Real honey
Real honey vs. adulterated honey
Why popular “at-home honey tests” are misleading. What a lab protocol can actually show, and what to watch for when choosing honey.
Read the article →
🔬 Laboratory Testing of Honey
📄 Verifiable Protocols (PDF)
🛡️ RVPS Facility: 2058/2022
Popular “home honey tests” often fail.
Only laboratory protocols provide reliable evidence.
Last updated:
real honey •
pure honey •
honey authenticity •
fake honey
Real honey cannot be reliably verified by simple home tests such as stirring it in water, watching how it behaves on paper, trying to light a wick dipped in honey, or mixing it with vinegar. The only dependable evidence comes from a laboratory protocol with a clearly defined methodology and documented results.
Modern adulteration techniques can fool not only basic home tests but sometimes even routine quality parameters. Therefore, determining honey authenticity requires a combination of evidence and a transparent laboratory method.
At Včelárstvo MIJA, we send our honeys for comprehensive laboratory analysis and publish verifiable PDF testing protocols, including results on biological antibacterial activity (BAA).
What is antibacterial activity in honey? It is the ability of honey to slow down or stop bacterial growth under standardized laboratory conditions (e.g., against Staphylococcus aureus). Lower percentages needed for inhibition indicate stronger activity in the test.
This principle is measured by the MIC method (minimum inhibitory concentration, in vitro) and expresses the percentage of honey in the test solution at which bacterial growth is halted (e.g., MIC 4.5 % ≈ 4.5 g honey in 100 g solution, approximately 22-fold dilution). Comparison is meaningful only within the same methodology. This is not a health claim.
MIJA Results: Verifiable Laboratory Data
Sunflower Honey (2024)
MijaBAA™22
(MIC 4.5 %)
GOLD
very strong result within the same methodology
Acacia Honey (2024)
MijaBAA™11
(MIC 9 %)
SILVER
very good result within the same methodology
Evidence
PDF protocols
test ID + date
Origin
direct from beekeeper
verified supply
MijaBAA™22 means the honey remained antibacterial even after approximately 22-fold dilution in the standard laboratory test.
Transparency: only numbers backed by protocols (PDF) are shown.
Project Guarantee
data integrity and interpretation
Author: Michal Blaško (Včelárstvo MIJA). Results are based on independent laboratory protocols (PDF). Every batch is traceable by test ID and date.
CEHZ (bees): 382917
RVPS (facility / direct sales): 2058/2022
Home honey tests: common myths (and what actually works)
Online guides often promote “simple home tests” for real honey – water tests, paper tests, flame tests, bread tests or so-called “hexagon patterns”. These methods only observe surface behavior of honey, which is strongly influenced by temperature, viscosity and natural differences between honey types. Modern adulteration can easily mimic these signs.
The short truth (2 sentences)
No home test can reliably prove that honey is real. Authenticity can only be confirmed through a laboratory protocol with a defined methodology and documented results.
Home tests are not standardized: there is no universal procedure, threshold or interpretation that would apply to all honeys.
Popular home honey tests – and why they are misleading
1) Water test (“real honey sinks or does not dissolve”)
Honey behavior in water depends on density, crystallization, temperature and stirring. The same real honey can behave differently, while adulterated honey may appear “correct”.
2) Paper or tissue test (“real honey does not soak in”)
This mainly reflects viscosity and paper absorbency. Thick honey often does not soak in regardless of origin, while real honey with higher water content may leave a mark.
3) Flame or match test (“if it burns, it is real”)
Burning depends primarily on moisture and the wick itself. It is not proof of authenticity – only a crude guess about water content.
4) Bread test (“bread hardens with real honey”)
Bread reacts to how honey binds water. Results depend on honey type, bread type, temperature and time. This does not prove authenticity.
5) Crystallization (“real honey must crystallize”)
Crystallization depends on the glucose-to-fructose ratio, storage temperature and time. Some real honeys crystallize quickly, others slowly. Liquid honey alone is not evidence of adulteration.
6) “Hexagon pattern” or “honey memory”
Patterns formed in water are caused by physical flow and diffusion, not by honey retaining the structure of honeycomb.
