Jump to content
Merk

What does 'pure manuka' mean?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

How about only Manuka comes from nz.

@Merk your honey would off passed the tests rather than bagging. Why not market your honey as better we have this race to the bottom mentally we should be aming to pass the tests with flying colors and then brag about it hell I would put money on my honey passing the ozy tests let's sell that ? 

Share this post


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

I note that this topic is being monitored and the thread could be removed. I would just like the moderator to know that this certainly does not have to be done on my behalf. I am perfectly happy with the questioning and happy to answer any and all where possible. I am not offended by any comment, digs or mud throwing or accusation or name calling. Freedom of speech is very precious and should be protected even in a PC environment. 

Great, four pages in and you're going to suddenly start answering questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, glynn said:

How about only Manuka comes from nz.

@Merk your honey would off passed the tests rather than bagging. Why not market your honey as better we have this race to the bottom mentally we should be aming to pass the tests with flying colors and then brag about it hell I would put money on my honey passing the ozy tests let's sell that ? 

Our marketing is pretty clear. I have stated as my opinion and it is on the website and printed on every PURITI jar that genuine Manuka honey must be 'Harvested, Tested, Certified and Packed' in NZ. In my opinion the Australian Jelly Bush (faux Manuka) test is inferior to the MPI Manuka Honey Science Definition. I have never bagged any brand. I am an advocate on Manuka honey. I want to see improved standards throughout the industry. I want to see NZ making efforts to protect the Manuka brand. I want to see all brands listening to the concerns of the international consumer and reacting appropriately. The MPI definition may not be perfect. It can I am sure be improved. For the moment it is what we have. to build on it can only be a positive. To add to it can only be a positive. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Our marketing is pretty clear. I have stated as my opinion and it is on the website and printed on every PURITI jar that genuine Manuka honey must be 'Harvested, Tested, Certified and Packed' in NZ. In my opinion the Australian Jelly Bush (faux Manuka) test is inferior to the MPI Manuka Honey Science Definition. I have never bagged any brand. I am an advocate on Manuka honey. I want to see improved standards throughout the industry. I want to see NZ making efforts to protect the Manuka brand. I want to see all brands listening to the concerns of the international consumer and reacting appropriately. The MPI definition may not be perfect. It can I am sure be improved. For the moment it is what we have. to build on it can only be a positive. To add to it can only be a positive. 

Your marketing is not clear, it is deliberately deceptive. The 'tone' is right but the facts are weak. 

Share this post


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

Great, four pages in and you're going to suddenly start answering questions!

Merk. Ask my anything. I have already volunteered to buy some PURITI of the shelf in a store of your choosing and pay for it to be independently tested to determine that every claim made is correct. What more do you want mate. Am I to hold your hand when we enter the shop? I draw the line!

Share this post


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

Your marketing is not clear, it is deliberately deceptive. The 'tone' is right but the facts are weak. 

Be specific please. which facts? facts are facts usually. 

Share this post


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

Merk. Ask my anything. I have already volunteered to buy some PURITI of the shelf in a store of your choosing and pay for it to be independently tested to determine that every claim made is correct. What more do you want mate. Am I to hold your hand when we enter the shop? I draw the line!

Boot, give it up. Seriously. You didn't offer to pay for the testing--another lie. 

I propose you pick four random umf brands at umf 15, as well as puriti umf 15. Test them all for the mpi markers. Can you guarantee that puriti will test the highest? If not, then your assertion that puriti is the best is a lie. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, glynn said:

@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?

Hi Glyn 

This is not forgotten. I wanted to fully review the position, evidence, governmental guidance and any ongoing initiatives before I comment. I also wanted to ascertain the International consumer view, understanding and any concerns. As it is a topic that I have never heard raised from overseas partners so I feel I need to investigate further before commenting. 

Apologies 

 

Adam

Share this post


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

Hi Glyn 

This is not forgotten. I wanted to fully review the position, evidence, governmental guidance and any ongoing initiatives before I comment. I also wanted to ascertain the International consumer view, understanding and any concerns. As it is a topic that I have never heard raised from overseas partners so I feel I need to investigate further before commenting. 

Apologies 

 

Adam

Read: I want to obfuscate, bluster and block my way out of difficult questions. 

Share this post


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

Boot, give it up. Seriously. You didn't offer to pay for the testing--another lie. 

