By  Dr. Joseph Mercola

Honey can be faked and adulterated in many different ways “to fraudulently control the market.” Common strategies include diluting the honey with sugars or syrups, or feeding corn syrup to the bees rather than allowing them to forage for pollen.

Story at a glance:

• Honey is the third most-faked food in the world. Tests have revealed 50% to 70% of all U.S. honey is fake or adulterated.
• True Source Honey, a honey certification group, was created by the businesses it certifies. According to a class action complaint, True Source Honey is being used by these businesses “to fraudulently control the market, sell fake honey at substantially lower prices than honest beekeepers, and divert sales, revenue, and profits to themselves.”
• Honey can be faked and adulterated in many different ways. Common strategies include diluting the honey with sugars or syrups, or feeding corn syrup to the bees rather than allowing them to forage for pollen.
• Inexpensive, low-grade honey can also be filtered and then dusted with high-grade pollen from another location to obscure its origin. Oftentimes, honey labeled as “local” is, in fact, cheap honey sourced overseas.
• To ensure authenticity, buy honey from a local beekeeper. You’ll typically find them at farmer’s markets. Also, use your senses. Many adulterated honeys will lack the floral notes found in pure honey. Adulterated honey may also have a lingering aftertaste, or will simply taste too sugary, and is far stickier and transparent than real honey.

Remarkable as it may seem, food fraud is a huge business and a rampant problem.

Award-winning journalist and best-selling author Larry Olmsted revealed many food fraud tricks in his 2016 book, “Real Food/Fake Food: Why You Don’t Know What You’re Eating and What You Can Do About It.”

For example, tests have revealed anywhere from 60% to 90% of the olive oils you find in grocery stores and restaurants are adulterated with cheap, linoleic acid-rich seed oils that are pernicious to health in several ways.

Most honey on the market is not real honey

Another food that is frequently adulterated is honey. Tests have revealed that 50% to 70% of all U.S. honey is fake or adulterated, and according to a comprehensive review of fake foods published in the Journal of Food Science, honey is the third most-faked food in the world.

[…]

Beware of fake Manuka honey

When it comes to Manuka honey, prized for its superior health benefits, both topically and internally, only 1 in 7 products tested during a 2014 investigation turned out to be the real thing, that is less than 15%!

The nectar from manuka flowers contains dihydroxyacetone, a precursor to methylglyoxal (MGO), an antimicrobial compound not found in most other honey.

The presence of MGO is credited for much of manuka honey’s medicinal prowess, which includes the ability to combat complex antibiotic-resistant infections.

If you’re buying fake Manuka, you’re not only losing out on health benefits but could worsen your problem as highly processed sugar from high fructose corn syrup feeds bacteria that authentic Manuka would suppress.

You’re also burning a big hole in your pocketbook, as Manuka honey is among the most expensive honeys in the world.

The fraud runs deep

Class action lawsuits filed over the last five years reveal the “honey laundering” scheme runs deep — to True Source Honey, one of the largest honey certification groups that is supposed to confirm the source and guarantee the quality of honey.

As noted by the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy, the drawback that allowed for this is that True Source was founded by the very businesses it certifies.

According to a class action complaint filed in 2021, these honey businesses are “using True Source to fraudulently control the market, sell fake honey at substantially lower prices than honest beekeepers, and divert sales, revenue and profits to themselves.”

“True Source is not the watchdog of the honey industry it claims to be, but the mechanism that makes the conspiracy tick,” the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy writes.

It continues:

“The complaint alleges that True Source purposely fails to monitor its members for compliance with its own certification program and that the True Source Certified Standard is designed to allow True Source members to a proliferate cheap and adulterated honey throughout the United States.

“Until a recent surface-level revamp in this standard, True Source Certified companies only used outdated and ineffective testing methods that are incapable of detecting all methods of honey adulteration and fraud.

“True Source intentionally uses these outdated and ineffective testing methods to bypass fraud detection. When syrup is detected, True Source turns a blind eye.

“The complaint further alleges that although it purports to be a watchdog of the honey industry, True Source is fully aware that its Certification and Participation program is being used by importers and packers to misrepresent the authenticity of their honey products.”

