Jump to content

Ozzy Manuka Producers got Nose out Of Joint


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes of course. New Zealand Clover is superior to Aussie Clover by association to New Zealand Manuka

I think it is very unfortunate you are injecting fact and logic into this discussion, we the rabid masses would prefer to stick to conjecture :-)   Now for something meaningful for most of u

Your argument is fallacious. Clover is and always has been called clover in NZ. So, honey produced from it is rightly called clover honey.    Our beef with the Ozzies is not that they produc

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/22/2017 at 11:46 AM, Alastair said:

Your argument is fallacious. Clover is and always has been called clover in NZ. So, honey produced from it is rightly called clover honey. 

 

Our beef with the Ozzies is not that they produce jellybush honey, they are welcome to, and say they have records going back to the 1800's to prove they made it back then, and it is recorded as jellybush honey, no issue with that. Trademarking is about the name. They never called it manuka, till we spent a lot of money developing the public perception of the word "manuka".

 

They are also attempting to throw other varieties of different tasting Oz honeys under the umbrella, and pollute what us kiwis have developed.

 

Remember when NZ started making champaigne? I do. We were boasting that our champaigne was better than the real champaigne that was produced in Champaigne. So, the producers in Champaigne lawyered up, trademarked the word champaigne, and our stuff is now called sparkling wine. Immediately stopped commanding the same price, and the general public could easily discern if they were buying the "real thing".

 

The two cases are exactly the same, and in fact the champaigne thing would be a precedent for the manuka case. We can make what is effectively champaigne, just, we are not allowed to call it by the other guys trademarked name which they have spent many years building up a reputation for.

 

Then, there's kiwifruit. Only NZ kiwifruit may be called kiwifruit.

Under trademarking law there is a time period you have to wait and in this paid your mark can be challenged but in the true sprit of the crims across the digitch their really good at claiming others stuff, let them have Russell Crown he's nothing to crow about, but Honey, Its a money honey issue, they make the money off our honey name. I think you still need a criminal record to be a an Australian.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/12/2017 at 10:38 PM, Philbee said:

Too right James

New Zealand Manuka

New Zealand Rewa

New Zealand  Clover

New Zealand Colonial Thistle

New Zealand Kanuka

Etc etc
Consumers will soon get the gist of it

Under the World Codex Alimenatarius Honey standard there is this provision when refering to Monofloral honeys:

 

"6.1.8 Where honey has been designated according to floral, plant source, or by the name of a geographical or topological region, then the name of the country where the honey has been produced shall be declared."

 

So our manuka honey would have to be called New Zealand Manuka Honey...

If we embraced the Codex standard, then under ANZFA there would be a requirement for Manuka honey from Australia to be called "Australian Manuka Honey".

 

And for those that think this naming is a recent thing.....

In 1978 Robert Walsh (13 years as the NZ government honey grader) and the NZ National Beekeepers Assn published the fully revised edition of "Nectar and Pollen Sources of New Zealand".  Under the heading "Manuka" Walsh writes. "There are some 35 species of manuka mostly belonging to Australia and 3 to New Zealand"

And guess where the original described speciman of Leptospermum scoparium was collected?  How about Tasmania?

Try looking of Google maps for Manuka place names in Australia.  Plenty of roads, etc with that name. Named after the plants in the area.  Doubt you will find a Rewarewa st. there.

 

And truth be told, "manuka" is a Polynesian word.  There's a "Manuka reserve"  on the big island of Hawaii. And a manuka st in Tonga. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Good Info 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Emissary said:

Under the World Codex Alimenatarius Honey standard there is this provision when refering to Monofloral honeys:

 

"6.1.8 Where honey has been designated according to floral, plant source, or by the name of a geographical or topological region, then the name of the country where the honey has been produced shall be declared."

 

So our manuka honey would have to be called New Zealand Manuka Honey...

If we embraced the Codex standard, then under ANZFA there would be a requirement for Manuka honey from Australia to be called "Australian Manuka Honey".

 

And for those that think this naming is a recent thing.....

In 1978 Robert Walsh (13 years as the NZ government honey grader) and the NZ National Beekeepers Assn published the fully revised edition of "Nectar and Pollen Sources of New Zealand".  Under the heading "Manuka" Walsh writes. "There are some 35 species of manuka mostly belonging to Australia and 3 to New Zealand"

And guess where the original described speciman of Leptospermum scoparium was collected?  How about Tasmania?

Try looking of Google maps for Manuka place names in Australia.  Plenty of roads, etc with that name. Named after the plants in the area.  Doubt you will find a Rewarewa st. there.

