Jump to content
Merk

What does 'pure manuka' mean?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Merk said:

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

And your g -string contains a sock.
Why dont you lighten up a bit,
 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

And your g -string contains a sock.
Why dont you lighten up a bit,
 

Hey Phil. I agree, we should all be having a laugh about puriti's ridiculous claims ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this has gone from weirdly vitriolic to straight out ludicrous: Thanks for your level headed debate and patience Adam

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6

Share this post


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

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).

I think you are making your opinion of improved testing and improved standards quite clear. You obviously have an ulterior motive. Putting higher standards on the jar does make it no better. It is sticking to and guaranteeing these standards that does. It is saying that our minimum requirement is higher than required and we don't mind you the consumer knowing what we do and test for. It is saying that should legislation get tougher we will just raise the bar again and continue to do so. I am not asking you do do any Glyphosate testing at all. This is your prerogative. The standard you have set your product is what you have determined necessary. If you choose not to tell the consumer the testing levels you work to, then that again is your prerogative. If you choose to only apply the MPI definition to you export product, then that again is your choice. It is within the law. If you decide not to tell the consumer or retailer or think that it does not matter and they don't care, then that again is your choice. How you define and market your brand is your choice. If you choose to use the typical generic jar and lid because it is cheap and convenient  then this is your choice. 

Now, what was your brand again? 

Share this post


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

Wow this has gone from weirdly vitriolic to straight out ludicrous: Thanks for your level headed debate and patience Adam

 

2 minutes ago, Frederick said:

Wow this has gone from weirdly vitriolic to straight out ludicrous: Thanks for your level headed debate and patience Adam

Frederick. Honestly I don't mind at all. Merk is entitled to an opinion. Our options differ that is all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think you are making your opinion of improved testing and improved standards quite clear. You obviously have an ulterior motive. Putting higher standards on the jar does make it no better. It is sticking to and guaranteeing these standards that does. It is saying that our minimum requirement is higher than required and we don't mind you the consumer knowing what we do and test for. It is saying that should legislation get tougher we will just raise the bar again and continue to do so. I am not asking you do do any Glyphosate testing at all. This is your prerogative. The standard you have set your product is what you have determined necessary. If you choose not to tell the consumer the testing levels you work to, then that again is your prerogative. If you choose to only apply the MPI definition to you export product, then that again is your choice. It is within the law. If you decide not to tell the consumer or retailer or think that it does not matter and they don't care, then that again is your choice. How you define and market your brand is your choice. If you choose to use the typical generic jar and lid because it is cheap and convenient  then this is your choice. 

Now, what was your brand again? 

Geez you take a long time to say nothing Boot. 

Share this post


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

Hey Phil. I agree, we should all be having a laugh about puriti's ridiculous claims ???

Like it or not (and lets face it you don't) there is nothing non factual about any of the claims. The higher test pass mark is what we work to simple as that. 

Share this post


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

Geez you take a long time to say nothing Boot. 

And your brand was? I missed it. You must be very proud of it? 

Share this post


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

Hey Phil. I agree, we should all be having a laugh about puriti's ridiculous claims ???

And your brand name is what exactly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boot. I produce manuka honey. I've posted the test results of some of it on this forum. I'd wager its better than puriti's. Do your homework. Brand name is not relevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 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. 

