The European Commission’s 2023 ‘From the Hives‘ report – aimed solely at detecting adulteration in honey imported from outside the EU (1) – faced significant scrutiny from the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
In response to concerns regarding the report’s methodology, Defra and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned an independent, expert review by the Authenticity Methodology Working Group (AMWG) technical subgroup. This review transcends a simple critique, delivering a detailed, scientifically grounded analysis that:
- pinpoints critical methodological limitations, including the ambiguous use of terminology, the absence of crucial performance data (LoD, LoQ), and the potential for misinterpreting natural honey variations;
- provides specific, actionable recommendations, for enhancing the reliability and accuracy of future honey authenticity testing, emphasizing forensic level testing methods;
- challenges the validity of certain markers, and the interpretation of their presence within honey samples;
- addresses the impacts of common bee feeding practices on testing results.
Despite its untimely release, this review reshapes the discourse on honey authenticity, moving beyond generalized and potentially biased concerns to establish a precise, scientifically grounded framework for ensuring the integrity of the global honey market. (2)
1. Key findings and recommendations
The AMWG’s review identified critical issues with the EC’s ‘From the Hives’ report, including methodological limitations, ambiguous terminology, and the need for greater contextual understanding to ensure accurate interpretation of honey authenticity results.
1.1. Terminology and interpretation
The AMWG raised significant concerns about the terminology used in the EC’s ‘From the Hives’ report, particularly the use of the term ‘suspicious’ to describe samples with detected markers of potential adulteration. The group noted that this term is inherently ambiguous and open to misinterpretation, as it does not provide a clear or scientifically defensible conclusion. Instead, they recommended adopting the phrase ‘flag for further investigation’ to describe results where markers of adulteration are detected.
This terminology more accurately reflects the need for additional analysis and contextual understanding before drawing conclusions. The group also emphasized the importance of considering honey type, origin, and production practices when interpreting test results. For example, markers like oligosaccharides or difructose anhydrides (DFAs) may arise from legitimate practices such as mechanical moisture reduction – common in tropical or humid environments – or from the natural breakdown of nectar in immature honey.
Without this contextual information, there is a risk of misinterpreting natural variations as evidence of adulteration. The AMWG stressed that accurate interpretation requires a holistic approach, combining analytical data with a thorough understanding of honey production practices to avoid unjustified conclusions.
1.2. Analytical methods and markers
The AMWG evaluated the key analytical methods and markers used in the EC survey, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and the need for careful interpretation in light of natural variations in honey production:
- EA/LC-IRMS (Elemental Analyser/Liquid Chromatography – Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry). This method detects added sugars by analyzing stable carbon isotope ratios. While effective, the group highlighted potential natural variations in isotope ratios, particularly in high-methylglyoxal honeys like Mãnuka, which could lead to false positives;
- Oligosaccharides (HPAEC-PAD and LC-HRMS). Oligosaccharides can indicate adulteration but may also occur naturally in immature or mechanically moisture-reduced honeys. The group recommended further research to establish baseline levels in different honey types;
- AFGP (2-acetylfuran-3-glucopyranoside). AFGP is a reliable marker for rice syrup adulteration but can also result from bee feed carryover. Detection should trigger further investigation, especially at low concentrations;
- DFA (Difructose Anhydride). DFAs, formed during caramelization, may indicate excessive heating during production. However, their natural occurrence in some honeys is poorly understood, making them a less definitive marker;
- mannose. Mannose occurs naturally in certain honeys and can result from yeast contamination. Its presence alone should not be considered conclusive evidence of adulteration.
1.3. Methodological Limitations
The EC report faced significant methodological limitations that cast doubt on the reliability of its findings. Key performance data, such as limits of detection (LoD) and quantification (LoQ), were absent for critical markers like DFA, AFGP, and mannose. Without these parameters, it is challenging to determine whether detected levels of these markers are indicative of adulteration or fall within the range of natural variation in honey.
Furthermore, the report did not provide sufficient details on the calibration and traceability of isotope ratio measurements, which are essential for ensuring consistency and comparability across laboratories. Variability in calibration standards can introduce hidden biases, affecting the accuracy of thresholds used to identify added sugars. These gaps in methodological rigor highlight the need for greater transparency and standardization in honey authenticity testing to ensure scientifically defensible conclusions.
1.4. Bee feeding practices
Bee feeding is a widely practiced and necessary measure to maintain hive health, particularly during periods of low nectar availability or harsh weather conditions. However, this practice introduces complexities in honey authenticity testing, as sugar syrups used for bee feed can leave detectable markers in honey. The AMWG noted that carryover from bee feeding can persist in the hive for an estimated 8 weeks, though this timeframe lacks robust published evidence. This carryover can result in the presence of markers like AFGP and oligosaccharides, which might otherwise be interpreted as evidence of adulteration.
The diversity of sugar syrups used in bee feeding – ranging from cane sugar to rice syrup – further complicates the establishment of clear thresholds for these markers. The group emphasized that low levels of sugar syrup markers (below 5-10%) are unlikely to indicate economically motivated adulteration and are more likely attributable to bee feeding. To address these challenges, the AMWG called for further research to better understand the impact of bee feeding on honey composition and to develop a comprehensive database of sugar syrup markers. This would enable more accurate differentiation between legitimate bee feeding practices and deliberate adulteration, ensuring fairer and more scientifically grounded assessments.
2. Recommendations for future testing
The AMWG outlined several critical recommendations to strengthen testing and ensure more reliable and transparent results in future surveillance efforts:
- first, they emphasized the importance of prioritizing tests with higher reliability, scientific validity (and forensic value, editor’s note) such as EA/LC-IRMS for stable carbon isotope analysis, LC-HRMS for detecting specific markers like AFGP, and standard honey quality tests (e.g., moisture content, HMF levels, and diastase activity). These methods provide more definitive evidence of adulteration and are less prone to misinterpretation;
- second, the group advised reducing reliance on less conclusive markers, such as oligosaccharides and mannose, which can occur naturally in honey and may lead to false positives. Instead, these markers should be used as supplementary evidence rather than primary indicators of adulteration;
- third, the AMWG called for the establishment of a comprehensive database of honey and syrup markers, including their natural ranges and variations across different honey types and production practices. This database would serve as a critical reference for interpreting test results and distinguishing between legitimate production practices and deliberate adulteration;
- additionally, the group stressed the need for greater transparency in reporting, including the publication of method performance characteristics such as limits of detection (LoD) and quantification (LoQ), to enable independent verification and more informed assessment of results;
- finally, they recommended that findings should only be published after thorough investigation, prioritizing samples with the strongest evidence of adulteration to avoid premature or unfounded conclusions.
By adopting these recommendations, future honey testing efforts can achieve greater accuracy, scientific rigor, and fairness, fostering trust and equity in the global honey market.
3. Interim conclusions
The AMWG’s review underscores significant scientific limitations in the European Commission’s ‘From the Hives’ report, revealing that its findings are not sufficiently robust or scientifically grounded. Concerns over ambiguous terminology, lack of critical performance data (e.g., limits of detection and quantification), and the potential for natural variations in honey composition to be misinterpreted as adulteration highlight the need for a more rigorous and transparent approach to honey authenticity testing.
The Global Honey Organization (GHO) urges the European Commission and EU Member States’ control authorities to carefully consider Defra’s recommendations, which provide a scientifically sound framework for improving honey testing methodologies. By adopting these recommendations, the EU can ensure fairer, more accurate assessments of honey quality, fostering trust and equity in the global honey market while avoiding unfounded discrimination against honey producers worldwide.
Dario Dongo
References
(1) Dario Dongo. Non-EU import honey, the European Commission’s ambiguous report. FT (Food Times). 19 July 2023
(2) Defra (Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs, UK). Review of methods applied in the ‘From the Hives’ survey on honey authenticity. 13 February 2025 https://tinyurl.com/4a3w2uvy
