The results of the EC 2021-2022 honey sampling and analysis co-ordinated action, following the From the Hives report, were concerning. This 2023 report concluded that all 10 of the sampled honeys imported from the UK were “suspicious”.
This finding prompted further investigation by the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Defra have now published an independent expert review into the analytical methods used in the survey. There is a lot of technical content in the review. It re-emphasises that no single honey authenticity test is likely to be definitive, and that a weight of evidence approach should be used with some tests being weighted higher than others. When the total weight of evidence is not strong then phrasing such as “warrants further investigation” would be a fairer conclusion than “suspicious”.
One specific learning from the review is that laboratories must take care with the selection of authenticity markers, depending on the analytical question being asked. The example given is oligosaccharides. Some of these markers are known to vary between honey that has had moisture mechanically removed compared to honey that has not. Moisture removal may be a production necessity (in humid climates where honey will not evaporate naturally) or a commercial choice to speed the harvest cycle (as is commonly used in China). Moisture-removed honey is common within UK blends of Chinese origin honeys but is not permitted in some EU countries. Thus a test based on oligosaccharide markers could differentiate UK honey from EU for reasons that are already understood. It might not provide any new insight, for example, on sugar or syrup adulteration.
Photo by Art Rachen on Unsplash
Comments
Thank you, Savvas, a very good point about the translation and one I (as a native English speaker who barely learned a 2nd language at school) always overlook.
Thanks John, and yes, the translation "factor" is usually overlooked in the UK.
Thank you for posting. Very interesting work!
Regarding the word suspicious, please do not dismiss the fact that when this is translated to other languages, or read by a non-native English speaker, it might not be as "subject to interpretation" as it is in English. For example, when I translate the word in Greek, my native language, it makes perfect sense. For example, in Greek, there is a different word for "a person who is suspicious or someone who is suspicious of something" - καχύποπτος (kahypoptos) and another word for a "suspicious sample" - ύποπτο (ypopto). Both are translated to "suspicious" in English. I completely agree that the difficulties around honey and some of the advanced analytical techniques applied to its authentication have to be stressed further. But linguistically it can be more complicated. Just a note that the word "καχύποπτος" comes from two words κακός (bad)+ύποπτο (suspicious) whereas the "plain" ύποπτο (suspicious), does not contain the word "bad". Both words are translated as "suspicious". It is indeed a word that needs elaboration...
In addition to my comment about the linguistics, I noticed that the term "European honey" and "European-style honey" is not used in the EC's report. What does "European-style" mean? In addition, is the UK honey, not European? Perhaps a better term would be Continental European?