Shock finding: More than 75 percent of all 'honey' sold in grocery stores contains no honey at a

reply to post by Klassified


S&F

i couldn't help noticing one of the comments

Debbie Hughes
You know my daughter pointed something out to me about this problem. The bee keepers usually feed their bees candy, sugarwater, corn syrup during the winter to tide them over if they harvested the honeyand pollen. I had forgotten this fact. When we kept bees we did not do this. We left them plenty of there own food that they hunted and gathered. Between the mite strips, agriculture sprays, fake food, GMO's its a wonder any of the little critters survive. Anyway if they harvest the honey after having a fake nectar diet, they are going to have fake honey. It makes sense to me.

true, my uncle has been selling honey and fruit syrups for like over 40 yrs, his father founded the manufactory in the 40's

everyone who deals in honey down here [PR] knows to get it from the dominican republic as all that's produced locally is just "honey syrup" produced by replacing nectar with sugar water, the local bee's are all sugar junkies now instead of sucking pollen from flowers they suck on soda cans and discarded coffee cups.
over the last couple of years it seems like there is increasingly less difference between both. bad habits tend to be contagious

somebody posted about the amish getting theirs from argentina, well i'd test for pollen, as there are no overarching reasons for honey producers in argentina to not squeeze out a little more profit.

the destroying it's medicinal properties is telling.

remember folks: if you didn't actually see brother bee puke it up,
after having spent the day guzzling real nectar, its not real honey.

and yes honey is actually bee vomit, just like the alcohol in that beer or drink your having is yeast piss [or crap]

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Now that's an interesting bit of info. You know the old saying. "Garbage in. garbage out".

Originally posted by stillwind
reply to post by Klassified

 

Typical propaganda piece. Honey does not have to contain pollen to be honey. That is not to say that the pasteurized, blended and filtered product that is sold in most stores has all the potential benefits of raw local honey, but if the point is to inform, this misses.

I don't think it misses at all. This thread has spawned some great comments and insight from ATS members into this issue showing the original article to be a bit over the top, and disingenuous in some places. Though the kernel of it has some truth. To me, this is what ATS is all about.

Several minds coming from different perspectives have given a great overview of this issue for others to read, do their own research, and make up their own minds. I am more than happy with what this thread has accomplished. Including your own comments.

reply to post by Aim64C


wow, thanks for the reply, that is in fact the best reply i think i have ever had to a simple question in all my time on ats!

explains exactly what i was thinking AND see's the scaremongering

reply to post by boaby_phet


You are welcome. Thank you for the feedback.

I may sometimes come off as being 'against' a lot of the 'naturist' themed threads around here, but it mostly stems from the completely one-sided education many of these e-naturists seem to have.

Yes - food grown in your garden is going to be, often, of superior taste and nutritional content than what you buy at the store. I live in the country where a lot of us have gardens, we still buy from the store or farmers' markets (which often sell to the local supermarkets, anyway). Gardening is an involved process that requires time and resources that many people do not have... and if farmers didn't pick stuff before it was ripe (or coat it) - it would never survive the trip to your store, let alone a couple days in the store (and forget surviving in your house long enough to eat it).

The market for food that we have simply will not support garden-fresh foods on the supermarket shelves. It, likely, never will.

I just wish people would take a step back and see things for what they are.

And, like I said... I get tired of the "As nature intended" ... Nature did not develop so that we could eat it. We have developed to survive eating it... and the process is ongoing.

It's a worship of 'nature' to the point of having no respect for it. Tea contains epic amounts of fluoride - consuming large amounts of tea (a gallon per day or more) for long periods of time (over the course of years) can lead to skeletal fluorosis. Most of that is in the form of aluminum-fluoride, which makes me wonder about the impact aluminum would have on the body, as well.

"Deadly Nightshade" is a pretty self-explanatory name that was, likely, assigned for a reason. However, many members of the Solanaceae family produce atropine (along with other tropane alkaloids). Of course - people are advised to not even handle the plant, as any one of the many alkaloids within it can easily put you into a coma. More interesting are the members of the family: Tobacco (nicotine is an alkaloid that is particularly strong within it), Potatoes, Eggplant, Tomatoes, just about any pepper, and petunias.

All of which contain alkaloids that can potentially cause death (particularly in the areas where chlorophyll is present). In the case of plants like tomatoes - you would have to eat a completely implausible amount of greens to cause a problem... but in potatoes, you should never eat a green potato... and not even touch Nightshade.

Similarly, things get a little crazy when you start mixing foods. For example, we'll use tea, again. Adding lemon to tea helps with the absorption of antioxidants - whereas adding milk tends to destroy the antioxidant benefits of tea as compounds within milk bond to the antioxidants.

Then you factor in environmental differences between foods and the genetic differences between species.... how preparation and serving mucks with everything....

It becomes easy to see how the scope of "what is good" versus "what is bad" is absolutely incalculable.

Hence why I don't worry about it too much. I eat based on cravings and building off of what I'm craving using a bit of knowledge (mix grains with legumes for complete proteins, for example). By some instinct... or just because my parents made sure to feed me a wide variety of foods when I was a kid, I have noticed my cravings tend to be more nutritionally oriented than flavor oriented.

In either case - I've digressed, considerably.

It is always a great experience to taste/eat/enjoy the garden-ripe tomato (especially on a charcoal-grilled burger with home-grown lettuce and onion), the raw honey as straight from the comb as possible, etc. It's not always practical, much less for those in concrete jungles.

That, however, doesn't make what is commercially produced "fake" or "bad." It is what it is, streamlined for mass production at a price point.

It just irritates me that people don't seem to be able to step back and give it all a fair analysis.

Originally posted by alfa1
I've learned not to believe anything written at naturalnews.com.
There have been way too many threads on ATS where the naturalnews story has just turned out to be fearmongering lies.
Especially by Ethan Huff.

Is there any other source to back up this claim?

Well, on the packets of "honey" you get at KFC it calls the substance "honey sauce" and admits right on the ingredient list that honey is a minor component. 3 guesses as to number 1. But I have never seen an ingredient list on a honey bottle at the store that said anything but "honey". Somebody's lying, and I am already inclined to believe it's the "food" manufacturers.