Podargus replied:

Unless you have something new that I am not aware of, the story goes like this.

As you will no doubt have noticed the price of honey has escalated in a most satisfactory manner, at least for the producer.  In spite of comments that have suggested it is to do with the drought and bushfires this is not really the case.  The main driving forces have been overseas factors and our low dollar.  The low dollar meant that there was suddenly an opening for some entrepreneurs (mostly beekeepers) to get into the market.  This started the price rise.  Australia is only about 3 or 4% (IIRC) of world trading in honey.

The two biggest traders on the world scene are Argentina and China.  USA has enacted anti dumping regulations on both countries.  Argentina's economy is shot and very little honey is coming out as they want the money in a brown paper bag.  There is some being imported into Australia, mostly for manufacturing purposes and some is in 'Home Brand'.  They now have most of two seasons honey sitting around in drums.

Hang in there, I'm getting to it.  About a year ago Chinese honey in Europe was found to contain Cloramphenicol.  Almost all honey in that market had at least some Chinese honey in it.  British supermarkets were overnight without honey.  Capilano who for years have been trying to get honey into Britain in retail packs air freighted their new 'upside down pack' in to fill the void.  Followed by the rest of their range.

So China had a lot of honey to go somewhere.  Enter (I think) a Singaporean businessman who figured that transhipping through Australia into USA would be a great idea.

My understanding is that there have been no Australian laws broken, because the honey is/was not for sale in Australia.  The USA authorities have been notified as there are probably two illegal aspects from their perspective.

Honey in common with all food stuffs coming into Australia, has random checks done on it.  After very strenuous representations all Chinese honey will be tested, at the importers expense I think.

More than you ever needed to know.

Podargus

In one of life's little coincidences this came in as I was writing the above.  It is part of a report on a meeting.

"Concerns were expressed at the possible residue problems of Chinese honey being imported into Australia. It was suggested that there could be up to 2,000 tonnes to be imported. One of the major concerns, beside chloramphenicol, is Ultra Filtered (UF) honey. It would appear that the honey is filtered in such a way that any chloramphenicol can be filtered out but the resultant “honey” is not pure honey and can not be labelled as such.. In the USA it can only be sold as a sweetener derived from honey."

Podargus replied:

> What else happens to honey if it is subject to ultra-filtration?

It is said that the colour and the flavour is removed.

> ... and I suppose I should ask:  which bit do you keep??

Well might you ask.


and later added:

The following has just come to hand;

"ULTRA-FILTERED  (UF)  HONEY
Reports to hand indicate that as a means of removing Chloramphenicol (CAP), the Chinese are Ultra-Filtering this honey. However, it would appear that this method they are employing affects the honey to such a degree that it can not really be called a honey but a sweetener. Following is a report from America re this filtration process.

“The ultra-filtration of honey involves adding water, then removing it again after the diluted product has passed through fine filtration. The process removes many of the natural components of honey, including protein and, it has been shown, chloramphenicol (CAP). The end product is basically a colorless, tasteless and odorless syrup, bearing scant resemblance to natural honey.

In 1992 FDA issued a ruling on UF honey, stating that the product cannot be labeled simply as “honey.” Following up with FDA on their 1992 ruling, the National Honey Board (NHB) was informed recently that even a label stating “ultra filtered honey” would not be acceptable. To comply with current regulations, therefore, and to avoid charges of misbranding, a description such as “sweetener from honey” should be used. In addition it should be noted that neither the NHB definition of honey, nor that of Codex (the
European standard), allows for UF product to be labeled as “honey.”

It is now known that at least one major plant in China is using the ultra-filtration process, or some variant of it, for the express purpose of removing CAP. It appears that some small volume of natural honey is being
added to the UF product for the sake of verisimilitude. This blended product is now arriving in the US in significant quantities, and is being sold as natural honey. The product passes the C13/protein tests, but, tellingly, it has been noted that the level of protein in the product is far below that found in natural honey.”

David Williams added:

Er um how does Chloramphenicol (which used to be the drug of choice against typhoid I believe) get into Chinese honey in the first place, and if it is a natural component, why remove it (unless for concentration)?????????
: