Talk:Honey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Spoilage

There is an urban legend (which I'm fairly certain is patently false) that says that honey doesn't spoil. I don't have any citations for or against this, however, so I can't comment. Could somebody tackle this? I've seen it in about three chain e-mails and heard it from multiple people as if it was true, so I'd like to have a note in this article (a single line will do) addressing this. --98.198.173.247 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it does NOT spoil! Rather, it crystallizes. It can be uncrystallized in an oven set at the lowest. Around 150 degrees or so. Arlen22 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Honey certainly can spoil. If it has a low enough moisture content (below about 19%) and remains liquid it will not. If exposed to air of humidity greater than about 60% it will absorb water and if it goes over 19% water it will spoil. Spoilage is by growth of specialized yeasts which are always present. Technically speaking, it ferments, producing alcohol and carbon dioxide. So, if honey is sealed from air and remains liquid, it will not spoil. The sugars in honey are glucose and fructose, simple 6-carbon sugars. Most (but not all) honey is supersaturated in glucose at room temperatures, and in time (typically less than a year) the excess glucose will crystallize as glucose monohydrate. Since glucose monohydrate is only 9% water,the remaining liquid increases in moisture percentage, and when it goes over 20% yeasts will grow. This has happened to me, and has caused large losses commercially. However, the yeasts are killed if they honey is heated, for example to 140F for 22 minutes. So, we can say that honey will not spoil if 1/ it is sealed from high humidity air 2/ it does not crystallize or has been heated to kill yeasts Reference: The Hive and the Honey Bee, Dadant and Sons 1992 P 897-902 (wiki talk page revision on 21:16, 27 December 2009 by user at 71.146.21.135)

Trees

"tree and grass pollens, which honeybees do not collect." Huh? Maybe its only in Australia that there are flowering trees, but I doubt it. Could someone look into this to maybe fix it or tell me I am wrong? WookMuff 10:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Honeybees collect pollen from many trees. Eucalyptus, maples, alders, and willows are important early Spring pollen sources here in coastal northern California. Bees do not care if a flower is on a tree or not.

Of course honeybees, having nests of 8,000 to 10,000 bees need large sources of nectar, and wouldn't make it without them, even if flowering plants were still available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.226.198 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Land flowing with milk and honey

I'm not sure that this part of the article is written correctly:

The Old Testament contains many references to honey as a symbol for all that is pleasant and desirable. For example, the book of Exodus famously describes the Promised Land as a 'land flowing with milk and honey' (33:3).

In that time period and culture, milk and honey were considered to be peasant foods. Something that any old goat herder would have access to. Thus, the statement that the promised land was a land flowing with milk and honey would be akin, in today's language, to saying it was flowing with "bread and water". The intention was to get the Israelites minds off of the excesses of their old Egyptian masters and to a simpler lifestyle. They were promised a land where food would be plentiful, but simple. It is modern-day readers of the bible that have attached the "all that is pleasant and desirable" connotation to "milk and honey". Kurt 10:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Honey described there is very clearly date honey not bee/flower honey! In fairness the line you quote from the article does call honey a "symbol", but even if it is a symbol, it's also literally true - date palms are quite plentiful in Israel (although bee honey isn't), as are flocks of milk animals. There is no conflict in reading the line simultaniously as a symbol, and as a litteral meaning. But it's wrong to put it here since it's not even talking about bee honey. Ariel. 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"honey appears 61x in KJV - citation needed" - this page says it's there 56 times. I suggest the hebrew occurence count is more relevant. BTW can the actual counting (or using a search webpage/software) of the occurences be considered original research? charon 10:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is problematic.

"The Old Testament contains many references to honey."

If so, this should be verifiable to a reliable, secondary source.

"While the book of Exodus famously describes the Promised Land as a 'land flowing with milk and honey' (33:3) the original Hebrew (devash) actually refers to the sweet syrup produced from the juice of the date."

Uncited arguments are often original research or unverifiable. Given the context, the importance of a reference to "honey" in translations of Ex33:3 is the deciding factor: is the use "culturally significant" re honey? If not, it should go (lest every article on every common-ish word start sprouting similar effemera. If so, it should be sourced.

"In The Book of Judges, Samson found a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of a lion (14:8)." Again, so what? Is this particular example culturally significant? In my upbringing, "land flowing with..." was common enough. The Samson story was buried pretty far back in my mind.

"In Matthew 3:4, John the Baptist is said to have lived for a long period of time in the wilderness on a diet consisting of locusts and wild honey."

Again, we're quoting a primary source (a translation of Matthew) with no thought to the significance. We could just as easily quote the Beatles song "Honeypie", 1970s ads for "Honeycomb cereal" and Dagwood/Fred/whomever using it to refer to Blondie/Wilma/whomever's partner.

"The word "honey" appears 61 times in the King James Version of the Bible."

This could be yanked for several reasons: it's uncited, it might be WP:OR, it's importance to the topic is not obvious, etc. Yes, the Bible is a significant consideration in many people's lives. It does not follow, however, that every reference to a particular word or topic in the Bible is significant to that word or topic.

Mdbrownmsw 12:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that "devash" can refer to both date honey and bee-made honey, lumping together two kinds of liquid or pliable sweeteners that we anglophones are used to thinking of as belonging to separate categories. Thus, I suppose the category of devash is better rendered as "honey/syrup" (and some have, indeed, suggested that the sweet liquids of the fig, grape, etc., were also included in the category). If this ancient concept were extended to modern America, I would think maple syrup and corn syrup would also fall under the same category - that of thick liquid or pliable sweeteners. 204.52.215.13 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Honey Bears

The current revision requests a citation for honey bear jars. I was under the impression that only one company sold honey in bear jars, so I googled it to find the name of the company. It turns out that nearly every place that sells honey offers it in bears. Would citing one of these stores be enough, or do we need a link explaining the origin of the honey bears? Shui9 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My local natural food store sells empty plastic bear jars for its bulk honey. Sluggoster (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing one link is plenty. Arlen22 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article pollution

This page has 53 "citation needed" tags! What's the deal? Thus, the article is ugly and hard to read. --Ephilei 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree...the point of the citation-needed header is to avoid a "cite needed" after every sentence! --JD79 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I agree...the article is well written but many of the claims in this article have no documentation for a source. Therefore, I'm doing my further research elsewhere. This article should be cleaned up soon by an expert, since honey is very popular and heavily used in many products. If the claims are factual and merely require a source, then the article is well written and substantiated. Rx787 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition of "Food" category

I think this category should be removed. Food is not a category for articles, but rather as a parent category for other categories. This is a more efficient way of storing information, as there are few things that are food that do not fit in one of its subcats. --Eyrian 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Won't revert again. Sorry about the misunderstanding WookMuff 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Composition of Honey

The sentence: The specific composition of any batch of honey will depend largely on the mix of flowers consumed by the bees that produced the honey. needs to be changed... bees don't consume flowers.
Perhaps "...depend largely on the variety of flowers available to the bees..." or "...depend largely on the sources of pollen available to the bees..."?

Obviously, the health of the plants that produce the pollen will also have an effect on the composition of the honey.. which means that the location of the plants, as well as soil quality and composition are also factors.
--Versaq 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh - except that honey is produced from nectar, not pollen. Raw honey will have a trace of pollen, but commercial packers filter out all pollen.Pollinator 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, sorry...dunno what i was thinking there--Versaq 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there honeys that are high in glucose, but low in fructose? --Anonquick 05:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard that honey contains some small (very very small, of course) parts of Gold and Silver. Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.33.131 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2007

With a sufficiently exacting analysis process, you could probably find minute traces of gold and silver in most organic substances. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the source, probably very trace amounts... That is by laymans terms, nearly none.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Teeth

What about honey's affect on the teeth? I've read sources that say it rots the teeth faster than table sugar, (though some antibiotic honeys might help prevent decay.) Generalhoneypot 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Price

Isn't the cost of honey rising? TheListUpdater 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-honeybee honeys

The intro to the article says "This article refers exclusively to the honey produced by honey bees (the genus Apis); honey produced by other bees or other insects has very different properties.[1]" What are these other "honeys" called and how are they different from honey bee honey? I read through the reference given, but found no ansewer there. Just curious. Silverchemist 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to this statement:
"This article refers exclusively to the honey produced by honey bees (the genus Apis); honey produced by other bees or other insects has very different properties."
I'm no entomologist, but is there actually "honey" produced by non-bees or non-Apis bees? If so, what are these different properties? It would be useful to find a source for that statement, preferably to a source that explains the distinctions.--Isotope23 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, Bombus certainly creates honey, or at least a substance comparable. Unfortunately I can't find a source for, or be ceratin in myself, of that statement at the start (I've not had any time to look). Hopefully someone more clueful can weigh in :) Martinp23 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found Bombus honey to be even better that Apis. oh, so fragrant! Very hard to get, they really mind being disturbed. Sting feel like what being hit by a Taser probably feels like. Learned during the cleaning of a shed. yamaplos 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs)

Given the widespread concern of colony collapse disorder around the world, this is becoming an increasingly important topic that should be covered. Sluggoster (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've purchased wasp's honey in some rural areas in Mexico. I don't think it's too hard to find. It has a dark brown color and a peculiar taste.Itzcuauhtli (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cholesterol References

Some references were recently added to the article to support the cholesterol-regulating effects of honey. I put these references into Template:Citation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) form (and moved them up to the earlier mention of cholesterol). Do these references support the assertion that honey affects cholesterol levels? From what I could tell, the articles make two claims:

1. Honey affects antioxidant levels
2. Almonds affect cholesterol levels

I don't see any direct support for the assertion that honey affects cholesterol levels, and there is no solid support for the assertion that antioxidants affect cholesterol levels. Also: the only point at which the third article mentions cholesterol is in the title. -- Bigwyrm 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments,i made some fixes according to your recommendations :) about your cholesterol comments, allow to comment: 1)on link:http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20020819/honey-almonds-lower-cholesterol there is paragraph that says:That might seem like a lot of honey, but study author Nicki Engeseth, PhD, from the American chemical society, says adding small amounts of honey could enhance the effects of an already heart-healthy diet and help keep cholesterol levels in check. 2) The bbc news link says that: The scientists from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign say honey appears to have a "mild protective effect". 3)the third link, http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020721175945data_trunc_sys.shtml,mentions pretty much the same things but in slightly different way. hope that this proves my point. again, thanks you for your comments and corrections, hope that it would be ok with you to include these links after this clarification. I really believe that they’re very informational and useful :) Grandia01 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that has a bit to do with something I mentioned above: Dr. Engeseth asserts that honey increases antioxidant levels. The article claims that this could affect cholesterol levels. That was a popular idea at the time, but it was never well-supported. Antioxidants do have many beneficial effects, but improving cholesterol levels is not one of them. Those are good references, but I think they would be better used to support the antioxidant claims. See what I'm getting at? -- Bigwyrm 07:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

i see your point,but it looks like this is more of a matter of interpretation.and you obviously know that everyone will not see things from you perspectives.would it be ok with you if include my info and your point of view supported by alternative references just to be fair??Grandia01 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Honey in Culture and Folklore

I believe there should be some mention of the history of honey-mead as a sacred beverage in North-West Europe, and of how the Eddas speak of honeydew from the World Tree being collected by bees. Mead made from the honey thus produced was "the nectar of the Gods" and "the mead of inspiration", as the World Tree drew its nourishment directly from the Well of Wyrd.

