how many of these label are illegal

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
so look at these two, both won prizes at the Honey Show, are these ok

gms and no weight!!!!

In the case of the first one, it wraps around rather a long way and I'd hope that the "statutory information" was plainly printed somewhere out near one end! (Where the word 'honey' is spelled out with proper letters!)
The word "pure" normally raises eyebrows, but its probably perfectly OK here
65. The term “pure” should generally only be used in the following circumstances (however it would be acceptable and advantageous to warn of possible cross contamination with allergens, in which case this type of warning would be entirely voluntary);
a) To describe a single ingredient food:
• to which nothing has been added;
• that is free from avoidable contamination with similar foods and levels should be as low as practically achievable and significantly below, for example, the codes of practice tolerances for basmati rice or durum pasta, or the thresholds requiring GM labelling.
http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/markcritguidance.pdf


The simple one is Irish. :) I'd be surprised if that weight designation was compliant …

However, the other thing that catches my eye is the "e" mark.
That's normally associated with automated packing lines and requires *recorded* statistical weighing of the jars in a batch.
Its actually called an "estimated sign".
Its about the average weight (over the batch) being above the stated weight, even though some may be below the stated weight.
I strongly doubt that it is appropriate to a packer using a label like this.
HOWEVER, the jar does seem to have a (correctly applied) tamper-proof seal -- which is a necessary accompaniment to that e mark.
More about the e mark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_sign
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top