Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

1

SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION GOVERNING BEE PRODUCTS Andreas Thrasyvoulou, Chrysoula Tananaki, Maria Dimou, Emmanuel Karazafiris, Georgios Goras, Hasan F. El Taj, Basillis Liolios, Dimitris Kanelis, Lab. of Apiculture, School of Agriculture Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece thrasia@agro.auth.gr, www.beelab.gr Send all feed-back to: thrasia@agro.auth.gr OBJECTIONS Certain elements of the Directive 2001/110/EC should be amended in order to improve its application, increase its efficiency and enhance the international competitiveness of the Union. Definition of honey Article 1 (Annex I). The honey is defined as the natural sweet substance produced by Apis mellifera bees from the nectar of plants etc. Opinion: We sustain this definition since we know that other species of bees, like stingless bees, produce honey of different composition (Bruno et al., 2006). The Revised Codex Standard for honey (CODEX, 2001) does not make a distinction among honeys that are produced from different species of bees and simply defines honey as the natural sweet substance produced by honey bees. Suggestion: Additional provision to the existing legislation regarding the honey that is produced from other species of bees besides Apis mellifera is suggested. In food science, there is no official name for honey produced from other bees, so it could be named according to their origin such as dorsata honey, stingless bee honey etc. The physicochemical, microscopical and organoleptic properties of those honeys should also be defined. The IHC working group melipona honeys would prepare and suggest the additional provisions. Monofloral honeys Article 2, point 2b: The floral or plant origin is designated to the honey, if the product comes wholly or mainly from the indicated source and possesses the organoleptic, physicochemical and microscopic characteristics of the source. Opinion: This very important article regarding the trade of monofloral honeys can not be applied since the mentioned characteristics are not defined and are not given. Codex Alimentarius (2001) also does not content provisions regarding the characteristics of monofloral honeys. Without legislating the characteristics of monofloral honeys their trade is deflective, uncertain, false and the numerous scientific publications regarding the characteristics of monofloral honeys remain unexploited. Suggestion: Define legal parameters for the organoleptic, physicochemical and microscopic characteristics of major monofloral honeys. We suggest the following three steps: a) Each country should make a separate proposal for the types of honey it produces including the physicochemical, organoleptic and microscopic characteristics of them. Scientists and persons that are involved in honey business know better than any other the honey they produce in their country. Types of honey such as avocado honey from Spain, cotton, knot

weed, Jerusalem thorn, spring pine honey from Greece, dandelion honey from Belgium, have characteristics that do not comply with the composition criteria of norms and are only known in their countries. Members of IHC from different countries could be assigned to provide their countries proposals. b). A committee of IHC or a working group should elaborate each countrys proposals. Differences should be discussed to avoid commercial barriers between countries. c). There are two different ways to proceed: either to make a common suggestion to the EU regarding the characterization of monofloral honeys, or to establish national regulations after the approval of the European community. To complete the characterization of monofloral honeys it is essential to define the word mainly (article 2, point 2). Although organoleptic, physicochemical and microscopical characteristics are used to indicate the floral origin, the world mainly is mostly expressed by the pollen content of the samples. The harmonized method of melissopalynology defines a type of pollen as predominant in honey, when its percentage on the total pollen content exceeds 45%. A blossom honey is considered to be of a certain species, if the pollen of this species exceeds 45% of the total. Although European Commission (2005) interpreted the term mainly as meaning more restrictively than predominantly, we have no other choice but to accept it. According to Harmonized methods of melissopalynology (Werner et al 2004) If the sediment contains a high percentage of overrepresented pollen (castanea, eucalyptus, brassica and phacelia), it is recommended to perform a second count excluding the over-represented pollen in order to determine more precisely the relative abundance of the other pollen types. Still the following questions remain: 1. When is overrepresented pollen percentage considered high? 2. Which are the lower and upper limits beyond which the overrepresented pollen grains should be excluded? 3. Should this percentage be the same for all taxa? 4. What if the honey contains more than one over-represented pollen types? 5. What if the main nectar sources are plants with under- represented pollen in honey? Should then the same limits be set? 6. Which are the plants with overrepresented pollen in honeys? The melissopalynology group of IHC with the collaboration of the sensory working group could give the answers to the above questions and make a broader list of over-represented plants. Besides castanea, eucalyptus, brassica and phacelia there are other over-represented plants such as echium, myosotis, cynoglossum, galega, lotus, smilax, sophora etc. Equally important, to harmonize the results of the laboratories in national, European and worldwide level, is to give a complete list of under-represented plants. The percentage of under-represented pollen that would give the floral origin of the honey should also be decided. Nectar-less plants should also be excluded from the final count so another list is necessary. The origin of the product Article 2 point 4(a): The country or countries of origin where the honey has been harvested shall be indicated on the label. If the honey originates in more than one Member State or third country the indication may be replaced with one of the following as appropriate: -blend of EC honeys -blend of non-EC honeys -blend of EC and non EC honeys

