Jump to content
jamesc

Manuka standards

Recommended Posts

You might well be right @CraBee but I'm guessing it's just incompetence. If kanuka has high 3pla then why use 3pla as one of the critical markers to identify monofloral manuka?

 

I personally don't care, it just means there's more incentive for me to blend everything 'up' to monofloral manuka. I have about 12 tons of this high 3pla kanuka, currently worth $8.50/kg. If I mix it with a batch of monofloral manuka that has excess 2map etc then I'll turn the lot in to monofloral manuka. Ridiculous. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Merk said:

You might well be right @CraBee but I'm guessing it's just incompetence. If kanuka has high 3pla then why use 3pla as one of the critical markers to identify monofloral manuka?

 

I personally don't care, it just means there's more incentive for me to blend everything 'up' to monofloral manuka. I have about 12 tons of this high 3pla kanuka, currently worth $8.50/kg. If I mix it with a batch of monofloral manuka that has excess 2map etc then I'll turn the lot in to monofloral manuka. Ridiculous. 

Interesting. Could/would you do a sample batch blend and get it tested to confirm this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of mixing gear is used for blending ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dansar yeah I'll do a test run to see if it works before I ruin 12 tons of good manuka.... Imagine that.  I don't see why it won't work though. I ran all the maths as soon as the standard was released and I got some test results back. 

 

@yesbut you need a big stainless tank with a good stirrer, a warm room to get the drums liquid and a hoist. A normal honey house has a homogenisation tank where a batch of honey goes before drumming off. That will be enough. 

And you'd want a good stirrer. There's been plenty of that going on today ha ha

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Merk said:

I got an email from Steve Howse at analytica yesterday explaining that they're classifying this type of honey as straight multifloral (not multifloral manuka) because it doesn't meet either category in the MPI standard. It's  a huge oversight in my opinion and heads should roll at MPI and Apinz because of it. I could be wrong here but I think I was @john berry saying that his group was responsible for lowering the 2map limit for multi manuka down from 2 to 1, (which doesn't make much difference in practice) when perhaps their efforts would have been better spent on the wording of the 3pla regs.

It should read: mono manuka must not have less than 400 3pla; multi manuka must not have less than 20 3pla.

 

There fixed it. 

Merk,  why should heads roll at APINZ, you need to understand what has been going on with these meetings with MPI. MPI/GOVT have been very difficult to deal with. 

APINZ, UMFHA and NZ Beekeeping were all trying to get MPI to change the testing criteria to a more acceptable set of markers. Unfortunately we have had an election and a change of philosophy, Daimion Oconner and Winston were all on our side before the election, now they are in power they wanted to have things sorted in the first 100 days and changed their tune.

Edited by Dennis Crowley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Merk said:

You might well be right @CraBee but I'm guessing it's just incompetence. If kanuka has high 3pla then why use 3pla as one of the critical markers to identify monofloral manuka?

 

I personally don't care, it just means there's more incentive for me to blend everything 'up' to monofloral manuka. I have about 12 tons of this high 3pla kanuka, currently worth $8.50/kg. If I mix it with a batch of monofloral manuka that has excess 2map etc then I'll turn the lot in to monofloral manuka. Ridiculous. 

Merk you are right it is ridiculous, that is what we have since the government backed down, but in the govts mind they have sorted the problem, and now its up to industry to deal with it.

for example if the price point between a umf5 ( choose any umf number)multiflora and a umf5 monofloro is not very different, we could see a lot of multifloro manuka sold rather than monoflora. Then how long will it take for the markets to wonder what is going on, and then they will decide what they think manuka honey will be and we wont have a say. thats what we have to keep convincing the govt to allow changes to be made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i technically have no mono manuka sold out of nz, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that MPI was hard to deal with but did APINZ do enough? 

I spoke with one of your board members today and he didn't seem to have the faintest idea that there might be a problem with the 3pla regs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Merk,  why should heads roll at APINZ, you need to understand what has been going on with these meetings with MPI. MPI/GOVT have been very difficult to deal with. 

APINZ, UMFHA and NZ Beekeeping were all trying to get MPI to change the testing criteria to a more acceptable set of markers. Unfortunately we have had an election and a change of philosophy, Daimion Oconner and Winston were all on our side before the election, now they are in power they wanted to have things sorted in the first 100 days and changed their tune.

