# Tests Show Most Store Honey Isnât Honey



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

I've found this article just recently, and many facts surprised me.

For example:
"&#8226;76 percent of samples bought at groceries had all the pollen removed, These were stores like TOP Food, Safeway, Giant Eagle, QFC, Kroger, Metro Market, Harris Teeter, A&P, Stop & Shop and King Soopers.

&#8226;100 percent of the honey sampled from drugstores like Walgreens, Rite-Aid and CVS Pharmacy had no pollen.

&#8226;77 percent of the honey sampled from big box stores like Costco, Sam&#8217;s Club, Walmart, Target and H-E-B had the pollen filtered out.

&#8226;100 percent of the honey packaged in the small individual service portions from Smucker, McDonald&#8217;s and KFC had the pollen removed. "










From: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.UQ5zjx3m1n4


Boris Romanov
www.beebehavior.com


----------



## mtnoelle (Nov 19, 2012)

WOW. I'm surprised, but at the same time not surprised at all.

What does it mean though "no pollen" or "pollen removed"? Can you remove pollen from honey or are shady companies making something and calling it honey?


----------



## tallpines (Apr 9, 2003)

"It's important to avoid confusing bee pollen with natural honey, honeycomb, bee venom, or royal jelly. These products do not contain bee pollen."

Quoted from:
http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pollen-benefits-and-side-effects

Apparently bee pollen is another byproduct from bees, in addition to honey.


According to this it seems normal that the honey sold in stores might not include pollen.

Educate me, please ......


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Honey does not need to have pollen in order to be 100% honey. Pollen is actually an impurity just as bits of bees and other non-liquid particles. Certain pollens may also be an allergen and filtering it out makes it a safer product to the consumer.

www.benefits-of-honey.com/honey-allergy.html 

Martin


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

If you want pollen in your honey buy only from a bee keeper, honey labeled as raw honey or buy just comb honey.

Bees gather pollen to place in cells as a future food store. They mix it with honey and feed it to the larva before they cap the cell.

 Al


----------



## Mattemma (Jan 1, 2013)

I have been buying honeycomb.Kids like filtered honey so I have ben getting some organic stuff local,and the forest or acacia honey from Germany.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Since the OP is from NY, he would know that the honey laws of that state are based on those of many other states and includes filtered or strained honey. It's under Agriculture and Markets, Article 17, Section 206 which ends with: ....or branded as "honey," "liquid or extracted honey," "strained honey" or "pure honey" is not pure honey. Same or similar wording is in the regulations of PA, Honey Sale and Labeling Act of 20 July 1974, Section 2. "No person shall sell, keep for sale, expose or offer for sale, any article branded as "honey," "liquid or extracted honey," "strained honey" or "pure honey"......" Note that the difference between extracted and strained honey was already noted almost 39 years ago.

Also, there is no official description of pure honey which includes pollen. When applying that to honey, even if there is .001% of pollen in honey, it is no longer 100% pure honey. As Al stated, buy direct from a beekeeper if you just want extracted honey. If you happen to be allergic to any pollen which may be in it, then it is your fault. If an unsuspecting consumer buys a jar from a store shelf and goes into shock, then it's the fault of the producer. That just may be why several local stores no longer carry comb packed in honey despite it still being available from the apiary which previously supplied it. 

There's some interesting honey facts from a new supplier in supermarkets here.

www.sweetharvestfoods.com/honey_facts.html 

Martin


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

The last time I was in a KFC, I asked for a packet of honey for my biscuit. It said something along the lines of "blended honey spread," or some such. I'm sure that whatever honey is in it is coming from China, plus whatever else they can throw in there to stretch it. 


So if I want real honey, guess I'll have to carry a small jar with me. Come to think of it, that's the last time I was in a KFC restaurant. If they don't care about good honey, what else are they messing up?


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Judy in IN said:


> The last time I was in a KFC, I asked for a packet of honey for my biscuit. It said something along the lines of "blended honey spread," or some such. I'm sure that whatever honey is in it is coming from China, plus whatever else they can throw in there to stretch it.
> 
> 
> So if I want real honey, guess I'll have to carry a small jar with me. Come to think of it, that's the last time I was in a KFC restaurant. If they don't care about good honey, what else are they messing up?


Actually, there is a remote chance that the honey in the spread may have from China since it is quite legal to import Chinese honey. However, there was a better chance that it was from any of 10 or more other countries which supply more than half of the honey consumed in the US. 

Selling blended honey syrups and other forms has always been quite legal as long as it is not sold as pure honey. Honey syrup is a blend of honey and other ingredients and must be labeled as such. It should not be expected to be pure honey. It is no different than complaining that honey mustard contains something other than honey since it also is expected to be that way. 

Martin


----------



## akane (Jul 19, 2011)

The honey in stores is just filtered to the point I refer to it as sugar goo because all the good stuff is gone. The honey packets in restaurants on the other hand is quite often corn syrup with a little honey.


----------



## fatrat (Feb 21, 2009)

Last time I was at KFC the honey packet was called "honey sauce" and was mostly corn syrup. I'm not knocking KFC as I like their chicken and will still buy it. As long as they clearly say on the packet what it is I'm okay with that. It's hard to make money in a small business and I can see why they would not be using real honey in such an inexpensive restaurant. But if I go to a restaurant with a bit more class I do expect real honey. There is a barbecue place near here that had one of the most unusual tasting honeys I ever ate. I don't know what the nectar source for it was and it wasn't stated. My guess is it was just run of the mill blended but it sure was good. Come to think of it a Cracker Barrel restaurant near here also had a very unusual honey last year which I really liked. I don't think they were really trying to get unusual or good honey. I think they just got lucky with some mass packaged honey that just happened to be unusual and very good. My guess is if I went back now it would be a different and very average cheap honey from who knows where, just whatever was cheapest.

I think those big honey packagers filter out the pollen and sell it separate as it is worth about $1 an ounce. If you ask me I think the pollen has a great influence on the taste. The filtered stuff from the big box stores sort of tastes just sweet to me but the local raw stuff has much more distinct flavor especially when it comes from brood comb which had a good amount of pollen in it.

I think the brood comb honey is the best I've ever had. I had some this year from a fall harvest that was the best honey I've ever had. My family and friends agreed with me. It had so much pollen and whatever else, maybe bee barf, bug crug and brood snot, I don't know, but it was down right muddy looking and I'm sure you could never get away with selling it but it was absolutely, hands down, no doubt the best honey I've ever eaten. I wish my bees would make more of that ugly unsellable stuff again, yummm.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Cracker Barrel honey would have a good chance of being a foreign one or a blend of several. Most foreign honey is now only available in wholesale quantities in barrels which can be safety-sealed. Main use is commercial bakeries, candy makers, and similar. 

I made an interesting blend this afternoon. A friend had a pint of buckwheat from SD and I combined it with a pint of wildflower from East Central WI. Much too sharp for my tea so that jar is reserved for my wife to use in her coffee. Maybe everyone else likes clover honey but that will be in this household only when there is nothing else available.

Martin


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

> It had so much pollen and whatever else, maybe bee barf, bug crug and brood snot, I don't know, but it was down right muddy looking and I'm sure you could never get away with selling it but it was absolutely, hands down, no doubt the best honey I've ever eaten. I wish my bees would make more of that ugly unsellable stuff again, yummm.


Oh, man, you're making me-- hungry? LOL!


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

*New Import Alert 36-01*

(Note: This import alert represents the Agency's current guidance to FDA field personnel regarding the manufacturer(s) and/or products(s) at issue. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person, and does not operate to bind FDA or the public).

Import Alert # 36-01
Published Date: 10/02/2012
Type: DWPE with Surveillance
*Import Alert Name: "Adulteration of Honey"*

"Reason for Alert:
NOTE: The revision of this Import Alert dated 8/27/2012 updates the Guidance section by providing additional information about the release of shipments subject to detention without physical examination, the technical reviews of private analytical packages, and the process for removal from detention without physical examination. Changes are noted and bracketed by three asterisks (***). 

During the mid 1990s, detentions of imported honey from Brazil, Mexico, and the Soviet Union occurred due to adulteration with corn or cane sugars. 

These detentions were based on analytical results received from Geochron Laboratories. This fast analytical technique measures the C-13/C-12 isotope ratio of the sugars in the sample. 

*FDA laboratories do not have the instrumental capability to analyze honey according to the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, AOAC Official Method 991.41, which requires an isotope ration mass spectrometer.*

Guidance:
*** Districts may detain, without physical examination, the specified products from the firms listed in the Red List of this import alert. *** 

Surveillance of imported honey from all countries is indicated. "...

More details are posted here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_108.html

And more details about "Adulteration of Honey" - *States expand efforts to combat 'funny honey' that isn't pure.*
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-09-25-honey-producers_N.htm


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> More details are posted here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_108.html
> 
> And more details about "Adulteration of Honey" - *States expand efforts to combat 'funny honey' that isn't pure.*
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-09-25-honey-producers_N.htm


First site, the official FDA one, tells us that there are 7 companies of thousands worldwide who are restricted from exporting honey into the US. Shows that there are teeth in the food safety regulations that so many HT members tried to defeat. 

Second site apparently doesn't exist today. If it did, it would probably tell you just what I have stated and that is that each state has their own honey regulations and thus someone to complain to if something is suspected as not being what it is supposed to be. If suspected and nothing is done, you are only damaging the reputation of every beekeeper in your state. 

Martin


----------



## lordoftheweeds (Dec 27, 2012)

I'm glad I get my honey from the lady down the road, I've read that buying honey from a local source helps with allergies due to the honey having all the local pollens in it. Don't know if it's true but it seems plausible.


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Paquebot said:


> Honey does not need to have pollen in order to be 100% honey... Martin


In my opinion you simply misinformed forum members, because: "...In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration says that *any product that&#8217;s been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen isn&#8217;t honey*."
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.URFPth3m1n7

About teeth and reputation of beekeepers.

"FDA laboratories do not have the instrumental capability to analyze honey according to the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, AOAC Official Method 991.41, which requires an isotope ration mass spectrometer."
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_108.html


*Honey laundering: fraud on the shelves?*
"by Andrew Schneider

(February 2013) &#8212; The benign memory of Winnie the Pooh shoving his paw into the honey jar has just about faded as federal investigators and the Department of Justice continue to crack down on an almost worldwide network of smuggled, mislabeled and adulterated honey into the United States.

Chinese honey makers became zealous in their efforts to conceal where their honey was being sold about 11 years ago. That's when the U.S. Department of Commerce imposed a stiff tariff on government-subsidized Chinese honey to stem the massive dumping of the underpriced nectar on the U.S. market.

*Now, a decade later, shoppers still can't be sure what they're buying off most U.S. grocery shelves.* Testing in Europe showed honey was contaminated with heavy metals and illegal animal antibiotics, including chloramphenicol. The same suppliers are bringing honey here.

While most of those arrested, indicted and convicted for the sweet smuggling in the last few years were foreign honey importers and U.S. brokers, federal criminal investigators say it could not be happening without the knowledge and participation of major U.S. packers and distributors.

In November 2011, Seattle-based "Food Safety News" published the results of its laboratory analysis of 60 jars, jugs and plastic bears of honey purchased in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

The honey was examined by Vaughn Bryant, considered by many to be the country's top melissopalynologist, or pollen investigator. Identifying the source of pollen is the only precise, scientifically accepted method to identify the origin of a honey.

Although the U.S. Honey Board disputes it, the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and dozens of other standard-setting agencies say that the ultra-filtration or removal of all pollen from honey is a sign that it has been adulterated, most likely to conceal its origin.

After repeated testing in his Texas A&M University Palynology Research Laboratory, Bryant reported that depending on what type of store the honey was purchased from, between 76 percent and 100 percent of the samples tested were ultra-filtered.