I propose you pick four random umf brands at umf 15, as well as puriti umf 15. Test them all for the mpi markers. Can you guarantee that puriti will test the highest? If not, then your assertion that puriti is the best is a lie. 

 

Merk. The offer stands and if it was not clear the first time, I will pay. I can guarantee that PURITI will surpass every claim made about the product. Simple. 

It is nothing to do with me what other brands do or don't do. I only care about what we do. That we maintain the standard that we claim. That we are clear about that standard with the consumer. That we clearly indicate this on the jar. That the MPI definition is public knowledge and built upon and enhanced over time (perfected). That domestic product meets the same criteria as export product. That we want no confusion between UMF and MGO so we put both on the label. That if Glyphosate is a concern to the consumer then we test for it. 

That is it, no more no less. 

If you don't agree with that, then that is also fine. It is only a view a perspective and opinion. I have never asked you to change anything you do. I don't know who you are or what you do or produce. It is not of my concern. 

Adam

Share this post


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

I note that this topic is being monitored and the thread could be removed. I would just like the moderator to know that this certainly does not have to be done on my behalf. I am perfectly happy with the questioning and happy to answer any and all where possible. I am not offended by any comment, digs or mud throwing or accusation or name calling. Freedom of speech is very precious and should be protected even in a PC environment. 

I wish everyone would have your maturity towards criticism 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Merk. The offer stands and if it was not clear the first time, I will pay. I can guarantee that PURITI will surpass every claim made about the product. Simple. 

It is nothing to do with me what other brands do or don't do. I only care about what we do. That we maintain the standard that we claim. That we are clear about that standard with the consumer. That we clearly indicate this on the jar. That the MPI definition is public knowledge and built upon and enhanced over time (perfected). That domestic product meets the same criteria as export product. That we want no confusion between UMF and MGO so we put both on the label. That if Glyphosate is a concern to the consumer then we test for it. 

That is it, no more no less. 

If you don't agree with that, then that is also fine. It is only a view a perspective and opinion. I have never asked you to change anything you do. I don't know who you are or what you do or produce. It is not of my concern. 

Adam

Put it up against other brands... Lindauer. 

Edited by Merk

Share this post


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

I wish everyone would have your maturity towards criticism 

Thank you. My truthful opinion. A forum should be just that. Open and robust free discussion. If I do not have the confidence to defend any brand I represent then I should be doing another job. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Put it up against other brands... Lindauer. 

You have lost me there. Can you explain?

Share this post


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

Our marketing is pretty clear. I have stated as my opinion and it is on the website and printed on every PURITI jar that genuine Manuka honey must be 'Harvested, Tested, Certified and Packed' in NZ. In my opinion the Australian Jelly Bush (faux Manuka) test is inferior to the MPI Manuka Honey Science Definition. I have never bagged any brand. I am an advocate on Manuka honey. I want to see improved standards throughout the industry. I want to see NZ making efforts to protect the Manuka brand. I want to see all brands listening to the concerns of the international consumer and reacting appropriately. The MPI definition may not be perfect. It can I am sure be improved. For the moment it is what we have. to build on it can only be a positive. To add to it can only be a positive. 

So how would you deal with the NZ variety of manuka grown in Aussie - and there is a heap of it planted? It will in all probability pass our testing so how would it be any less effective? Saying 'cause it's not ours' ain't going to cut it.

Share this post


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

How about only Manuka comes from nz.

@Merk your honey would off passed the tests rather than bagging. Why not market your honey as better we have this race to the bottom mentally we should be aming to pass the tests with flying colors and then brag about it hell I would put money on my honey passing the ozy tests let's sell that ? 

@glynn I'd love to support better quality manuka brands. In fact I do - as a producer who makes an exceptional quality product myself.

 

I totally support excellence in the manuka marketing industry, but unfortunately puriti does not meet that description. 

 

They are an average quality brand, who make extravagant claims and back it up with misleading data. 

 

If they were truthful they'd say "puriti, decent honey in round jar, unnecessarily tested for roundup residue. Meets some basic consumer guarantees act guidelines".

Share this post


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

You have lost me there. Can you explain?

Average quality honey, quite nice packaging, not the most expensive. 

 

Can you explain this?:

 

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.

