real tragedy. Luckily I still know folks in my area who keep their own bees and my family can still get enough propolis and filtered honey for now. To us, the health benefits of eating local raw honey seem legit. I have never had allergies - my wife, who grew up in a big city and has terrible springtime allergies, notably improves when she eats local propolis. It also seems to improve sore throats and other minor illness discomfort (although that could be the "Mary Poppins Effect," being a spoonful of sugar)

You can buy 10lbs-50lbs at a time and eat it over the course of years. So pay attention to your local classifieds (craigslist, nextdoor, facebook) in late summer and early fall, and buy honey as local as you can get.

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#42

Post by kevinpet »

uranium wrote: post #18

While the adulteration problems appear to be real, this reporter goes out of their way to exaggerate the problem. They diss Whole Foods honey for not being raw, when it's...not labeled as raw. Whole Foods certainly does sell some honey labeled as raw, but you pay more for it.

Headline: "might not actually be honey" Article: "adulterated" with no mention of degree

It seems likely the whole article was a part of the strategy of the class action lawsuits mentioned near the end. Extremely exaggerated rhetoric, little in the way of verifiable claims.

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#43

Post by robbrown451 »

smt88 wrote: post #35
robbrown451 wrote: post #31

The problem, if it is even a problem, is that 99% of the reason we initially sought out honey no longer exists. We liked it because it was the purest source of sugar that was available. We didn't care that it happened to be bee vomit flavored with a bit of plant sperm, or that we were exploiting the reproductive strategies of flowering plants, we just wanted the sweet. This is similar with maple syrup, which comes fr…

Some farmers in places with depleted pollinators have to ship honeybees in to their fields. Harvesting honey from those bees makes that cheaper. Even without that usage, harvesting honey can be harmless to bees and benefit surrounding plant life. That makes it one of the best (if not the best) sources of concentrated sugar from an environmental perspective.

From an environmental perspective, sure. But not from an economic perspective.

That's great if they can sell it and make money to subsidize the other part of their business (pollination). But if the economics aren't there, that's unrealistic.

Remember, honey bees harvest honey as food for themselves during winter. If you take away their honey, then you need to feed them sugar. The most practical thing is to leave the honey for the bees, and make sugar for humans from other sources that are cheaper (can, beats etc). If honey has some amazing benefit for humans that can't be replicated (whether flavor or health), fine, but the fact that so many can't tell the difference tells me that that isn't sustainable.

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#44

Post by totalZero »

robbrown451 wrote: post #43
smt88 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some farmers in places with depleted pollinators have to ship honeybees in to their fields. Harvesting honey from those bees makes that cheaper. Even without that usage, harvesting honey can be harmless to bees and benefit surrounding plant life. That makes it one of the best (if not the best) sources of concentrated sugar from an environmental perspective.

From an environmental perspective, sure. But not from an economic perspective. That's great if they can sell it and make money to subsidize the other part of their business (pollination). But if the economics aren't there, that's unrealistic. Remember, honey bees harvest honey as food for themselves during winter. If you take away their honey, then you need to feed them sugar. The most practical thing is to leave the…

Honey sells at a premium to refined sugar. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#45

Post by magicalhippo »

wyxuan wrote: post #27
dehrmann wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That it is actually better for you? Nutritionally, honey isn't that different from sucrose, so no. It's like the HFCS vs sucrose argument; they're basically the same, and you're still eating sugar. I do actually buy local farm honey, though. It's incredible how you can see and taste difference in monofloral honey.

Mind explaining how it tastes different? I'm curious as to what the difference is.

Think of the difference between a Vienna sausage, bratwurst and chorizo.

Consistency, smell, flavor varies a lot, same for the honey depending on what the bees "ate".

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#46

Post by zamadatix »

pmoriarty wrote: post #32
jedberg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I read before Costco does independent testing and their olive oil is unadulterated. Might be something to look into if you have Costco nearby.

"Costco does independent testing and their olive oil is unadulterated" One of the interesting things I learned from the honey article was that fraudsters have figured out how to work their way around tests, at least for honey. I wouldn't be surprised if they could do the same for olive oil and other food products. It seems like a cat and mouse game. Something not mentioned in the article is that testing labs themselv…

If they remove enough to detect it was adulterated then would it trigger the allergic reaction though?

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#47

Post by simonh »

jessaustin wrote: post #28
raducu wrote: post #24

My father in law and my brother in law keep bees. My brother in law told me about a disgusting practice where firms imported honey from China, filtered it, then added local honey and then exported the honey as bio-honey. Sometimes I wonder if we could develop hardware tools to test for psychopathy or just low empathy and just hot-iron-brand these disgusting individuals.

You're complaining about "low empathy" and you're in favor of branding humans? Yikes!

Indeed, "All extremists should be executed".

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#48

Post by StrangeDoctor »

Did I miss something or is this article a bit light in details?

This testing organization claims 70% of honey they tested was adulterated in some way after talking about the most egregious offenders, making you assume it’s all just imported sugar filtered with hydrocarbons with a little honey mixed in. But they also claim just heating up raw honey to make it easier to work with is an offense according to their rules.

While I’m all for more transparency or standardization this feels a bit submarine like.

Re: Fancy honey might not actually be honey

#50

Post by pacomerh »

rrauenza wrote: post #2

And your olive oil might not be olive oil. Our daughter is allergic to sunflower oil which is commonly used to adulterate the olive oil. Chips supposedly made with olive oil will sometimes give her a rash. For bottled olive oil we try to buy local California olive oil...,

Right, doesn't it need to say "extra virgin olive oil" to actually be pure?. Otherwise it could be a blend
Post reply on HN