but just if you can state the primary source and that's what this is why isn't that sufficient under the federal guidelines i'm sure there are think they can absolutely say that robot i understand there's a difference they claim that some of the plaintiffs in the california plenty of claims one hundred percent and the other ones don't so are you conceding that it's only one hundred percent that's at issue jurisdiction because you filed your notice of appeal a day late and you were granted permission to do so based on the excusable neglect and excusable neglect consisted of the following because mr lee was out all day for depositions i thought i could wait until july th the next day my error was due to june being a thirty day month and therefore i thought there was an actual day for five i don't understand how that is conceivably excusable make like i could see of june had thirty one days and you thought it was thirty i don't see how anything justifies in those two sentences having filed  reading of it but it still has l understood thank you prevalent making up sixty percent of the detected pollen and the next most prevalent pollens are ten percent or less meaning that men do good and just didn't leave the chief oral source of the honey and plaintiffs don't dispute that the honey consumers reasonably think that if it's a one hundred percent that one hundred percent that's what the percentage is well they could think that it's one hundred percent so so st of all the illegal is one hundred percent new zealand in the new g so it's one hundred per cent from new zealand it's one hundred percent honey and it's also one hundred percent maneuvre honey under the f d a honey liebling guidance because what that tells us is that you know we know that bees don't forge exclusively on one type of flower so since that's what the honey is separate from the pollen content it is all when you go honey we never represented anything on the label about the pollen counts about the pollen contents what we said other again a normal process involving these in new zealand that forage in the wild and so if it's not all that you go honey i'm not sure what else it is if it's not on the new honey even though it of course includes pollen from other flowers a a product that is natural your claim is that the f d a has to decide what we can call it and what they've determined is that if the chief or source comes from a new guy what that product is is a new gun that is the allege that reasonable consumers know that new pollen counts vary from branch of brand but as i said the example they gave about was one with a very high pollen count that cost twenty times as much as the trader joe's product and a reasonable consumer who was less familiar with the new heinie i don't think they would have been thinking about the pollen count at all that wouldn't have been something they were considering you know i mean certainly especially because the product doesn't make any representation  suggest that it's mixed with a different honey or that there's a sweetener mixed and i don't know what else we could put on the label we're not we don't say anything about pollen we're not required to but pollen content on counts on there what we're required make sense because the regulations in fact are looking for consistency in the common unusual name they wanted to be was uniform across similar products so it wouldn't make sense to have one comedy will mean that's permitted on the front of the label and a different labels aren't misbranded representing something is honey when it has a sweet and so the one hundred percent clear was also important to convey that the honey all came from new zealand and that it was a honey that there were no sweeteners included in it and if you look in fact at the we certainly don't have that issue a couple of other very quick things because i see my time is running out mr the raised adulteration in his opening comments adulterations