Attempts by CEM to silence reasonable public interest questions about the source of their ‘honey’ food products, and the company’s possible connection to other corrupt activity.
As a ‘customer’ I had tried to ask CEM many times about their ‘honey’ products but CEM would not respond. They would however respond to a large supermarket retailer. After many emails (over a 12 month period) via the large supermarket retailer, the CEM company actually responded directly to myself (but only after I informed CEM that I intended to publish the ‘Pollination in the Philippines’ study report).
Here is the exchange of emails, and below the emails is the factual summary …
Email sent by CEM to myself on 29/11/13: Evidence 2 email1
Email sent by myself to CEM on 29/11/13: Evidence 2 email2
Email sent by CEM to myself on 2/12/13: Evidence 2 email3
Email sent by myself to CEM on 2/12/13: Evidence 2 email4
Email sent by CEM to myself on 3/12/13: Evidence 2 email5
Email sent by myself to CEM on 3/12/13: Evidence 2 email6
Factual summary If you have had the patience to read the emails there are several facts that emerge….
1) The CEM company will not provide me or anybody with any substantive source information about their products. They are not prepared to demonstrate or prove that their products are genuine honey. (Because they cannot provide this information and are afraid that the truth will be exposed:- their products are fraudulent!)
2) The attempts by CEM management to ridicule truthful information demonstrates their attitude to the facts and their attitude to their retailers and customers. They are only interested in their ability to run a profitable operation even though it is fraudulent, and detest any enquiry or interference regardless of the reason.
3) When it became clear to CEM that I was not going to be intimidated or otherwise silenced they stopped responding to any communication, and have refused to offer any facts about their products or company even though they claim that ‘our customers’ benefit is always top of mind’ (see previous post).
4) The CEM emails above include elements of anger and irrationality but their strategy for silencing public interest questions about their operation is still open to conjecture. I am trying to make every effort to ensure ‘due diligence’, and so that I do not report anything that is unfair or illegal. Their manner of insisting on a meeting indicates that they were trying to avoid truthful disclosure by alternative methods. A distinct and likely possibility is that they may have been trying to oblige me into silence by getting me to agree to a ‘bribe’ of some form. (The next post includes the possibility that the FDA may have been corruptly influenced by the commercial honey fraud trade to avoid investigation.)
5) CEM refer to the use of lawyers yet no legal case or contact has been made. Possibly there might be some inadequate trading description of ‘honey’ as a ‘syrup of glucose and fructose with some added components’ that covers their ‘commercial honey’, and that their labels of ‘Raw Wild Honey with beehives and bees etc’ counts as just ‘brands’ which technically could be a legal loophole?! However they are clearly selling their ‘honey’ as genuine 100% Philippine bee honey, and so such a case would have as much credibility as selling poor photocopies of a masterpiece such as the Mona Lisa as if it was the original painting by Leonardo da Vinci.
CEM and the FDA have been informed of any published honey fraud articles on this website, including this very post. CEM are welcome to offer their own comments (which will not be edited in any way) for the readers of this website. If CEM consider that any of the information provided here is inaccurate then surely they can state the facts from their point of view, otherwise CEM leave people to draw their own conclusions!
Note: This post follows on from the articles…
Offer your opinion in the ‘Leave a Reply’ form below….