I have a piece written but do not know enough about HTML and formatting stuff to post it myself. Any help would be appreciated. Aelswyth2 01:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)aelswyth2

Post it here, and I'll be happy to look over it. --Eyrian 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pitcairn Island Honey" link

The Pitcairn Island Honey article is a bald-faced advertisement for Pitcairn Island Pure Honey. The article is (except for the first sentence) a word-for-word copy of the text on the website where the honey is sold. Perhaps the link to that article should be removed from this one? --68.39.187.136 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Certified Organic Honey

From that section, I have just removed: "Also, The Lancet, a prestigious international medical journal, reported in 1993 that conventionally produced honey may contain residues of these chemicals and should be used with caution, only to emphasize the rarity of finding true organic honey nowadays[1]."

1) The source cited is NOT Lancet, but a pro-organics site that seriously mischaracterizes what was published.
1a) Lancet ran a LETTER, it did not "report" anything. (see Postmes T, et al. "Honey for wounds, ulcers and skin graft preservation". Lancet 1993:341(8847):756-57.)
1b) The letter dealt with the use of honey in treating "wounds, ulcers, and skin graft preservation", saying NOTHING whatsoever about the more common use of honey -- eating it.
1c) The letter says NOTHING about the "rarity of finding true organic honey nowadays" or anything related to that claim.
1d) The letter does not mention organic honey at all.
1e) While it mentions concerns about contaminants from honey, it is not the residues the organics site lists, but Clostridium spores which, if anything, would be MORE concentrated in organic honey (as organic honey more often comes from fewer amalgamated sources).
2) Much of the text removed was taken verbatum (see WP:CR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbrownmsw (talk • contribs) 15:55, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Infant botulism

The article states:

However, it is important to note that honey frequently contains dormant endospores of the bacteria Clostridium botulinum, which can be dangerous to infants as the endospores can transform into toxin-producing bacteria in the infant's immature intestinal tract, leading to illness and even death[4].

The referenced webpage is a good one, but it doesn't say that about infant botulism. What it says about infant botulism is:

"The source of ingestion is unknown in approximately 85% of cases; in up to 15% of cases, the ingestion of honey is suspected." about 1/4 down that page

The reference states a suspicion that 15% of the 1444 cases of infant botulism between 1971 and 1996 were the result of infants ingesting botulism spores contained in honey. Whereas the reference states a scientific suspicion, the article states a certainty. Jonhathon 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Time of Harvest

When do you "harvest" (or whatever it might be called) the honey? I guess this depends on what tree or flower is used, but I'd apprechiate a few examples.

213.89.189.120 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Crystallization

can any one can clear why honey get crystallized even after its processing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.180.117 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I expect that this is simply because it is a supersaturated sugar product. Heating the honey raises the solubility of the sugar in the solution and allows it to dissolve again. 66.94.95.194 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Citation

I went to http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/ and downloaded a text file of the KJ Version. Using openoffice, I did a "find and replace" operation. Replacing "honey" with the randomly selected term "sewage" I was informed by the software that my search key was replaced 73 times. Thus I corrected the number and removed the ugly looking and space consuming demand for a citation. Feel free to worship my effervescent awesomeness. CameronB 16:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not wishing to burst any awesome effervescent bubbles but unfortunately that's original research. We need a reliable source who's done the counting already. Kudos for using Openoffice though :-) Regards Bksimonb 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with counting like this is that not all the words 'honey' actually refer to honey itself. They could refer to the color for example, or to the consistency (flows like honey), or to date honey/syrup. You'd have to check each one and read it's context. But can I ask why it's so important to know exactly the number? Just say 'numerous times', and be done with it. Ariel. (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Honey Synthesis

I'd like to see this article contain information about how honey is synthesized from pollen by bees. I know nothing about this, but when I get some free time I'll do some research. -Verdatum (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

High fructose corn syrup

I put in a note on this, with a reference to Dr. Mirkin, since it seems to be a growing and perhaps dangerous trend.Dale662 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it as being off topic. Seems a bit spammy as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WEASAL WORDS!!

" Honey has a distinctive flavor which leads some people to prefer it over sugar and other sweeteners. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to fix this yourself. -Verdatum (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Raw dangers?

Are there any potential dangers to normal adults from consuming raw honey? Best ways to avoid? Differences between practices and products in the US vs. Europe etc? -69.87.204.78 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

US and Europe have pretty good laws on Honey. Honeybee diseases do not affect humans and therefore that is not an issue. Only things such as pesticides, miticides, herbicides, (so many cides) and so forth. These are obviously applied by humans. Arlen22 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no uniform definition of "raw" honey so it is impossible to state definitively what, if any, dangers are unique to it. "Raw" is a marketing term with no regulations or industry standards behind it.
Some people consider it "raw" honey if you just avoid overheating it during extraction and filtering (but never define what they mean by "overheating"). Since some heat to help the honey flow through the filters is part of the common commercial practice, there is no incremental danger.
Others consider honey "raw" if it is completely unheated (but still filtered). This is slower but fundamentally no different than common commercial practice, though it does generally leave more of the volatile flavors intact.
More commonly, "raw" honey means that it has not been filtered (or maybe only coarse-filtered) after extraction. That means you may see more pollen, bits of wax and maybe even the occasional bee leg in the honey. This would only represent a danger if you have a very severe allergy (but anyone with that severe an allergy should probably be avoiding all honey regardless).
By definition, comb honey is as raw as it can possibly be. Comb honey has been eaten for millennia without risk. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it.