Opinion: By adding the concept of blends, the E.U. wants to differentiate the blends of honeys as being the result of human intervention from the natural honeys produced by beekeepers (European Commission 2005). Actually this was a loophole used to replace the country of origin wholly with the term blends. An investigation that has been conducted on 31 supermarkets in Greece revealed that on all of 116 imported honeys that were examined, the country of origin had been replaced by the word blends, although some of them were monofloral honeys (personal observation). The indication blends was written in very small letters among other information, with the consumers never being informed what blend honey is and which its differences from the domestic honeys are. According to directive 2000/13, the place of origin is a compulsory indication on the labeling. Failure to give such information might mislead the consumer about the true origin of the foodstuff. By the word blend, the consumer does not know the origin of the product and this is a contradiction to the European legislation. Europe has established maximum residual limits (MRLs) in honeys through the Reg. 37/2010. Some pharmaceutical compounds may be authorized in one European country and not in another. The acceptable limits of residues are legal only in countries where they are authorized. By replacing the countries of origin with the word blend, the countries of origin remain unknown, residues limits cannot be checked and the legislation of Europe cannot be applied. Codex demanded the indication of the producing country when floral, plant source, or the name of a geographical or topographical region is designated on the label and it does not have any provision about blends. Thus in countries were Codex is valid the indication of the country where the honey has been produced is mandatory and this is not reciprocal of what the case is in the E.U. Suggestion: The country of origin where the honey has been harvested should be indicated on the label. If the honey originates in more than one Member State or third country the names of the countries should also be stated on the label followed by the word blend. The country of harvesting shall appear in the same field of vision. IHC should adopt methods to verify the geographical origin of honey, including the blends. ANNEX II. Composition criteria for honey 1. Sugar content: Fructose and glucose content (sum of both). -Blossom honey not less than 60 g/100g -Honeydew honey, blends of honeydew honey with blossom honey not less than 45 g/100 g Opinion: According to the above article, it is permitted to have blends of forest and blossom honey but it is not permitted to have blends of blossom honey with honeydew honey. In practice, bees may collect nectar from blossom and honeydew secretions from plants that share the same growing period and the same geographical origin. To our best knowledge the limit of glucose and fructose is fulfilled from floral honeys. Some blossom honeys may have lower values than 65%, but this is due to natural blends or mixtures after human intervention. In oppose to that, there are honeydew honeys that may have glucose and fructose below the limits of 45%. This is especially true with fir honey produced from the endemic Greek species Abies cephalonica (vanillia honey) (Manikis et al. 2011). Pine honey and spruce honey may also have a sum of fructose and glucose less than 45 g/100g.