How honey is faked

Honey can be faked and adulterated in a variety of different ways. Here’s a summary breakdown of some of the most common methods:

• More often than not, the honey is simply diluted with different sugars and/or syrup made from rice, beet or high fructose corn syrup, thereby forfeiting any health benefits. In rare cases, these additives can also cause the honey to ferment, creating alcohol levels that could be dangerous for children.
• Honey is sometimes heated to high temperatures to avoid crystallization and make it easier to manipulate, yet is still sold as “raw.” Heating above 100 degrees Fahrenheit destroys the beneficial enzymes, effectively eradicating expected health benefits.
• Some honey producers will extract the honey early when it’s a nectar product and not yet finished honey, and then machine dry it. As a result, it won’t have health benefits.
• Unscrupulous honey producers will feed high fructose corn syrup to the bees rather than allowing them to forage for pollen.
• Honey is often labeled as “local” when, in fact, it comes from overseas. So, if you’re using it to address seasonal allergy symptoms, it may not work.
• Honey can be filtered through aliphatic resin, a rinsing technology that removes contaminants. This method obscures the origin of the honey and removes antibiotics, pesticides and undesirable flavors present in the raw product.
  This method is typically used on low-grade unpalatable honey like Indian Gum honey, which cannot be sold due to its disgusting taste and smell. Once dissolved in water and run through this process, you end up with an unscented light-colored amber honey that can be sold. However, the technology also eliminates the enzymes and chemicals responsible for honey’s health benefits.
• Inexpensive, lower-grade honey can be filtered and then dusted with high-grade pollen from another location to obscure its origin. The end product also may not have the health benefits assumed.

Sweetwater Science specializes in honey testing

With fraud so rampant, how can you be sure you’re getting real, unadulterated, unfiltered honey?

The only way to be absolutely certain that honey hasn’t been adulterated would be to test its chemical composition, which is something Sweetwater Science Labs specializes in.

As reported by Vice:

“As an independent and ISO accredited lab, Sweetwater Science is up for hire by anyone who wants to test honey — beekeepers, consumers, packers, and lawyers … Even people off the street who want their honey tested can bring them their samples, which happens more than you might think.

“[Jim] Gawenis is a scientist — he doesn’t sell honey or import it. He doesn’t even certify the honey he tests as good or bad, either; he analyzes it with Bruker’s NMR food screener and provides the data to his clients. From there, they can do what they like with the information.”

Unfortunately, Sweetwater Science doesn’t publish results on their website, but the Vice article includes the results of several honeys brought for testing by the author, Shayla Love. Some of the results are surprising indeed.

A bear-shaped bottle of Great Value Clover Honey from Walmart tested pure, with no sign of adulteration of any kind, whereas a jar of Tennessee “raw, local sourwood honey” turned out to be sourced from Vietnam and contained added non-honey sugars and a bottle of Whole Foods 365 Organic honey had been adulterated through heating.

How to ensure you’re getting real honey

Most people probably aren’t willing to go quite as far as lab testing their honey. In this case, the commonsense strategy is to buy honey from a local beekeeper. You’ll typically find them at farmer’s markets.

Also, use your senses when selecting honey. Many adulterated honeys will lack the floral notes found in pure honey. Adulterated honey may also have a lingering aftertaste, or will simply taste too sugary.

Real honey also isn’t very sticky. Rather, it tends to have a balm- or cream-like consistency when rubbed between your fingers. If it’s excessively sticky, chances are refined sugars or syrups have been added.

Real, raw, unfiltered honey also tends to have a cloudy appearance and may have remnant honeycomb particles or flecks of pollen in it.

Over time, it may also begin to crystallize. If it never crystallizes, it might not be pure. If you’re buying Manuka honey, you’ll want to verify the MGO, non-peroxide activity (NPA) and the unique manuka factor (UMF) content.

• MGO is a measurement of the main ingredient, which has a direct correlation to its antibacterial properties. The higher the MGO, the higher the potency in terms of healing ability. All genuine Manuka honey produced in New Zealand is tested for MGO.
• NPA refers to its antibacterial activity and is equivalent to the UMF rating. For example, an MGO of 550 equates to an NPA of 15, and many companies will list both on the label.
• UMF is a trademark registered and controlled by the UMF Honey Association, which provides some assurance of both quality and genuineness. The UMF correlates to the MGO but also includes other quality and authenticity checks.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fake-adulterated-honey-united-states-cola/

Scientists and statisticians continue to review and debate the accuracy and completeness of a large database of COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths released less than two weeks ago by a New Zealand Ministry of Health whistleblower.