Several states are in the process of passing laws or regulations establishing a legal definition of honey because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ignored repeated requests to do so. A legal definition could result in a ban on the sale of honey where the pollen has been removed...

*New products, new fraud*
In April 2012, the Institute of Food Technologists' "Journal of Food Science" reported on what may be *the first public database on bogus food* and intentional adulteration in our food supply. To compile it, researchers from U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) reviewed 1,305 records from 677 scientific, professional and scholarly manuscripts. Besides honey, the most reported targets for adulteration were olive oil, milk, saffron, orange juice, coffee and apple juice, according to Markus Lipp, USP's director for food standards.

The United States is importing more of our food and China is becoming a larger provider, FDA says. The Food Marketing Institute says at least 20,000 new products are offered up to grocery shelves each year. Experts say there is no doubt some of them will have ingredients added, removed or concealed.

USP's Lipp says consumers should not forget that economically motivated adulteration poses a host of risks to businesses from legal and public health perspectives.

"The sobering reality," he says, "is that every safeguard in place in our global multibillion-dollar food industry is null and void if one cannot confirm the authenticity of the food ingredients that make up a product. In an industry that touches us all, with so much to lose, that simply cannot suffice."

http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/1302/honey_laundering.html


I fully support articles that I mentioned above, because these articles help consumers to understand the real situation in the honey industry.
I also hope that "public database on bogus food" will help consumers to identify producers/sellers with bad reputation.

Boris Romanov
www.beebehavior.com

P.S. 
*The typical recommendation How to feed your bees with syrups:*








From: http://www.mannlakeltd.com/beekeeping-supplies/page37.html#!productInfo/3/









"*A pump equipped tanker delivers over 40,000 pounds of syrup to our farm.* Three 1250 imperial gallon tanks hold the syrup until needed. Syrup keeps well for a month or more. After that, slow fermentation is possible in warm weather. In cold weather, over time some sugar will precipitate out onto the bottom. An ordinary honey pump is adequate to fill our truck tanks for daily use."
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/misc/syrup/feed.htm

I cannot call such practice as a beekeeping...


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> In my opinion you simply misinformed forum members, because: "...In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration says that *any product thatâs been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen isnât honey*."
> http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.URFPth3m1n7


From your same source, a year newer which explains the pollen/no pollen issue that has given all honey a bad name:

www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/national-honey-board-honey-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen

There is a big difference between filtering and ultra-filtering. Filtering is common and results in USDA Grade A honey. That is the only grade sold in any store which I have ever been in.

Martin


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Nonsense... 

My reply was for your very specific incorrect statement: "*Honey does not need to have pollen in order to be 100% honey*... " (your post #4)


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> Nonsense...
> 
> My reply was for your original false statement: "*Honey does not need to have pollen in order to be 100% honey*... " (your post #4)


Read the latest Food Safety News report and you will find that "Honey does not need to have pollen in order to be 100% honey..." is very correct and also in accordance with USDA regulations as established in 1985.

Read the paragraph which states that it may be "filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed. Note the use of the word "all" in that statement. That is from the USDA Standards in force since May 23, 1985 and still applies. 

www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/national-honey-board-honey-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen 

Martin


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Firstly, the original old standard describe Filtered honey, but not Honey: "*Filtered honey* is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed."

Why your removed the first part of the original definition -* Filtered honey*? Do you think it is an ethical behavior?

Secondly, could you show me please that "National Honey Board" (that you mentioned in your link) denied the FDA's definition of HONEY (not Filtered honey): *"any product that&#8217;s been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen isn&#8217;t honey."*


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> Firstly, the original old standard: "*Filtered honey* is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed."
> 
> Why your removed the first part of the original definition -* Filtered honey*? Do you think it is an ethical behavior?
> 
> Could you show me please that "National Honey Board" (that you mentioned in your link) denied this new FDA definition of HONEY (not Filtered honey): *"any product thatâs been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen isnât honey."*


I didn't remove anything from the Food Safety News sites. I have no control over that web site. I don't feel that it is necessary to repeat every word on a linked site but merely to mention some of the pertinent portions. That's why one links to a site, so a person can read it for himself or herself to verify the source of the reply.

As for which of the Food Safety News articles is more up-to-date, the original link was from November 2011 while the rebuttal is April 2012. If you are selling honey as USDA Grade A, the author of that article is your ultimate boss since he is the CEO of the National Honey Board.

From Mr. Bruce Boynton, the CEO of USDA's National Honey Board: "Some have confused filtration and ultrafiltration, incorrectly applying FDA's position on ultrafiltered honey to any honey without pollen."

I have not seen any counter-rebuttal from anyone in any higher position since then. If he says that honey does not have to contain pollen to be honey, there is nobody above him to contradict him.

www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/national-honey-board-honey-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen


Martin


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Paquebot said:


> *I didn't remove anything from the Food Safety News sites*. I have no control over that web site...Martin


Unbelievable, looks like you forgot your own statement (your post #20):


Paquebot said:


> "..Read the paragraph which states that it may be "filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed. Note the use of the word "all" in that statement. *That is from the USDA Standards *in force since May 23, 1985 and still applies." Martin





Paquebot said:


> *...
> From Mr. Bruce Boynton, the CEO of USDA's National Honey Board: "Some have confused filtration and ultrafiltration, incorrectly applying FDA's position on ultrafiltered honey to any honey without pollen."
> 
> I have not seen any counter-rebuttal from anyone in any higher position since then. If he says that honey does not have to contain pollen to be honey, there is nobody above him to contradict him.
> ...


*

Bruce Boynton cannot interpret the FDA's definition of Honey, as he want.*


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> Unbelievable, looks like you forgot your own statement (your post #20): "..Read the paragraph which states that it may be "filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed. Note the use of the word "all" in that statement. *That is from the USDA Standards *in force since May 23, 1985 and still applies.