7) Vinegar or foam reaction
Foaming can result from mixing or natural components. Without controlled conditions, the result is not interpretable.
Even if a home test “works”, it is not evidence. It is coincidence without methodology or control of variables.
What actually works
How to verify honey without myths
1) Origin
identified beekeeper, location and harvest year
2) Document
laboratory protocol (PDF) with methodology
3) Context
combination of evidence, not a single trick
What a good protocol includes
- test date and sample identification
- clear methodology (what was measured and how)
- laboratory and protocol number
- numerical results, not marketing claims
Practical tip
If you want real, authentic honey without guessing, ask for a laboratory protocol or buy directly from a beekeeper with a transparent origin.
Warning sign
A promise of “100% certainty in seconds” is always a red flag. Honey authenticity requires evidence, not shortcuts.
In practice, honey authentication relies on laboratory analysis (e.g. analytical and isotopic methods), not home experiments. Meaningful comparison always requires the same methodology.
How you can verify these claims (step by step)
A simple checklist for anyone looking for real / pure / raw honey: honey type, harvest year, lab report (PDF), and the test method.
Verification in 4 practical steps
- each result should clearly state the honey type, harvest year, and report / test ID (so it can be traced and checked)
- the PDF should be a real laboratory document with a date, sample identification, and the scope of testing
- comparisons only make sense within the same methodology (ideally even the same lab and the same protocol)
- when something is measurable, rely on numbers + method, not marketing phrases like “premium” or “100% real”
year
batch
test ID
method
PDF
lab
The goal is simple: when it comes to “pure honey”, let evidence decide — not impressions.
Plain-language translation
A lab report (COA / protocol) is useful because it tells you what was tested, how it was tested, and what exactly was found. Without methodology, “results” are not comparable.
Quick check
3 questions to ask before you buy “real honey”
1) Source?
a specific beekeeper + origin
2) Document?
a lab report (PDF) + test / report ID
3) Method?
only compare results from the same test method
Summary
If the answer is “yes” three times, the risk of buying adulterated / fake honey drops dramatically — because you are checking traceability + documentation + methodology.
Laboratory reports and results: MIJA (2024) + ongoing updates for 2025
Public PDF documents with protocol numbers, dates and measured values.
Trust is not built by saying “our honey is high quality”. That is why we publish actual laboratory reports for selected honeys, including methodology, test dates and measurable results.
In 2024, the following honeys were tested: acacia honey (MIC 9%) and sunflower honey (MIC 4.5%). During 2025, additional reports will be added as analyses are completed.
Published reports
- 2024 – acacia honey: MIC 9%
- 2024 – sunflower honey: MIC 4.5%
Ongoing updates
- 2025 – additional reports
- as laboratory analyses are finalized
Why this matters
When evaluating honey, documents and methodology should matter more than marketing claims.
Direct access
MIJA – laboratory documents (2024)
PDF reports
Documents open in a new window.
Sunflower honey – MIC 4.5%
Report No. 12317/2024 (PDF)
Acacia honey – MIC 9%
Report No. 13243/2024 (PDF)
Laboratory: State Veterinary and Food Institute (Testing Laboratory, Botanická 15, Bratislava). Sunflower: report 12317/2024 (MIC 4.5%, issued 03 Oct 2024). Acacia: report 13243/2024 (MIC 9%, issued 18 Oct 2024).
All documents are publicly available. Anyone can review the results directly at the source.
MIC (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration) – honey’s antibacterial activity in a lab test
Plain-English explanation for normal people + the one rule for reading MIC percentages in a report.
MIC is a laboratory way to express how much honey is needed (in a standardized setup) to stop bacteria from growing (in vitro).
% in test solution
standardized conditions
functional result
MIC in 6 ultra-clear sentences
- MIC means Minimum Inhibitory Concentration.
- The lab prepares a series of honey dilutions (for example: 36%, 18%, 9%, 4.5%, 2.25%…).
- Each dilution is inoculated with live bacteria (commonly Staphylococcus aureus in honey MIC protocols).