# Certified Organic Honey, according to TheOrganicReport.com, organic honey is quite scarce to find because most beekeepers "routinely use sulfa compounds and antibiotics to control bee diseases, carbolic acid to remove honey from the hive, and calcium cyanide to kill colonies before extracting the honey, not to mention that conventional honeybees gather nectar from plants that have been sprayed with pesticides." http://www.theorganicreport.com/pages/461_organic_honey.cfm

I would love to see some non-bullshit-propaganda source NOT made by the "organic movement" to corroborate the claim that colonies are killed to harvest the honey. I'm not a beekeeper, but everything I know about beekeeping tells me that it wouldn't make biological or economic sense to do this. There is also no mention of it in the beekeeping article. --70.131.61.137 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I just can't buy this. Why kill bees? Nonleathal methods have existed for over 100 years. I'd always understood that "organic" honey is rare was because of the strict requirement placed on the entire feeding area of the bees used to produce the honey. If the a link to requirements for "organic" honey in various countries aren't already listed in this article, they should be. -Verdatum (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that had 200 years old info. Beekeepers DO NOT kill the bees in order to extract the honey. Arlen22 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the offending text (and calcium cyanide to kill colonies before extracting the honey). I don't know how true the other statements are, but that one is definitely bogus. --128.223.198.25 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put it back in, you can't change quotations, even if you disagree with them. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Manufacture

This article doesn't go into detail about the processes involved in manufacturing honey. It would be interesting to know how honey production varies in the countries listed, and how it is manufactured "in bulk" – can you "factory farm" bees? An expansion in this area would be a great addition to the article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For Throats

While honey might alleviate pain of a sore throat when mixed with hot lemon and sipped, due to its proposed antibiotic activity, I suspect that honey's high sugar content (82%) would in fact counteract any healing of the actual cause of the sore throat, as it would encourage the growth of bacteria which thrive on sugar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.89.102 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add new sections to the bottom of the list, per convention (fixed that for you). Your theory is an interesting one, but you can't just report Original Research or conjecture on wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source that reflects this sentiment, or better yet, a peer reviewed research paper that proves it one way or another, it could certainly go into the article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Polyfloral vs. Wildflower Honey

At least in the US, another common term for polyforal honey is wildflower. However I'm finding it hard to find a good online source to cite that isn't an online store or something similar. From my personal experience with beekeeping and selling honey, the term was widely used to refer to polyfloral. A quick google search will reveal many producers selling polyfloral honey as "wildflower" honey. Since this term is apparantly commonly used, would it be reasonable to mention it under the Polyfloral section? LogisticEarth (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you see how most wildflower honey is polyfloral, but not all polyfloral being wildflower? Any addition will need to be referenced in my opinion. Also, could you define a "wildflower".--Sting Buzz Me... 11:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not neccesarily from a "wildflower", it's a term used generally where bees have access to a variety of plants and flowers (ie. the nectar is from an indeterminate origin). In my experience it's been used interchangeabley with Ployforal or Mixed Flower. I found a fact sheet here from the NHB defining a couple types of honey, including wildflower as "honey from miscellaneous or undefined flower sources":[2]. Given the definition or Polyfloral provided in the current citation of the section is very similar to the cited definition of Wildflower, and I'll add it under the same section. LogisticEarth (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Density. Accuracy

Honey has a density of about 1.36 kilograms per liter (36% denser than water).

I really doubt that. This is too exact number and that makes it incorrect. There should be something like 1.3–1.5 (I don't know the most average densities). I believe that many readers may even not notice the word "about" when they might be trying to find the density.

The honey collected from my bees has the density of something 1.48–1.56 (I just weight it for selling. But as I live in Estonia I don't know what the heck other beekeepers do). Iffcool 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iffcool (talk • contribs)

It does seem a bit odd to state the density so specifically considering that honey isn't a discreet substance or (in general) a product manufactured to specific design specs. Although there's a reference I'm not sure that's enough to say that all honey has a density of 1.36 kg/l. --LogisticEarth (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Then somebody should change it. I am not a specialist (so I don't know what should be written there exactly) and I don't know what kind of templates should be used to mark it as a problematic fact. Iffcool 20:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iffcool (talk • contribs)

Hey. What the **** was that? [3] Iffcool (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are not scones

Those are not scones. Those are Pillsbury "Grands!". 72.129.191.72 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Scones is close enough, and as far as I can tell those Pillsbury Grands where just another "scone" in any case.--Sting Buzz Me... 05:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Scones are somewhat similar to American biscuits anyway. But as an odd curiosity, it seems that the same image from the Honey article referring to them as scones is used specifically in the Biscuit article as an example of American-style biscuits: Biscuit#Biscuits_in_North_American_usage. Either way, the distinction between scones and biscuits is neglible for the purposes of this article, and there's no way we can know if they were manufactured by Pillsbury or not. --LogisticEarth (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

