10-04-2012, 04:05 PM | #1 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Blue honey in France
BBC
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
10-04-2012, 04:42 PM | #2 |
Banned
|
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! |
10-04-2012, 05:23 PM | #3 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
It is probably some sort of sugar that is indigestible and causes cramping.
__________________
|
10-04-2012, 10:25 PM | #4 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
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 |
10-04-2012, 10:43 PM | #5 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
|
|
10-05-2012, 04:29 PM | #6 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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.
|
10-05-2012, 04:43 PM | #7 |
時の彼方へ
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:
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 ...!
__________________
|
10-06-2012, 11:48 AM | #8 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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. |
10-06-2012, 12:25 PM | #9 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
10-06-2012, 12:37 PM | #10 |
The Path of Now & Forever
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. |
10-06-2012, 12:45 PM | #11 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
10-06-2012, 12:59 PM | #12 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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. |
10-06-2012, 01:04 PM | #13 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Just ... WOW! Wow, wow, wow.
__________________
|
|
10-06-2012, 01:08 PM | #14 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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. |
10-06-2012, 01:14 PM | #15 | |
The Path of Now & Forever
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:
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. |
|
10-06-2012, 01:17 PM | #16 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
http://forums.upnetwork.net/showpost...06&postcount=6 Quote:
"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.
__________________
|
||
10-06-2012, 01:25 PM | #17 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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.
__________________
Last edited by Jerichi; 10-06-2012 at 01:28 PM. |
10-06-2012, 01:57 PM | #18 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
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!
__________________
|
10-06-2012, 02:07 PM | #19 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
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. |
10-06-2012, 05:16 PM | #20 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
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 |
10-06-2012, 05:39 PM | #21 |
時の彼方へ
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.
__________________
|
10-21-2012, 07:37 PM | #22 |
Boulder Badge
|
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
|
10-21-2012, 09:12 PM | #23 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
This is not candy. This is honey, which is almost always sold as pure.
__________________
|
10-21-2012, 09:53 PM | #25 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
He.
__________________
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|