Just goes to show the power of politics and that most of what is said is indeed hot air.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Merk said:

I don't doubt that MPI was hard to deal with but did APINZ do enough? 

I spoke with one of your board members today and he didn't seem to have the faintest idea that there might be a problem with the 3pla regs.

 

And there really is a problem with the 3pla regs for multifloral there should not be an upper limit of 399.

but that’s just my opinion and I have a vested interest  because our honey fails the multifloral Manuka standard on 3pla over 400.

everything else is good and the pollen DNA is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone asked MPI as to why the 400 limit on the 3pla for multi?  I would have thought it would have been relatively easy for them to explain the reasoning? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The upper limit range of 400 would be to set a limit on the non manuka content wouldn't it? I don't really know but it seems to me that if Kanuka has a high content then it may be indicative that there are high levels of Kanuka rather than Manuka present in the sample??

Am I on or off track with my thinking?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were the case then why have no upper limit for mono floral...? I've emailed asking for clarification and the reasoning/science behind it. We are just as confused as everyone else

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Received this letter in the electronic mailbox the other day and initial thought it might be addressing the 3pla issue but appears not.  Seems to contain little useful info at all. 

 

Subject: Clarification on interpretation of test results for mānuka honey

 

Dear stakeholder,

MPI has become aware of a couple of issues regarding laboratory test results for mānuka honey under the Animal Products Notice: General Export Requirements for Bee Products (the GREX). You are receiving this notification as these issues may potentially affect you. The information in this notification is mainly relevant to you if you are an operator involved in the processing/extraction of mānuka honey. The issues and MPI’s explanation addressing them are set out below.

1.              Laboratory test results for mānuka honey that have been interpreted in accordance with the consultation version of the GREX (the draft GREX) or the GREX that was issued on 11 December 2017 and subsequently revoked (the revoked GREX).

 

The only valid version of the GREX is the version that was issued on 29 January 2018 and came into effect on 5 February 2018 (the valid GREX). As such, any laboratory test results, regardless of when they are obtained, must be interpreted in accordance with the valid GREX in order to be used to support the labelling of any mānuka honey exported on or after 5 February 2018.

 

The draft GREX was a consultation document that never had legal effect. The revoked GREX never legally came into effect as it was revoked before its commencement date (5 February 2018). As such any provisions in the draft GREX or the revoked GREX cannot be used for regulatory purposes. In particular, any laboratory test results interpreted in accordance with the mānuka honey definition in that draft GREX or revoked GREX cannot be used to support the labelling of mānuka honey exported on or after 5 February 2018 (subject to the stock in trade provision as explained below).

 

The “Stock in trade” provision in clause 8.1 of the GREX remains unaffected. This means that honey labelled as mānuka and in retail packs prior to 5 February 2018 can continue to be exported to countries not requiring official assurances until 5 August 2018. It does not matter whether the labelling of these products were based on test results interpreted in accordance with the revoked GREX or on industry grading systems.

 

2.              Laboratory test results for mānuka honey that have been interpreted incorrectly against the valid GREX.

MPI is aware that some laboratory reports have incorrect interpretations of the test results against the definition specified in the valid GREX. The incorrect interpretation cannot be used to support the labelling of any mānuka honey exported on or after 5 February 2018. These laboratory test results will have to be re-interpreted correctly in accordance with the definition in the valid GREX before they can be legally relied on for the labelling of any mānuka honey. The operator who arranged for the laboratory to do the test is primarily responsible for the correct interpretation of the results.  MPI recommends that operators check that the interpretation has been done correctly.

For clarification, the following table sets out a number of different scenarios concerning laboratory test results on mānuka honey and an indication of whether they are valid or not.

Test results scenarios

Validity

Laboratory test results provided by the laboratory with no interpretation

Valid if interpreted by the operator in accordance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the valid GREX.

Laboratory test results provided by the laboratory with correct interpretation in accordance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the valid GREX 

Valid.

Laboratory test results provided by the laboratory with interpretation that deviates from the mānuka honey definition as specified in the valid GREX  

Invalid. The test results, as interpreted, cannot be used in relation to any mānuka honey exported on or after 5 February 2018.