For the third time someone has changed the "scones" to "biscuit" on the image. I'm happy just leaving it at biscuits since, well, they DO seem to be American-style buiscuts rather than scones. LogisticEarth (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given my edit history this may seem obvious, but I vote we leave it as biscuits. As an aside I have to say (respectfully of course), that I really don't see how so many Brits and Aussies can call them scones. Have they never tried (or seen) both? Because there is definitely a difference... Jrt989 (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a picture of honey that doesn't include biscuits/scones would be an appropriate way to end this feud.144.92.184.29 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just remove scones/biscuits from the picture description. If it's a problem it doesn't need to be there. I'm finding it kind of humorous that we're discussing this issue so thoroughly though, heh. LogisticEarth (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave it as scones or start an RfC. One small area of America calling them buiscuits doesn't make it so. No reference has been forthcoming supporting the naming "biscuits". Everywhere else in the world apart from relatively minor portion of the USA calls them scones. Don't forget that Americans call biscuits (true ones) cookies. Wikipedia is worldwide and the majority of readers know and understand the present picture to contain scones.--Sting Buzz Me... 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, this is a silly debate, but I have to point out that the problem is not the same as biscuit vs. cookie. Those two ARE the same, and so no one from America reasonably expects Wikipedia to label them cookies. We understand that in every other English-speaking country, cookies are biscuits. That's fine. The problem here is that American biscuits are not the same as scones. They are made differently (for instance, scones generally have egg in them, while biscuits do not). They taste different. They are generally eaten for different purposes (tea-time snack vs. dinner side-dish). And that aside, the claim that the "majority of readers" know them as scones is a bit disingenuous, considering that 65% of native English speakers in the world actually live in the United States. And no, it is not "one small area of America" calling them biscuits. I don't know anywhere in this nation where they are called scones. Jrt989 (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

While again, this is a ridiculously trivial issue, having one side declare "they're scones" and then demand references makes it even more insane. We don't know what's in them, we don't know where they're from, etc. So I'm removing the reference to buscuits from the image description. It's entirely irrelevent to the article and it's obviously a point of contention. Case closed. -LogisticEarth (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of excessive quotes, quotation marks, reads like original research/bookreport

"I" "don't" "understand" why there are SO many "quotes" in this article. Especially the section on preservation. I find that it reads like a 11th-grader's book report. Did someone do this entry as a school assignment? I advise adding at least one of the following tags: {{Quotefarm}} Expert-verify

Thoughts?

MadScientistMatt (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up issues

Hello. You've been making quite a few edits to the Honey page with little or no edit descriptions, and no discussion on the talk page. Please try to explain your edits. Also, on the issue of the Monofloral honey type list, I think it's absurd to list so many in one sentence. As I explained in my edit, there is an entire article dedicated to Monofloral honey. While "interesting", listing them all in such a manner in one sentence makes the paragraph unwieldy. Please take this stuff to the talk page instead of just editing back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogisticEarth (talk • contribs) 14:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

^^^^^NOTE: I didn't post this here, this was a personal message to Warrington, who chose to repost it here -LogisticEarth (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not editing back and forth, as you expressed it. Many sections were taged with clean up tags before, and with many citation needed tags too. I cleaned up the article, and added about 15 new references, where there were citation needed tags. It that was quite job and everybody who will read the article will benefit from that, which was the point with the whole effort. Also, everybody is welcome to edit any article, until they don’t vandalise them, and make constructive edits. About giving more examples of momofloral honey, the article before was only mentioning Typical examples of monofloral or varietal honeys are "orange blossom", "sage", "eucalyptus", "tupelo", "manuka", "buckwheat", "sourwood", and "clover". In a global perspective, you can not say that those examples are very typical. I added thyme", thistle", "heather", "acacia" "dandelion", "sunflower", "honeysucle" and from "lime" and "chestnut" trees, monofloral honey varieties which are also very interesting to know about, and much more typical and caracteristic for a temperate climate in Europe, (information which you have removed by now three times). If you think the sentence is to long, one can always do something about that, but without editing out information. I split that into two sentences. And people should not need to read several separate articles to gather all this information, they should be able to find this information here. This is the main article about honey, and people should be able tio find a brief information about the main issues in the same article. Now you put the clean up tags back again, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honey&diff=prev&oldid=271344518. I doubt that this is really about clean up, I think this is more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT And maybe you should read about Wikipedia:OWN.

Warrington (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article has needed a cleanup for some time. As you can see the above talk section brings up the issue that large portions of the article consist of quotations and such. Also, personally I think that page's heading structure is all over the place, and many sections could be consolidated or turned into lists. On the topic of the monofloral honey, my problem, as I mentioned in the edit comments, was that it created a really long sentence and, in my opinion, added too much extraneous information. You previously justified the edit as, "it's interesting and useful", and I pointed out that the information was quickly accessible on the linked monofloral honey page. While it's nice to have a good deal of information on one page, having too much can cause an article to become unfocused or long-winded. This is why we have seperate pages dedicated to specific topics. It seems now your issue is that there's a difference between typical monofloral sources in North America and Europe. This is a notable difference and worth metioning (briefly). But your original, unexplained edits just made it seem like you wanted to tack on a bunch of types for the heck of it.

For the record, I didn't edit it out three times. I did it twice. The first time, your edit was unexplained, so I reverted it with an explaination as to why I did it. The second time, your reasoning was that it was "encyclopaedical knowledge, makes the wiki complete", and I reverted it again citing that the wiki was already complete with the information on the dedicated Monofloral page, and then contacted you on your personal talk page to discuss from there. I think this highlights why providing thourough explainations for your edits is important. If I had known that your intentions were to cite the regional differences of monofloral sources, rather than just listing types for the heck of it, I would have reworded to make that more clear, rather than just reverting completely. Regardless of all this, I still think the article needs a general clean-up.

EDIT: Also as far as your suggestion that I read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I suggest you scroll down a bit in that arcticle and take a look at WP:INTERESTING and WP:ITSUSEFUL.

