UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-04-2012, 04:05 PM   #1
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Blue honey in France

BBC

Quote:
As for the blue honey, the beekeepers say it is unsellable.
WHAT!? XD WHY!? Maybe I'm alone on this one but I don't consider blue honey to be in the same boat as purple or green ketchup at all! Those I can't eat, I'll agree, but blue honey sounds pretty cool! How often in life do you get blue honey? Let alone natural/organic blue honey? I would think this would've increased the value of the honey as a novelty item amongst honey fans, not lowered it!

lol @ it being waste from an M&M factory that may be the culprit. ^^; You don't normally think "chemical waste" along with M&Ms but there you have it. But if the "waste" was in fact a source of sugar, I'm kinda curious why that sugar wasn't processed into usable sugar for the candies. What sort of sugar would be thrown out by the company but could also be used by foraging bees as a source of food? Burnt sugar or starches wouldn't work, I'd think, while dextroses, maltoses, fructoses, and so on I would think the company would be only too happy and able to convert into the appropriate sucrose-based sweeteners they use in their candies. Dye I could see being a chemical waste product they dumped but dye isn't a sugar. ^^; And the article specifically states that what the bees got their hands on was sugar. So like ... it just seems so weird to me.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 04:42 PM   #2
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Wow, that's amusing. Blue honey? I'd have never thought!

Unsellable? So long as it tastes like honey, I'd buy it! Would make for a great natural food coloring too!
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 05:23 PM   #3
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
It is probably some sort of sugar that is indigestible and causes cramping.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:25 PM   #4
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,194
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Were this the United States, I'm not sure if the FDA (lazy as it is) would approve the sale of something with questionable purity like blue honey.

Incidentally at home I have a jar of "Blue Honey" the brand. It's still pretty darn amber.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:43 PM   #5
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Were this the United States, I'm not sure if the FDA (lazy as it is) would approve the sale of something with questionable purity like blue honey.
That's actually a fair point that I had not considered: even if consumers are willing to risk it and vendors willing to sell it, France's equivalent of the FDA might've put their foot down and said "No. " But here's the thing: they can't just say "no" senselessly. They have to have a reason beyond "we irrationally fear it would be unsafe because OOGEDY BOOGEDY CHEMICAL WASTE." They'd have to do a chemical assay of the honey. And if they honey revealed that it's no different than ordinary honey but for one chemical or two, and if that one chemical or two is either the dye used in M&Ms or the natural breakdown product of that chemical (and the breakdown product poses no risk to man), then they'd have to allow the honey on the market. No?

Otherwise, consider the following example: say the chemical waste is cleaned up and the bees no longer produce blue honey the following season. But we now know that they forage for nectar in the vicinity of that chemical waste dumping ground. So would France's FDA say "Sorry" to regular-colored honey coming from those beekeepers' colonies? If so, why haven't they done so sooner? (Is there no check against where food comes from before it's put on the market? ^^; ) If not, why not here but yes with the blue honey?
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 04:29 PM   #6
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
While it does seem a little hasty to write it off totally, I don't see what's wrong with the "better safe than sorry" approach. They'd risk a lot more releasing a potentially harmful product to the public than they'd potentially gain selling overpriced honey. And I'm sure the proper safety precautions and testing would be costly.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 04:43 PM   #7
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Something I just realized: shouldn't FDA-esque things only apply to "on label" food items? If it's sold "off label" the way that produce at a farmer's market is sold, then does the FDA even factor in? Consider the following:
  1. From experience, we know farmers' markets to be perfectly legal.
  2. From experience, we know that at farmers' markets you find produce, bags of trail mix, homemade pastries and confectionaries, and other various homemade items, none of which were checked by government officials before being cleared for sale to the public. (As Jeri points out, it would be prohibitively expensive for your average mom and pop to get those tests done on their food items. So since we know the food is sold legally, we have to conclude that the tests are not legally required.)
So like, if I go to a farmers' market and purchase a vial of honey for $5, there's absolutely no guarantee that that honey wasn't gathered by bees who live 1.2 miles from a nuclear power plant, a toxic landfill, etc. I am buying it at risk. The only federally-guaranteed safe food is food you find at a supermarket ... which indeed has passed FDA safety tests.