Now it appears that you have become confused? I cite a statement from the head of USDA's National Honey Board, present the link where it was obtained, and you credit it to me? Sorry, my name is not Bruce! He also states: "The fact is, honey that has been filtered may not have pollen, but it is still honey by national standards and is preferred by many consumers." You will again find that at:

www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/national-honey-board-honey-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen

Martin


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Paquebot said:


> Sorry, my name is not Bruce!
> Martin


I know, who you are. 
The Bruce's statement quoted in the traditional style ("...") and begins as: "From Mr. Bruce Boynton,...
Your statement is quoted differently in this forum style.

Please read my comments carefully.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> Bruce Boynton cannot interpret the FDA's definition of Honey, as he want.


In case you are not aware, both USDA and FDA share the same negative position in regards to ultrafiltered honey. 

The issue, as you have stated, is that honey without pollen is not honey when anyone involved in beekeeping and honey should know that that is not so. Filtration, as practiced by anyone selling USDA Grade A honey, may indeed remove *all *pollen in the process. The authors of the USDA board which set the national standard for honey knew that in 1985 and it still applies. 

Martin


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Paquebot said:


> ...
> 
> ...I didn't remove anything from *the Food Safety News* sites...
> 
> ...


Please do not tell me that these are not your statements...

In my opinion, If you quoted the USDA Standard and referred me to this Standard - you cannot manipulate with the original sentences from this Standard


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> Please do not tell me that these are not your statements...


Correct, your quote was from my reply advising the readers to look for the paragraph which was pertinent to the issue. It was not meant to be a complete copy of everything in that paragraph since most was not the issue. Had I cited the entire paragraph, it would have been presented in an entirely different form. And had I claimed that it was all mine, that would have been plagiarism. It's still in there!

www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/national-honey-board-honey-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen 

"1 For decades, many U.S. honey packers have been filtering raw honey prior to bottling in accordance with USDA's United States Standards for Grades of Extracted Honey (May 23, 1985). According to section 52-1393 of the Standards, Filtered honey is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed. Section 52.1394 of the Standards also says that Pollen grains in suspension contribute to the lack of clarity in filtered style." 

Those standards, with updates, are available in PDF form from www.ams.usda.gov 

Martin


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Paquebot said:


> ... According to section 52-1393 of the Standards, *Filtered honey* is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed. Section 52.1394 of the Standards also says that Pollen grains in suspension contribute to the lack of clarity in filtered style." ...Martin


I'm glad that you finally confirmed the original sentence of the section 52-1393 of the Standards in the original form.

But I have no more questions for you, if you do not want to see the main difference with your previous quotation:


Paquebot said:


> ...Read the paragraph which states that it may be "filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed. Note the use of the word "all" in that statement. That is from the USDA Standards in force since May 23, 1985 and still applies. Martin


Because in my opinion this main part *Filtered honey is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been * was missing for the very simple purpose - to prove your incorrect statement:


Paquebot said:


> ...Honey does not need to have pollen in order to be 100% honey. Martin


I hope forum members can recognize the difference between *Honey* in your post and *Filtered Honey* in the Standards.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Boris said:


> I'm glad that you finally confirmed the original sentence of the section 52-1393 of the Standards in the original form.
> 
> But I have no more questions for you, if you do not want to see the main difference with your previous quotation:


The main difference was that my original reply on that was neither written as a direct quote nor was it meant to be a direct quote. It was a meant to be a reference guide to direct the reader to the entire paragraph within the cited link which was presented as confirmation. And in case anyone missed it the last time, it's still at:

www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/national-honey-board-honey-is-made-from-nectar-not-pollen 

As for the topic of this thread, it makes me wonder who or what is behind this unfounded scare tactic and what their purpose is. Thus far, I have heard no reports of ultrafiltered honey anywhere in circulation in this country. The FDA also states that no such honey has been refused entry into the US and that none will permitted if discovered. Thus it's a total non-issue and any US honey consumer has nothing to fear in that regard. 

Martin


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

akane said:


> *The honey in stores* is just filtered to the point I refer to it as sugar goo because all the good stuff is gone. The honey packets in restaurants on the other hand is quite often corn syrup with a little honey.


I prefer to call similar products (forever liquid) from the Supermarkets - as Honey Syrups.

&#8220;I have learned from Dr. Mercola&#8217;s book is that there are bee farms that produce 2/3 of the annual honey production in North America by force feeding their bees high fructose corn syrup or other sugars, and keeping them under 24-hour hive lighting so that they will produce honey year round (the remaining 1/3 of honey produced in N.A. is pure honey). These tactics result in the bees producing a product that is only partially real honey; the other portion of the &#8220;honey&#8221; is high fructose corn syrup!&#8221;
http://www.fearlessfatloss.com/book...e-corn-syrup-and-honey-a-sneaky-relationship/

In addition, please remember two pictures from my post #17.

Boris Romanov


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Unfortunately, Honey fraud is still the real issue...

*ICE alleges imported honey scam
U.S. individuals, processors charged with evading fees on Chinese product
*
"Five persons and two domestic honey-processing companies were charged Wednesday in a federal probe targeting a multimillion dollar smuggling operation bringing Chinese-origin honey into the United States.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-led investigation &#8212; known as &#8220;Project Honeygate&#8221; &#8212; uncovered what ICE said was the misdeclaration of Chinese-origin honey as other commodities as it was imported into the United States and shipped through other countries to evade anti-dumping duties.
Altogether, the seven defendants are accused of evading duties totaling more than $180 million.
&#8220;These businesses intentionally deprived the U.S. government of millions of dollars in unpaid duties,&#8221; said ICE Deputy Director Daniel Ragsdale. &#8220;Schemes like this result in legitimate importers and the domestic honey-producing industry enduring years of unprofitable operations, with some even being put out of business. We will continue to enforce criminal violations of anti-dumping laws in all industries so American and foreign businesses all play by the same rules.&#8221;
The new charges represent the second phase of an ICE investigation that began in June 2011 when an undercover agent assumed the role of the director of procurement at Honey Holding I Ltd., which by then was cooperating with the investigation. Honey Holding, doing business as Honey Solutions of Baytown, Texas, and Groeb Farms Inc., of Onsted, Mich. &#8212; two of the nation&#8217;s largest honey suppliers &#8212; have both entered into deferred prosecution agreements with the government.
*Honey Holding agreed to pay $1 million and Groeb Farms agreed to pay $2 million in fines*. Both companies have also agreed to implement corporate compliance programs as part of their respective agreements.