-LogisticEarth (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean up discussion

Everyone may have noticed that I've been reformatting and re-writing some sections of the article recently, for reasons highlighted in the above two discussion topics. Feel free to talk about any of the changes here, make suggestions, or call me out as a degenerate wiki-vandal. :P -LogisticEarth (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes mostly look good to me. I look forward to reading Warrington's thoughts as he is a renowned honey expert. I do have a couple comments: 1) is that the bit about paleolithic drawings of honey harvesting was removed. If it's controversial, I think it should be presented as such, but I'm not sure on taking it out all together. 2) There is a lot of bogus honey especially monofloral honey that is artificially colored or flavored. I don't have a source handy, but I think this should be made clear in the article. People should know to inspect carefully what they are buying and what is sold as "blackberry honey" when it's usually just colored and flavored. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If that bit about paleolithic drawings of honey harvesting was removed, that is too bad.. It is not controversial, and it was referenced. You can not remove things from an encyclopaedia just because you don’t like them.

Warrington (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not removed, it just got consolidated into the "Ancient Times" section. As for info about bogus monofloral honey, lets see if we can find a reference that explains it well before adding it in, and maybe pop in a sentence or two about it, and put a more detailed section on the main Monofloral page. If you'd like to make a detailed "honey grading" how-to guide, maybe post it on WikiHow or something and post an external link? Having extensive instructions in the article would start to approach WP:NOTGUIDE

-LogisticEarth (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is more here: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/beekeeping.htm

Warrington (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Please do not remove referenced material. Read the reference policy, ialoud to have references in foreign (in this case Ukrainian) languages. If you are in doubt there are translators at Wikipedia, who can check your references, but do not simply remove them. Ukraina is by the way one of the most important honey producing countries.

. It is not a very constructive behaviour. Warrington (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We've both been making blocks of edits recently, I'm not trying to pick on you personally. Most of my edits are just rewords, reference additions, or formatting. I mean this with absolutely no disrespect, but from your edits you don't seem like a native English speaker, and your edits are often oddly, or incorrectly, worded. I don't understand why you're taking this personally? This is the second or third time you've accused me of having a grudge against you and I don't see why?

As for the Ukrainian article, it's extremely dubious from what I see. The text in the Honey article says that honey turns to caramel at 122F. That's just impossible. Sugars need to be heated to MUCH higher temperatures to turn to caramel (+330F) In some honey-producing countries and regions, the ambient temperature can get to 122F. I don't care if Ukraine is an important honey producer, if the reference denies the laws of chemistry, it shouldn't be accepted at face value. How is an English speaker supposed to judge the reference if it's in a forgein language? What's the point of referencing it at all? What's the policy on references in one language being used in an article on another language? Perhaps we should just move the information to the Ukrainian language version of the article?

-LogisticEarth (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Honey producing countries

I looked up honey production on the FAOSTAT site (http://faostat.fao.org/site/526/default.aspx), as cited in the article and used natural honey (item 1182). I found the ranking of honey producers to be the following: Turkey, Argentina, Ukraine, USA, Mexico, Russia, India, which is different from what the text of the article says.

I would normally edit the article, but since I am not an agriculture expert (I'm an economist), I thought someone who knew more should have a look at it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.16.187 (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Preservation Section

In The preservation section the photo there is not appropriate with the topic. It just shows a photo of honeybees tending to brood. A photo of a frame with sealed and unsealed honey is more useful here. Michaelb1983 (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the BBC Radio 4series The Unbelievable Truth, honey never goes bad, so does it really need preservation? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comedy gameshows aren't the best sources, unfortunately (both practically, and realistically). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This section could really use some Reliable sources in English. Any suggestions? -- Quiddity (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work

Whoever cleaned this article up apparantly did a good job. Because the Talk Page almost stopped! Arlen22 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede section

This article is about honey from honey bees. Let's rewrite the lede section accordingly, per WP:LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ChildofMidnight, "there is still some very specific content in the opening paragraphs that I think should be moved to the body."

However, the current definition in the lede appears to contradict or exclude Honey#Honeydew_honey. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vegans

Does this need to be in the "Honey Quality" section (or even in the article at all)? This seems to have nothing to do with the quality, as it is a lifestyle choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.50.135 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It might fit better under an expansion of the section on cultural aspects. Jonathunder (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the distinctly different properties of non Apis honey?

The opening paragraph says that honey produced by non-Apis bees has "distinctly different properties." What distinctly different properties does it have? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps honeydew is what is referred to there. This should be clarified. Jonathunder (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dark honey

No wikipedia article mentions dark honey. As it is a common type of honey sold in the U.S., it should merit a mention, even if it turns out there is no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.235.42 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dark honey is either:

1. Honey from certain plants such as buckwheat which produce naturally dark nectar and therefore darker honey or
2. Honey which has been overheated and partially carmelized.

