when people are sloppy with language, they're probably sloppy with the science too.
>But it does have a lot of additional chemical compounds in it
if a jar of honey had one sloughed off cell from the colon of a honeybee, it would have "a lot of additional chemical compounds in it" because there are a lot of chemical compounds in a single cell. As a percentage of a jar of honey it's trace amounts. Govt standards for selling grains specify the acceptable quantities of rodent feces and insect parts, because it's not practical to take those numbers to zero. Nobody talks about the benefits of eating grain because of trace chemicals from that. I'm not saying trace amounts don't matter, I'm saying evidence based or gtfo.
I'm not saying don't look at it, I'm saying be reasonable and don't draw conclusions without conclusive evidence. One piece of conclusive evidence we have is that it is extremely difficult for scientists to tell the difference between authentic and adulterated honey, and it requires extreme measures not generally taken for foodstuffs, measures never said to be indicative of nutritional value.
>(as the antibiotic properties demonstrate)
no, any antibiotic properties would not demonstrate "a lot of additional chemical compounds". A chemical antibiotic component might be found to be a single compound.
I'm not saying people are not allowed to establish a religious cult of honey and have kosher-honey rules; I'm saying that for people not in the cult, the difficulty of telling the differences makes you wonder what you're hoping to find out, or why you should pay high prices, and as a practical matter makes it very difficult to police the marketplace.
the honey market in terms of fraud is much much worse off than the olive oil market. Some people could take advantage of this in their personal lives by switching to fake honey.
> As a percentage of a jar of honey it's trace amounts.
Percentages don't matter -- vitamins and minerals are trace amounts but essential for our health. Literally everything beneficial for our nutrition that isn't a macronutrient (carb/fat/protein) or bulk (water/fiber/etc.) is present in "trace amounts" when expressed as percentages of mass.
Honey is very clearly not "just sugar syrup", because the rest of the stuff clearly has meaningful effects such as antibiotic properties. Turns out "trace amounts" can do that, so you shouldn't dismiss them out of hand.
You're simply taking way too extreme of a position. I don't know about "honey cults" as you call them, but you're being equally unscientific in denying any meaningful difference whatsoever from sugar syrup.
> One piece of conclusive evidence we have is that it is extremely difficult for scientists to tell the difference between authentic and adulterated honey, and it requires extreme measures not generally taken for foodstuffs, measures never said to be indicative of nutritional value.
It's hard to tell the difference because natural flavors vary so much.
If you give me two jars of honey and tell me one is the original and one has either 0% or 25% or 50% sugar water mixed in, I can run a taste test and figure out the answer. But if you only give me one jar, it's not easy to figure out if weak flavor means adulteration or a bad season.
In other words: Even if I can't figure out if a specific batch was adulterated, the adulteration is making a significant difference. There's a lot coming from the flowers other than raw sugar.
>But it does have a lot of additional chemical compounds in it
if a jar of honey had one sloughed off cell from the colon of a honeybee, it would have "a lot of additional chemical compounds in it" because there are a lot of chemical compounds in a single cell. As a percentage of a jar of honey it's trace amounts. Govt standards for selling grains specify the acceptable quantities of rodent feces and insect parts, because it's not practical to take those numbers to zero. Nobody talks about the benefits of eating grain because of trace chemicals from that. I'm not saying trace amounts don't matter, I'm saying evidence based or gtfo.
I'm not saying don't look at it, I'm saying be reasonable and don't draw conclusions without conclusive evidence. One piece of conclusive evidence we have is that it is extremely difficult for scientists to tell the difference between authentic and adulterated honey, and it requires extreme measures not generally taken for foodstuffs, measures never said to be indicative of nutritional value.
>(as the antibiotic properties demonstrate)
no, any antibiotic properties would not demonstrate "a lot of additional chemical compounds". A chemical antibiotic component might be found to be a single compound.
I'm not saying people are not allowed to establish a religious cult of honey and have kosher-honey rules; I'm saying that for people not in the cult, the difficulty of telling the differences makes you wonder what you're hoping to find out, or why you should pay high prices, and as a practical matter makes it very difficult to police the marketplace.
the honey market in terms of fraud is much much worse off than the olive oil market. Some people could take advantage of this in their personal lives by switching to fake honey.