Suggestion: Add blends of blossom honey and forest honey which should have glucose and fructose more than 60% and electrical conductivity less than 8 mS/cm. As exceptions, spruce and pine honey could have more than 40% glucose and fructose and Vanilla fir honey more than 30%. 1.2 Sucrose content. In general less than 5%. Exceptions: Robinia pseudoaccacia, Medicago sativa, Banksia menziesii, Hedysarum, Eucalyptus camadulensis, Eucryphia lucida, Eucryphia milliganii, Citrus spp less than 10% and Lavandula spp. Borago officinalis less than 15% Opinion: From those plants indicated as having exceptionally higher than 5% sucrose, only Eucalyptus, Robinia, Citrus and Lavandula are listed as important for honey production and can be found predominantly in honeys (Persano Oddo et al 2004). The others plants are designated as having minimum importance in honey production. There are 734 eucalyptus species and 3 hybrids. It is impossible to separate one species (Eucalyptus camadulensis) and state that it gives honey with a higher content of sucrose especially when pollen grains from different species of eucalyptus can not be distinguished. The sucrose content of honeys from Eucalyptus generally is less than 4.2% (Persano Oddo & Piro 2004). Suggestion: The provision regarding sucrose can remain as it is or be simplified by leaving robinia, lavandula and borago as exceptions. Honey from dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) may occasionally have sucrose more than 5% and should also be included in the list. 4. Electrical conductivity. Honey not listed below, and blends of these honeys not more than 0.8 mS/cm. Honeydew and chestnut honey and blends of these not less than 0.8 mS/cm The blossom honeys Arbutus unedo, Erica, Eucalyptus, Tilia spp., Calluna vulgaris, Manuka Leptospermum, and Melaleuca spp may have higher than 0.8 mS/cm Opinion: There are additional monofloral honeys with electrical conductivity higher than 0.8 mS/cm and should be included in the list of exceptions. Suggestion: Include in the list of blossom honeys with electrical conductivity higher than 0.8 mS/cm the following: Polygonum aviculare L (Knot weed), cotton honey, Paliurus spina christi (Jerusalem thorn), avocado honey (Percea americana) and any other which will be proposed by the country members of EU or members of IHC 6. Diastase and HMF Diastase and HMF determined after processing and blending. Diastase activity in general not less than 8 DN. Honeys with low natural enzymes (e.g. citrus) not less than 3 DN if HMF not more than 15 mg/kg HMF in general not more than 40 mg/kg. -Honeys from tropical and blends not more than 80 mg/kg Opinion: Both Directive and Codex state that diastase activity and HMF content should be determined after processing and blending. Paragraph 2 of ANNEX II says that honey when placed on the market should not have been heated in such a way that the natural enzymes have been either destroyed or significantly inactivated. It is clear that the legislator wants to protect the product from an inappropriate treatment. Under this interpretation honey should be analyzed for HMF and diastase activity right after processing and blending and not after storage as is at present happening in some countries. Beekeepers or packers cannot be held responsible for changes that occur in a natural product during storage.

Both Directive and Codex have the same provisions but Codex doesnt connect the low content of diastase with the HMF and also doesnt give citrus as an example of honeys with low enzymes. The connection of HMF which should not exceed 15 mg/kg in low enzyme honeys, is unfair and wrong because HMF in fresh and unprocessed citrus honeys may reach 12-13 mg/kg and with little processing, blending or storage the 15 mg/kg HMF can easily be reached and exceeded. Suggestion: Delete the junction of HMF and diastase activity for honeys with low activity in enzymes and add a list of honeys that are low in enzymes (citrus, robinia, rosmarinus, erica, taraxacum, spring pine honey and others). Arbutus honey may have diastase lower than 3 DN. The right interpretation of the phrase is diastase activity and HMF content determined after processing and blending and not after storage. Each honey should be analyzed for HMF and diastase activity after getting the Lot number and as stated in Annex II (second paragraph) when placed on the market should have both criteria within the limits. If the honey is analyzed after one or two years in storage, changes will certainly be found, but beekeepers or honey packers should not be held responsible for that. When HMF and/or Diastase activity are off limits honey should be removed from the shelves and replaced by fresh without the owner paying any fines. Residues of antibiotics Opinion: Antibiotics played an important role as effective chemotherapeutics for bee diseases in bee medicine and have been used until recently. Now it is not permitted to use antibiotics against any bee disease in Europe and this is because pharmaceutical companies did not apply for MRLs in bee products as demanded by the European Medicinal Evaluation Agency (EMEA). Consequently, the European Regulation has banned all antibiotics that had been used in beekeeping (Commission Regulation 37/2010). Not all antibiotics residues come from beekeepers practices. Bees do collect spraying material with antibiotics and transfer it into their hives without being blocked by the guard bees. They collect bactericides that are used against diseases of apples and pears, water with antibiotics from animal farms and antibiotics from degradation of some herbicides. So, anytime beekeepers may be having antibiotics in their product even in small concentrations. Different labs have different limit of quantification (LOQ). The presence or absence of antibiotics residues in a sample of honey depends on the LOQ that each analytical lab has and on the awareness of each inspector who interprets the analytical data. This in turn is causing problems to the quality control of honey. In addition, different countries established different action limits which is causing commercial barriers between countries. A load of honey that would be accepted by some countries would be rejected by others and this leads to claims of inconsistency. Suggestion: Establish common action limits and common LOQ of antibiotics for all countries. A suggestion could be 10 g/kg. Legislation in different countries Although legislation of European countries is a direct transposition of the EU Directive some countries issued national provisions, decisions, and guidelines to cope with the gap of the legislation (table 1). Most of them, set limits to define the characteristics of monofloral honeys. The national provisions of Poland and Greece are mandatory. Croatia also which is acceding EU country set legal limits for 11different monofloral honeys. In Germany, they have the German honey directive (Honig verordnung) which is basically the German translation of the European Honey directive. Besides, they have also Guidelines for honey from the German Food Book Commission (Deutsche Lebensmittelbuch-Kommission). This is an Expert Group under the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection

which defines good manufacturing practices, quality and special characteristics of food items representing the general consumer expectation and industry agreement for a certain food product. The Guidelines for honey are not a law, but have the status of a legal norm and define additional criteria for different quality grades or certain honey specialties (table 1). In Italy and Greece the blended product that is packaged in these two countries should include the countries were the honey was produced. In Poland they set requirements for proline content, (>250 mg/kg), lower limits of HMF (<30 mg/kg) and acidity (10 to 40 meq/kg). The polish honey also is differentiated according to the electrical conductivity which for blossom honey is set from 0.2-to 0.6 mS/cm, for blends of blossom-honeydew honey from 0.6 to 0.8 mS/cm, for honey from deciduous trees more than 0.8 mS/cm and for honeydew honeys more than 0.95 mS/cm. Serbia which is an EU candidate country set microscopical characteristics for six monofloral honeys and higher electrical conductivity than European limits. Slovakia has protection mark Slovak honey issued and supervised by Slovak beekeepers Association with more strict criteria than those in European directive All these differentiations from the European norms indicate that some necessary amendments should be exploited for better judging of honey CONCLUSIONS Members of IHC should decide whether they would like to suggest improving the existing legislation concerning honey, form a working group on legislation and assign one person from each country to coordinate the collection of proposals of unifloral honeys. The following assignments should be carried out by IHC working groups Melipona group: Proposal for legislation regarding honey that is produced from other species of bees than A. mellifera. Melissopalynology group with the collaboration of sensory group: Harmonize the melissopalynology analysis regarding the over-represented, under-represented and nectar less plants. Pollen and royal jelly working group: Proposal for legislation regarding pollen and royal jelly. Residues group. Proposal on antibiotic residues IHC legislation group: -Record the international and national legislations regarding bee products. Elaborate the national proposals for characteristics of monofloral honeys. Make the final suggestion for amendments for judging honey better and establish legislation on other bee products. Final suggestion could be presented in XXXXIII International Apiculture Congress in Ukraine (29 Sept.-04 October 2013). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bruno Souza, David Roubik, Ortrud Barth, Tim Head, Eunice Enriquez, Carlos Carvalho, Jerronimo Villas-Boas, Luis Marchini, Jean Locatelli, Livia Persano Oddo, Ligia Almeida-Muradian, Stefan Bogdanov and Patricia Vit (2006)Composition of stingless bee honey: Setting quality Standards. Interciecia 31(12):867-8751. Codex (2001) Reviced codex Standard for honey. Codex Stan 12-1981, Rev. 1 (1987), Rev. 2 (2001). Commission Regulation (EU) no 37/2010. On pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin of 22 December 2009 Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating honey. Official Journal of the European Communities L10/47-52

Council Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000. On the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labeling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.. Official Journal of the European Communities L109/29-42 European Commission (2005) Explanatory note on the implementation of council directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey. Expl. 61913.Oct. 2005. EN Manikis Iosif, Sofia Vartani1, Maria Dimou and Andreas Thrasyvoulou (2011) Sugar analysis of Menalou vanilia fir honey. Journal of Api product and Api medical science 3(2): 101-103 Persano Oddo and Roberto Piro (2004) Main European unifloral honeys: descriptive sheets. Apidologie 35:S38-S81 Rersano Oddo Livia, Lucia Piana, Stefan Bogdanov, Antonio Bentabol, Panagiota Gotsiou, Jacob Kerkvliet, Perer Martin, Monique Morlot, Alberto Ortiz Valbuera, Kaspar Ruoff and Katharine Von Der Ohe (2004) Botanical species giving unifloral honey in Europe. Apidologie 35:S82-S93 Werner Von Der Ohe, Livia Persano Oddo, Maria Lucia Piana, Monique Morlot and Peter Martin (2004) Harmonized methods of melissopalynology. Apidologie 35:S18-S25

