In Germany, between the two world wars, to help offset poverty, the regulations officially allowed under another name, the commercialisation of an industrially produced honey substitute. The situation was clear: there was no attempt to disguise the product as the label was clearly marked "artificial honey".

There rests something somewhere of this in the collective memory. Despite the European directive 74/409, designations such as: Beekeeper’s honey or Bee honey etc. are frequently found, east of the Rhine.

Such terminology is redundant, as the use of the word "honey" is illegal when applied to products that are not 100% the result of honeybees collecting activities on plants.

During the years of occupation in France, as in other countries at war, there were unscrupulous people that "stretched" or "made" so called "honey" by various means.

From the 1950s until the middle of the 1980s, throughout the whole world, commercialised honey was pure. Exceptionally and at anecdotal level, in the middle of the1970s, several importers signalled the passage of a few doubtful lots, coming from the USSR in particular, but this was never proved.

N.B.: There are some exceptions, for example, North African countries. Taking into account the poverty and the continual demand, sugar syrups that are labelled in a less than clear manner are frequently found in this region. It appears that evens, the consumers are not fooled and such activity is "part of the game".

The diverse regulations, Global (codex), European (directive 74/409) or those that relate to individual countries are generally relatively clear and explicit:

Overall, this situation has been respected. Even more, from an economical point of view, there did not exist at this period of time, products or the technology that enabled large-scale fraud to take. It is for this reason that until the middle of the 1980’s, whether wholesale or in pots for the consumer, the regulations controlling the meaning of honey were satisfactory.

Immediately the Chinese honey resulted in a certain number of questions being posed by specialised laboratories in the west. In effect, certain aspects of this product presented particularities that caused suspicion

1. Under the microscope, the pollen spectrum appeared systematically "charged" with numbers inactive yeast.

A "normal" honey in this state should have systematically presented the physical signs of advanced fermentation, whereas, in the case of the Chinese honey the yeast were "dead".

2. Still under the microscope, the honey appeared "dirty" with numerous traces of earth, as if soil had been incorporated into the product.

In these countries, there is no pumping, decantation or filtering during the process of extraction, which is done by hand, in hygiene conditions that are inconceivable in Europe. This leads to inevitable thoughts of an extraction taking place in the open air or in a building with an earth floor. Honey that is spilt is collected without any precaution. The particles of earth, too fine to be held back by the tubular filters of the conditioners, are then found in the pots of honey destined for the consumer.

3. Occasionally anomalies are found as, for example, abnormal index levels of diastase:

• Sometimes less than index level 8,which clearly permits the elimination of the product, since to be called honey the European directive 74/409 imposes a minimum level of 8…
• Also and often enough, really enigmatic results, with levels of 50 and above, totally unusual, but still permitted as in the regulations the re is no maximum level stated.

4. The systematic presence of iron oxide in considerable quantities: an average of 40 mg/kg with peaks of 100 to 200 mg.

According to research done by the laboratories of the DGCCRF in Talence, and under the reserve of complementary work, it was not the barrels that were responsible for this contamination. Rather causes further back in the production system. The Chinese depots?

5. On another register: frequent evidence of chemical residues, the most common being CDF (Chlordimeform), thought to be used extensively and directly in the hive interior as a veterinary treatment.

6. Last but not least, this product arrived (and continues to arrive, alas) in non-food grade bonded barrels. In the worst cases, certain importers have had the surprise to receive their honey in containers, which have apparently contained mineral oils.

