Seraglio et al. (2019) reviewed the published research on honeydew honey physicochemical characteristics and bioactivity ([1]). Honeydew honeys — including forest/Waldhonig blends — present darker color, lower monosaccharides, higher pH, higher acidity, higher electrical conductivity (often 0.8–1.5 mS/cm vs blossom honey's <0.5), higher protein and mineral content, higher phenolic compound content, and higher oligosaccharide content. Forest honey sits squarely in the honeydew analytical profile on every measurable axis. The slow crystallization is a function of the low glucose : fructose ratio common to all honeydews.
Pita-Calvo and Vázquez (2018) cataloged the analytical methods used to authenticate honeydew honeys by botanical and geographical origin ([2]). For mixed-source forest honey, authentication is inherently more complex than for single-tree honeydews like pine (where pinitol + quercitol are clean markers) or oak (where quercitol + trans-oak lactone are clean markers). Forest honey authentication relies on combinations of electrical conductivity, pollen analysis, melissopalynology, and isotope ratio analysis to confirm the broader honeydew profile and rule out floral adulteration — but the specific tree composition is by definition variable across regions and seasons.
The framing matters. Both references treat their findings as composition + in-vitro characterization. Neither demonstrates human-health outcomes. Forest honey is meaningfully different from floral honey on multiple measurable axes (mineral content, electrical conductivity, oligosaccharide content, phenolic content) — that is what this page claims. Anything beyond that — immune support, respiratory benefit, "detox," lower-glycemic, "therapeutic," "medicinal" — is unsupported and stripped from this page on principle.