Talk:Honey

Use of the term 'raw honey' in UK

In the Honey (England) Regulations 2015 there is no such term as 'raw honey'. The regulations list the terms that csn be used in relation to honey. It is not a term that is legally defined in the UK. Black Mountain Honey in Wales was asked by trading standards to stop using the term 'raw' on its honey labels. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnnYx7NUE4 89.241.102.49 (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, but that really doesn't matter at this point because it is unclear what you want us to do about it. If this article were about the word "honey", there may be some use for adding this information, but encyclopedias are about things, not words. Dictionaries are about words. This is really too specialized to call it a WP:ENGVAR thing, so I really don't know what you want us to do? Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Infusion

There's a variety of beekeeping focused on infusing flavors into honey, such as lemon, lavender, or cinnamon. Basically, different flavors have been introduced, would it be possible to add another section? Purplepeopleperson (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt we need an entire section on it. If you have some reliable sources then it would probably fit in the adulteration section just fine. Zaereth (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! What would qualify as a scholarly article for this? Like any of the ones below:

https://www.dadant.com/learn/how-to-infuse-your-own-honey/

https://manukahoneyusa.com/infuse-your-honey-to-add-unique-flavors/

https://www.plumdeluxe.com/blogs/blog/how-to-infuse-honey

Let me know, I can keep looking. I would love to contribute to this article. 2601:47:4782:D8B0:70FF:7EDA:7AF6:886B (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The above sources are commercial blog spam and do not meet WP:RS. Also, the proposed content is mainly a recipe concept, falling under WP:NOTHOWTO. Zefr (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of those qualify. The first two are promotional (they're selling stuff, and the last thing we need is more spam), and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. The last is a blog, and blogs are not reliable because anybody can write one. See: WP:Reliable source for what constitutes a suitable citation. Keep in mind, most of the sources in this article are of very high quality, so I'd suggest looking for something of similar caliber. Books are probably the best. A reliable website or even a news article could also work. Keep in mind, we don't want anything promotional. There is already some mention of adding stuff to change the flavor in the adulteration section, and I have a hard time seeing what more needs to be said. Zaereth (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

In the section "Formation", subsection "By honey bees", in the second paragraph, the end of the sixth sentence reads, " which delivers the liquid to the bee's proventriculus, also called the honey stomach or honey crop." This is incorrect. The proventriculus is part of the digestive tract inbetween the honey stomach(honey crop) and the food stomach, formally called the ventriculus. It acts as a filter between the honey stomach and the ventriculus. Since this is a Honey page and not a Honey bee digestive tract page I suggest removing reference to the proventriculus all together and have that part of the sixth sentence read, " which delivers the liquid to the bee's honey stomach, also called the honey crop." This change, along with the current reading of the seventh sentence conveys the information that nectar is carried in a different place than the bee's true (food) stomach without getting into technical terms such as proventriculus and ventriculus. 128.119.202.187 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done with thanks. It would help if you can add a more detailed WP:RS ref. Next time, WP:JUSTDOIT. Zefr (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I got that from one of the sources. Can't remember which, because someone came along later and rearranged everything, so not every source is with the information it once supported. I remember thinking, "that's interesting, never heard that word before", and since we had an article I added it in. But in looking deeper into bee anatomy, the two are definitely not the same. The proventriculus serves as a valve between the honey stomach and the food stomach, opening and closing I guess when the bee gets hungry, and prevents it backflow. It also seems to serve a second purpose of filtering pollen from the nectar that passes through it. That would probably be good info to add to the proventriculus article, but I agree, it's not necessary here. Thanks for catching that. Zaereth (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Health properties

I would be interested in reading science-based information about the widely purported health-giving properties of honey. Specifically, that honey contains micronutrients and enzymes that are profoundly health-giving, and that heating honey to any extent destroys these qualities and/or renders honey toxic. I suspect that this is widely-circulated misinformation, but as a individual with limited knowledge of chemistry I cannot find anything to refute this claim. 172.103.198.197 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

See Apitherapy. Bon courage (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That article discusses bee venom therapy as opposed to honey. Interesting, though. The things people will subject themselves to if desperate enough! 172.103.198.197 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There are no science-based "widely purported health-giving properties of honey" - that is pseudoscience nonsense.

The science-based information about the nutrition and medical research on honey is already in the article. 1) The nutrition section shows that honey is only a carbohydrate source, mainly of fructose and glucose, so could contribute to food energy. Its micronutrient content is at a low level universally. The concept that eating enzymes provides health benefits is bogus, as enzymes are proteins, and consumed proteins are broken apart into amino acids by the acid-enzyme environment of the stomach. 2) The medical research section explains the few examples where honey has been shown to have limited anti-disease effects. Other than an illogical use for treating skin burns and a minor effect on treating coughs, honey has no use in conventional medicine.

It is just a type of food, and no one food has "widely purported health-giving properties". Zefr (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This article already covers what MEDRS sources say about it, which isn't much and what they do say is mostly inconclusive at best. Even some of those I find highly questionable, because a single study or two are really meaningless. To be scientifically sound the results need to be repeatable many times over, and they rarely are. (For example, take the section on antibiotics. Whatever antibacterial properties honey has, I seriously doubt they come from the miniscule amounts of hydrogen peroxide or other trace chemicals it contains, but is derived almost solely from its low water content and hygroscopic nature. (Death by osmosis.) But all sugar is hygroscopic, and has been used as a preservative for hundreds of years.) Everytime one of these studies comes out, especially where there's the slightest chance it can be misinterpreted as some cure, some snake-oil sales people will jump on it. One week it's honey, the next bee stings, then acacia berries, or fish oil, etc... The three biggest money-making scams are miracle weight-loss products, magic foods and potions to cure all ailments, and products that claim to enlarge one's private part. People will believe anything if the hope overrides their good judgment, but we can only accept MEDRS sources for any medical claims, so most of what you find on the internet about it won't be found here. Zaereth (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Archelogical finds of honey still edible after thousands of years...

This may be a myth, that has been persisted by scientific sources and popular science simply referencing older sources. See this article https://irna.fr/Honey-in-the-pyramids.html, which presents some original sources showing that early expeditions found a substance that was thought to be honey, but on later analysis turned out to be natron. 2A00:23C8:B713:FD01:F835:D27C:191D:DB84 (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is a myth, and have even found sources that trace the myth to its origin. I'll have to go back to the library one of these days to look it up. In short, it arose during the 1920s, during the excavation of King Tut's tomb. The archeologists found a container that was broken open, which contained a powdery substance that they determined was once honey. A newspaper reporter from the NY Times misinterpreted them as saying they found liquid honey that was still edible, and the myth has persisted ever since.

The thing is, no one really knows. Foods by their very nature are chemically reactive, which makes long-term storage a problem. (A problem NASA has been trying to solve if we ever intend to send people to Mars or beyond.) I mean, popcorn has been found in Mayan tombs, but no one to my knowledge has ever tried to eat it. When archaeologists find a sealed bottle full of liquid, they don't ever open it. Ever. Some containers have been shown to have honey, but many containers once thought to contain honey have been discovered, through processes like x-ray spectrography, to contain other substances like rancid castor oil or wine. I seriously doubt anyone has ever opened one and said, "Hey, let's try this on a peanutbutter sandwich." However, this has become so engrained in society that we even have sources like the Smithsonian spreading it around, and that's a difficult hurdle to get over. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)