Basis of the analytic analysis:

• In nature, isotopic elements such as Carbon (13C/12C), Oxygen (17O/16O), and Hydrogen…. are found in small quantities. The relationship between these isotopes varies according to the geoclimatic conditions and the type of photosynthetic process in the plant. In this document, the isotopic relationship between 13C/12C that is determined by using a mass spectrometer will be represented as "d 13C".
• Maize and sugar cane, with others, are plants that use the "C4" metabolic cycle during photosynthesis. These plants are the origin of the sugar syrups, and these have a sugar composition similar to that of honey but the isotopic relationship of carbon (d 13C), is in the order of- 11‰
• Bees harvest nectar from plants that have a "C3" cycle of photosynthesis. At first, after analysis of 119 pure honeys in the U.S.A., the values of d 13C appeared remarkably homogenic at–23.5‰. The addition of maize syrup or sugar cane syrup resulted in an increase of the d 13C to "the mixture". Therefore in referring to the first values a reference was possible to effect the first controls.
• It became very quickly apparent that this method could not be applied to all honeys.

It was due to this situation that research continued resulting in 1989 with the publication of the "Jonathan White and Kenneth Winters method"(see references).

If it is wished to the debate in more detail, the % of C4 sugar may be determined by using the following mathematical formula:

Taking into account the natural variability of honey, the Direction Génerale de la Répression des Fraudes (D.G.C.C.R.F.) consider that adulteration has taken place if the result of the above formula is equal or above 7%( said to be "non conformable"). Between 5% and7%, the suspicion is very high and a "grey zone" is spoken of. It is this allowed margin of error that permits an atypical honey to be classified as conforming to required standards. In fact, in the majority of cases, the results of honeys situated in the "grey zone" give witness to the quantity of honey that has been adulterated, but at low doses of added sugar. This may be due to the original fraud being "diluted"(sometimes in total ignorance) by the conditioner, who will have mixed honeys of several geographical origin, with only one of the lots being adulterated by the exporter (see the table of results).

This technique has become the official method for the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, registered in 1991under the n° 991-41. It is used throughout the world, and for the moment the most fallible and economic.

To conclude, the fraudsters and the controllers are now engaged in a mad race, with only a handful of specialists mastering the situation. Faced with this situation, most European economic operators (conditioners or importers), utilise the control technique that suits their purpose, that is the least efficient: the Hybrid Method, popularised in England by EUROPA SCIENTIFIC (see sec.7).

The work of the importers and the conditioners is not simple.

At this time the controls depended upon:

1. on melisssopalynologic analysis techniques which have not made much progress since that time ;
2. on diverse measurements, humidity, HMF, conductivity, diastase index, etc…
3. and on the analysis of sugars which, initially was done by: paper, thin layer or gas chromatography.

The first two have long been obsolete, only the GPC (gas phase chromatography) is still applicable. It is being progressively replaced by HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography). This process is much more "economic" since it is faster in producing results but is also far less precise (more than a 5% margin of error).

Since then, the methods of adulteration detection have called upon apparatus and techniques, which did not exist in 1974 (neither did the recipes or the sugar additives of the fraudster). Moreover, at least until recently, all the analytical techniques have been developed and put in place in North America. There is due to this situation, two totally contradictory analytical jurisdictions.

• The first

Only the approved regulations and methods are opposable before a tribunal (that is to say regarding honey in Europe, the Directive 74/409 and its’ annexes). Consequently, the operators governed by these rules and these rules alone are able to fraud in total security. They are able to find a legal level (national or European) that proves them right. Fraud is legalised since the economic and industrial world evolves more rapidly than the regulations.

• The second

Radically different, postulates the position that, even when not yet officially recognised, it is always the most modern and accurate scientific method that should have ultimate legal precedence.

This examination takes place under a microscope.

Starting with an existing and known reference, it allows:

1. to say if the pollen spectrum is "normal" for a natural honey;
2. the determination of geographical origin. It is by far the simplest way once the analyst has references (as long as they are 100% absolute and true);
3. to say if the product merits or not the name of a monofloral honey, this being simple but largely subject to interpretation (hence a use of law becomes problematic: interpretation is difficult to support in law).