Never any mention of Pollen DNA. But first, I must apologise, I jumped into this thread, and got it wrong.  I saw the graph, it was very irritating, didn't investigate, jumped to the conclusion that you were pushing a domestic line of 'Manuka' on 3-PLA alone, and  made some unfair comments.  I have since looked at your website, again irritating, but sort of within the bounds of overly enthusiastic marketing.  Looked at the graph for all the markers, and scrolled down  to the image of one of your retail packs- 5plus, 100MGO described as 'Pure, Raw, Manuka Honey', very irritating, and we all know totally untrue, but that is marketing I guess.  Even though I looked carefully,  no mention of the Pollen DNA test.  4 out of 5 ain't good enough, without all 5(even with all 5), it makes it easy for your master blenders to turn Sow's Ear Honey into Silk Purse Honey and do so using very little silk. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Never any mention of Pollen DNA. But first, I must apologise, I jumped into this thread, and got it wrong.  I saw the graph, it was very irritating, didn't investigate, jumped to the conclusion that you were pushing a domestic line of 'Manuka' on 3-PLA alone, and  made some unfair comments.  I have since looked at your website, again irritating, but sort of within the bounds of overly enthusiastic marketing.  Looked at the graph for all the markers, and scrolled down  to the image of one of your retail packs- 5plus, 100MGO described as 'Pure, Raw, Manuka Honey', very irritating, and we all know totally untrue, but that is marketing I guess.  Even though I looked carefully,  no mention of the Pollen DNA test.  4 out of 5 ain't good enough, without all 5(even with all 5), it makes it easy for your master blenders to turn Sow's Ear Honey into Silk Purse Honey and do so using very little silk. 

Thank you for your feed back. When we say or refer to the MPI Manuka Honey Science Definition, we are referencing the entirety of it. All 5 Attributes. This includes the Pollen DNA as a given as that is part of the definition. I do not doubt what you say about master blenders and never will. I can only revert back to the MPI Standard. That is legislation as it stands. I am not the law maker. We have to work with the law not against it. As to whether I believe the Definition could be improved or strengthened, then that is another discussion. Please also remember that there is true in our opinion and true in compliance to the law and the determination of the law. 

Share this post


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

Never any mention of Pollen DNA. But first, I must apologise, I jumped into this thread, and got it wrong.  I saw the graph, it was very irritating, didn't investigate, jumped to the conclusion that you were pushing a domestic line of 'Manuka' on 3-PLA alone, and  made some unfair comments.  I have since looked at your website, again irritating, but sort of within the bounds of overly enthusiastic marketing.  Looked at the graph for all the markers, and scrolled down  to the image of one of your retail packs- 5plus, 100MGO described as 'Pure, Raw, Manuka Honey', very irritating, and we all know totally untrue, but that is marketing I guess.  Even though I looked carefully,  no mention of the Pollen DNA test.  4 out of 5 ain't good enough, without all 5(even with all 5), it makes it easy for your master blenders to turn Sow's Ear Honey into Silk Purse Honey and do so using very little silk. 

There ain't no 100mgo honey out there that's pure manuka. Clever use of a comma. 

Share this post


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

Boot. I produce manuka honey. I've posted the test results of some of it on this forum. I'd wager its better than puriti's. Do your homework. Brand name is not relevant. 

I do not sift through the forum to see your historic comments. Why would I? When you say some of your test results your are starting to sound a little selective Merk? Now fairs fair Merk. You have spent 2 days disparaging PURITI and I have answered every question or criticism. You have not actually answered anything. Do you have one standard for domestic and another for export? Do you explain all to your consumer and retail partners? Do you declare your testing on the label? do you protect Manuka Honey from counterfeit? Do you use the same generic jar as all your competition? 

All you have actually said is that you don't test for Glyphosate. Now you have been perfectly happy to criticise and that is fine. I am fair game and I am not going to hide behind anything. 

It concerns me a little though when you are so very bold but not prepared to name your brand. Should we be concerned? 

 

Share this post


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

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

You are entitled to your opinion. At least I will stand behind the name of our brand. What was your brand called again? I keep missing it. You must be very proud? 

Edited by Adam Boot

Share this post


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

I do not sift through the forum to see your historic comments. Why would I? When you say some of your test results your are starting to sound a little selective Merk? Now fairs fair Merk. You have spent 2 days disparaging PURITI and I have answered every question or criticism. You have not actually answered anything. Do you have one standard for domestic and another for export? Do you explain all to your consumer and retail partners? Do you declare your testing on the label? do you protect Manuka Honey from counterfeit? Do you use the same generic jar as all your competition? 

All you have actually said is that you don't test for Glyphosate. Now you have been perfectly happy to criticise and that is fine. I am fair game and I am not going to hide behind anything. 

It concerns me a little though when you are so very bold but not prepared to name your brand. Should we be concerned? 