Meanwhile, the whistleblower — Barry Young — was charged by New Zealand authorities with “accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes.” The 56-year-old appeared in Wellington District Court on Dec. 4. and was released on bail the next day.

Young, who also has used the pseudonym “Winston Smith,” was a computer systems programmer for New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, administering a computer payment system for certain vaccine administrators.

Police raided Young’s home on Dec. 3, and arrested him. Police raided the home of an associate the same day.

Young, who was reportedly offered two safehouses in New Zealand and one overseas but refused the offers, now faces at least seven years’ imprisonment. According to Newsweek, Young shouted “freedom” as he departed the courtroom on Dec. 4.

Young released the anonymized data with the assistance of Liz Gunn, a former lawyer, television journalist and candidate for public office for the NZ Loyal Party.

According to mathematician Igor Chudov, who analyzed the data, the database included information on the vaccine type, batch number, dose number, vaccination date, age, date of birth and date of death of the anonymized vaccine recipients.

The dataset was related to so-called pay-per-dose providers, such as individual doctors and drugstores. It did not include data on vaccinations administered at mass vaccination centers and by mobile vaccination clinics.

Data raise questions government ‘can’t ignore’

According to the New Zealand Herald, Health New Zealand, the national public health system also known as Te Whatu Ora, has opened an investigation and attempted to discredit the whistleblower, claiming Young “had no clinical background or expert vaccine knowledge.” Some analysts noted Young’s expertise in data administration.

Health New Zealand’s public messaging has centered around the security of personal data. “What [Young] is claiming is completely wrong and ill-informed … We take the security of the information we hold extremely seriously, and this is a significant breach of trust,” said Margie Apa, Health New Zealand’s chief executive.

In an interview with The Defender, Australian attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens said Health New Zealand was also granted an injunction from New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority, prohibiting the publication of the leaked data.

Ashby-Koppens, who worked with New Zealand groups promoting medical freedom and transparency, questioned the legality of this injunction, which reportedly was used to pressure hosting providers to remove copies of the leaked data stored on their servers, leading some providers to remove accounts hosting the anonymized data.

Minister of Health Shane Reti sought to reassure the public about vaccine safety.

“There are many conspiracy theorists out there who unfortunately disseminate harmful disinformation, however, as Minister and as a physician, the public can and should continue to have confidence in vaccines,” he said. “I am reassured by experts confirming that there is no evidence supporting the allegations that have been made.”

According to the New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) media team, consisting of Dr. Cindy de Villiers, Dr. Alison Goodwin, Dr. Matt Shelton and Anna McLoughlin, such statements are a continuation of official COVID-19 narratives.

“The official mainstream media narrative is that New Zealand did very well during the pandemic, having negative excess mortality,” a spokesperson for NZDSOS told The Defender. “The New Zealand government and media have adopted a ‘shoot the messenger’ approach and then studiously ignored the issue, such that the average person on the street probably is unaware of what is happening in New Zealand.”

Yet, members of the public “who know what is happening absolutely support the whistleblower,” NZDSOS said, noting that “the media is so controlled and captured that large chunks of the population remain unaware of the data release or its significance.”

New Zealand authorities acknowledge only four COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths.

“The data has been very controversial, with people finding opposing things from their analysis of the data, despite being on the same side of the COVID debate,” Ashby-Koppens said. “The data is not complete [but] it raises a lot of questions, questions that the new New Zealand coalition government can’t ignore.”

Norman Fenton, Ph.D., a mathematician and professor emeritus at Queen Mary University of London, also examined the leaked data. He told The Defender the reaction of New Zealand’s authorities to the leak was “very strange.” He added:

“I understand that releasing confidential medical records is a criminal offense, but … the whistleblower only released an anonymized version of the data.

“Given the advanced publicity by people like Steve Kirsch about what the data revealed, I would have thought the New Zealand government would have been better advised to do nothing rather than raiding homes, arresting the whistleblower and erasing files from people who had gained access to the data. It is almost as if they wanted to get more publicity for both the data breach and what the data revealed.”

Presenting one possible reason supporting such an explanation, Fenton said:

“Not surprisingly, this has also led to conspiracy theories of which the most notable is that the government knew that this particular dataset did not contain (as some have claimed) any ‘smoking gun’ on vaccine safety and therefore it was deliberately released so it could be used to discredit ‘anti-vaxxers’ who claimed it did, and also act as a warning against any others who had access to more incriminating data to shut up.”

