Jump to content

Jacob

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jacob last won the day on July 6

Jacob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About Jacob

  • Rank
    Larva

Converted

  • DECA Holder
    No
  • Beekeeping Experience
    Equipment Supplier

Location

  • Location
    Analytica Laboratories

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My understanding is that as long as you can prove the claim you're making then it's allowed*. That's why we can label with MGO which can be objectively measured in a lab, but can't label with NPA because it's an inferred health claim which is difficult to prove. The parallel here would be labelling with the actual peroxide content as measured objectively by a laboratory, rather than the total activity which again is an inferred health claim. * however I'm a scientist not a food labelling expert so don't quote me on that
  2. Well, you could always label the honey with the actual peroxide content, since that's what causes the activity. I bet people wouldn't like that either though because its "chemicals". Can't please everyone I guess
  3. Don't even get me started on sunblock! The way that's tested it's no wonder there's so many exposés about it. At least with TA, I suppose, a high number of equivalent magnitude to an NPA reading is still going to give you something with decent efficacy. It just may not necessarily be effective against the same things.
  4. I'm torn about these total activity ("TA") measurements. One the one hand they're a perfectly legitimate measure of the activity of a honey, though on the other hand the use of the "+" designation rides the coat-tails of manuka's non-peroxide activity ("NPA") and confuses the labelling issue further.
  5. Absolutely right, and I'd be willing to bet there's easily ten times more, or a hundred times more chemical components in propolis above what is already known. Some of the flavonoid/CAPE testing is definitely done in-house by companies selling the stuff. I doubt they test for anything other than what they're required to test for, so there will be lots of untested contaminants flying under the radar. It's the pretty standard head-in-sand approach to testing though. Every industry is guilty of it, including honey, dairy, kiwifruit, wine, etc. When you look too closely, you will invariably find things someone doesn't like.
  6. Ethic-what? I think I heard that word once. Since when have producers and vendors cared about ethics in food labelling when you can make money by tricking people? I suppose practices like this might reduce over time as most people become interested in clearer designation of origin labelling, but while there's still a price difference you'll still have a market for local products and imported products along side one another.
  7. Not a hell of a lot of that going on either. We certainly don't do it. We used to do flumethrin and fluvalinate (Bayvarol and Apistan respectively, I believe) but the demand just isn't there any more. A small number of people do it through overseas labs though.
  8. Not that @Kate R or I know of. There's not that much propolis testing full stop really. It's all possible of course, but the volumes are so low that the prices would be high, and people don't like high prices.
  9. You can definitely test propolis using the same machine that honey is tested with, but the results will be meaningless without a good framework for interpretation. If you're simply looking to check that propolis hasn't been 'bulked out' with foreign sugars, then there's probably more robust ways to measure that.
  10. Side note, if you're sending in thixotropic honey for lab testing, the best thing you can do is put it in a wide-mouth container to make it easy to sample. Alternately if you're a bit annoyed with us, put it in a narrow glass bottle and we'll never be able to get it out
  11. We're still open for business testing your honey for whatever it needs. Lots of things have changed though: we have split shifts, staff working from home, visitors are banned, and everything is sterilised on the regular. The sterilisation isn't even a biggie though, since we have to sterilise the lab daily for the DNA testing anyway
  12. That document is one of the worst pieces of rubbish I've ever seen masquerading as a legitimate scientific journal article. It is neither scientific, nor is it even a study. Don't even bother reading it, it's a waste of time.
  13. Do you mean the formula to predict how your manuka honey will grow and change into the future?
  14. The scientific literature says that Nandina species produces a chemical which breaks down to cyanide when ingested. Birds might die when they eat the berries, but children (and adults) are probably big enough to cope with the occasional accidental ingestion. Probably fine as long as you don't put it in your gob.
  15. That probably depends what the purpose of your lab is. If you are a commercial lab then having secret tests wouldn't particularly help your cause.
×
×
  • Create New...