Thread: Honey NOT so sweet

Originally Posted by BobL

Plain water will get most of the dust off which is where the lead mainly will be but soap will also be needed to remove the pesticides. I've also heard that neat vinegar sprayed on so that it forms a complete layer and then left for a while and then rinsed off will help.

Vinegar seems to be an excellent cleaner in many ways: Does vinegar really kill household germs? - Health - ABC News

Originally Posted by BobL

Plain water will get most of the dust off which is where the lead mainly will be but soap will also be needed to remove the pesticides. I've also heard that neat vinegar sprayed on so that it forms a complete layer and then left for a while and then rinsed off will help.

I was part of a study that examined supermarket produce pesticide levels. Washing with water and washing with detergent were compared to levels in unwashed produce. Detergent washing reduced carried residues to a much greater degree than did washing with water alone. The study wasn't published as it was corporate sponsored work. "Organic" produce often carries significantly more pesticide burden than does run-o-the-mill produce. The waxes and shellac used to coat produce are part of the problem as they tend to facilitate the retention of pesticides in simple washing with water. Gotta hit them with some surfactant.

Here's another way to look at the lead in BH honey issue.

The 10g of honey from Broken hill you have on your toast @300 ng/g means you ingest 3000 ng or 3 ug of lead.

The fruit juice you have at brekky could have have 50 ng/g, drink 250ml of that and you ingest 12500 ng, 12.5ug of lead

The 4 x 250ml glasses of any European red wine you had for dinner (EU wine is permitted to have 200ng/g of lead in it) means you might ingest as much as 200 ug of lead.

If you sourced your wine from an out of town winery that has been produced on site and has no major roads running past the lead might be ~5 ng/g but if you drink a litre it still means you ingest 5 ug of lead.

The 1/2kg of prawns you went through along with the wine (prawns are permitted to have as much as 500 ng/g) means you might ingest as much as 250 ug of lead.

Admittedly you hopefully don't drink a litre of wine and eat 1/2kg of prawns every day but lead ingested by eating foods will swamp what you get from honey.

The lead in BHP honey you had for breakfast now looks like less of an issue, even if you have it every day.

Originally Posted by rob streeper

I was part of a study that examined supermarket produce pesticide levels. Washing with water and washing with detergent were compared to levels in unwashed produce. Detergent washing reduced carried residues to a much greater degree than did washing with water alone. The study wasn't published as it was corporate sponsored work. "Organic" produce often carries significantly more pesticide burden than does run-o-the-mill produce. The waxes and shellac used to coat produce are part of the problem as they tend to facilitate the retention of pesticides in simple washing with water. Gotta hit them with some surfactant.

I agree about the pesticides but I was referring to the dust.
However, the waxes and shellac used to coat some produce could seal dust onto the surface and that means it will need more than rinsing with water.
Firm F&V like root vegetables can be physically scrubbed but that is not going to work for something like broccoli although that is normally not waxed.
Interestingly FDA don't recommend washing with any detergent https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesFo.../ucm114299.htm

The reason I suggest using a true soap and not detergent is that I have a feeling, and some data, that doesn't portend well. Can't give the full details but think about BPA and BPS, true they're endocrine disrupters and the classification as such tends to channel thinking toward things like estrogen receptors - that's not the full or even central part of the story. Though rapidly eliminated from the body bis-phenols are ubiquitous and therefore we all have more or less significant levels. The amphiphilic detergents fall into the same class in my opinion. I've done all I can to eliminate non-soap surfactants from our lives and particularly from our food and we've benefited substantially.

RS, a digression off thread, but what sort of soap products do you use? (And on what/how?).

I've always thought detergents where about as benign as you can get...

Originally Posted by woodPixel

RS, a digression off thread, but what sort of soap products do you use? (And on what/how?).

I've always thought detergents where about as benign as you can get...

For hand washing of food and dishes we use Castile soap in solid or liquid formulations, same in the shower for body and hair. Detergents don't have acute health effects but... and there's always a but isn't there?

To me pesticides and hydrophobic man made organics (coal tar, diesel exhaust particles PAH's etc.) are at least as serious a threat as are the toxic metals. The results are much less immediate and more difficult to understand but they're there, of that I'm sure.