Here then is my question I guess: am I wrong with Assumption #2 in that list above? Do Mom and Pop indeed have to go and get their stuff cleared with the government before they sell it at a farmers' market? And I want you to consider that the answer to this question ends up not mattering for the ultimate answer of whether the beekeepers could sell their blue honey or not. Because ...!
  1. if Mom and Pop do have to get government clearance to sell their food at the farmers' market, well, then we know that they do 'cause they obviously show up to sell. And we also know that it can't be prohibitively expensive because if it were then Mom and Pop wouldn't bother with the farmers' market.
  2. if Mom and Pop don't have to get government clearance to sell their food, why, well then there you go! Blue honey ready to be sold easy as pie.
Either way I'd think they could sell it.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:48 AM   #8
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
No one's forcing them to not sell it. They just think it wouldn't be worth the risk selling a product that could potentially contain toxic waste to the public. Could easily invite litigation and backlash that would hurt them in the long run.

Sometimes I wonder if you read my posts.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 12:25 PM   #9
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Sometimes I wonder if you read my posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
And I'm sure the proper safety precautions and testing would be costly.
You're beginning to annoy me, Jeri. If you have an axe to grind, take it elsewhere. You're making it impossible to have civil chats with you. First off, that post wasn't directed at you, though your own post certainly made me think of the FDA again. (See the quoted relevant bit.) I was just thinking aloud and it was directed towards the entire community. If anything my post was more directed at Doppelganger than at you since he was the one who brought the FDA up. Your post merely reminded me of it and I had a brainflash and wanted to share it with the community. It would be like if the following had happened:

Doppelganger: Well, I don't think X-Wings have enough thrust to get off the ground.
Talon: You know, I had totally forgotten about thrust.
Jeri: I think this has more to do with the fact that X-Wings are costly to build. To say nothing of thrust concerns ...
Talon: Hey, wait a second! I just realized something! Shouldn't the thrust argument fail because [...]?
Jeri: DO YOU EVEN READ MY POSTS? GOSH!

It's the same. goddamn. thing. You said something which triggered in me a thought I wanted to expound upon. And yet somehow you take this as "TALON DOESN'T EVEN READ MY POSTS, HOLY HELL." Just because what I wrote about doesn't address your own concern (about Mom and Pop choosing not to sell it vs. not being allowed to sell it) doesn't mean I didn't read your posts. Jesus Christ.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 12:37 PM   #10
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Actually, a farmer's market can get in trouble with the law. There was one occurrence where police had to close a farmer's market because they sold unpasteurized milk, which was illegal at least with the state law.

I wasn't thinking of this incident, but it was the only one I could find and was pretty similar.

FDA will investigate possible illegal sales even at tiny things like a farmer's market, so if there is no approval for Blue Honey, I doubt they would risk selling it even in a small/local scale since you're the only one with blue honey. They will find you ASAP.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 12:45 PM   #11
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
Actually, a farmer's market can get in trouble with the law. There was one occurrence where police had to close a farmer's market because they sold unpasteurized milk, which was illegal at least with the state law.

I wasn't thinking of this incident, but it was the only one I could find and was pretty similar.

FDA will investigate possible illegal sales even at tiny things like a farmer's market, so if there is no approval for Blue Honey, I doubt they would risk selling it even in a small/local scale since you're the only one with blue honey. They will find you ASAP.
Well, there's a difference between an illegal good and a legal federally unverified good. Like, I guess in the state for your story it's illegal to sell unpasteurized milk so there's of course no way the FDA would ever approve of the sale of such a thing. But take for example home-made brownies. Brownies are perfectly legal to sell. Corporate brownies (like Little Debbie cakes or whatever) get FDA inspected. Corporate brownie mixes (like Pillsbury's) the same. But a homemade brownie mix that then becomes homemade brownies, the FDA doesn't step in and check that afaik. Yet of course they're a legal item insofar as all brownies that don't clearly contain illegal ingredients (e.g. PCP, meth, other drugs) are legal.

So I guess what I am wondering is, when mom and pop sell brownies at a farmers' market, are they skirting the law and no one calls them out on it? Is it one of those deals? Or are they under no even official legal obligation to get their food checked by the government before selling it to the public?