The former is good (though many consider it an acquired taste), the latter universally bad. Color is a matter of degree, however, not of an absolute split. Honey varies from "water white" (essentially clear) to so dark you can't see through it. The section on honey classification could probably do with a larger section on color. I'll add it to my list of future edits (unless someone wants to be bold and beat me to it). Rossami (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Honey questions re chemistry

Fructose page lists it as 97% as sweet as Sucrose. My question however has to do with Honey origin. Energy transport in plants is generally using Sucrose and I would assume, as there is no reference in this article to the flower nectar that Bees collect, that the nectar is Sucrose solution. My readings of beekeeping say bees inject venom, containing formic acid (and venom proteins), into nectar to 'invert' the sucrose into 50% glucose and 50% fructose plus a trace of remaining sucrose. It occurs that many who are allergic to bee stings, the venom proteins, can eat honey with no problem. Could it be an enzyme from the Bee stomachs? And shouldn't that mean its OK for Vegans to eat honey? Its really still just the flower nectar that the Bees puke up. Shjacks45 (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nectar is a blend of sucrose, fructose and glucose (and many other sugars but those are the big three). The mix depends on the flower, soil, rainfall, etc. The bees do invert some components of the nectar sugars but venom has nothing to do with it. Inversion is accomplished purely with enzymes introduced in the honey stomach.
The Vegan opinion on honey is split with some considering it acceptable and some not. That difference of opinion does not appear to be based on the science of digestion-processing, however. Rossami (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychoactive honey

Honey has long been used as a intoxicant when bees make honey from psychoactive plants i.e. datura. Maybe someone can include info on that as i did not see any info on the subject in the article. here is a great link http://www.erowid.org/animals/bee/bee_info1.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.125.89 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing Information template message

The "Honey producing countries" section of this article is missing information about places which produce more honey than Mexico or Corsica, in effect giving undue weight to Mexican and Corsican honey production. SoccerMan2009 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange honey/fake honey

Please help me identify and place these images. I took them in Haikou, Hainan, China. The stuff is rock hard, very heavy and dense, looks as if it is dug up from under the ground (always supposedly at the base of a small tree), smells a bit like honeysuckle, and is very pungent. Sorry about the low resolution. Next time the man comes around, I will take better shots.

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fake honey and honey adulteration

I would like to suggest that someone do some research, find some sources and add a section (or even perhaps create a new article) on honey adulteration and fake honey. These two things are increasingly becoming a problem worldwide. I would try to do it myself but this is not an areas that I know much about. Here anyway is a is a short article about fake honey in Turkey [4]. Invertzoo (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and I may do so in the next day or two. For anyone else interested here's a good starting point: "Detecting 'Honey laundering'..." Snori (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The antibacterial activity

"The presence of the synergist in manuka honey more than doubles MGO antibacterial activity." Well, what synergist? The reference (pt #55) says it is unknown and: "Although very low levels of MGO are found in most honey, the high level of MGO in manuka honey is unique, as is the presence of the synergist which more than doubles the antibacterial activity of MGO." but how can they tell, if they dont know the compound? Additionally, honey also have a antifungal activity, because hydrogen peroxide, high osmotic pressure and low pH also kills/inhibit fungi.

Feel free to rewrite. 77.212.171.42 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The synergist seems to have been discovered and named. http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/7/2576.long FX ☎ 17:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

percentage of sweetness compared to sucrose

To whom it may concern, I am not much of an editor so I hope I did not step on anyone's toes here but I changed the percentage of sweetness when compared to sucrose from 74% to 97%. When I checked on the noted source (University of Oregon study), it appears there was an error as molasses is 74% as sweet as sucrose, not honey. In the interest of full disclosure, I just lost an argument by not checking the original source and thus: Well done Kingslayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.1.62 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate the exact reference.

The Oregon State link doesn't work. I can't find a new location, though the information may be in part here: http://food.oregonstate.edu/faq/faq_carbohydrate.html

The National Honey Board source indicates the sweetness of honey can vary dramatically. Until we can find a more authoritative source or wording, I've removed the % info. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing the false precision of a percentage was probably the best choice. The prevailing wisdom according to a quasi-random selection of honey-themed cookbooks (that is, the ones in my kitchen) is that honey is more sweet than an equivalent sucrose syrup. The rationale is that you get twice the chances to interact with a receptor on your tongue - a fructose and a glucose for the same sugar content.
I don't consider the sourcing strong enough to post the "sweeter" assertion but it is sufficient to cast further doubt on percentages which are proving difficult to verify. Rossami (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the honey.com link was also broken. It probably referred to content now at http://www.honey.com/nhb/about-honey/frequently-asked-questions/ which includes a comment in the Sugar Substitution section that "Because of its high fructose content, honey has higher sweetening power than sugar. This means you can use less honey than sugar to achieve the desired sweetness." Rossami (talk)

Other medical applications

I came to this article looking for information to help me decide whether to consider trying raw honey for my allergies. Concrete information seems to be difficult to find. I made an edit to update an AAAAI URL, then another edit to add another URL and a couple of sentences that are mostly quoted from the two sources. I believe this clearly indicates several facts that are important whether one believes that honey does or does not help with allergies:

• The only directly related study I could find concludes that it "does not confirm the widely held belief that honey relieves the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis."
• That study apparently had "nearly 1 in 3" (or nearly 12 out of the 36 total) participants drop out. I would really like to know WHICH 'almost 12' participants dropped out. Was it the '12' raw honey participants, or perhaps six of the pasteurized honey participants and half a dozen of the synthesized honey participants? (haha I made a funny) I don't have access to the original study. The official conclusions of this study are not really helpful to me, because "does not confirm ...." could mean "the good and clear results that we got lead us to conclude ...." or "does not confirm ...." could simply mean "we had to abort the study due to lack of meaningful participation." Either way, it seems to me that a single study based on only about 24 participants might not be strong enough to count as "definitively answered" as to whether raw, unfiltered honey can help alleviate allergies. I believe the study should definitely be referenced. I believe it is important to state the total participant count of 36. I also believe it is reasonable to mention the specific dropout rates (which I don't have), considering the high percentage of dropouts.
• Anaphylaxis is a dangerous, known potential health risk of consuming raw honey. Even if a study were to conclude that raw honey could help some people, there is still this present danger that could deter some from trying they honey on their own. It seems to me that if a study were to conclude definitely in favor of raw honey, it would still be important to mention anaphylaxis risks in close text proximity to the study reference, rather than leave it only to the "Health hazards" heading which currently exists.