Edited by Merk

Share this post


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

So how would you deal with the NZ variety of manuka grown in Aussie - and there is a heap of it planted? It will in all probability pass our testing so how would it be any less effective? Saying 'cause it's not ours' ain't going to cut it.

I think that there are an number of approaches to this. One example would be that of taking a wonderful Chardonnay vine cutting from the Changaign region of France and planting it and cultivating it in New South Wales. It is never going to make it Dom Perignon or Verve Clicquot and it will never demand the same price or kudos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sailabee said:

So how would you deal with the NZ variety of manuka grown in Aussie - and there is a heap of it planted? It will in all probability pass our testing so how would it be any less effective? Saying 'cause it's not ours' ain't going to cut it.

 

Goes back to the Champagne verse Lindauer scenario: 

 

                             NZ Manuka's the Champagne equivalent

 

                             Auzzi grown/produced Jelly Bush / T Tree's the Lindauer equivalent  

Share this post


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

Average quality honey, quite nice packaging, not the most expensive. 

 

Can you explain this?:

 

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.

I am still lost. Do you mean that you still don't understand the increasing of a pass mark over and above a legislative standard and then applying to both export and domestic product and the additional testing for chemical residue? Are you saying that you do not understand the complexities of the jar, the unique design, the strengthened anti tamper barrier and branded induction seal? Are you saying you do not understand the label concept and the security design elements. The anti tamper break strip? Competitive but fair premium quality pricing?

You are starting to explain a lot Merk. What brand is it that you produce? 

Share this post


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

 

Goes back to the Champagne verse Lindauer scenario: 

 

                             NZ Manuka's the Champagne equivalent

 

                             Auzzi grown/produced Jelly Bush / T Tree's the Lindauer equivalent  

You are correct. Lindauer is a fine product I am sure. I am also sure though that Moet would question any comparison. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am still lost. Do you mean that you still don't understand the increasing of a pass mark over and above a legislative standard and then applying to both export and domestic product and the additional testing for chemical residue? Are you saying that you do not understand the complexities of the jar, the unique design, the strengthened anti tamper barrier and branded induction seal? Are you saying you do not understand the label concept and the security design elements. The anti tamper break strip? Competitive but fair premium quality pricing?

You are starting to explain a lot Merk. What brand is it that you produce? 

Hey Boot. I get that the jar is different from your competitors but packaging doesn't define a premium product. 

The rest of the things you mentioned are already being done by most honey brands. 

 

Share this post


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

Hey Boot. I get that the jar is different from your competitors but packaging doesn't define a premium product. 

The rest of the things you mentioned are already being done by most honey brands. 

 

Are they indeed? You do this yourself do you? You actually specify a higher test criteria than the MPI definition on all 4 chemical markers? You guarantee this and make it clear on your jar for all consumers to see? So you have introduced testing for Glyphosate just to be sure? So you have actively taken measures to protect your brand from counterfeit? great well done. Lets see it? You must be very proud of it? What was the brand again? 

While we are at it. If MOST brands are already doing this why even bother with a consultation period to debate the introduction of the current standard to the domestic market? If as you say MOST brands are already doing this then why do they not say so? Why don't we all go to the MPI and the Government and ask them to increase the pass marks? Sounds great to me. I will be there boots and all. And when they do increase the testing I will just increase the testing for PURITI to be above the new legislation. 

Share this post


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

Are they indeed? You do this yourself do you? You actually specify a higher test criteria than the MPI definition on all 4 chemical markers? You guarantee this and make it clear on your jar for all consumers to see? So you have introduced testing for Glyphosate just to be sure? So you have actively taken measures to protect your brand from counterfeit? great well done. Lets see it? You must be very proud of it? What was the brand again? 

While we are at it. If MOST brands are already doing this why even bother with a consultation period to debate the introduction of the current standard to the domestic market? If as you say MOST brands are already doing this then why do they not say so? Why don't we all go to the MPI and the Government and ask them to increase the pass marks? Sounds great to me. I will be there boots and all. And when they do increase the testing I will just increase the testing for PURITI to be above the new legislation. 

Boot. Writing the test results on the jar doesn't make it a better product.

If the test results were higher than everybody else's, then I'd take notice. But yours won't be. 

 

 A $275 glyphosate doesn't make a premium product either (Although if my hives spent half the season in the roundup-soaked seed crops of the Canterbury plains I'd probably consider it).

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...