As one sees, one is far from the precision of a chemical examination with the evaluation of a chromatographic peak or the help of a mathematical formula. One does not become a really competent mellissopalynologist until after several years of daily practice. As well, one is not competent unless one has the habit of studying. A technician working on European honeys will be only mediocre when working with honeys from Australia or New Zealand and visa versa. Before, there was at least in France, several researchers, especially with INRA, who were specialists in this sort of examination. Today, there remains to our knowledge, only:

• one specialist with CNEVA
• one or two others at the DGCCRF
• and three or four technicians, salaried in honey conditioning companies whose role is not to do controls on the market, nor research.

• the White and Winters method of 1989
• and the White and Doner method of 1978.

This comes about in the following way:

• The laboratory undertakes an analysis only of C13 in the honey (that is to say the old White and Doner method of 1978)
• If the result obtained is more negative than -23.50: the honey is considered as conformable, without further verification.
• If the result is between -23.50 and -21.50: the honey is considered as doubtful, and undergoes a new analysis on the C13 of the honey proteins (internal standard)
• If the resulting difference is less than -1 (or, expressed differently, if the result of the mathematical formula cited in sec.3 is lower than 5%) the honey is conformable. If it is higher than -1 (result of the mathematical formula is higher than 7%), the honey is not conformable. (There we are in the bounds of the normal and complete method of the AOAC).
• If the result is less negative than that -21.50: the honey is considered non-conforming, without undergoing supplementary verification.

One is able to see the pertinence of this method by looking at the table kindly supplied by EUROFINS of statistics of their own analyses over several years.

From 435 samples, 76 i.e. 17% produced a result lower than -23.50 proving to be non-conform

From 151 samples situated between -23.50 and -21.50, 63% are considered non-conform after the protein test (internal standard).

In contrast, even if it is anecdotal, it is convenient to note that only 1 honey out of 41, i.e. 2% having been declared non-conform according to the hybrid method would in fact have been conformable.

It can easily be seen, from these results, that the hybrid method is a handy method to ratify the conformity of corrupted honey thereby enabling it to be supplied at a low price.

This hybrid method which, has not been the object of any publication to our knowledge, has a history. We have few details, but it may be reconstituted approximately in the following way:

• The conditioners claim that they are unable to find honey on the world market.
• An English laboratory, Europa Scientific, wishes to extend its’ market in honey analysis.
• Under the pretext of being able to cut the price of honey analysis, it proposes the hybrid method mentioned before at the cost of £33-£55 (pound sterling) equivalent to 300-400Frs. at the time of publication. This, according to the competitors that we consulted at the beginning of 1996 was in comparison to the price of 1650Frs. (ex.vat) for the AOAC method.

The continued use of an inefficient method serves only one purpose: to allow the importers to easily find the necessary volumes at a very low price,

• in the knowledge that this product is not honey but… "What do you want, you must adapt to the circumstances, and if I don’t do it, then my competitors will".
• and with a minimum legal cover since they use a new analytical method in comparison to the Directive 74/409.

In the case, (apparently relatively frequently) where the merchandise has absolutely no correspondence with the sample, what happens?

• Take the Chinese seller to court! pure fantasy,
• An honest resale for the merchandise in this state is impossible:
  • the so called honey; it is not conformable,
  • called industrial syrup, it can only be sold at best, at a price 3 or 4 times less than the bought price,
• Despite the infrequent controls, it is commercially risky to resell in the state it is. Even if it rarely happens, the seller is always at the mercy of a chance withdrawal for a control, either a client, or a competitor.

Hence, when one finds 20 to 30% of non-conformity in the cheapest priced honeys in the supermarket shelves, it is in fact only the tip of the iceberg. In reality the level of fraud is greater, but, in the absence of controls and customs confiscation at point of entry of the non-conforming honey, the system, as it organised, cannot produce anything other than: fraud, cheating, traffic and trickery in the chain of affairs.

This situation is confirmed in the conclusion of the information note no.1802 of the DGCCRF dated the 9/4/1997: