THE BLUE AND GREEN HONEY OF RIBEAUVILLé
The blue and green honey of Ribeauvillé in northeastern France in 2012 was an unpleasant surprise for local bee farmers.
They were surprised to find that their bees were producing honey in strange blue and green colours.
After investigation, it was discovered that the bees had been foraging on waste material from a nearby biogas plant that processed leftovers from an M&M’s candy factory.
At the time, Mars had a production facility in the region manufacturing M&M’s. Waste from this plant included leftover candy shells, known for their bright artificial colouring, and chocolate residues. The biogas plant had collected this waste for decomposition and energy generation. However, the candy waste was improperly stored in open containers, which became easily accessible to foraging bees.
Bees, attracted to the sugary residues, collected the coloured syrup instead of natural nectar from flowers. As a result, the sugar-rich, dye-laden material entered the beehives and was processed into honey. The pigments used in the candy shells, which include a variety of synthetic food colourings, caused the honey to turn blue and green.
This article explores the key differences between natural flower-sourced honey and the candy waste “honey,” helping to explain why the coloured honey had to be rejected despite being physically harmless.
The blue and green honey produced by the bees in Ribeauvillé was likely fit for human consumption in a purely toxicological and microbiological sense, meaning it probably was not harmful to eat in small quantities.
However, it failed to meet the legal definition of “honey” under European Union regulations and therefore had to be rejected for commercial sale as food-grade honey.
1. Definition of Honey in the EU
According to the European Union Honey Directive (Directive 2001/110/EC), honey is defined very specifically.
Some important points from the regulation:
- Honey must be a natural sweet substance produced by bees from the nectar of plants or from secretions of living parts of plants.
- Bees must collect, transform, and combine these natural products without any external substances being added.
- The final product must retain the flavor, aroma, and properties of natural honey.
- It must not contain additives or other artificial substances.
The key problem with the blue and green honey was not necessarily safety, but that the bees had collected processed food waste, not plant nectar. The raw material was not from flowers, but from artificial, human-made candy residues containing synthetic colourants and refined sugars.
Because of this, the substance produced by the bees did not qualify as “honey” under the EU legal definition — even if it was physically safe to eat.
2. Safety Aspects
Based on what is known about the candy shells from M&M’s, the coloured waste material contained:
- Sugar (mainly sucrose)
- Food-grade colourants (such as E132, E133, E102, etc.)
- Vegetable oils or wax coatings (used for the candy shell)
- Minor amounts of additives (emulsifiers, stabilizers)
These ingredients are approved for human consumption when used in manufactured food products. The dyes and additives in M&M’s are regulated food colourants under EU food safety standards.
Therefore:
- Toxicological risk: Very low or negligible for occasional consumption.
- Microbiological risk: Low if the waste was reasonably fresh and not contaminated with harmful bacteria or molds.
Conclusion on safety: The “honey” was probably safe to eat for humans in moderate amounts, but this is not the same as being legally acceptable as food marketed as “honey”.
3. Why It Was Rejected
The rejection of the coloured honey was based on:
- Violation of the definition: It was made from processed, artificial waste, not from natural plant nectar.
- Presence of synthetic substances: EU regulations forbid the presence of foreign synthetic substances in honey.
- Consumer expectations: Buyers expect honey to be a natural agricultural product, and blue or green honey would undermine consumer trust.
- Traceability and origin: There was no way to certify the botanical or geographical origin of the product properly.
Because of these reasons, it could not be sold as honey in the EU, regardless of its possible physical safety.
4. Could It Have Been Sold as Something Else?
In theory, yes.
If the beekeepers had chosen to:
- Label it honestly (e.g., “Bee-Processed Candy Syrup” or “Bee Candy Product”)
- Avoid using the word “honey”
- Get special approval as a novelty or confectionery product
They might have been able to sell it legally under food law for novelty purposes.
However:
- The costs of legal compliance, labeling, and testing would be high.
- There would likely be limited consumer demand for “bee-processed candy syrup.”
- There would still be questions about nutritional value and long-term safety.
Therefore, most of the blue and green “honey” was simply discarded.
5. Comparison to Other Similar Cases
This event is similar to other known incidents:
- Red honey in Brooklyn, New York (2010): Bees foraged on maraschino cherry syrup waste, producing bright red honey. Like in France, the substance was safe but could not be sold as honey.
- Yellow or brown tainted honey in areas near industrial sugar plants: Again, unmarketable under the “honey” label.
In every case, the main issue is regulatory non-compliance, not necessarily toxicity or health risks.
6. Summary
| Aspect | Blue/Green Honey (2012 France) |
|---|---|
| Toxicological Safety | Likely safe for human consumption |
| Microbiological Safety | Low risk if fresh |
| Legal Definition as Honey | Not compliant (made from processed food waste) |
| Marketability as Honey | Forbidden under EU law |
| Alternative Sales as Novelty Product | Possible but impractical |
The blue and green honey produced by the bees in France was rejected for sale primarily due to regulatory and definitional reasons under EU law. It was not necessarily dangerous to human health, but it could not legally be called honey and could not meet consumer expectations for a natural product.
