Ongoing Efforts to Address Fraud and Adulteration of Honey
link to page 1 link to page 1 
August 5, 2022
Ongoing Efforts to Address Fraud and Adulteration of Honey
In the next farm bill, Congress may address concerns raised
nonprofit organization that publishes the pharmacopeia for
by U.S. honey producers about the adulteration, misbranding,
the United States, is examining honey in its 2020-2025 Food
and fraudulent mislabeling of both domestically produced
Chemicals Codex standards review.
and imported honey. Some producer groups claim such
concerns could be addressed through regulatory standards for
Figure 1. U.S. Honey Production and Imports
what constitutes honey, enhanced country of origin labeling,
and enforcement of intentional fraud and adulteration of
honey imports in violation of U.S. customs and trade laws.
Background
Honey is a food product with documented reports of food
fraud, adulteration, and misbranding. As highlighted by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some companies
intentionally dilute honey by mixing in “cheaper sweeteners
such as corn syrup, rice syrup, sugar beet syrup, or cane
sugar,” which lowers their cost of production, and then
market and sell that product to consumers as pure honey at
higher prices. U.S. honey production has steadily declined,
Source: CRS from USDA (https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/) and USITC
while imports have sharply increased (Figure 1, Table 1).
DataWeb (https://dataweb.usitc.gov/). Data not adjusted for inflation.
The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the
Notes: Natural honey (Harmonized Tariff Schedule, HTS 0409). Does
Department of Justice have pursued cases involving illegal
not include other related imports (e.g., HTS 1702, 2106.90.9988).
imports of fraudulent or adulterated honey. FDA has seized
honey imports in response to tests indicating some products
Table 1. U.S. Honey Production and Imports, 2021
contain unapproved chemicals and antibiotics or other
agricultural chemicals, triggering FDA import alerts.
U.S. Production (million lbs.) U.S. Imports (million lbs.)
Product Standards for Honey
State
Vol.
% Country
Vol.
%
The U.S. honey industry has tried to address fraud and
North Dakota
28.3
22% India
124.7
26%
adulteration concerns by advocating for stricter product
standards. In 2006, honey producers, packers, exporters,
South Dakota
12.3
10% Vietnam
123.5
25%
importers, and marketers petitioned FDA to develop a
California
9.6
8% Argentina
95.3
20%
national standard of identity for honey under 21 C.F.R. 130.6
(Docket No. FDA-2006-P-0207-0001). Standards of identity
Florida
8.5
7% Brazil
76.0
16%
are established by regulations that determine what a food
Texas
7.7
6% Ukraine
13.1
3%
product must contain to be marketed under a certain name
(see text box). FDA is the agency responsible for developing
All Other
60.2
48% All Other
53.0
11%
a standard of identity for food products, such as honey, under
the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §341).
Total
126.5
Total
485.7
Sources: CRS from USDA data (https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/) and
The 2006 petition asked FDA to implement a federal
USITC DataWeb (https://dataweb.usitc.gov/).
standard of identity for honey based on the 2001 international
Note: In May 2022, an antidumping duty investigation by the U.S.
standard established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
International Trade Commission concluded that some leading import
an intergovernmental organization within the United Nations.
suppliers in India, Vietnam, Argentina, and Brazil were selling honey at
Codex standards are voluntary and intended to promote food
less than fair value that have material y injured the U.S. honey industry.
definitions and requirements to support harmonization and
Perceived delays in FDA’s response to the 2006 petition
ensure fair practices in international food trade. Codex’s
Standard for Honey (CXS 12-19811), for example, describes
prompted House appropriators to add language to a FY2010
allowable moisture content and specifies sugar, fructose,
committee report directing FDA to respond to the 2006
glucose, and sucrose content (and in some cases, nectar
petition (H.Rept. 111-181). The report also urged FDA to
source); water insoluble solids content; additives,
address products illegally marketed as honey that contain
other ingredients in order to “protect consumers and the
contaminants, and pesticide/veterinary drug residue levels;
hygiene and codes of practice; and product labeling. While
domestic honey industry from misbranded honey and honey-
Codex standards are voluntary, they often serve as a basis for
derived products that are currently entering the U.S. market.”
national legislation. Separately, the U.S. Pharmacopeia, a
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Ongoing Efforts to Address Fraud and Adulteration of Honey
In 2011, FDA denied the 2006 petition, claiming “no
pure, and natural) to facilitate enforcement. By comparison,
standard of identity for honey was necessary” (79 Federal
USDA standards and grades do not encompass the identity or
Register 49279). Congress addressed the issue again in the
purity of honey and do not provide the means to enforce
2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79,
against intentional circumvention or adulteration of honey.
§10012). The 2014 farm bill required the U.S. Department of
The U.S. honey industry claims that establishing a federal
Agriculture (USDA) to submit a report to FDA “describing
standard of identity would improve the industry’s recourse to
how an appropriate federal standard for the identity of honey
address economic adulteration of honey and support
would be in the interest of consumers, the honey industry,
enforcement of country of origin rules, thus promoting
and United States agriculture.” In the manager’s report
fairness and benefitting both consumers and U.S. beekeepers.
accompanying the 2014 farm bill, the conferees stated that
some states have “enacted differing honey standards raising
Country of Origin Labeling for Honey
concerns about inconsistencies, the flow of commerce within
Honey imports from a “non-authentic geographic origin”
the honey industry, confusion in the marketplace and
remain an ongoing concern for U.S. producers. In most cases,
unanticipated legal challenges,” highlighting the need “to
this refers to honey from China that is transshipped through
develop a consensus federal standard of identity” by FDA,
another Asian country and falsely sold as honey from that
the federal agency responsible for regulating honey and
second country—usually to avoid higher customs duties and
assuring its safety and labeling accuracy.
tariffs that would be imposed on Chinese honey. Related
concerns include the need to safeguard U.S. honey producers
Standards of Identity for Food
from unfair trade practices by combatting antidumping and
Standards of identity establish a common name and set of content
countervailing duty noncompliance for some honey imports.
requirements for a food product. They refer to requirements that
define the composition of food, prescribing both mandatory and
The 114th Congress addressed honey fraud in the Trade
optional ingredients in a product, and may specify the amount of
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-
each ingredient the food must contain or the relative proportion
125, §608) by directing CBP to facilitate the verification of
of each ingredient. They may also prescribe a specific method of
production. If the appropriate term is not used or if the content
country of origin markings of imported honey. In 2020, CBP
requirement is not met, the food is considered misbranded and in
released its Strategy for Increasing Targeted Testing of
violation of U.S. food safety laws. Standards of identity do not
Honey Imports, describing the agency’s plan to initiate
address quality issues, inadvertent adulteration, or dietary needs.
testing and cargo inspections of imported honey to identify
Standards of identity are established by regulations that determine
transshipment violations, verify foreign suppliers of honey
what a food product must contain to be marketed under a certain
suppliers, and detect adulteration. CBP states it conducts
name. FDA, USDA, and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
enhanced risk analysis and random sampling to improve
Bureau (TTB) have the authority to set federal requirements for
targeting of suspected honey imports; however, the agency
foods entering interstate commerce. FDA oversees about 300
also states “legal, resource, and interagency limitations that
identity standards in 20 categories of food products (21 C.F.R.
can hinder enforcement activities.” The report accompanying
Parts 130-169). USDA oversees standards for meat and poultry
FY2020 Department of Homeland Security appropriations
products (9 C.F.R. Parts 319 and 381). TTB oversees standards for
directed additional CBP funding of $1.5 million to test, verify
wine, spirits, and malt beverages (27 C.F.R. Parts 4, 5, and 7).