 

The test results must be re-interpreted correctly by the operator in compliance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the valid GREX.

 

Alternatively, the laboratory may re-issue the test results without interpretation (for the operator to interpret) or with a correct interpretation in compliance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the valid GREX.

Laboratory test results provided by the laboratory with correct interpretation in accordance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the revoked GREX or the draft GREX

Invalid. The test results cannot be used in relation to any mānuka honey exported on or after 5 February 2018.

 

The test results will have to be re-interpreted correctly by the operator in accordance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the valid GREX.

Laboratory test results provided by the laboratory with incorrect interpretation in accordance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the draft GREX

Invalid. The test results cannot be used in relation to any mānuka honey exported on or after 5 February 2018.

 

The test results will have to be re-interpreted correctly in accordance with the mānuka honey definition as specified in the valid GREX.

 

For any further questions please emailmanuka.honey@mpi.govt.nz.

 

Yours sincerely,

The Food Assurance Team

 

 
This email message and any attachment(s) is intended solely for the addressee(s)
named above. The information it contains may be classified and may be legally
privileged. Unauthorised use of the message, or the information it contains,
may be unlawful. If you have received this message by mistake please call the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ali said:

The upper limit range of 400 would be to set a limit on the non manuka content wouldn't it? I don't really know but it seems to me that if Kanuka has a high content then it may be indicative that there are high levels of Kanuka rather than Manuka present in the sample??

Am I on or off track with my thinking?????

Doesn't make sense to me, they're not that clever. 

If you are correct, that would mean that for some weird reason MPI likes multifloral manuka honey when the multifloral content is clover... But they don't want multifloral manuka when the multifloral component is kanuka. 

.... but its also OK with MPI if monofloral manuka has a lot of kanuka mixed with it. 

Ridiculous. 

Edited by Merk
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BennyBee I wonder how many policy analysts and lawyers it took to draft that email (which could have been covered succinctly in a single paragraph) . What a pack of retards.

 

Where on earth are APINZ through all this?!? 

Edited by Merk
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it cost about $7.50 .............a word 

1 hour ago, Merk said:

 I wonder how many policy analysts and lawyers it took to draft that email

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merk said:

@BennyBee I wonder how many policy analysts and lawyers it took to draft that email (which could have been covered succinctly in a single paragraph) . What a pack of retards.

 

Where on earth are APINZ through all this?!? 

APINZ, along with UMFHA and NZ beekeepers are still meeting with mpi and trying to get things sorted, APINZ,UNFHA and NZ Beekeeping did not make this standard, infact we all wanted changes made, MPI and the Minister have their own scientist and they decided what will be, after many protests from APINZ,UMFHA and NZ Beekeeping, what part of this don't you get? APINZ are not in with MPI as you seem to think.

If you come to our discussion day this friday, anyones welcome see events page, we will have two people who were negotiating with MPI on behalf of APINF, HUMFA and NZ Beekeeping giving their thoughts on where we are now and where to from here.

 

minister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dennis Crowley said:

what part of this don't you get?

the emperor is naked

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Merk said:

Where on earth are APINZ through all this?!? 

making excuses instead of doing anything useful

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

 

If you come to our discussion day this friday, anyones welcome see events page, we will have two people who were negotiating with MPI on behalf of APINF, HUMFA and NZ Beekeeping giving their thoughts on where we are now and where to from here.

 

@Dennis Crowley where is fridays meeting please

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most likely you will fail on the 3pla standard for multi floral manuka, like any multi floral manuka.

(but even mono floral manuka would fail the 3pla standard for multi floral manuka.)

 

looking at your mgo, unless your honey is from the south island it probably is not much of a manuka at all.

but ok for a packer to blend into a better batch.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honey of this strength from around my area doesn't usually make it to monofloral manuka, because the 2map is too low. 

 

As @tom sayn mentioned, it should be OK for multi manuka but may or may not qualify because if there is kanuka in that honey your 3pla might be above 400 which sends it in to honey limbo

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Do you know if the dna tests apply if it's not being exported?This statement is on the MPI site.

 

Screenshot_20180322-113456.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...