Comparison: Natural Honey vs. Candy Waste ‘Honey’
| Aspect | Natural Flower-Sourced Honey | Candy Waste-Sourced Honey |
|---|---|---|
| Source Material | Nectar from flowers or secretions of plants | Processed candy waste (artificial colours, refined sugars) |
| Sugar Composition | Mostly fructose and glucose (natural) | Mostly sucrose and glucose (industrial/refined) |
| Colour | Clear, golden, amber, or dark brown | Bright unnatural colours (blue, green, red) |
| Nutritional Profile | Contains natural antioxidants, enzymes, minerals, and vitamins | Lacks natural antioxidants; contains synthetic colourants and additives |
| Enzymatic Content | High natural enzyme activity (e.g., invertase, glucose oxidase) | Low or absent natural enzymes; possible degradation from industrial processing |
| Aroma and Flavor | Complex, floral, and botanical depending on plant source | Artificial or lacking aroma; possible candy-like flavor |
| Microbial Stability | Naturally antibacterial properties due to low water content and hydrogen peroxide generation | Potentially stable if sugar concentration is high, but lacks natural antibacterial mechanisms |
| Compliance with EU Honey Directive | Fully compliant if pure | Non-compliant due to non-floral origin and presence of synthetic substances |
| Health Benefits | Associated with antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant benefits | No proven health benefits beyond caloric content; presence of synthetic additives |
| Consumer Expectations | Seen as a pure, natural agricultural product | Viewed as contaminated or adulterated product |
| Marketability | High – strong demand in local and international markets | Very low – novelty value only; regulatory barriers |
Supporting Explanation for Each Point
1. Source Material
- Natural honey is made when bees collect nectar from the flowers of plants.
- Candy waste honey came from leftover candy shells containing sugar and food dyes.
The key difference lies in the origin: one is botanical, the other is industrial.
2. Sugar Composition
- Natural honey is primarily made of fructose (around 38%) and glucose (around 31%), along with other natural sugars like maltose and sucrose in smaller amounts.
- Candy waste is based largely on refined sucrose (common table sugar) with less complexity in the sugar profile.
High fructose levels in natural honey contribute to its sweetness and stability.
3. Colour
- Natural honey colours depend on the floral source: clover honey is light, while buckwheat honey is dark.
- Candy waste honey had artificial colourants, resulting in blue, green, and even red hues, which do not occur naturally.
Colour in honey is a significant quality and marketing factor.
4. Nutritional Profile
- Natural honey contains trace minerals (like iron, zinc, potassium) and vitamins (such as vitamin C and B complex).
- It also has natural antioxidants like flavonoids and phenolic acids.
- Candy waste lacks these natural nutrients and introduces synthetic chemicals instead.
5. Enzymatic Content
- Bees introduce natural enzymes into nectar, including:
- Invertase (breaks sucrose into glucose and fructose)
- Glucose oxidase (helps produce hydrogen peroxide, an antibacterial agent)
- Candy waste lacks this natural processing, resulting in low or no enzymatic activity in the final product.
Enzymes are one reason why real honey never spoils.
6. Aroma and Flavour
- Natural honey has complex floral, fruity, woody, or herbal aromas depending on the flowers bees visited.
- Candy waste honey would have a bland, sugary, or artificially sweet flavor, without the nuanced notes that define honey quality.
Flavor and aroma are central to consumer satisfaction and product differentiation.
7. Microbial Stability
- Real honey naturally resists microbial growth due to:
- Low water content
- Low pH
- Production of hydrogen peroxide
- Candy waste honey may be microbiologically stable due to its sugar concentration, but it lacks the additional antimicrobial properties provided by honey’s natural enzymes and acids.
Long-term storage might present higher spoilage risks.
8. Compliance with EU Honey Directive
- Natural honey meets strict criteria under Directive 2001/110/EC.
- Candy waste honey violates the definition due to:
- Non-botanical origin
- Addition of synthetic substances
- Deviation from natural composition
Non-compliance means it cannot legally be labeled or sold as honey within the EU.
9. Health Benefits
- Studies show natural honey has benefits such as:
- Boosting immunity
- Supporting wound healing
- Acting as an antioxidant
- Candy waste honey would mainly deliver empty calories and artificial additives, without the associated health-promoting compounds.
10. Consumer Expectations
- Consumers expect honey to be a natural, pure, and traditional product.
- Seeing blue or green honey would create confusion or distrust, even if reassured of its physical safety.
Marketing such a product would be extremely challenging without a clear novelty positioning.
11. Marketability
- Natural honey can be marketed across multiple premium categories: organic honey, manuka honey, single-origin honey, etc.
- Candy waste honey could only find a niche as a curiosity or novelty item, with heavy marketing hurdles and regulatory risks.
It would not be accepted in serious honey markets.
Conclusion
The incident in France highlights that what bees forage on matters profoundly — not only for their own health but also for the quality, legality, and marketability of the honey they produce.
While the blue and green honey was not toxic, it violated legal and consumer standards by deriving from artificial, non-floral sources.
The event illustrates why strict definitions and regulations around honey exist and how easily environmental factors can disrupt agricultural products.