I think I'll just look into this more myself. Regardless, Jeri's already raised the point about how even if the farmers can legally sell it no worries they may still choose not to out of fear for litigation afterwards. And no one here can really answer to that one way or another without the farmers being interviewed and saying, "Yes, that is one of our major fears regarding selling the blue honey." But even if we put the mystery of why they don't want to sell the blue honey on hold, I am curious to know more about how the FDA and farmers' markets interact in this country. Your milk story establishes that the FDA will intervene at farmers' markets. But you also admit that it was to stop the sales of an illegal good, which I would differentiate from a legal unchecked good.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 12:59 PM   #12
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>Talon getting mad

Yeah okay whatever I'm still making a point that you still seem to be ignoring.

>Either way I'd think they could sell it.

Yes, they could still sell it just like you can "still sell" narcotics in spite of the legal implications.

Basically what I'm saying is that the point is moot when you'd have the FDA or equivalent body of governance swooping in to shut down your operation and slam you with a crippling fee.

EDIT: Retracting my statement based on the last post, though my point still stands.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 01:04 PM   #13
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Basically what I'm saying is that the point is moot when you'd have the FDA or equivalent body of governance swooping in to shut down your operation and slam you with a crippling fee.
...................... WHAT!? XFD You get angry at me for making a general reply to the thread ... one which you interpret as a post directed specifically towards you and one which "completely misses the point" of your post, you angrily tell me ... a reply which was 100% about how I don't think the FDA actually does factor in to the sellability of this honey ... and then you turn right around and say THIS!? Claim that your entire post was all about the FDA after all?

Just ... WOW! Wow, wow, wow.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 01:08 PM   #14
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
What?

Even if the FDA doesn't analyze the items when sold, if they find that it's being distributed and is harmful, they can and will come in and stop production if they see fit. It doesn't matter if it's an FDA matter at sale (which is what you're talking about, no?) but if it ends up harming people, it's within the FDA's power to come and stop it after the sales have been made.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, Talon.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 01:14 PM   #15
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
I don't know how you can be legal and unverified at the same time. That's like saying I'm selling this drug that has never been tested and has no approval and no one knows what side effects it may have, but is totally legal.

The fact that blue honey has thus far not been tested to have any adverse effects and not been approved for selling is pretty much the same as being illegal.

Quote:
But take for example home-made brownies. Brownies are perfectly legal to sell. Corporate brownies (like Little Debbie cakes or whatever) get FDA inspected. Corporate brownie mixes (like Pillsbury's) the same. But a homemade brownie mix that then becomes homemade brownies, the FDA doesn't step in and check that afaik.
The raw ingredients and the final product is seen as both legal items despite the final item not being FDA inspected. It's assumed your raw ingredients have been though some FDA screening, so as long as the final product is not an illegal item, they don't come down on you.

Do you think an FDA inspector sits in the kitchen of each household or restaurant watching people cook? No. They unfortunately wait for a incident, then the law comes down when one happens.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 01:17 PM   #16
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Even if the FDA doesn't analyze the items when sold, if they find that it's being distributed and is harmful, they can and will come in and stop production if they see fit. It doesn't matter if it's an FDA matter at sale (which is what you're talking about, no?) but if it ends up harming people, it's within the FDA's power to come and stop it after the sales have been made.
But this is all new information coming out of your mouth now, Jer. You said nothing about after-the-fact consequences from the FDA in that original post of yours which you felt I had so heinously misconstrued in a general reply to the thread I wrote.

http://forums.upnetwork.net/showpost...06&postcount=6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
While it does seem a little hasty to write it off totally, I don't see what's wrong with the "better safe than sorry" approach. They'd risk a lot more releasing a potentially harmful product to the public than they'd potentially gain selling overpriced honey. And I'm sure the proper safety precautions and testing would be costly.
"While it does seem a little hasty to write it off totally, I don't see what's wrong with the "better safe than sorry" approach." Says nothing about the FDA coming in later and punishing them.