O.K...so it would seem that lead is ubiquitous not only in our environment but throughout our food chain as well
A lot of chemicals and heavy metals finding their way into our bodies via food/water/air are bioaccumulaters as I understand it
So even low exposure(s) to these 'nasties' on a continual basis could potentially be life/health threatening
Still...the high levels of pb found in the Broken Hill honey samples concern me greatly...I still wouldn't consume it,but that's me
Would like to see similar studies done in agricultural areas where pesticides are routinely applied
Not sure if the honey from the 'rural' landscape would be 'safer' to eat...so to speak!
Starting to wonder if 'organically grown' food is indeed a myth ...MM

Originally Posted by MAPLEMAN

O.K...so it would seem that lead is ubiquitous not only in our environment but throughout our food chain as well

Yep - it's everywhere, a small proportion is natural, it's naturally present in ALL soils so all dust contains some lead, a bit extra is spat out from time to time from volcanoes and that along with soil dust covers the whole planet.

Anthropogenic lead is a couple of orders of magnitude higher and when the use of leaded petrol was at its heyday in the 1960's and 70's the planet reached 25% of the way towards the same levels experienced by the romans when they were being seriously poisoned by lead. The thing was most of the scientists studying lead did not know this because the thought the natural background was high and it was not until isotope fingerprints were used to establish the sources of the lead did they realise this.

More info on pesticide exposure https://aghealth.nih.gov/.

BobL, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this sort of thing. What's your take on Fluoride, it's also naturally accruing in the environment, so I would guess we all naturally have a limited amount in our systems already. I do note however that bottles of the stuff have a big poison skull and crossbones on them. With the hype all over the net for and against (I know all the arguments) I find it very difficult to decide, as a knowledgeable person what's your take on the whole issue?

Most interesting thread!! Partly demonstrates what can happen when journalists are in a hurry or ignorant, or both.

The subject of bees is more important, to me at least. There has been a worldwide decline in bee populations, at least
according to my reading. In China there is even hand pollination of whole orchards. Now that is frightening. At the same time,
according to reports, Bayer is threatening to sue the European union over its banning of an insecticide demonstrated
as being very harmful to bees.Meanwhile in the good ole US of A............!!

Originally Posted by Kiwi75

BobL, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this sort of thing. What's your take on Fluoride, it's also naturally accruing in the environment, so I would guess we all naturally have a limited amount in our systems already. I do note however that bottles of the stuff have a big poison skull and crossbones on them. With the hype all over the net for and against (I know all the arguments) I find it very difficult to decide, as a knowledgeable person what's your take on the whole issue?

I have never researched fluoride in a lab and although I can call myself a doctor, I'm not a medical doctor. I don't believe the opinion of a single medical doctor on this issue is worth much, instead we have to turn to meta studies (studies of studies) done by epidemiologists. Based on the small amount of reading I have done on these studies they clearly say that PROVIDED it is added to the water at the right levels the benefits far outweigh the possible dangers. The vast majority of people underestimate the benefits of good teeth.

From the National Institutes of Health Cancer website: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...ter-fact-sheet

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers fluoridation of water one of the greatest achievements in public health in the 20th century. More than 50 studies on the possibility of increases in cancer due to fluoridation have been carried out in the last 40 years and none of these studies have found anything conclusive. There are lots of things around that

There are many things that are toxic when abused, you can even die from drinking too much water and of course you can also drown in a small amount of it.

I often wonder what the lead levels in the environment and food are, in the U.S. - land of the Gun, and where about 1 billion (estimated number - no records kept) firearms, shoot off, what must amount to multiple thousands of tonnes of lead in bullets annually?

I won't eat shellfish, and I'm very wary of where my fish comes from today. Shellfish are bottom feeders and scientists use them as "early warning devices" for major pollutants (such as lead) that end up on the bottom of waterways, estuaries and oceans.

I utterly detest the disgusting Asian fish we are being fed constantly in pubs, clubs and restaurants. I will reject the fish purchase immediately, if I know it comes from Asia - and reject it even more vehemently, if I know it's "farmed" Asian fish.
The Mekong River reportedly has at least 400 factories discharging untreated industrial effluent into it - yet the majority of the imported Asian fish sold here, is sourced from fish farming in the Mekong.

We're surrounded by what is hopefully, still a reasonably clean number of oceans (although I know they're rapidly being polluted with plastic) - yet we import 60% of our fish consumption from Asian fish farms?? What is wrong with the structure of our food-sourcing system? We are gradually being poisoned by huge global corporations who don't give a stuff about anything else besides creaming in huge dollars for shareholders and CEO's.