Also charged were three honey brokers, the former director of sales for Honey Holding, and the president of Premium Food Sales Inc., a broker and distributor of raw and processed honey in Bradford, Ontario.

In December 2001, the Commerce Department determined that Chinese-origin honey was being sold in the United States at less than fair market value, and imposed anti-dumping duties. The duties were as high as 221 percent of the declared value, and later were assessed against the entered net weight, currently at $2.63 per net kilogram, in addition to a honey assessment fee of one cent per pound of all honey.

In 2008, federal authorities began investigating allegations involving circumventing anti-dumping duties through illegal imports, including transshipment and mislabeling on the supply side of the honey industry. The investigation resulted in charges against 14 persons, including executives of Alfred L. Wolff GmbH and several affiliated companies of the German food conglomerate. They were charged with allegedly evading approximately $80 million in anti-dumping duties on Chinese-origin honey. *Authorities seized and forfeited more than 3,000 drums of honey that illegally entered the United States.*
The second phase of the investigation involves allegations of illegal buying, processing and trading of honey that illegally entered the United States on the demand side of the industry. Some of that honey was adulterated with antibiotics not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). None of the charges allege any instances of illness or other public health consequences attributed to consumption of the honey. The investigation is continuing.
&#8220;Trade fraud can have significant implications for the U.S. economy and consumers,&#8221; said U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Chief Operating Officer Thomas S. Winkowski. &#8220;These products take jobs away from American workers and frequently violate U.S. health and safety standards, potentially endangering the public. CBP is committed to fighting these fraudulent actors alongside our government partners.&#8221;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/20/ice-alleges-imported-honey-scam/


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

All the more reason to have your own hives, or buy locally.


----------



## frankva (May 21, 2009)

Plenty of the honey in the grocery here is labeled honey from USA and Argentina. I don't buy it. 

Raw can be found. Even better is the regional blueberry honey that is not blended.

Oh sweet mommy.


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

Paquebot said:


> ... If suspected and nothing is done, you are only damaging the reputation of every beekeeper in your state. Martin


More details were released by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois (names, fines, possible sentences and so on)

*Two Companies and Five Individuals Charged With Roles in 
Illegal Honey Imports; Avoided $180 Million in AntiDumping Duties
CHICAGO &#8212; *

"Five individuals and two domestic honey processing companies have been charged with federal crimes in connection with a nationwide investigation of illegal importations of honey from China that was mislabeled as coming from other countries to avoid antidumping duties or was adulterated with antibiotics not approved for use in honey. Altogether, the seven defendants allegedly avoided antidumping duties totaling more than $180 million.
None of the charges allege any instances of illness or other public health consequences attributed to consumption of the honey.
The charges represent the second phase of an investigation led by agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement&#8217;s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). In June 2011, an undercover agent assumed the role of director of procurement at defendant HONEY HOLDING I, LTD., which by then was cooperating with the investigation.
Honey Holding, doing business as Honey Solutions, of Baytown, Tex., and defendant GROEB FARMS, INC., of Onsted, Mich., two of the nation&#8217;s largest honey suppliers, have both entered into deferred prosecution agreements with the government, subject to court approval, with Honey Holding agreeing to pay a $1 million fine and Groeb Farms agreeing to the payment of a $2 million fine. Both companies have agreed to implement corporate compliance programs as part of their respective agreements.
The individual defendants include three honey brokers, as well as DOUGLAS A. MURPHY, former director of sales for Honey Holding, and DONALD COUTURE, president of Premium Food Sales, Inc., a broker and distributor of raw and processed honey in Bradford, Ontario.
In December 2001, the Commerce Department determined that Chinese-origin honey was being sold in the United States at less than fair market value, and imposed antidumping duties. The duties were as high as 221 percent of the declared value, and later were assessed against the entered net weight, currently at $2.63 per net kilogram, in addition to a &#8220;honey assessment fee&#8221; of one cent per pound of all honey. In October 2002, the Food and Drug Administration issued an import alert for honey containing the antibiotic Chloramphenicol, a broad spectrum antibiotic that is used to treat serious infections in humans, but which is not approved for use in honey. Honey containing certain antibiotics is deemed &#8220;adulterated&#8221; within the meaning of federal food and drug safety laws.
In 2008, federal authorities began investigating allegations involving circumventing antidumping duties through illegal imports, including transshipment and mislabeling, on the &#8220;supply side&#8221; of the honey industry. The investigation resulted in charges against 14 individuals, including executives of Alfred L. Wolff GmbH and several affiliated companies of the German food conglomerate whose U.S. honey-importing business was based in Chicago, and others for allegedly avoiding approximately $80 million in antidumping duties on Chinese-origin honey. Authorities seized and forfeited more than 3,000 drums of honey that entered the country illegally.
The second phase of the investigation, announced today, involves allegations of illegal buying, processing, and trading of honey that illegally entered the U.S. on the &#8220;demand side&#8221; of the industry. The investigation is continuing.
&#8220;We applaud the efforts of HSI, Customs and Border Protection, and other agencies involved in this complex, long-term investigation to enforce the laws that exist to protect U.S. consumers and the honey market,&#8221; said Gary S. Shapiro, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
&#8220;These businesses intentionally deprived the U.S. government of millions of dollars in unpaid duties,&#8221; said ICE Deputy Director Daniel Ragsdale. &#8220;Schemes like these result in legitimate importers and the domestic honey-producing industry enduring years of unprofitable operations, with some even being put out of business. We will continue to enforce criminal violations of antidumping laws in all industries and ports of entry so American businesses and foreign producers of goods all play by the same rules.&#8221;
Also announcing the charges were Gary Hartwig, Special Agent-in-Charge of HSI Chicago; William A. Ferrara, Acting Director of Field Operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Chicago, and Daniel Henson, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the Food and Drug Administration&#8217;s Office of Criminal Investigations.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration operates a toll-free number for consumer inquiries: 1-888-INFO-FDA (463-6332).
The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros.
The public is reminded that indictments and informations contain only charges and are not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, courts must impose a reasonable sentence under federal statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines. Three of the five individuals charged have authorized the government to disclose that they intend to plead guilty to the charges against them.

