Jump to content
Merk

What does 'pure manuka' mean?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, jamesc said:

well lets wait ttil the cookie is cooked , then make judgement.

Mate, the cookie is waaaaay overcooked. That's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So obviously someone has spend a large amount of money on the Puriti brand.

But what is most interesting to me is, who?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Daley said:

So obviously someone has spend a large amount of money on the Puriti brand.

But what is most interesting to me is, who?

 

Midlands apiaries, a subsidiary of a South Island seed company. 

I don't think they've spent all that much $$. They've got a designer and a marketer (A. Boot) but all this talk of "tremendous costs" is rubbish- they're simply trying to justify premium pricing. 

The buyer that bought my manuka this year tested it for everything under the sun. I think all the big brands do it. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the testing is paid for by the beekeeper before selling the honey .

 

 

 

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

A lot of the testing is paid for by the beekeeper before selling the honey .

 

 

 

Depends who buys it I think.

Youd be silly not to test it yourself these days though and take someone else’s word for it, quite a few people lack integrity these days and wouldn’t want to get ripped off.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I don't get the obsession with glyphosate. The test costs $275+gst from Hill labs and you're guaranteed to get a low result. Nobody cares. 

 

Merk. This is exactly my point. You don't care. Most companies don't care. I hope every test does return a negative. That is what I want - more ammunition. The fact is that consumers do care. Glyphosate is in the press regularly. There are already compliance levels set for the EU and the US. Internationally this is an issue. Just because you or I might not think it is a problem does not mean that the consumer feels the same way. Any advantage that NZ has over the rest of the world I will take and emphasise. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Puriti honey is not better than the other manuka brands. They're the same. With a round jar and roundup testing. 

 

Every other half decent honey packer packages their batches a little bit over spec. It's not special. It's industry standard. 

Merk. What part of this don't you get? Of course every producer should pack with a safety margin. However that is not the same as taking the existing test criteria and increasing the pass mark and starting from a new higher base line. Now tell me if I am wrong?  if a pass mark is 1 and we increase it to 2 and then have a safety margin above the 2 would you not consider that an increase? Now the numbers are examples only but the principle is sound. This is what we have done. 

Secondly. If we choose to test for Glyphosate and ensure that all product is free while others do not, would you consider that also additional testing. 

Thirdly. If the international consumer and retailer has concerns over fraudulent Manuka, is it a good or bad thing that we have gone to the effort of creating a jar and label with just a little more security. 

Lastly. If there is a legislative standard for export product, do you not think it fair that the New Zealand consumer is entitled to at least the same? The fact that we aren't going to wait for a consultation period and industry feedback on a subject to us seams pretty clear cut is of no consequence. The Government MPI consultation is in itself saying that more than one standard exists. Yet you believe all is equal? 

I assume you have an ulterior motive for your comments. Why not champion any improvements in standards? 

Adam

Share this post


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

Midlands apiaries, a subsidiary of a South Island seed company. 

I don't think they've spent all that much $$. They've got a designer and a marketer (A. Boot) but all this talk of "tremendous costs" is rubbish- they're simply trying to justify premium pricing. 

The buyer that bought my manuka this year tested it for everything under the sun. I think all the big brands do it. 

Do you really believe what you are saying. If your correct and it is that in expensive and that easy why doesn't everyone do it? Why don't all brands have there own jar designs? Why doesn't everyone spend more on testing? spend more on labels? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Way to make a 15% difference appear as a 300% difference...... Pretty scummy. 

Lol

That appendage may be 15% of your overall height but 50/400 is not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Adam Boot said:

Merk. This is exactly my point. You don't care. Most companies don't care. I hope every test does return a negative. That is what I want - more ammunition. The fact is that consumers do care. Glyphosate is in the press regularly. There are already compliance levels set for the EU and the US. Internationally this is an issue. Just because you or I might not think it is a problem does not mean that the consumer feels the same way. Any advantage that NZ has over the rest of the world I will take and emphasise. 

If you truly want to give the consumer piece of mind, give them proof that what they are buying is Manuka Honey- show the  results for the other 3 markers and the pollen DNA. I dare ya.  You won't because you know it wouldn't even pass as multi-floral.  You are flogging a Kanuka blend and presenting it as Manuka, simple as that. 

