3 ms·
Just to be clear - the story in the first paragraph is about royal jelly not honey. Royal jelly a totally different thing than honey: a bee glandular secretion
by spikels 12y ago
Just to be clear - the story in the first paragraph is about royal jelly not honey. Royal jelly a totally different thing than honey: a bee glandular secretion rather than bee processed plant nectar [1].
However I doubt it should be given to infants either and would not base any health decisions on anecdotes like this no matter how appealing the narrative.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_jelly http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_jelly
- radicaledward 12y agoI guess I made a couple of assumptions when I wrote my comment. 1) I thought a lot of people wouldn't know the difference. 2) I guessed that royal jelly would be host to a similar spectrum of bacteria to honey. These are possibly not true, but I figured that caution was better than anything else. Thanks for your clarification though!
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago> not base any health decisions on anecdote It's not even an anecdote. It's a "short story by Roald Dahl". You know, fiction from a writer known for his "unsentimental, often very dark humour." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl Really, don't base health decisions on surreal horror stories.
- roghummal 12y agoRoyal jelly? +1 str. Would eat any day.