 

And truth be told, "manuka" is a Polynesian word.  There's a "Manuka reserve"  on the big island of Hawaii. And a manuka st in Tonga. 

 

 

 

I think it is very unfortunate you are injecting fact and logic into this discussion, we the rabid masses would prefer to stick to conjecture :-)

 

Now for something meaningful for most of us - what is your opinion on how the new manuka standard will affect the market for monofloral honey?  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Emissary said:

In 1978 Robert Walsh (13 years as the NZ government honey grader) and the NZ National Beekeepers Assn published the fully revised edition of "Nectar and Pollen Sources of New Zealand".  Under the heading "Manuka" Walsh writes. "There are some 35 species of manuka mostly belonging to Australia and 3 to New Zealand"

 

Point taken Peter, but he was talking as a Kiwi so used the Kiwi name.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Emissary said:

And truth be told, "manuka" is a Polynesian word.  There's a "Manuka reserve"  on the big island of Hawaii. And a manuka st in Tonga. 

 

The use of the same word doesn’t mean it’s the same thing or in any way related. 

The name means "blundering" in the Hawaiian Language according to Wikipedia (though this may turn out to be a very apt definition).

 

What will be interesting - does Australian Manuka honey pass the new test as well as that from New Zealand?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, CraBee said:

 

I think it is very unfortunate you are injecting fact and logic into this discussion, we the rabid masses would prefer to stick to conjecture :-)

 

Now for something meaningful for most of us - what is your opinion on how the new manuka standard will affect the market for monofloral honey?  

Opinions are like @$$holes everyone has one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M4tt said:

They can’t at this stage . There’s no importing of honey into nz 

 

And this was being discussed here recently too (in relation to the importation of pollen being ok I think). Another year and a few more missing brain cells.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cBank said:

 

And this was being discussed here recently too (in relation to the importation of pollen being ok I think). Another year and a few more missing brain cells.

 

AFAIK the current import requirements for pollen and honey haven't changed in ages. Suggests they aren't likely to change in the short term. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really matter, I thought the value was in wound dressing as there if no efficacy in beneficial effects in the eating of Manuka Honey.  Ultimately wont it come down to the honey, its medicinal benefits and not the name?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 10:56 PM, BJC said:

Does it really matter, I thought the value was in wound dressing as there if no efficacy in beneficial effects in the eating of Manuka Honey.  Ultimately wont it come down to the honey, its medicinal benefits and not the name?

Most are out to safe grade their market point of difference but really I think there is a lot of BS in Ozzie and Kiwi honey sure it dose something but put any honey on a wound and it will heal.

Molan's experiments were not able to be repeated in the German lab.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind it’s not about who had bees foraging on Manuka bushes first it’s about the Aussies never using the term “Manuka” honey instead using tea tree and jelly Bush to discribe their honey.

it was the NZ marketing of “Manuka” honey that has got the Ozzys  excited and now magically they have left the terms jellybush/ tea tree on the wayside and are now calling it Manuka.

of course ozzys bring Ozzie’s their Manuka is bigger better stronger faster than anything us kiwis produce and of course they were “ doing it first” :8_laughing:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From the article-

 

"They say Australian producers should be able to use the term because the country is home to more than 80 species of Mānuka, compared to just one in New Zealand."

 

Wrong, they have 79 species that are and always have been called jellybush, and 1 that in NZ was coined Manuka by indigenous NZ people, but in Australia has always been called jellybush same as the other 79 variants. Or whatever words were used for it prior to European settlement of Australia but I can bectha Manuka was not one of them.

 

Also from the article

 

"We have a moral case to still call it Mānuka, and not be cut out from a global market that's got a potential to be a high revenue for Australia," Ms Charles told the ABC".

 

Well naturally our sympathies are aroused, at them being cut from the lucrative market that NZ created. But end of day attempting to ellicite sympathy does not a sound legal argument make. No moral case at all.

Edited by Alastair
  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the usual whining we are accustomed to from across the Tassy, perhaps they haven't won anything in sport for so long.

 

Adaption of an old joke. "How do you know when a plane load of Australians have arrived?" A. "You can still hear the whining noise after the engines are turned off" 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Just the usual whining we are accustomed to from across the Tassy, perhaps they haven't won anything in sport for so long.

 

Adaption of an old joke. "How do you know when a plane load of Australians have arrived?" A. "You can still hear the whining noise after the engines are turned off" 

You still need a criminal record to be a true Ozzie unless your Crowed House or Joh Bjelke-Petersen who was a crook NZ chucked out lol  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...