*Details of the six separate cases follow:*
*
United States v. Groeb Farms, Inc., 13 CR 137*
GROEB FARMS, INC., of Onsted, Mich., described as the largest industrial honey supplier in the United States, was charged with buying 1,578 container loads of Chinese-origin honey between February 2008 and April 2012, knowing that it was illegally imported into the United States to avoid more than $78.8 million in antidumping duties.
The company has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which it accepted and acknowledged responsibility for its conduct and that of its current and former executives and employees. The agreement requires the company to continue cooperating fully for two years, to pay a $2 million fine based on its ability to pay, and to dispose any illegally-entered Chinese-origin honey in its possession.
The company admitted in a factual statement that two former executives purchased Chinese-origin honey for processing at its facilities and sold that honey to its domestic retail, foodservice, and industrial customers as mislabeled non-Chinese honey, and at other times, as Chinese honey, all while knowing that it had been illegally imported to avoid antidumping duties and, at times, honey assessment fees. The honey was variously described falsely as sugars and syrups instead of Chinese-origin honey, and as having originated in Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam, instead of China.
The two former executives engaged in fraudulent practices despite the company&#8217;s own audits and inspections that raised substantial concerns that the honey was illegally imported. They also provided false information to the company&#8217;s board of directors, customers, and the public regarding Groeb Farms&#8217; involvement in knowingly purchasing, processing, and selling illegally smuggled Chinese-origin honey.
The corporate compliance program is designed to ensure that Groeb Farms maintains supply chain integrity and conducts reasonable inquiries to safeguard against any illegal activity.

*United States v. Douglas A. Murphy and Honey Holding I, 13 CR 138*
DOUGLAS A. MURPHY, 56, of Kingwood, Tex., and HONEY HOLDING I, LTD., doing business as Honey Solutions, a large industrial honey supplier based in Baytown, Tex., were charged together with violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for *allegedly purchasing discounted Polish-origin honey containing the prohibited antibiotic Chloramphenicol* from Alfred L. Wolff USA in 2006. Murphy was director of sales between 2003 and 2008 and was responsible for the purchase of wholesale quantities of honey, maintaining relationships with suppliers, and the sale of honey to U.S. customers.
DOUGLAS A. MURPHY, 56, of Kingwood, Tex., and HONEY HOLDING I, LTD., doing business as Honey Solutions, a large industrial honey supplier based in Baytown, Tex., were charged together with violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for allegedly purchasing discounted Polish-origin honey containing the prohibited antibiotic Chloramphenicol from Alfred L. Wolff USA in 2006. Murphy was director of sales between 2003 and 2008 and was responsible for the purchase of wholesale quantities of honey, maintaining relationships with suppliers, and the sale of honey to U.S. customers.
Murphy pleaded guilty today and, under the terms of his cooperation plea agreement, subject to court approval, he will receive a sentence of six months&#8217; imprisonment and a fine of $26,624 when he is sentenced on May 31.
Honey Holding has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which it accepted and acknowledged responsibility for its conduct and that of its employees and agents. *The agreement requires the company to continue cooperating fully for two years and to pay a $1 million fine based on its ability to pay*. The agreement describes Honey Holding&#8217;s &#8220;extensive cooperation, including its agreement to allow an undercover law enforcement agent to assume the role of [its] director of procurement in an undercover capacity since June 2011.&#8221;
The company admitted in a factual statement that Honey Holding defrauded its downstream customers of approximately $26,624 by purchasing, processing, and selling the Polish-origin honey that was adulterated with the antibiotic.
The company also admitted that it purchased Chinese-origin honey from at least seven shell and front companies that were controlled by various Chinese honey producers and manufacturers. These illegal honey imports avoided more than $33.4 million in antidumping duties.
Honey Holding also agreed to establish a corporate compliance program to ensure that it maintains supply chain integrity and takes steps to safeguard against any illegal activity.

*United States v. Jun Yang, 13 CR 139*
JUN YANG, 39, of Houston, who brokered the sale of honey to Honey Holding among others, and who operated National Honey, Inc., which did business as National Commodities Company in Houston, was charged with brokering the sale of illegal Chinese-origin honey, which was misrepresented as originating in India, into the United States to avoid antidumping duties.
Yang, through his attorney, has authorized the government to disclose that he will plead guilty, admitting responsibility for fraudulently avoiding antidumping duties totaling as much as $37.9 million on Chinese-origin honey that entered the country illegally as Malaysian and Indian honey between 2009 and 2012. 
*Yang has agreed to pay a fine of $250,000 and restitution totaling $2.64 million, in addition to whatever other sentence is imposed by the court. The government has agreed to recommend a sentence of 74 months in prison.*