 

Classic 'whataboutism'. I've trashed your boss's brand and made your claims look hollow so you're trying to distract. 

You have answered some questions, but completely failed to establish why your brand is premium. 

 

 

Share this post


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

You are entitled to your opinion. At least I will stand behind the name of our brand. What was your brand called again? I keep missing it. You must be very proud? 

Can't tell from your comment if you already know my brand or not. If you do, and have beef with it, feel free to start a new topic and go for your life. Don't care one bit. 

Share this post


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

Classic 'whataboutism'. I've trashed your boss's brand and made your claims look hollow so you're trying to distract. 

You have answered some questions, but completely failed to establish why your brand is premium. 

 

 

Merk you have trashed nothing. Over the space of two days you have done nothing but vindicate every decision I have made about this brand. You have given me a platform to answer questions and gauge what you (possible competition) actually has to offer. You have told me exactly what you don't do or what you won't do or what doesn't matter. The fact that it has got under your skin is evidence enough that improving standards is not your thing. That you cannot even bring yourself to name your own brand says volumes for your confidence and only boosts mine. I am struggling to thank you enough. As part of an engagement exercise you have been a delight. As part of a competitor environmental analysis you have been a little dream. 

Many thanks

Adam 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Can't tell from your comment if you already know my brand or not. If you do, and have beef with it, feel free to start a new topic and go for your life. Don't care one bit. 

Seriously have not got a clue. Don't even know your real name. Why would I have a beef with your brand? Should I? It is only a brand. I would never openly name and criticise any competitor brand. Why would I? I have nothing to gain. It tends to be what brands don't do, don't say and don't claim that is most telling. The fact that you don't name your brand is profoundly telling and raises serious question marks for some one so willing to through stones. Well I am sure you have your reasons. 

Thanks again 

 

Adam

Share this post


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

Seriously have not got a clue. Don't even know your real name. Why would I have a beef with your brand? Should I? It is only a brand. I would never openly name and criticise any competitor brand. Why would I? I have nothing to gain. It tends to be what brands don't do, don't say and don't claim that is most telling. The fact that you don't name your brand is profoundly telling and raises serious question marks for some one so willing to through stones. Well I am sure you have your reasons. 

Thanks again 

 

Adam

I keep my brand off the forum because pearls before swine and all that. A lot of people on here know what it is and if they want to out me I don't care, but it's nothing but a distraction on a thread about purity fakery. 

You definitely live in a post truth environment and will fail because of it. Marketing hacks are among my least favourite humans along with lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians. 

 

Share this post


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

Come on Merk tell us what your brand is!

Cheers for the interest Fred but until you can show me how that's relevant to misleading claims by struggling honey startups I'll politely decline. 

However, as you can see from my profile pic, I assure you that I have nothing to hide. ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey Adam

 

Just been on your site: For a brand that hasn't even hit the market you do make some far reaching claims to be fair

 

[.....Defender of the Resource - Protector of the Manuka Honey Name...] Hell 'Defender of the Universe - Champion of the Downtrodden and generally all that's good about life in general', wouldn't be amiss claims in the setting?

 

No wonder you've raised the ire of some of your compatriots.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I keep my brand off the forum because pearls before swine and all that. A lot of people on here know what it is and if they want to out me I don't care, but it's nothing but a distraction on a thread about purity fakery. 

You definitely live in a post truth environment and will fail because of it. Marketing hacks are among my least favourite humans along with lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians. 

 

Merk. You crack me up. Honestly I have not laughed so much in ages. You are a gem. You keep your brand off the forum but felt it appropriate to start this topic with some one else's. You don't name your brand because you don't have the stones or spine to do so. In your opinion I am a marketing hack. So what. who cares. What is the value placed on your opinion? 

Are you trying to hide something? I don't quite get this lack of confidence with naming your brand? There is something a little amiss here in my humble opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's not being mentioned is the UMF standard.   It is probably accepted that UMF represents the majority of the substantial manuka honey producers.  It is not mentioned though on the Puriti site, even though Midland Apiaries is the most recent UMF licencee?  Is there a reason for it not being mentioned?

 

 

  • Good Info 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.

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...