Jump to content
frazzledfozzle

Trader Joes taken to court

Recommended Posts

This is an interesting article. The claimants are saying the honey sold in this franchise is not true to label .

If it's a product of NZ and meets the MPI standard I don't see how they can win.

 

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/852948-trader-joes-class-action-says-manuka-honey-isnt-100-pure/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their argument is against the label stating 100% Manuka. Does any MPI definition state that ?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, it's another blot on our reputation.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Either way, it's another blot on our reputation.

 

41 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Either way, it's another blot on our reputation.

A little bit of background to the story.Trader Joe was bought out by Wholefoods a while ago.I am sure a Canadian company with a N.Z. division are the c ause.I cannot be sure.I say good on the people taking the suit. Anything you label must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree in principle Roy, but to what extent can almost any honey be 100% pure?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the EU where labelling is quite strict, I think that's going to be really hard to defend. Especially in California 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good case for MPI trying to get us to sort our act, BEFORE it ends up in court in our customers country.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope Min Trade & Industry is looking at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it completely differently I guess.

How have the claimants come to the conclusion that this 100% Manuka honey is 50 or 60% Manuka?

under the MPI definition it’s either Manuka honey or it’s not percentage doesn’t come into it.

in the not too distant past Manuka honey was defined by pollen percentage among other things . With pollens you can have a percentage but with the new standard as long as the honey passes the test it doesn’t matter how much Manuka is in the jar.

 

to me 100% Manuka honey is honey that meets the current standard.

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Agree 2
  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way of looking at it is they claim on the label is “100% New Zealand Manuka Honey” .  Therefore if it is NZ honey it is 100% New Zealand.  Then of course if it is manuka it is 100% New Zealand manuka honey as opposed to 100% Australian Manuka honey.

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a copy of a jar.

t1795700975_81p9UJpqnL._SY679_.jpg.0dfe041b330b6cc317201e6fec1e748a.jpg

 

It states: "100% New Zealand Manuka Honey.  It may meet MPI's standard but not meet USA laws/rules as that claim may not be correct. 

There could be non-manuka honey in there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s fairly typical of Yanks sueing wherever they can .

 

 What a strange unsettling environment to do business in 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, CraBee said:

 

 

It states: "100% New Zealand Manuka Honey.  It may meet MPI's standard but not meet USA laws/rules as that claim may not be correct. 

There could be non-manuka honey in there too.

 

I doubt any honey anywhere in the world could only consist of 100% of one particular nectar source 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10+ what?

 

Wonder who packed it. Americans?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, M4tt said:

That’s fairly typical of Yanks sueing wherever they can .

 

 What a strange unsettling environment to do business in 

And often armed and loaded as well.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite true.The honey could have been sold to Trader Joe in the drum and they could have packed it themselves.Then the mpi standards are not required.I taught the wild bee how to cream honey along wit synergy and I think y.s. pack thier own honey.The only honey to be 100% true to type was S.RATA out of the Otira Valley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who tested the content for them, and what criteria they used. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alastair said:

10+ what?

 

Wonder who packed it. Americans?

I think this is the most interesting ( and really the most important too) question.

Where was it packed?

Surely it must say that on the label too?

From there it would be great to know where the honey was sourced from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ali said:

I think this is the most interesting ( and really the most important too) question.

Where was it packed?

Surely it must say that on the label too?

From there it would be great to know where the honey was sourced from.

Ali,Why would it say on the label where it was packed.There is no requirement in N.Z. anyway,to say where it was packed.I buy in honey I do not have to show where it was packed as long as my address is on the label as the buck stops with me as I am the seller.I am sure it is the same in the usa.I know it was in 2012 when I was selling to "the wild bee'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Alastair said:

Agree in principle Roy, but to what extent can almost any honey be 100% pure?

exactly, so easy answer is don't label with a lie. Good on 'em, shame so many packers and sellers don't label true to product - not good for nz at all

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

exactly, so easy answer is don't label with a lie. Good on 'em, shame so many packers and sellers don't label true to product - not good for nz at all

 

 

How is it a lie? 

If the honey fits MPIs standard then it is Manuka honey. It’s not Manuka honey and.....

Before the MPI standard you could test your honey for percentages of pollen or lack of to determine the content of each particular honey and that is still one of the most important ways of identifying a particular honeys nectar content thereby determining the honey type.

with MPIs Manuka standard we are the only country in the world that has deviated from the codex alimentarius and brought in a different way of determining a honey type, under this standard honey is either monofloral manuka, multi floral Manuka or non Manuka there are no percentages.

monofloral manuka is 100% manuka it doesn’t matter if the honey is actually 50% manuka nectar it fits the standard in MPIs eyes it’s monofloral. 

The only way the label on that jar would be wrong is if the honey was blended with corn / sugar syrup 

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bighands said:

Ali,Why would it say on the label where it was packed.There is no requirement in N.Z. anyway,to say where it was packed.I buy in honey I do not have to show where it was packed as long as my address is on the label as the buck stops with me as I am the seller.I am sure it is the same in the usa.I know it was in 2012 when I was selling to "the wild bee'

If that is the case and I expect it is in fact then there lies one of the biggest flaws in our industry I think.

Where packed and by whom, source of the content honey (by country) in it's entirety would go a long way towards integrity, transparency. Honesty not behind closed doors chicanery.

Any thoughts @Adam Boot? Will your new launch brand cover these points off? 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need more country of origin labelling with the requirements for claiming NZ made being very tight so there's no room for including any of the principle ingredients from offshore under that label. 

 

If you are selling frozen berries and you are combining nz and offshore berries in the same packet then it's not NZ made

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honey laundering and false labelling is as common as mud in the USA.

 

Just read Beesource commercial forum and see the guys complaining about it, they all know it's going on and even who is doing it but don't seem to be able to stop it.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alastair said:

Honey laundering and false labelling is as common as mud in the USA.

 

Just read Beesource commercial forum and see the guys complaining about it, they all know it's going on and even who is doing it but don't seem to be able to stop it.

I had a cousin in Dallas (and a sodding Trump supporter), Texas say she bought a jar of NZ manuka honey half pound - about 250gms which she paid $3.99 for - didn't have the heart to tell her I couldn't buy it here for anything like that.

In NZ, the country of origin has to be stated on most food products, and many say 'made from local and imported products' to blurr the reality.

  • Good Info 1

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

×