country of origin, and detect adulterated honey imports
USDA’s 2014 report to FDA concluded that while many
(S.Rept. 116-125). The report accompanying FY2022
support establishing a standard of identity for honey, there
Consolidated Appropriations further required CBP to submit
are “divergent opinions on the content and wording of such a
a report in collaboration with FDA. That report is to highlight
standard, and its relationship to existing international
the number of imported honey shipments tested for country
standards.” Again, perceived delays in FDA’s follow-up to
of origin fraud and adulteration; the number of shipments that
USDA’s 2014 report prompted some in Congress to urge
testing suggests involve such fraud or adulteration; the
FDA action. In 2018, FDA finalized its industry guidance on
technologies employed in carrying out those tests; and CBP’s
the proper labeling of honey and honey products (83 Federal
ongoing strategy to detect and combat country of origin fraud
Register 8996). FDA’s nonbinding guidance recommends
(H. Comm. Print 47-047, Division F). Separately, CBP also
that products labeled as “pure honey” not contain added
enforces violations of USDA’s country of origin labeling
sugar, corn syrup, or other sweeteners. Honey products with
requirements of packed honey that contain official USDA
added sweeteners must be labeled as a “blend.” To date, FDA
grade marks or statements (74 Federal Register 32389).
has not established a standard of identity for honey.
FDA’s honey labeling guidance does not directly address
USDA has established grades and standards for both comb
country of origin requirements for imported honey. The
honey and extracted honey, as well as guidance for inspectors
American Beekeeping Federation claims current country of
of honey packed in commercially acceptable containers.
origin labeling for honey is confusing and deceptive, and
USDA standards and grades help ensure the quality of foods
they seek to “work with FDA to establish ... mandatory and
and promote efficiency in marketing and procurement. These
accurate country of origin labeling regulations” for honey.
differ from federal standards of identity. Similar to other
sweet or sweetened products, an FDA standard of identity for
Considerations for Congress
honey would likely include additional product specifications,
In the next farm bill, Congress may consider policies to
such as allowable content of different sugars in honey, water,
further address honey fraud, adulteration, and misbranding.
additives, and contaminants, as well as hygiene practice and
Such policies could include addressing country of origin
labeling requirements. A standard of identity would also
rules for imported honey or engaging with federal regulators
likely define in regulation key terms (such as raw, unfiltered,
regarding a honey standard of identity.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Ongoing Efforts to Address Fraud and Adulteration of Honey
IF12185
Renée Johnson, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use
copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12185 · VERSION 1 · NEW
August 5, 2022
Ongoing Efforts to Address Fraud and Adulteration of Honey
In the next farm bill, Congress may address concerns raised
nonprofit organization that publishes the pharmacopeia for
by U.S. honey producers about the adulteration, misbranding,
the United States, is examining honey in its 2020-2025 Food
and fraudulent mislabeling of both domestically produced
Chemicals Codex standards review.
and imported honey. Some producer groups claim such
concerns could be addressed through regulatory standards for
Figure 1. U.S. Honey Production and Imports
what constitutes honey, enhanced country of origin labeling,
and enforcement of intentional fraud and adulteration of
honey imports in violation of U.S. customs and trade laws.
Background
Honey is a food product with documented reports of food
fraud, adulteration, and misbranding. As highlighted by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some companies
intentionally dilute honey by mixing in “cheaper sweeteners
such as corn syrup, rice syrup, sugar beet syrup, or cane
sugar,” which lowers their cost of production, and then
market and sell that product to consumers as pure honey at
higher prices. U.S. honey production has steadily declined,
Source: CRS from USDA (https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/) and USITC
while imports have sharply increased (Figure 1, Table 1).
DataWeb (https://dataweb.usitc.gov/). Data not adjusted for inflation.
The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the
Notes: Natural honey (Harmonized Tariff Schedule, HTS 0409). Does
Department of Justice have pursued cases involving illegal
not include other related imports (e.g., HTS 1702, 2106.90.9988).
imports of fraudulent or adulterated honey. FDA has seized
honey imports in response to tests indicating some products
Table 1. U.S. Honey Production and Imports, 2021
contain unapproved chemicals and antibiotics or other
agricultural chemicals, triggering FDA import alerts.
U.S. Production (million lbs.) U.S. Imports (million lbs.)
Product Standards for Honey
State
Vol.
% Country
Vol.
%
The U.S. honey industry has tried to address fraud and
North Dakota
28.3
22% India
124.7
26%
adulteration concerns by advocating for stricter product
standards. In 2006, honey producers, packers, exporters,
South Dakota
12.3
10% Vietnam
123.5
25%
importers, and marketers petitioned FDA to develop a
California
9.6
8% Argentina
95.3
20%
national standard of identity for honey under 21 C.F.R. 130.6
(Docket No. FDA-2006-P-0207-0001). Standards of identity
Florida
8.5
7% Brazil
76.0
16%
are established by regulations that determine what a food
Texas
7.7
6% Ukraine
13.1
3%
product must contain to be marketed under a certain name
(see text box). FDA is the agency responsible for developing
All Other
60.2
48% All Other
53.0
11%
a standard of identity for food products, such as honey, under
the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §341).
Total
126.5
Total
485.7
Sources: CRS from USDA data (https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/) and
The 2006 petition asked FDA to implement a federal
USITC DataWeb (https://dataweb.usitc.gov/).
standard of identity for honey based on the 2001 international
Note: In May 2022, an antidumping duty investigation by the U.S.
standard established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
International Trade Commission concluded that some leading import
an intergovernmental organization within the United Nations.
suppliers in India, Vietnam, Argentina, and Brazil were selling honey at
Codex standards are voluntary and intended to promote food
less than fair value that have material y injured the U.S. honey industry.
definitions and requirements to support harmonization and
Perceived delays in FDA’s response to the 2006 petition
ensure fair practices in international food trade. Codex’s
Standard for Honey (CXS 12-19811), for example, describes
prompted House appropriators to add language to a FY2010
allowable moisture content and specifies sugar, fructose,
committee report directing FDA to respond to the 2006
glucose, and sucrose content (and in some cases, nectar
petition (H.Rept. 111-181). The report also urged FDA to
source); water insoluble solids content; additives,
address products illegally marketed as honey that contain
other ingredients in order to “protect consumers and the
contaminants, and pesticide/veterinary drug residue levels;
hygiene and codes of practice; and product labeling. While
domestic honey industry from misbranded honey and honey-
Codex standards are voluntary, they often serve as a basis for
derived products that are currently entering the U.S. market.”
national legislation. Separately, the U.S. Pharmacopeia, a
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Ongoing Efforts to Address Fraud and Adulteration of Honey
In 2011, FDA denied the 2006 petition, claiming “no
pure, and natural) to facilitate enforcement. By comparison,
standard of identity for honey was necessary” (79 Federal
USDA standards and grades do not encompass the identity or
Register 49279). Congress addressed the issue again in the
purity of honey and do not provide the means to enforce
2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79,
against intentional circumvention or adulteration of honey.
§10012). The 2014 farm bill required the U.S. Department of
The U.S. honey industry claims that establishing a federal
Agriculture (USDA) to submit a report to FDA “describing
standard of identity would improve the industry’s recourse to
how an appropriate federal standard for the identity of honey
address economic adulteration of honey and support
would be in the interest of consumers, the honey industry,
enforcement of country of origin rules, thus promoting
and United States agriculture.” In the manager’s report
fairness and benefitting both consumers and U.S. beekeepers.
accompanying the 2014 farm bill, the conferees stated that
some states have “enacted differing honey standards raising
Country of Origin Labeling for Honey
concerns about inconsistencies, the flow of commerce within
Honey imports from a “non-authentic geographic origin”
the honey industry, confusion in the marketplace and
remain an ongoing concern for U.S. producers. In most cases,
unanticipated legal challenges,” highlighting the need “to
this refers to honey from China that is transshipped through
develop a consensus federal standard of identity” by FDA,
another Asian country and falsely sold as honey from that
the federal agency responsible for regulating honey and
second country—usually to avoid higher customs duties and
assuring its safety and labeling accuracy.
tariffs that would be imposed on Chinese honey. Related
concerns include the need to safeguard U.S. honey producers
Standards of Identity for Food
from unfair trade practices by combatting antidumping and
Standards of identity establish a common name and set of content
countervailing duty noncompliance for some honey imports.
requirements for a food product. They refer to requirements that
define the composition of food, prescribing both mandatory and
The 114th Congress addressed honey fraud in the Trade
optional ingredients in a product, and may specify the amount of
Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-
each ingredient the food must contain or the relative proportion
125, §608) by directing CBP to facilitate the verification of
of each ingredient. They may also prescribe a specific method of
production. If the appropriate term is not used or if the content
country of origin markings of imported honey. In 2020, CBP
requirement is not met, the food is considered misbranded and in
released its Strategy for Increasing Targeted Testing of
violation of U.S. food safety laws. Standards of identity do not
Honey Imports, describing the agency’s plan to initiate
address quality issues, inadvertent adulteration, or dietary needs.
testing and cargo inspections of imported honey to identify
Standards of identity are established by regulations that determine
transshipment violations, verify foreign suppliers of honey
what a food product must contain to be marketed under a certain
suppliers, and detect adulteration. CBP states it conducts
name. FDA, USDA, and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
enhanced risk analysis and random sampling to improve
Bureau (TTB) have the authority to set federal requirements for
targeting of suspected honey imports; however, the agency
foods entering interstate commerce. FDA oversees about 300
also states “legal, resource, and interagency limitations that
identity standards in 20 categories of food products (21 C.F.R.
can hinder enforcement activities.” The report accompanying
Parts 130-169). USDA oversees standards for meat and poultry
FY2020 Department of Homeland Security appropriations
products (9 C.F.R. Parts 319 and 381). TTB oversees standards for
directed additional CBP funding of $1.5 million to test, verify
wine, spirits, and malt beverages (27 C.F.R. Parts 4, 5, and 7).
country of origin, and detect adulterated honey imports
USDA’s 2014 report to FDA concluded that while many
(S.Rept. 116-125). The report accompanying FY2022
support establishing a standard of identity for honey, there
Consolidated Appropriations further required CBP to submit
are “divergent opinions on the content and wording of such a
a report in collaboration with FDA. That report is to highlight
standard, and its relationship to existing international
the number of imported honey shipments tested for country
standards.” Again, perceived delays in FDA’s follow-up to
of origin fraud and adulteration; the number of shipments that
USDA’s 2014 report prompted some in Congress to urge
testing suggests involve such fraud or adulteration; the
FDA action. In 2018, FDA finalized its industry guidance on
technologies employed in carrying out those tests; and CBP’s
the proper labeling of honey and honey products (83 Federal
ongoing strategy to detect and combat country of origin fraud
Register 8996). FDA’s nonbinding guidance recommends
(H. Comm. Print 47-047, Division F). Separately, CBP also
that products labeled as “pure honey” not contain added
enforces violations of USDA’s country of origin labeling
sugar, corn syrup, or other sweeteners. Honey products with
requirements of packed honey that contain official USDA
added sweeteners must be labeled as a “blend.” To date, FDA
grade marks or statements (74 Federal Register 32389).
has not established a standard of identity for honey.
FDA’s honey labeling guidance does not directly address
USDA has established grades and standards for both comb
country of origin requirements for imported honey. The
honey and extracted honey, as well as guidance for inspectors
American Beekeeping Federation claims current country of
of honey packed in commercially acceptable containers.
origin labeling for honey is confusing and deceptive, and
USDA standards and grades help ensure the quality of foods
they seek to “work with FDA to establish ... mandatory and
and promote efficiency in marketing and procurement. These
accurate country of origin labeling regulations” for honey.
differ from federal standards of identity. Similar to other
sweet or sweetened products, an FDA standard of identity for
Considerations for Congress
honey would likely include additional product specifications,
In the next farm bill, Congress may consider policies to
such as allowable content of different sugars in honey, water,
further address honey fraud, adulteration, and misbranding.
additives, and contaminants, as well as hygiene practice and
Such policies could include addressing country of origin
labeling requirements. A standard of identity would also
rules for imported honey or engaging with federal regulators
likely define in regulation key terms (such as raw, unfiltered,
regarding a honey standard of identity.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Ongoing Efforts to Address Fraud and Adulteration of Honey
IF12185
Renée Johnson, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use
copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12185 · VERSION 1 · NEW