*United States v. Urbain Tran, 13 CR 140*
URBAIN TRAN, 78, of Culver City, Calif., an agent of Honey Holding who brokered honey transactions for the company since 2006, was charged with two counts of brokering the sale and transportation of illegal Chinese-origin honey, which was misrepresented as originating in Malaysia and Vietnam, into the United States to avoid antidumping duties.
Tran, through his attorney, has authorized the government to disclose that he will plead guilty under the terms of an agreement calling for a fine of $500,000 and restitution totaling $204,403, in addition to whatever other sentence is imposed by the court. 
*Tran faces a maximum of 20 years in prison on each fraudulent sales and transportation count.
*
*United States v. Hung Yi Lin, 13 CR 125*
HUNG YI LIN, also known as &#8220;Katy Lin,&#8221; 42, of Temple City, Calif., was charged in a federal grand jury indictment returned yesterday with one count of transporting 10 container loads of Chinese-origin honey through the Chicago area after it entered the country illegally. Lin owned and operated KBB Express Inc., of South El Monte, Calif., and served as the U.S. agent for at least 12 importers that were controlled by Chinese honey producers and manufacturers. She was initially charged in a criminal complaint and arrested on Feb. 9 in California. She was released on a $100,000 secured bond and will be arraigned on a later date in U.S. District Court in Chicago.
According to the indictment, between 2009 and 2012, Lin schemed to falsify the contents of hundreds of shipping containers of Chinese-origin honey by misrepresenting them as sugars and syrups during the importation process. As a result, the honey, which had an aggregate declared value of nearly $11.5 million when it entered the country, avoided antidumping duties and honey assessments totaling $39.2 million, the charges allege.
*The charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.*

*United States v. Donald Couture, 11 CR 781*
DONALD COUTURE, 60, of Bradford, Ontario, the president, owner, and operator of Premium Food Sales, Inc., a Canadian broker and distributor of raw and processed honey, was indicted on four counts of violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In May 2009, Couture allegedly caused *four container loads of his company&#8217;s honey that were rejected by one U.S. customer because of the presence of a prohibited antibiotic, Tetracycline, to be delivered to a second U.S. customer without disclosing that the honey contained the antibiotic. The honey was shipped through the Chicago area when it was transported from one customer to the other.*
An arrest warrant was issued in the U.S. for Couture. Couture was initially charged in a sealed complaint in November 2011 and the complaint was unsealed after he was indicted last week. 
*Each count carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine."*


----------



## Boris (Nov 18, 2010)

*New findings*

"PLENTY OF HORNE
Milwaukee&#8217;s Global Honey Scam
Milwaukee-owned honey far
By Michael Horne, http://urbanmilwaukee.com/

"A government sting uncovering massive illegal shipments of Chinese honey has the nation&#8217;s 2,000 commercial beekeepers abuzz, and has a Milwaukee venture capital firm facing millions of dollars in potential criminal and civil penalties.

In February, 2013, the US Department of Justice criminally charged Groeb Farms, Inc., of Onsted, Michigan with the illegal purchase of 1,578 container loads of Chinese-origin honey from February 2008 to April 2012. Groeb, the largest honey packer in the nation, is owned by Horizon Partners, Ltd. of Milwaukee.

In a deferred prosecution agreement, Groeb admitted the illegal importation of the honey to avoid paying &#8220;no less than $78,866,216&#8221; in anti-dumping duties and paid a $2 million fine. Charges will be dropped in 2 years if the firm no longer violates the law.

Horizon Partners was not named in the criminal complaint against Groeb, but is a defendant in a federal civil class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in April by three honey producers on behalf of all members of their class.

The suit notes that all violations occurred after Horizon&#8217;s 2007 purchase of Groeb, which had been a family-owned firm since 1973. According to the suit: &#8220;Horizon exercised its control over Groeb in such a manner as to commit fraud by knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly directing Groeb to purchase, package, distribute, and sell falsely labeled honey in order to increase profits for Horizon and its investors.&#8221;

Groeb describes itself as &#8220;a global leader in honey processing and best-in-class producer of food ingredients, industrial sweeteners and food service products.&#8221;

Horizon Partners was founded in 1988 by Robert M. Feerick, of the prominent Milwaukee funeral home family. He is Horizon&#8217;s CEO and also serves on the board of Groeb, and did so at the time of the fraud, according to court records.

According to the Horizon&#8217;s website, &#8220;Horizon Partners, Ltd. is a private investment holding company which acquires and builds private companies. &#8230; Horizon gives management wide latitude in running the companies. Over time, Horizon provides management teams the opportunity to acquire significant direct ownership in its companies.&#8221;

But according to the suit, Groeb&#8217;s managers, perhaps eager to acquire their &#8220;significant direct ownership&#8221; were &#8220;under constant pressure by Horizon and its executives to provide more profits,&#8221; which they thought they found in a complicated transshippment ruse that led to the criminal charges and the civil complaint.

HOW TO LAUNDER HONEY
US investigations dating to 1994, known colloquially as &#8220;Honeygate,&#8221; determined that China was dumping honey at less than market prices. While American honey costs about $1.20 &#8211; $1.40 a pound to produce, the Chinese can produce honey for as little as $0.22 a pound. This is due to a number of reasons, including prematurely harvested honey, which has a higher water content, and to other factors, like adulterating honey with cheap sweeteners. The Chinese also used US-banned chemicals to maintain hive health.

As a result of this unfair advantage, the United States government imposed an anti-dumping duty on Chinese honey of as high as 221 per cent to retain the competitiveness of the domestic product.

After the ban, official Chinese exports decreased, yet its honey production capacity increased, a red flag to prosecutors.

WHERE DID THE CHINESE HONEY GO?
In order to circumvent the duties imposed by the US, exporters shipped Chinese honey to second countries, which then shipped it to Groeb, accompanied by &#8220;fake and fraudulent bills of lading, invoice, packing list and country of origin certificates,&#8221; indicating the honey was from those countries.

These nations include Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Mongolia, Thailand and Vietnam, &#8220;all countries with virtually no commercial beekeeping operations,&#8221; according to the civil suit. [Emphasis original.]

The suit quotes Jill Clark, a sales executive for a honey company who told a magazine writer, &#8220;we saw a flurry of honey starting to come into the US from countries &#8212; Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines &#8212; that had never been exporting to the US before. &#8230; All of a sudden they had millions of pounds of honey to sell, at very cheap prices.&#8221;

In India, for example, there were no honey exports in 2000, while the country was the supposed source of origin for 13,137 metric tons in 2009 &#8212; a remarkably short time for a 29-million pound honey industry to develop, and equal to the production of about 290,000 commercial hives.

Malaysia, which also had no U S honey exports in 2000, was credited with 9,068 metric tons in 2009.

U S customs duties thus evaded amounted in aggregate to some $200 million between 2009 &#8211; 2010. Of that, Groeb Farms purchases represented $78.9 million of the losses to the treasury.

Groeb and others further complicated the scheme by &#8220;falsely and fraudulently describing honey as a product other than honey, including sugar and syrups.&#8221; The adulterated honey &#8220;contained inexpensive sweeteners and was sometimes blended with high fructose corn syrup and other additives,&#8221; according to the civil complaint. (It perhaps says something about the quality of Chinese honey that this subterfuge was not readily detected by taste.)

MARKERS OF HONEY ORIGIN REMOVED
Traditionally filtered natural honey will remove &#8220;bee parts, wax and debris, but will leave pollen in place,&#8221; according to the civil suit. The pollen in honey is a reliable indicator of its origin, which can be traced to the source plants and their growing environments.

However, melissopalynologist Vaughn Bryant, who is, as his title indicates, an investigator of pollen in honey, undertook a test for pollen when he bought more than &#8220;60 jars, jugs and plastic bears of honey in 10 states and the District of Columbia&#8221; in 2011 for Food Safety News. His article, &#8220;Test Shows Most Store Honey is not Honey,&#8221; found that 76 percent of all grocery store samples, 77 percent of samples from big box retailers and 100 percent of all honey sold in drug stores had no pollen residue whatsoever. (The US FDA rules state that any product thus ultra-filtered is not, in fact, honey.) This astounding level of filtration was cited by manufacturers as evidence of the American consumer&#8217;s desire for clear honey, but the government saw it as an attempt by China to hide the source of the honey. In any event, it is clear that a tremendous amount of Chinese honey is in the marketplace. (Of the 300 million pounds of honey that must be imported to the US in excess of its 148 million pound domestic production, 35 percent is for the home market. The rest goes to &#8220;industrial use&#8221; in cereals, baked goods, sauces, beverages &#8212; hundreds of different processed products.)

According to the civil complaint, beginning in 2009, after its purchase by Horizon, &#8220;Groeb began conducting 100 percent lot testing on all of its raw honey through a state-of-the art testing laboratory and employed specialty testing personnel to perform testing at its Florida facility. While Groeb easily could have tested for the presence of various pollens, it chose not to do so. Horizon knew this.&#8221;

Groeb also claimed to be on the cutting edge of &#8220;traceability&#8221; of honey origins and claimed to conduct audits of its suppliers. &#8220;Those audits would have revealed to Horizon and the Board of Directors that Groeb was purchasing honey from China,&#8221; the complaint alleges. &#8220;As Groeb expanded and profits rose, Horizon either knew or deliberately chose not to inquire further to determine that Groeb was breaking the law and fraudulently importing, packing, and re-selling illegal Chinese honey.&#8221;

As a result, the complaint says, &#8220;Horizon profited from, endorsed, and supported the illegal and fraudulent transshipping scheme. As a result of this conduct, the corporate veil must be disregarded and Horizon held liable to Plaintiffs for the damages outlined below.&#8221;

The complaint asks for relief on the grounds of False Advertising, Unfair Competition and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization as violations of the Lanham Act and the RICO Act.

ABOUT HORIZON
Horizon Partners, Ltd. is a Wisconsin corporation organized in 1988 by Robert M. Feerick with an address of 825 N. Jefferson St., Suite 300. Its principal office is located in Naples, Florida, where Feerick spends much of his time in a $1.7 million home, which he owns in addition to a Mequon condo.

According to the firm&#8217;s website, &#8220;Horizon Partners, Ltd. is a private investment holding company which acquires and builds private companies. Horizon focuses on the acquisition of medium size companies that are privately held or divisions/subsidiaries of larger corporations. In general, the companies have a history of sales and earnings growth. On occasion, Horizon will consider turnaround situations. The purchase prices for such acquisitions are in the $3-50 million range.

Horizon&#8217;s investment strategy is to build long-term equity value in its portfolio companies through strategic add-on acquisitions and improvements in operating performance.&#8221;

In addition to Groeb, Horizon currently owns Climax Portable Machining and Welding Systems of Portland, Oregon, which provides portable machining services (acquired in 2005) and Xymox Technologies of Milwaukee, a manufacturer of membrane switches which it bought from Brady Corp. in 1993.

The company provides a complete acquisition history on its website.

ABOUT ROBERT M. FEERICK
Feerick is a member of a prominent family of Milwaukee funeral directors; however, he does not practice the family trade. Here is his biography from the Horizon website:

Mr. Robert M. Feerick is the Principal and Chairman at Horizon Partners, Ltd. Mr. Feerick is also the Founder of the firm. Mr. Feerick has a broad background in private equity capital investments and acquisitions. Prior to this, he was the Chairman of The Corporate Development Group. In this capacity, Mr. Feerick assisted numerous corporations and management groups in evaluating, structuring, and financing acquisitions and venture capital transactions. Previously, he was a General Partner at Frontenac Company. Mr. Feerick serves as Director of Climax Portable Machine Tools, Inc., Groeb Farms, Inc., Karl&#8217;s Event Services, Inc, Xymox Technologies, Inc., and Lantor International, Inc. He served as a Director of First National Bank of the Gulf Coast from October 2009 to June 2012. He was a Director of the Orval Kent Food Company, Inc., Universal Blanchers, LLC, Image Conversion Systems, Inc., and WinterQuest, LLC. Mr. Feerick received an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Georgetown University."

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2013/pr0220_02b.pdf

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ahpane...pa_documents/class_action_lawsuit_filed_c.pdf


----------