- After incubation, the lab checks which dilution still prevents visible bacterial growth.
- The result is written as a percentage (%) of honey in the test solution.
- Within the same method: lower MIC % = stronger result in the test (because less honey was needed).
Mini-calculation: what MIC % means
In MIC reports, the percentage expresses how much honey is in the test solution (a lab concentration, not a “how to use honey” instruction).
- MIC 4.5% ≈ 4.5 g of honey per 100 g of test solution
- MIC 9% ≈ 9 g of honey per 100 g of test solution
- MIC 18% ≈ 18 g of honey per 100 g of test solution
lower % = less honey needed
less honey = stronger lab result
This is for understanding the principle. MIC is an in vitro lab result under controlled conditions, not a medical claim.
The one rule (quick)
If the methodology is the same: lower MIC % = stronger antibacterial result in the test.
Important: this is a lab metric, not a real-world “treatment instruction”.
For fair comparison, you must keep the same methodology (ideally the same lab too). That’s why report details like the protocol number matter.
Why “MIC 4.5%” gets attention
In this type of protocol, values around MIC 4.5% are often described as very strong, because bacterial growth is inhibited even when honey is only a small part of the test solution.
Simple orientation (only within the same test type)
4.5 = “gold”
9 = “silver”
18 = “bronze”
Meaningful comparison requires the same methodology (ideally the same laboratory).
Note: MIC doesn’t claim “one single substance” does the job. It shows a functional outcome of honey’s combined natural mechanisms in a standardized lab test.
MIJA – results (2024)
MIC comparison (from lab reports)
Sunflower honey (2024)
MIC 4.5% – very strong result in this test
Acacia honey (2024)
MIC 9% – milder result in this test
In these reports, MIC is measured against Staphylococcus aureus. This explains the strictness of the test and the controlled lab conditions (in vitro). It is not a medical claim.
MijaBAA™ – Biological Antibacterial Activity (a human-readable way to read MIC as 1 : 22)
A simple “translation” of MIC into one number people instantly understand.
MijaBAA™ (Biological Antibacterial Activity) is a practical number derived from MIC. It expresses how many times honey can be diluted and still, under standardized lab conditions, stop bacterial growth (in vitro).
MijaBAA™ in 2 sentences (highly quotable)
MijaBAA™ is a “human translation” of MIC: it tells you the approximate dilution ratio (1 : X) that still inhibited bacterial growth in a standardized lab test (in vitro). The proof is always the MIC (%) shown in a specific lab report (PDF), and comparisons only make sense within the same methodology.
Formula (simple)
MijaBAA™ ≈ 100 / MIC%
This is a readability shortcut. The primary evidence is always MIC (%) in the lab report (PDF).
How to read it as a ratio 1 : X
- MijaBAA™22 ≈ 1 : 22 (about 22× dilution and still inhibition in the test).
- MijaBAA™11 ≈ 1 : 11.
- Within the same methodology: higher MijaBAA™ = stronger lab result.
higher BAA = stronger
same method only
proof = PDF report
Important note
MijaBAA™ is a plain-English interpretation of MIC for readers. It is not a medical claim and not an instruction for real-world use.
Examples from MIJA lab reports show how MIC can be instantly translated into 1 : X. The numbers only matter within the same methodology (ideally the same lab).
Examples (2024)
Sunflower honey
MIC 4.5% → MijaBAA™22 (≈ 1 : 22)
Acacia honey
MIC 9% → MijaBAA™11 (≈ 1 : 11)
Rounding is intentional – the goal is instant understanding. The primary value is always MIC in the PDF report.
Why this helps normal people
MIC is a technical percentage. MijaBAA™ turns it into one intuitive number (a dilution ratio), so readers can “feel” what the result means at a glance.
Note: MIC/MijaBAA™ describes a functional outcome in a standardized lab test (in vitro). It doesn’t claim one single compound is responsible – it reflects honey’s combined natural mechanisms in that test setup.
One-sentence summary
MijaBAA™ is a “human translation” of MIC
MIC is the technical percentage in a lab report. MijaBAA™ is the simple number that tells you the approximate dilution factor at which honey still inhibited bacterial growth in the test. The proof is always a specific lab report (PDF).
What laboratories measure when testing honey
Not every test has the same value. That’s why we separate “basic” parameters from “deep” parameters.
The truth in 2 sentences
Laboratory honey testing is not one number — it’s a set of evidence. Basic parameters describe maturity and processing, while deeper tests focus on enzymes and functional results (e.g., MIC) under standardized conditions.
Honey testing can include multiple types of analyses. Some describe stability and processing (maturity, storage suitability, thermal load), while others capture biological properties (a functional result in a controlled test). With modern adulteration, what matters most is methodology and the combination of evidence — not a single “magic” indicator.
Basic parameters
stability, maturity, processing
- water content – maturity and shelf stability
- acidity – natural organic acids
- electrical conductivity – differences by honey type
- sugar profile – natural sugar composition
- HMF – an indicator of thermal load / sugar aging
Note: HMF alone does not “prove authenticity”. What matters are context and comparability (method, other parameters, traceability, and interpretation).
Deeper parameters
enzymes and functional results
- diastase activity – an enzyme-related parameter sensitive to heat
- MIC – a functional antibacterial activity test under standardized conditions (in vitro)
Diastase relates to the honey’s natural enzymatic activity and can drop with improper thermal load. MIC does not identify “one single compound” — it shows a functional result in a controlled laboratory test.
Authentication: why “home tests” often fail
Modern adulteration can imitate surface behavior. That’s why home tests (water, paper, flame) are often insufficient. Authentication relies on laboratory methodology and a combination of evidence.
Summary: one parameter is not enough. The report, the method, and the relationships between results matter.
For non-experts — what matters most
Highest practical value at a glance
1) Traceable origin
a real beekeeper / clear provenance
2) Diastase
preserved enzymatic activity (heat-sensitive)
3) MIC
a functional result (antibacterial activity in a test)
Basic parameters (water, HMF…) still matter — but they are often just “pieces”. The strongest picture comes from the whole puzzle, not one number.
Fair note: even the puzzle is not an absolute guarantee. However, it is a strong convergence of indirect evidence when methodology and interpretation are done properly.
The evidence puzzle: traceable origin + diastase + MIC
Why this three-part combination is stronger than any single number on its own.
The truth in 2 sentences
Honey authenticity and quality are best judged as a puzzle of evidence, not a “one-trick test”. When traceable origin, preserved diastase, and a strong MIC result align under the same methodology, credibility rises sharply.
1
Traceable origin (real beekeeper)
Honey from a known beekeeper means the origin is traceable: who, where, when, what type, and which batch. Without origin, even nice-looking numbers can remain anonymous claims that are hard to verify.
2
Diastase (an enzyme-related signature)
Diastase activity is an enzyme-related parameter sensitive to heat. If diastase is preserved, it indirectly suggests gentle handling and that part of honey’s natural biological “architecture” has not been significantly degraded by improper thermal load.
Important: diastase is associated with honey’s enzymatic activity and does not naturally “appear” in sugar syrups — which is why it carries high information value in the puzzle.
3
MIC (a functional outcome in a lab test)
A functional outcome can be expressed via MIC (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration): it indicates the honey concentration in a test solution at which bacterial growth is still inhibited under standardized conditions (in vitro).
MIC does not identify “one single enzyme” — it reflects the combined outcome of mechanisms in a controlled test.
How to read it (practically)
If a low MIC appears together with preserved diastase and traceable origin, it is a strong convergence of indirect evidence that hive-created properties were not heavily damaged by later processing.
This is not a “magic authenticity proof”, but a high-credibility evidence puzzle that reduces room for marketing without documentation.
HMF: what it tells you — and what it doesn’t
HMF is an indicator of thermal load / sugar aging. It is useful, but on its own it is not honey’s biological signature and does not solve authentication without context.
Diastase: the biological signature
Diastase relates to preserved enzymatic activity. A sugar syrup cannot “replace” this signature — which is why diastase often carries more weight in the evidence puzzle than HMF alone.
One-sentence summary
Low HMF alone is not honey’s biological signature — preserved diastase and a functional result (MIC) are stronger pieces of the puzzle.
Note: comparisons only make sense under comparable methodology and with a traceable lab report (PDF).
Real raw honey vs. adulterated honey
The difference can be explained simply — and the proof is a lab report, not a promise.
The truth in 2 sentences
“Real honey” means traceable origin from a beekeeper and composition without foreign syrups or anonymous blends. When a laboratory report (PDF) with a clear methodology and results is published, the line between claims and evidence becomes obvious.
Real raw honey is produced by bees and not mixed with foreign ingredients. It may vary in color, flavor, and crystallization — but its foundation is a traceable origin, appropriate handling, and measurable laboratory parameters.
What is often behind “adulterated” honey
Adulterated or intentionally modified honey may be blended with syrups, anonymous mixtures, or processed to remain “uniform” and cheap. It can look convincing — yet often lacks what people intuitively expect when they hear the word honey.
Why home tricks are not enough
Modern adulteration can mimic surface behavior (viscosity, appearance, “water tests”). The difference is best shown by laboratory testing and published documentation (PDF) with methodology, dates, and protocol numbers.
known beekeeper
clear country of origin
lab report (PDF)
test methodology
realistic price
More typical of real honey
- traceable origin and named beekeeper
- specific place and harvest year
- measurable data + lab report (PDF)
- transparency (protocol number, methodology)
More of a warning sign
- “blend of EU and non-EU honeys”
- unusually low price
- big claims without reports
- marketing instead of methodology
The goal: when the word “honey” is used, evidence should matter more than impression.
Most practical rule
If it can be verified by a document, it’s a different league
Beekeeper
a real person and location
Document
lab report + protocol number
Transparency
publicly available evidence
One sentence
If someone claims “the best honey”, they should be able to prove it. A lab report is the fair baseline.
Note: a single parameter alone is rarely enough. The highest credibility comes from a combination of evidence (origin + report + methodology + context).
Manuka honey – the global “gold standard” (and what can be compared fairly)
Manuka is commonly evaluated via MGO / UMF / NPA. MIC is a general functional test — therefore methodology and lab reports matter.
The truth in 2 sentences
Manuka uses its own rating systems (MGO/UMF/NPA), but antibacterial activity as a biological property is not exclusive to manuka. When using MIC, comparisons only make sense within the same methodology and with a verifiable lab report (PDF).
Manuka honey originates from Leptospermum species (mainly New Zealand) and became globally known through ratings such as MGO / UMF / NPA. This alone does not mean that strong antibacterial activity belongs exclusively to manuka honey.
MGO
UMF
NPA
MIC (functional test)
The fair comparison rule
When comparing MIC values, only results from the same methodology (ideally the same laboratory) and backed by a verifiable lab report (PDF) are valid.
Beware of marketing shortcuts
MGO / UMF / NPA are specific to manuka. MIC is a general functional test whose outcome depends on batch, test organism and test conditions. Without a report, comparisons are not reliable.
Note: expert citations provide context. What matters are verifiable data and lab reports.
What research says (shortened quote)
In an interview for Forbes, researcher Juraj Majtán, PhD, MBA, FIFST (Slovak Academy of Sciences) explains that while manuka is often labeled a “gold standard”, antibacterial activity is not unique to it:
“Manuka honeys are considered a global gold standard… Every honey produced by bees should have antibacterial activity… In Slovakia we also have many honeys that are equally effective, or even slightly more effective, and significantly cheaper.”
This is why we rely primarily on specific MIC lab reports and the rule: comparisons only make sense within the same methodology.
Fair comparison
Manuka vs. Slovak honeys (MIC)
Reading MIC in one sentence
MIC is a functional test: within the same methodology, lower % means a stronger result.
| Honey | MIC (%) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
|
Sunflower honey (MIJA, 2024) report: 12317/2024 |
4.5% | very strong result within the same methodology |
|
Manuka honey MIC varies by batch and methodology |
6% – 15% | only public and verifiable reports are compared |
|
Acacia honey (MIJA, 2024) report: 13243/2024 |
9% | moderate result within the same methodology |
What is fair to compare
- same methodology
- specific lab report (PDF)
- same bacteria and conditions
What is not fair
- mixing MIC with MGO/UMF/NPA without context
- comparing numbers without reports
- drawing conclusions from different conditions
Manuka is often called a “gold standard”. This does not exclude other honeys from achieving comparable or even stronger results within the same methodology.
Therapeutic use of honey – scientific & clinical context (SAS)
What modern research and clinical reviews say about honey’s biological activity – clearly, precisely, and with a strict distinction between medical-grade honey and food-grade honey.
Research has long described that honey may show antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory activity. The strongest clinical evidence is linked to wound care (with medical-grade honey products) and to cough / sore throat relief as symptomatic support.
Clinical fact (plain language)
In clinical wound care, only medical-grade honey is used: it is sterilized and standardized. Food-grade honey can have biological activity, but it is not sterile and is not intended for clinical wound management.
Research associated with Juraj Majtán (Slovak Academy of Sciences, SAS) and the broader scientific literature indicate that biological activity is not exclusive to manuka: other natural honeys can also show measurable antibacterial effects, provided they retain their biological architecture (enzymes, acidity, osmotic effect, plant-derived compounds) and are evaluated under a comparable methodology.
Where claims must stop (fair boundary)
Medical-grade honey does not “come from a lab” – it is derived from natural honey, then meets strict criteria and is sterilized and standardized for clinical use. If a producer wants evidence-based statements about a specific honey, they need laboratory verification (e.g., MIC/BAA, enzyme parameters) and a clearly defined test methodology.
1) Wound care – what is clinically supported
In medicine, selected wound types may be managed using products containing medical-grade honey. This honey is produced and controlled for clinical use and is commonly sterilized (e.g., by gamma irradiation) to meet safety requirements.
Important: food-grade honey is not a sterile medical material and is not used as a clinical wound dressing.
2) Cough & sore throat – evidence from reviews
Systematic reviews (including Cochrane) report that honey may reduce cough severity and soothe throat irritation as symptomatic support during acute upper respiratory infections.
Safety: do not give honey to infants under 1 year. For persistent or severe symptoms, seek medical advice.
Medical-grade honey
- sterilized (e.g., gamma irradiation)
- standardized and quality-controlled
- used in clinical wound products
- falls under medical/regulatory frameworks
Natural food-grade honey
- a food product from a beekeeper
- not sterile and not a medical device
- biological activity is described in research (depends on type, processing, methodology)
- best discussed via protocols and methodology (e.g., MIC/BAA, enzyme parameters)
The key difference between medical-grade and food-grade honey is mainly safety and regulated clinical use – not the “existence” of biological activity.
Selected references (for verification)
- Majtán J. – Honey: An immunomodulator in wound healing, Wound Repair and Regeneration (2014), DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12117.
- Cochrane Review – Honey for acute cough in children, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub5.
- Review context on medical use & sterilization: Honey dressing in wound treatment (2020) – medical-grade honey is described as sterilized by gamma irradiation (review paper).
This section is educational. Honey is a food, not a medicine. Clinical wound care belongs to healthcare professionals.
Important safety note
- Food-grade honey is not a sterile medical material.
- For wound care, use only medical-grade honey products intended for wounds.
- Infants under 1 year: do not give honey.
- For persistent or severe symptoms, seek medical advice.
Sources and expert references on honey testing
Independent authorities and publicly accessible sources providing context for honey testing methodology and biological activity research.
To avoid relying solely on our own claims, we also reference independent expert sources. These help explain how honey is tested, why methodology matters, and why laboratory protocols are more reliable than marketing statements.
External sources (publicly available)
- Honey Laboratory (Slovakia) – background on antibacterial activity testing (MIC): medovelaboratorium.sk
- Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAS) – research on honey’s biological activity: sav.sk – research article
- Forbes Slovakia – interview with Juraj Majtán, PhD on manuka honey and European honeys: forbes.sk – interview
- Slovak Beekeepers Association – competition results (additional quality context): 2024 (PDF) , 2025 (PDF)
These sources are provided for scientific and methodological context. Our own statements on this page are supported by specific MIJA laboratory protocols (PDF).
Why sources matter
What you gain as a reader
Context
understanding scientific standards
Credibility
independent authorities beyond our website
Verifiability
ability to check methodology and research
Summary
Less marketing. More data, methodology, and verifiable sources.
Why MIJA tests honey and publishes the results
Evidence, transparency, and quality instead of empty promises.
Not quantity, but quality and evidence. Top-quality honey is not automatic. Beekeeping focused on quality is not “max yield at any cost”. It prioritizes cleanliness, gentle handling, the right harvest timing, careful processing, and storage. That often means smaller harvests — the price of a quality-first approach.
The point in 2 sentences
For honey, proofs matter more than promises. That’s why we publish verifiable lab protocols (PDF) with methodology, date, and test ID.
Why we do it
We want the word honey to be backed by evidence — so you can say: here is the protocol, not just a marketing claim.
Quality in practice
- gentle extraction and handling
- right harvest timing (mature honey)
- cleanliness and controlled storage
- lower yield as the “cost” of quality
Evidence and transparency
- published lab protocols (PDF)
- honey type + year + test ID
- comparisons only within the same methodology
- interpretation clearly labeled as interpretation
CEHZ: 382917
RVPS: 2058/2022
PDF protocols
methodology
Page author: Michal Blaško. (MIJA family farm: Michal & Janka Blaško.)
2025 – what we’re adding
How we will expand this page
One rule
For every document, we always list honey type, year, and the protocol ID, so it’s clear exactly what the result refers to.
- additional protocols for selected honeys
- clear explanations for non-experts
- comparisons only within the same methodology
How we update the page
We update this page whenever a new protocol is added or when we refine the methodology explanation. Data claims are always tied to a specific document (PDF). Interpretation is labeled as interpretation.
Articles about honey testing
Continue reading: real vs. adulterated honey, lab parameters, and a clear MIC explanation.
Lab testing
What lab testing can show
A practical overview of commonly measured honey parameters, and what they say about quality, handling, and transparency.
Read the article →
MIC
MIC and antibacterial activity of honey
A clear MIC explanation for non-experts. What a lower percentage means, and why MIC 4.5% is considered a very strong result within the same methodology.
Read the article →You can find all products on the home page under Honey & bee products.
Frequently asked questions
The most common questions about MIC, lab protocols, diastase, HMF, and how to interpret results.
MIC
Is MIC a “percentage” of honey?
Yes. MIC is the percentage (%) concentration of honey in a test solution at which, under defined conditions, bacterial growth is still inhibited. Within the same methodology: lower MIC % = a stronger result in the test.
Diastase
What does diastase activity tell me?
Diastase is a bee-derived enzyme parameter and is sensitive to heat. If it is preserved, it suggests the honey was not significantly overheated and retained part of the biological architecture created in the hive.
HMF
What does HMF tell me—and what are its limits?
HMF indicates heat stress and sugar aging. It can help flag overheating or long storage, but on its own it is not an “authenticity proof”. That’s why it should be read in context (origin, diastase, additional parameters, and the test methodology).
Evidence
Why publish lab protocols?
“Honey” attracts a lot of marketing. A protocol (PDF) is fair evidence with a date, test ID, methodology and results— something anyone can verify without guessing.
Home tests
Why are popular home tests unreliable?
Modern adulteration can be sophisticated, and home “tricks” only observe surface behavior. Laboratories use standardized conditions and measurable parameters, and the result is documented in an official protocol.
Comparison
Can I compare MIC results across different labs?
Only with caution. A fair comparison requires the same methodology (ideally the same lab), the same bacteria strain, and the same test conditions. Otherwise numbers may differ even without a real difference in honey.
This website is educational. The goal is to explain tests and protocols for non-experts. Honey is a food, not a medicine. We do not make medical claims.