"They'd risk a lot more releasing a potentially harmful product to the public than they'd potentially gain selling overpriced honey." Says nothing about the FDA coming in later and punishing them. (I'm 100% okay with you saying, "Well that's what I meant to say. I guess I should have explained myself more clearly" but you've got a lot of nerve getting angry at me for not being a fucking telepath to know that a general sentence like this was focused in on the FDA and not on humanitarian concerns about poisoning people which is what I took it to mean.)

"And I'm sure the proper safety precautions and testing would be costly." Says nothing about the FDA coming in later and punishing them. In fact, it's explicitly about before-the-fact worries.

Three sentences is all you wrote. Three sentences which you felt I failed to read properly. Three sentences in which I can't find a single shred of the spectre of the FDA coming in afterwards and blasting these people into bankruptcy.

This is why I am getting irritated with you. You accuse me of not reading what you wrote when in fact I read what you wrote all too well. The real problem here is that you failed to clearly communicate. You're getting angry at me on the receiving end but any sane person would look at the words you wrote and say, "Well, I can see how Talon didn't know Jeri was talking about FDA consequences after sale." They wouldn't come along and say "Talon doesn't read posts! HURB A DURB A DURB he's such an asshole who always puts words in people's mouths! " like you've done this fine Saturday afternoon.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 01:25 PM   #17
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
So not mentioning something totally excludes it from the table?

New one on me.

The word "litigation" implies litigation from any party - and while I was generally implying civil suits, it doesn't mean that the government can't get involved too. I don't see how not implicitly mentioning the FDA exclude the FDA from my point.

I don't care about your premises and your musings on the FDA and farmers' markets. My point was that based on what I said before, your conclusion isn't really important since they effectively can't sell it because they risk backlash. If they sold it, they might as well have just thrown their money away along with the blue honey because it's effectively the same thing.

I really just don't get you, Talon. You have a habit of freaking out over the littlest things and you really do seem to ignore me repeatedly. And chances are you probably don't, but you get so lost in your own head that I can't tell if you've actually read what I posted.

EDIT: It's also hard to have a civil discussion with you when you freak out about a comment I make outside of my point and then derail the tread.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]

Last edited by Jerichi; 10-06-2012 at 01:28 PM.
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 01:57 PM   #18
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
So not mentioning something totally excludes it from the table?
Of course not, but that's not the problem here. The first problem is that you didn't mention the very thing you're now backwards-claiming your entire post was all about; and the second problem is that you freaked out, not me, accusing me of being somebody who doesn't read people's posts properly ... but you then turned right around and said that your post was mostly about the very thing my post, the post you'd gotten angry about, was also about.

Let me put it to you in a way you can more easily appreciate. Suppose we were talking about pandas at the zoo. Suppose Doppelganger had earlier mentioned ruminating bacteria in the guts of these animals, bacteria which allow them to digest bamboo. Suppose you then said "I don't think pandas can eat more than 30 pounds of bamboo a day." I then come along and say, "You know, on the topic of those ruminating bacteria, I'm pretty sure that ..." and I say something relevant to what Doppel had been talking about. You then freak out and accuse me of not reading your posts ever, the second time in as many days you've done it, both times unfairly. And you then go on to say that your post was all about ruminating bacteria in the pandas' guts. The first problem with this is bad enough! Because nothing in your sentence suggested ruminating bacteria. All you said was you didn't think they could manage more than 30 pounds of bamboo a day. You never said that you were thinking that because of the bacteria. I figured you meant it because of problems of volume or of physical exertion energy. Nothing you said seemed to suggest to me that you meant "They can't handle it because of a bacteria-related point." But then what blows my mind even more is Problem #2, 'cause it's there where you reveal that you're getting angry at me for not reading your post properly ... by pointing to a post in which I discussed the gut bacteria ... and you then say your post was all about the gut bacteria. It's just ... Jeri, I don't have polite words for this behavior. What do you want me to call it? Irrational? Crazed? Nonsensical? Seriously, it baffles me. You're either ridiculously trollin' or else you're incredibly trippin'. I don't see any other way to explain this. You're either fucking with me on purpose or you're going to come back in 10 hours and be like "How in the blue blazes did I write those things? O_o" at your own replies. I can't fathom how you could get angry at me for not addressing your post but then claim that your post was all about the very thing I discussed. It's ... gah!
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 02:07 PM   #19
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
I'm not angry. I just think you're acting crazy and that you're not actually addressing my points.