But for Kirsch, the founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation who examined the data and publicly claimed it proves that the COVID-19 vaccines killed 1 in 1,000 people globally, Young “is a hero.”

“He knew he would risk his life and could spend the rest of his life in jail, but he made the courageous move to expose the data for all to see,” he wrote.

According to NZDSOS, Young is due to appear in court again on Dec. 18 to submit a plea and is “represented by a large legal firm in New Zealand.”

Whistleblower noticed ‘really big safety signals’ in the data

In his Nov. 30 interview with Gunn accompanying the release of the data, Young said he helped build the very database from which the data were leaked. Access to such data led him to note items of concern that he decided to go public with, he said.

“I helped build it. I implemented it,” he said. “When I was looking up the data, I noted discrepancies with the dates of death. People were dying almost straight away after being injected and that sort of prompted my curiosity and I dug a little deeper.”

According to Young, he previously was vaccinated, but said that whether he’d get another dose was “a different story.” He added that he “believe[s] in fundamental freedoms of humans and [that] we shouldn’t have a procedure forced on us because of a mandate,” calling this “a huge overreach by the government.”

Following his release on bail, Young granted an interview to Infowars producer and host Alex Jones, stating that he noticed “really big red flags” and “really big safety signals” in the data. “Statistically, it may be killing people,” he said.

“I just looked at the data and what I was seeing, since the rollout, it just blew my mind. I was just seeing more and more people dying who shouldn’t have been dying. It was just obvious,” Young said. “I want people to analyze this … We need to open it up and the government needs to have an inquiry about it. Just bring it to the public’s attention.”

According to New Zealand police, Young’s post-bail interview with Infowars did not breach his bail conditions. He has since granted other interviews.

Scientists disagree on significance of data

According to NZDSOS, the leaked data “cover[s] vaccines that were administered as pay-per-dose. There are 2.2 million people and approximately 4 million doses included.” This compares to a total of 12.78 million doses administered in New Zealand.

Statistical consultant William Briggs is one of the analysts who reviewed the data. On his Substack, he wrote that “we cannot tell for sure” what the data definitively indicates, as there are important items of information missing.

“There was no cause of death given for anybody,” Briggs said. “Just death date for those who had at least one shot and died in this window. There can therefore be no certain proof of any cause of death,” he wrote.

Briggs added:

“An insurmountable problem in ascribing cause is the lack of data on people who did not get any shots. Their death and age data is missing. There is no comparison group for the people who got shots. …

“… this means there is no natural comparison group and nothing about cause, therefore, can be said with certainty.”

Briggs said that the data indicated a small increase in deaths among young people soon after receiving the first and second dose, but said this may be “because the young tended to get fewer shots.”

The analysis that has perhaps garnered the most analysis, though, comes from Kirsch, who wrote, “There is no confusion any longer: the vaccines are unsafe and have killed, on average, around 1 person per 1,000 doses.”

Kirsch noted that this figure “is consistent with other careful analyses,” such as one by Canadian scientist Denis Rancourt.

According to Kirsch, one safety signal he identified in the data is a “mortality hump that peaks around 6 months after a dose is given.”

“The data from New Zealand is not perfect; it is not a complete sample,” Kirsch conceded. “But, by using a cohort time-series analysis, it doesn’t matter. There is no possible way that this data is consistent with a safe vaccine.”

Fenton, who analyzed the data on his Substack, took a different position, telling The Defender, “The dataset is a very large subset of those vaccinated in New Zealand, and is potentially one of the most important publicly available datasets for examining COVID vaccine safety. But I don’t believe it is the ‘smoking gun’ as some have claimed.”

He noted the absence of a control group (the unvaccinated) and that “the age profile seems higher than the national age profile of [the] vaccinated, so there is some bias.”

However, he said the data “does provide some evidence of lack of safety of the vaccine, in particular supporting our own previous observations (from U.K. data) that in older age groups, all-cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.”

“What is less clear is the claim concerning batches with exceptionally high mortality rates,” Fenton said. “The claim that these batches were especially deadly due to the contents of the vaccine or its delivery is confounded by their very different age and time of vaccination profiles,” he added.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/new-zealand-covid-vaccine-deaths-data-leak/