Table 1. National legislation regarding honey. Diversification from European legislation (directive 2001/110 EU)
Countries Member of EU No Yes No Acceding EU Yes Yes Yes Legislations Directive 2001/110/EC No Followed No Followed Codex No No No No National legislations Ordinance No No Yes Proposals/Suggestions/Decisions/Provisions

1. Algeria 2. Belgium 3. Colombia 4. Croatia

No legislation at all Ascertainment: Dandelion honey may presents sucrose >5% , depends on the volume and the rapidity of nectar secretion (Marie Warnier) National Gazette No. 93/09 and 122/09. Pollen: Castanea >85%, Brassica >60%, Phacelia >60%, Robinia pseudoacacia >20%, Tilia spp >25%, Calluna vulgaris >20%, Satureja montana >20%, Salvia officinale >15%, Arbutus unedo >10% , citrus >10%, Lavandula spp>10% National decision: The national standard Cesky med (=Czech honey) is used voluntary, has more strict limits for HMF (max 20 mg/kg) and water (max 18%.). This standard is connected with trade mark Czech honey (Dalibor Titera) Suggestion: Thymus pollen >16%, No conjunction of HMF and diastase activity in low enzymes honeys, Lavandula honey under-represented (>10% pollen), low enzyme honey. Ascertainment: When the nectar and crop are very abundant, some spring honeys have higher sugars which are not within the required values. The authorities were asked to give an exceptional and temporary derogation (Monique Morlot). Guidelines: Characteristics of monofloral honeys Pollen: Erica > 45%, Castanea > 90%, Helianthus > 50%, Citrus>20%. Electrical conductivity mS/cm: Pine>1.0, Fir>1.1, Castanea= 0.8-2.0, Erica>0.50, Citrus= 0.10-0.30, Helianthus= 0.20-0.40. National legislation designate organoleptic, microscopical and physicochemical characteristics of Robinia pseudoacacia; Calluna; Erica; Trifolium, Melilotus; Citrus sinensis; Brassica napus; Helianthus annuus; Eucalyptus spp; Castanea sativa; Tilia spp.; Picea spp.; Pinus spp.; Abies alba Guidelines for honey are not a law, but have the status of a legal norm and define additional criteria for different quality grades or certain honey specialties (Susanne Hanewinnkel Mshkini, Birgit Lichtenberg-Kraag, Lutz Elflein Intertek) Decisions: Blend-honeys: All Imported honeys should have the countries that have been harvested. This rule is valid only for the honey packed in the country (Decision 183/2011, EK 19/B/13-01-2012) . Legal provisions: Pollen: Thyme>18%, Erica > 45%, Castanea > 85%, Helianthus > 20%. Electrical conductivity mS/cm: Pine>0.9, Fir>1.0, Castanea>1.0, Thyme < 0.6, Citrus <0.45, Helianthus<0.8 (Decision No. 3005081/593/2005/4-3-2005 EK 239/B/23-2-2005). Decisions: Blend-honeys: 1. All Imported honeys should have the countries that have been harvested. This rule is valid

5.Czech Republic 6. Cyprus 7. France

Followed Followed Followed

Yes No No

Yes No No

8. Germany

Yes

Followed

No

Yes

9. Greece

Yes

Followed

No

Yes

11 Italy

Yes

Followed

No

No

12. Malta 13. Poland

Yes Yes

Followed Followed

No No

No No

only for the honey packed in the country. If the product is manufactured in another European country, it follows the requirements of EU Directive 2. Thyme honey > 15% pollen. (Piro Roberto) Legal provisions: Polish standard for honey are slightly differ from council directive. It set up requirements for proline content (not less than 250 mg/kg), HMF( not higher than 30 mg/kg, and acidity in the range of 10-40 meq/kg. Electrical conductivity mS/cm: Blossom 0.2-0.6; Blossom-honeydew honey:0.6-0.8; Honeydew honey from deciduous trees: 0.8-0.95; Honeydew honey from coniferous trees: >0.95 (Teresa Szczesna) Ascertainment: Echium plantagineum overrepresented (>70%). Castanea >72- 83% of pollen (Miquel Maia) Russia standards for honey: GOST 19792-2001 (Honey natural. Technical regulations) which contains characteristics of quality and safety of blossom honeys. Gost R 52451-2005 describes sunflower, buckwheat and lime honey. Diastase: All types > 7 DN; Acacian > 5 DN; Linden >11 DN; Sunflower > 15 DN; Buckwheat > 18 DN (Elena Zubova).

14. Portugal 15. Russia

Yes No

Followed Followed

No Follow ed

16. Serbia

No

No

No

No GOST 19792 and GOST P524512005 Yes

Legal provisions :Pollen content: Robinia pdeudoacacia > 20% , Castanea sativa> 85% , Tilia sp > 25% Calluna vulgaris> 20%, Helianthus annunus> 40%, Medicago sativa > 30% Electrical conductivity: Blossom and blends > 1,00 mS/cm; Honeydew and blends > 1,00 mS/cm Minerals: Multifloral honeys <1%, Honeydew Honeys <1.2% iv) Sucrose <10%: Robinia pseudoacacia, honeydew honey and Calluna vulgaris (Kristina Lazarevic) Protection mark Slovak honey issue and supervise by Slovak Beekeepers Association. Honey sold under this trademark must has: Water < 18% and HMF < 20 mg/kg and Sacharose < 5% (Robert Chlebo). Legal provision: Slovak norm 1/2006 : water <18%, HMF <15 mg.Kg-1 (Katarina Bilikova) Suggestions: Electrical conductivity of Avocado honey> 0.8mS/cm. Acidity of honeydew and chestnut honeys >50 meq/kg and HMF < 20 mg/kg (Antonio Bendabol Manzanares). Legal provisions: Turkish Food Codex Regulation A. Fructose/Glucose: a) Flower honey i) 0.9 1.4 ii) 1.0-1.85 (Chestnut, Castanea sativa) iii) 1.2-1.85 (Acacia, Robinia pseudoacacia) iv) 1.0-1.65 (Thyme, Thyme spp.) b) Honeydew honey =1.0-1.4 c) Mixture of flower honey and Honeydew honey =1.0-1.4. B. Difference between protein and honey delta CI3: a) Flower honey= -1.0 or more positive b) Honeydew honey = 1.0 or more positive c) Mixture of flower honey and Honeydew honey =-1.0 or more positive d) Bakery honey = -1.0 or more positive.

17. Slovakia

Yes

Followed

No

No

18. Slovenia 19. Spain 20 Switzerland 21. Turkey

Yes Yes No No

Followed Followed Followed No

No No No No

No No No Yes

10

C. C4 sugars ratio calculated from difference between protein and honey delta CI3(maximum):a) Flower honey =7% b) Honeydew honey =7% c) Mixture of flower honey and Honeydew honey =7% d) Bakery honey = 7%. D. Prolin amount (minimum):a) Flower honey i) 300 mg/kg ii) 180 mg/kg (Canola, lime, citrus, lavander, eucalyptus honeys) iii) 120 mg/kg (Rosemary, acacia honeys) b) Honeydew honey = 300 mg/kg c) Mixture of flower honey and Honeydew honey = 300 mg/kg d) Bakery honey = 180 mg/kg. E. Mixture of flower honey and honeydew honey:i) Sucrose (maximum) = 5g/100g ii) Fructose + Glucose (minimum) = 45g/100g iii) Fructose/Glucose- 1.0-1.4 iv) Water-insoluble solids (maximum) = 0.1g/100g v) Free acidity (maximum) = 50meq/kg vi) Electrical conductivity = Maximum 0.8 mS/cm and minimum 0.8 mS/cm (Mixture of Chestnut honey and Honeydew honey) vii) Diastase number (minimum) = 8, viii) HMF (maximum) = 40 mg/kg, ix) Difference between protein and honey delta CI3 = -1.0 or more positive; x) C4 sugars ratio calculated from difference between protein and honey delta CI3(maximum) = 7%; xi) Prolin amount (minimum) = 300 mg/kg; xii) Naftalin (maximum) = 10ppb F. Sucrose <10% (Pine honey) (Asli Elif Sunay)