Edited by David Yanke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, David Yanke said:

I doubt you believe the crap you spout, but pray others will and in doing so buy the snake oil you are pedalling- your behaviour  meets the science definition of a Con man.  On the other hand, MPI's science definition for Manuka Honey uses 4 chemical markers and a Pollen DNA test, a test failing any one of the 5 means that Honey can not be called Manuka Honey. You can not use any of the 5 on their own to meaningfully represent the honey you are testing. You know 3-PLA is a Kanuka marker as well, and is found at much higher levels in Kanuka then it is Manuka.  Your Ad is misleading at best- only you know if it is dishonest and intentionally misrepresents what you are flogging. Honey tested to meet the 3-PLA claim in your Ad would not have to contain even one drop of Manuka.

Hold on just one moment. I did not copy and paste the graph to this site. If you look at our website or our brochure the graphs cover all chemical tests within the MPI standards. We have increased the pass mark on all 4 not just 3-PLA. We have never isolated one market we have increased the pass mark on all four. Who ever posted the graph has declared it was from our site, however they have chosen to take that one in isolation. I assume you have taken what you have seen on this forum at face value and also not gone to the site, otherwise you would know the other markers are also explained. 

I am still missing something here though. You have determined I am a Con Man, dishonest, misrepresentative and that our Manuka honey is snake oil. Yet we have used all 5 markers. We have increased the pass mark on the 4 chemical markers and we do test for glyphosate. 

I hold absolutely nothing against you at all, but you made all those accusations without checking any of it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Yanke said:

If you truly want to give the consumer piece of mind, give them proof that what they are buying is Manuka Honey- show the  results for the other 3 markers and the pollen DNA. I dare ya.  You won't because you know it wouldn't pass as even multi-floral.  You are flogging a Kanuka blend and presenting it as Manuka, simple as that. 

We have already decided to declare the full PURITI test criteria with each increased pass mark on every label. We have clearly outlined each of the criteria and our increased pass make and printed it on every label. You can keep digging but there is nothing to hide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Adam Boot said:

Hold on just one moment. I did not copy and paste the graph to this site. If you look at our website or our brochure the graphs cover all chemical tests within the MPI standards. We have increased the pass mark on all 4 not just 3-PLA. We have never isolated one market we have increased the pass mark on all four. Who ever posted the graph has declared it was from our site, however they have chosen to take that one in isolation. I assume you have taken what you have seen on this forum at face value and also not gone to the site, otherwise you would know the other markers are also explained. 

I am still missing something here though. You have determined I am a Con Man, dishonest, misrepresentative and that our Manuka honey is snake oil. Yet we have used all 5 markers. We have increased the pass mark on the 4 chemical markers and we do test for glyphosate. 

I hold absolutely nothing against you at all, but you made all those accusations without checking any of it. 

Show me the results, and I will apologise profusely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I hope every test does return a negative. That is what I want - more ammunition.

This is entirely why your having issues on this forum @Adam Boot that’s a horrible thing to say.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Daley said:

This is entirely why your having issues on this forum @Adam Boot that’s a horrible thing to say.

I don't follow @Daley, I read it as hoping for negative Glyphosate results, a good thing and the ammunition bit as another edge to promoting NZ honey (and their product of course) as the best on the world market.

Adam is suffering from the cynics (and others) here I think. I probably wouldn't have bothered much replying to a lot of posts but he has so good on him.

Edited by Ali
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ali said:

I don't follow @Daley, I read it as hoping for negative Glyphosate results, a good thing and the ammunition bit as another edge to promoting NZ honey (and their product of course) as the best on the world market.

I read it as he wants them to fail.

My bad. And my apologies @Adam Boot.

 

I just struggle to see how the Manuka your selling is better than anyone else’s.

It is exactly the same. Once the markers are met it’s all the same.

I understand that your a salesman but this probably isn’t the place to blow your own trumpet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Daley said:

I read it as he wants them to fail.

My bad. And my apologies @Adam Boot.