I hope my edits and this talk turn out to be helpful to the community. I am not a doctor. Just a guy with allergies. From my reading, even if raw honey does work, I got the idea that it would be more likely to work if started before allergy season starts and more likely to worsen allergies if started mid-season.

Two thoughts I would like to see included are: 1) how similar is honey ingestion to allergy shots, as regards exposing one to low dosages of the allergen as a preventative measure, and 2) the apparent fact that the body reacts much less severely to ingesting allergens than to inhaling them, which may somehow allow the body to build up some immunity to the allergens (I saw several mentions of this idea, but have not researched it enough to develop sentences for Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.45.87 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are asking the right questions but for the most part, no one knows the answers. It's difficult to get funding for double-blind, controlled studies of a product with no patent protection. No company is going to fund the research.
To your specific points:

• You are correct that "does not confirm the hypothesis" also means "does not exclude the hypothesis". The science that I know about remains inconclusive. No studies have definitively evaluated the differences (if any) in biological pathways between ingestion and intradermal exposure.
• If the stated reason for dropping out is accurate (and I am skeptical), then the pattern of abandonments is irrelevant. Sweetness is not correlated with honey producer type. And if the study was carried out correctly, the distribution of personal tastes should also be irrelevant. On sample size, a) a population of only 36 is too small for any real conclusions but b) a 33% drop-out rate in a medical trial is not at all unusual.
• Anaphylaxis is very dangerous but extremely unusual as a reaction to honey. It is unusual enough that the existence of the reaction remains unconfirmed. Glucose and fructose, the dominant components of honey, are part of mammalian cellular processing, so any allergic reaction would have to be to the traces of pollen in the honey. Those traces are well below the atmospheric exposure that you get just walking outside when that species is blooming. If you're not reacting anaphylacitally to environmental exposure, there's no known mechanism to cause you to react worse to the lower dosage of honey-delivered exposure. The one place that you might react anaphylactically is if the honey contains traces of an allergen to which you are not already exposed. Eating honey from overseas, for example. But that flies in the face of the honey theory which specifically requires that you eat local honey, that is, honey made from the same nectars and holding the same pollens as you are already exposed to (and reacting to) from your home area.
  Of course, the broader advice is that anyone so severely allergic to be worried about anaphylaxis should not be self-medicating through any technique - honey or otherwise. I don't believe that kind of general purpose warning is in keeping with the Wikipedia policy on warnings, though.
• The "lower severity" of reaction you described above is more easily explained by lower dosage via ingestion. But again, no studies have confirmed that theory.

Rossami (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Honey in Medicine

This is a slight change, but I just don't know how to put it into effect. There was a statement missing a citation that said something like "Honey has been used in medicine for the past 2700 years", when I found a New Zealand news article that starts off saying it goes back to even 4,000 years. Here's that article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_2000_Nov/ai_66520151/ If someone could footnote that and put it in the list of citations or whatever, that'd be swell. Every edit makes Wikipedia that much more accurate.76.19.4.2 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Intoxication or intoxification

I'm not sure which is right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In Western Culture - Honey as a term of endearment

"The word "honey", along with variations like "honey bun" and the abbreviation "hon", has become a term of endearment in most of the English-speaking world."

I think this is just the US and maybe Canada - people don't really say it in the UK and I don't think they do in Australia either? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.75.163 (talk • contribs)

True but irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That means, among other things, that we don't write articles about words per se, we write articles about things. This article is about the sticky, tasty product of bees. A listing of other uses of the word "honey" including its regional variations would be entirely appropriate in a dictionary entry (and is already well discussed at our sister project Wiktionary) but is inappropriate in this encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Honey as Roman taxes

From the article:

In the Roman Empire, honey was possibly used instead of gold to pay taxes.[citation needed]

I'm currently studying bees and honey in the Roman empire and I have not come across anything to suggest this. Once I've finished my essay I'll add my research to the article (all from citable sources), but I'm not sure this should be in the article without a citation, especially considering that I've been searching for ancient mentions of honey, bees and wax for weeks, not to mention modern books and articles on bees and honey in the Roman world, and haven't come across so much as a sniff to suggest that. I do know that honey was part of rent paid on North African Imperial Estates, where the tenants had more than 5 hives (Kehoe 1988). But I've got way more than the article does at the moment on honey in the Roman empire, so once, as I say, I'm done writing it all down and handing it in, I'll see what I can do about adding it to the article. Chilari (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. It's been in the article unsourced for almost two years. Thanks for pointing it out. Cresix (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fiehes test citation

There is citation of a Fiehes test for substandard honey, but no link or citation to the actual test. Please add reference. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Botulism

Can we trim this section back to WP:MEDRS sources just related to honey specifically? Detailed information belongs in Botulism. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. There is quite a bit of correct information in there, some irrelevant information, (such as numbers of botulism cases not related to honey), and some that is false. In particular, the number of spores honey receives from dust is relatively small and is found in similar proportions on all food. The numbers contained in honey can be quite a bit higher, and geographical location seems to be the primary role in that. (No spores were found in UK honey, and the only case of infection from Japan came from The C variety found in the imported honey, which the baby was fed, and not the E variety found in the Japanese dust.) That, and all sources I've read agree that only 35 cases of infant botulism, worldwide, have been confirmed to have been caused by honey. The sources I used for this are The microbiological safety of food in healthcare settings, Clostridium botulinum: ecology and control in foods and Textbook of pediatric infectious diseases, Volume 2. Zaereth (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)