Hm... it does make me wonder how much difference there is between bee
strains commonly used in China vs other parts of the world, and
whether you could tell the difference by sequencing a carefully
selected marker.
I agree that amount of DNA is probably not a very reliable metric. But
if we can identify both the flowers and the bee strain, that should
narrow down the origin rather well.
And yes, any of these tests could be circumvented by a sufficiently
skilled and knowledgeable fraudster. Just like any lock can be picked
by a sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable lockpicker - but I still
lock my front door. And either way it'd be a really cool project.
On Nov 29, 5:09 pm, Simon Quellen Field <sfi...@scitoys.com> wrote:
> While I can't really disagree with your sentiments, some people like a
> challenge, and might want to do the experiment for the fun of it.
>
> As someone who does such projects and then publishes them for profit,
> it might also not be a waste of time and money, but instead a way to make
> money.
>
> :-)
>
> -----
> Get a free science project every week! "http://scitoys.com/newsletter.html"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:34 PM, mad_casual <ademloo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
--
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment