Re: Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn't Honey

On Nov 28, 6:07 pm, Pat <ele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Few ideas on way to test honey purity and origin.
>
> In theory there should be a average amount of Bee DNA in a jar of
> honey unless it is diluted.  Bee specific Primers and the utilization
> of Real Time PCR could be used here once the average amount of DNA in
> an undiluted sample is figured out all samples would be compared to
> this.
>
> As for origin: I'm sure a similar approach PCR can be used.  Every
> area has a common flora this is what melissopalynology is based off
> of.  But melissopalynologist look at pollen grains not DNA. By using
> Primers specific to the flora that exist in different geographic
> regions and visualizing by electrophoresis you could still tell what
> area the honey is coming from regardless of filtering.
>

I think this would be a waste of time and money. I can't imagine honey
contains a relatively constant amount of background DNA, especially
given the variability in yields from actual controlled biological DNA
sources. It wouldn't surprise me at all to know that the DNA
concentration varies 10-fold from hive to hive or even within a single
hive based on the local weather or the alignment of the stars. The
similar complications apply to origin. Moreover, when we're talking
about 'food products' rather than food, DNA forgery becomes a trivial
matter.

The general message I take away from this thread (or had affirmed
thereby) is that if you consume enough honey and/or the source
matters, you should probably eat less and/or grow your own. Otherwise,
you should probably just eat less honey.

> On Nov 26, 10:04 am, Jeswin <phillyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Patrik <patr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nice follow-up article on NPR:
>
> > > Relax, Folks. It Really IsHoneyAfter All
> > >http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2011/11/25/142659547/relax-folks-it-...
>
> > > tl;dr: Mosthoneypackers filter theirhoneyusing diatomaceous earth
> > > to keep thehoneyfrom crystallizing. This is not ultrafiltration, but
> > > it does remove pollen. And Chinesehoneyis banned in the US primarily
> > > because of a trade dispute, not for safety concerns.
>
> > > Of course none of this rules out the "contaminated Chinesehoney
> > > smuggled in through ultrafiltration" scenario, and I'd assume that
> > > some amount of that is indeed going on. But the original study was
> > > only about lack of pollen in most commercialhoney, which says nothing
> > > about its origins.
>
> > > --
>
> > Very nice follow-up, Nate. I really should stop reading those comments
> > at the end of articles. Everyone there was very negative towards the
> > article. I don't think there's a scam going on. Even if there is,
> > there's no reason to worry. We don't consume muchhoneyanyway (est.
> > 1.2 lbs/year [1]).
>
> > [1]http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/bees/colony-col...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.