 

I just struggle to see how the Manuka your selling is better than anyone else’s.

It is exactly the same. Once the markers are met it’s all the same.

I understand that your a salesman but this probably isn’t the place to blow your own trumpet

I think in the world of the big operators they are a late comer that will have to work very hard for a share of the Manuka honey market place.

In all it would seem they will meet the Govt imposed standards (working with what is), are innovative to a degree and simply doing as commercial entities do in this world.

It would seem they will be blending as the rest of the industry appears to, I don't think there is any other way really in the current structure.

Share this post


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

I think in the world of the big operators they are a late comer that will have to work very hard for a share of the Manuka honey market place.

In all it would seem they will meet the Govt imposed standards (working with what is), are innovative to a degree and simply doing as commercial entities do in this world.

It would seem they will be blending as the rest of the industry appears to, I don't think there is any other way really in the current structure.

There is.

But the problem is if everyone else is getting a head start, and your at the back and also trying to have integrity you probably don’t have much of a chance.

If your a bit weasely then you might catch up.

 

I can see what they’re trying to do with this brand, and they probably can be set apart just by their packaging, they don’t need infographics that are definitely questionable and to claim to be better than anyone else.

 

Its the claims that they’re better that I take issue with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to read this thread - while putting a number of hats on at various times: science, marketing and others

 

the government wants apiculture to grow to be a billion dollar industry, or roughly 3 fold. To do that, do we have room for another 2 million-odd hives? Many feel we don't have room for the current million, let alone more. 

 

So so we have to do more with current resources. And if that means selling manuka at higher prices then that's one way. 

 

Others  seem to be feeling on the back foot because their honey is being portrayed  as inferior. Which is not being said at all. They are pitching against the MPI standard (plus additional)

 

I would wonder for those selling honey locally (and knowing your stocks have had the MPI 5 tests done) label it as 'export quality' manuka?

 

You may not agree with this particular marketing but I would politely suggest that - if you're in business - then there are lessons for

all here. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Merk. This is exactly my point. You don't care. Most companies don't care. I hope every test does return a negative. That is what I want - more ammunition. The fact is that consumers do care. Glyphosate is in the press regularly. There are already compliance levels set for the EU and the US. Internationally this is an issue. Just because you or I might not think it is a problem does not mean that the consumer feels the same way. Any advantage that NZ has over the rest of the world I will take and emphasise. 

@Adam Boot I asked on your Facebook page and I didn't get a answer I was not having a dig at your Roundup tests but asking why you don't test for 1080 residue as I see this being a thing that will come up in the future?

Share this post


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

.

I can see what they’re trying to do with this brand, and they probably can be set apart just by their packaging, they don’t need infographics that are definitely questionable and to claim to be better than anyone else.

 

Its the claims that they’re better that I take issue with.

 

I may have missed it @Daley but I think you'll find the comparisons are to the MPI5 standard plus MGO/UMF

 

Your honey may may be twice the levels of the standard etc . . . but do you state that on your honey label or website? And that's the marketing aspect in play

Edited by JohnF
Typo

Share this post


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

James, misleading claims and dishonest marketing don't help the manuka brand, or the industry. 

Discerning consumers want authenticity these days; hyperbole and puffery only do damage. 

Well the dudes not reinventing the wheel there it's what got Manuka in the game 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Daley said:

This is entirely why your having issues on this forum @Adam Boot that’s a horrible thing to say.

Negative meaning zero Glyphosate! More ammunition meaning we can put international consumers minds at rest about Glyphosate in NZ honey. Another string to our clean and green bow. 

Please tell me where the horrible thing is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. Boots product be mpi compliant manuka but if you went out and tested any umf 10+ it's going to be waaaaaay higher than the mpi standard. So it's nothing special. 

 

However, if you have a good control of your vomit reflex have a read of this, taken straight from their website

 

Not all sparkling wine can be champagne.

Not all fish eggs are caviar.

Not all cigars can be Cuban and not all Manuka honey can be PURITI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that puriti isn't "champagne". It's lindauer. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be advised that this topic is currently being actively monitored by moderators and it may be locked at any time.

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...