patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Has anyone else notice a pattern here, that everything from China is a facade?

Their whole economy is a facade. They're building whole cities that no one lives in.

Dan8267 says

What's not in your honey? Honey.

Turns out that the Chinese are selling us high fructose corn syrup as honey.

Dan, the article you linked doesn't say anything like that. It says the Chinese are subsidizing the production of honey, then filtering the pollen out of it to conceal its origins, and re-packaging it in third countries to avoid tariffs and trade sanctions. It says there have been a few reports of contamination, and since then the American wholesalers have been testing for contaminants and adulteration including corn syrup. It says they can't determine where ultra-filtered honey came from, because the traceable pollen and insect parts have all been removed. It does NOT say that the honey isn't honey. To the contrary, it says the Chinese are subsidizing their exported honey to undercut American producers' prices, to the chagrin of American producers and the delight of American wholesalers and retail customers, who can now find cheaper and clearer honey subsidized by China.

freak80 says

Their whole economy is a facade. They're building whole cities that no one lives in.

They are, as reported on "60 Minutes." They've been subsidizing and dumping products in a number of industries, in order to gain market share and then raise prices, e.g. rare earths. The Chinese and Walmart are very similar in that regard, as reported in "Walmart: The High Cost Of Low Prices." There have also been serious problems with Chinese drywall.

But the honey is actually honey, not corn syrup.

Uh dan... perhaps you should actually read the article before you post...

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

What's not in your honey? Honey.

Turns out that the Chinese are selling us high fructose corn syrup as honey.

Dan, the article you linked doesn't say anything like that. It says the Chinese are subsidizing the production of honey, then filtering the pollen out of it to conceal its origins, and re-packaging it in third countries to avoid tariffs and trade sanctions.

Sorry, that was from this article, which I didn't post but read along with the OP article.

First, most of the “honey” available for purchase in supermarkets is not really honey, but instead an ultra-filtered impostor often produced in China, and frequently contains high fructose corn syrup.

Don't worry, I'm not Tovbotting on you.

Meccos says

Uh dan... perhaps you should actually read the article before you post...

Never make assumptions before asking what happened.

Dan8267 says

Sorry, that was from this article, which I didn't post but read along with the OP article.

Thanks Dan, but the second article's only source for the adulteration claim is the OP article. The second article's anonymous article styles himself "Dr. Charles", and he answers a reader question about feeding HFCS to bees by saying, "This is a good question, but I don’t know. I actually have a friend in Texas who helps to produce honey on a farm, and she states that they have used honey diluted with sugar somehow, so I guess some replacement is almost standard, or there would be little product!" I presume innocence, but "Dr. Charles" seems not to know much about honey production beyond what he's heard from that friend in Texas, and seems to have misread the original article, and cited it for a proposition that it does not support.

Nevertheless, I did find a different part of the "Dr. Charles" site interesting. He cites a study published in the BMJ in May 2013 involving 11 million Australians that found a single C-T diagnostic scan in childhood increased by 25% the risk of getting cancer within the following 10 years. That corroborates other reports that I've been seeing about diagnostic radiation causing more cancers. Of course whenever I mention it, Bob2356 appears out of nowhere to defend the medical practice that supplies most of his income, and which I'm guessing involves a lot of diagnostic radiation, and maybe some especially lucrative cancer patients too. In my first exchange with Bob, in 2012, I tried without success to find a link to what I had heard an Australian doctor saying about CT scans of children causing more cancer; perhaps she might have been describing the preliminary data from that study prior to publication, which would explain why I couldn't find the study online last year.