I've pointed out why I think your whole analysis was moot and that your conclusion based off said analysis (even if it was a sidebar to the original topic of conversation!) is wrong based on that. Even if you do read my posts, you're totally misinterpreting everything I'm saying. From my perspective, it seems like you're ignoring me, since what you say in relation to my posts either misses the point I'm trying to make or is about something else entirely.

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't back-peddle when I brought the FDA into my point. I just said that your use of the FDA's regulations pre-sale didn't really matter when the FDA would still shoot them down post-sale if it was harmful. That risk makes it so they'd effectively be in a bind as far as selling it goes and not selling it is the least risky and (to them) most advisable option.

But if you think that I'm wrong and didn't say that, okay, may the victory be to you. Congratulations. I really don't care.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 05:16 PM   #20
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,194
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Talon misunderstood what Jeri said, but Jeri also baited Talon for what I percieve to be past annoyance. So, I don't believe Jeri when he says he doesn't care...clearly he cares somewhat.

That said, I feel more than a bit responsible for causing this, so to clarify some points -

The FDA doesn't regulate honey exactly. Produce and alcohol don't go with labels for different reasons - produce, along with meats, are regulated by the USDA, while alcohol falls under the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).

The USDA provides the highest level of scrutiny/inspection in the world. It's well funded and has a small but important scope, so it can afford to be proactive in neutralizing potential health threats, whereas the FDA is almost entirely reactive (someone gets sick, FDA investigates). The FDA is poorly funded relative to the scope of items it surveys - USDA is basically meat, produce, and (it appears) stuff directly from animals, while the FDA is "everything else" The TTB has no nutrition expertise, so I guess we could say it doesn't regulate anything at all.

TTB therefore doesn't include labels because they're not capable of it. The USDA products don't because they go through a higher level of quality assurance that basically means this stuff is so safe it doesn't need a label. Farmer's markets, I'd imagine, are either USDA regulated before the produce hits the shelf, or not regulated at all ('bootleg' produce).

I had originally thought the FDA would take over honey because they regulate some things you'd normally think the USDA should handle (like fish, milk). Apparently not. Both the FDA and USDA regulate honey, but since the USDA also handles it their higher standards trump the FDA's. I can imagine this would be because of Clostridium endospores in honey and honey derived products.

Given this, it's likely the USDA wouldn't approve the sale of the blue honey, since they'd do a clinical trial on it first-hand. I don't know if this would be expensive or not, and I wouldn't imagine it would be worth the effort unless the factory thing exposure was un-avoidable.

HOWEVER, that is France, not the US, so it's entirely possible there's little to no regulation on the government level, and may only occur on the EU stage. Remember maggot cheese? It's allowed because of a legal loophole clarifying it's "traditional food". Honey...can't get anymore traditional than that, except maybe bratwurst.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 05:39 PM   #21
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
I don't know why but I was thinking of the USDA as a subsidiary of the FDA, which in turn is a subsidiary of the Department of Health & Human Services. Can't explain why. Moment I looked it up to confirm it and saw the retardedly obvious "US Department of Agriculture" staring me in the face it was pretty clear that the USDA not only isn't a subbranch of the FDA but is in fact higher up in the hierarchy of cabinet branches than the FDA (itself being a subbranch of the DoHHS). Whoops.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 07:37 PM   #22
AK2
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere in America
Posts: 170
Send a message via AIM to AK2 Send a message via Skype™ to AK2
No brainer

Between additives, high-fructose corn syrup, SUGAR, artificial dyes, SUGAR, oh and SUGAR, I wouldn't consider any candy or soda to be healthy to eat in the first place... toxic waste or not
AK2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 09:12 PM   #23
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK2 View Post
Between additives, high-fructose corn syrup, SUGAR, artificial dyes, SUGAR, oh and SUGAR, I wouldn't consider any candy or soda to be healthy to eat in the first place... toxic waste or not
This is not candy. This is honey, which is almost always sold as pure.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 09:41 PM   #24
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
I think he/she is referring to the content of the waste which allegedly turned the honey blue.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 09:53 PM   #25
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
He.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.