Jump to content
Merk

What does 'pure manuka' mean?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Jean MacDonald said:

Puriti in Japanese means beautiful and since they seem to have a maorified name lets look at that Riti means to read while the word Puriti does not exist Pu has multiple meanings such as "to blow gently" "firearm" or "particle" so could mean "Having read the particles we will now gentle blow smoke up your..." or you could look up Puri and switch the Te/Ti to the front. 

You have put far more thought to the name than I did. Quite a spectrum of possible interpretation. Love it. 

Thank you Adam

Share this post


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

In the last month there have been articles in the London Times, The Telegraph, Hong Kong Post and articles from the USA all on the same subjects. This is a snap shot and there is more coming. It is every couple of weeks now. The subjects are testing, failure to meet label, confusion over standards etc The Holland & Barratt issue is now part of their new $2.5m marketing campaign. They have tried to take the high ground on testing as part of the marketing exercise. However you need to delve deeper. The exercise is designed to promote MGO only. They refer to applying the NZ standard but are infact not testing to the MPI Definition at all. They are just ensuring MGO levels. Additionally they own a number of the brands they sell so are infact testing themselves. Also these brands are not all packed in NZ so the Definition has not been applied. They are currently promoting 500g 70MGO for $105 nod buy one, second one for a penny. So $50 per jar for something that would not pass mono or 5+. 

This is what we are all up against. 

To further expand on this topic, I would like to say that in my opinion much of the bad press is self inflicted by the Manuka industry in NZ. We allowed bulk Manuka to leave these shores without any control over the end product. As an industry we have not marketed and explained the MPI Definition. We even have people producing 'clear skin product' or jars of honey without labels for export. The labels are put on by overseas packers thus avoiding the MPI definition and NZ labelling laws. Lets not kid ourselves or blame the Government. This is the result of a get rich quick mentality. A lack of unity and desire to raise standards and little or no long term view to the sustainability and growth and value of an industry. Rather than constantly leading the way, being at the forefront and defining Manuka to our own ends we have deliberately been asleep at the wheel. We are now playing catch up and fighting back fires for a product we should have complete ownership and control over from it's origin, to it's name, to its very essence. 

 

Adam

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Hands

Are you attempting to hold the New Zealand Government to ransom at the expense of the Apiculture industry?

Are  you attempting to use an industry forum to further your personal agenda?

What is your Stake in the Apiculture industry?

 

Share this post


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

Big Hands

Are you attempting to hold the New Zealand Government to ransom at the expense of the Apiculture industry?

Are  you attempting to use an industry forum to further your personal agenda?

What is your Stake in the Apiculture industry?

 

How to misread and miss interpret 101.

- I said do NOT blame the Government.

- The Apiculture industry in NZ must lead the charge with self policing.

- Any agenda I have is the long term growth, increased value and sustainability of the NZ honey industry

- I did not start this topic. I responded. You know full well the skin I have in this game or has the very first post on this topic passed you by. 

- If I am off the mark? Would you please point out what part of clear skinning, uncontrolled bulk shipping, deliberate avoiding of the MPI definition, lack of unity over standards and definitions is actually working to our long term good? 

 

Please enlighten me!

 

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn’t surprise me the UK are testing to old standards .

Manuka honey Before the standard was always about the MGO/UMF not about the percentage of Manuka nectar in the honey.

 

 

Share this post


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

How to misread and miss interpret 101.

- I said do NOT blame the Government.

- The Apiculture industry in NZ must lead the charge with self policing.

- Any agenda I have is the long term growth, increased value and sustainability of the NZ honey industry

- I did not start this topic. I responded. You know full well the skin I have in this game or has the very first post on this topic passed you by. 

- If I am off the mark? Would you please point out what part of clear skinning, uncontrolled bulk shipping, deliberate avoiding of the MPI definition, lack of unity over standards and definitions is actually working to our long term good? 

 

Please enlighten me!

 

Adam

 

@Adam Boot the comment was made to @Bighands about his stance on 1080 not to you 

Edited by frazzledfozzle

Share this post


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

It doesn’t surprise me the UK are testing to old standards .

Manuka honey Before the standard was always about the MGO/UMF not about the percentage of Manuka nectar in the honey.

 

 

Correct. However remember this is a UK retailer doing the testing and not a government authority. The retailer can test for what they want and spin it however they want. UMF/MGO or Methylglyoxal was never going to be accepted as a standard and definition for a specific food, of specific origin. Methylglyoxal can naturally occur in other food types. The MPI and Government understood this and hence the MPI Definition.

Share this post


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

 

@Adam Boot the comment was made to @Bighands about his stance on 1080 not to you 

I am so sorry. A sad reflection of my defensive system. I am trying to get it under control I promise. 

Adam

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I am so sorry. A sad reflection of my defensive system. I am trying to get it under control I promise. 

Adam

I like your enthusiasm Adam, I really do .

Keep on doing what you do ??

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Big Hands

Are you attempting to hold the New Zealand Government to ransom at the expense of the Apiculture industry?

Are  you attempting to use an industry forum to further your personal agenda?

What is your Stake in the Apiculture industry?

 

No way am I holding the government to ransom and I am not using  this forum to persue my personal agenda.All I am doing is pointing out a few facts that some beekeepers are not aware of. An example is the dairy industry.China is now testing instant baby formula for 1080 as it looks as though the dairy companies dont. I do believe that they are going to test our honey as well. MY STAKE i am a hobbyist who exported to the usa but sell honey at markets now.I have had bees since 1977 so have lots of changes in the industry.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bighands because you are so interested in 1080 and honey why don’t you test some of your hives / honey. 

I think it’s probably something you should be doing if you think there’s a possibility of contamination 

 

 

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Correct. However remember this is a UK retailer doing the testing and not a government authority. The retailer can test for what they want and spin it however they want. UMF/MGO or Methylglyoxal was never going to be accepted as a standard and definition for a specific food, of specific origin. Methylglyoxal can naturally occur in other food types. The MPI and Government understood this and hence the MPI Definition.

 

Fera used to be the government authority until they were spun out as a separate organisation I believe.

I think MGO/DHA were not accepted because of their rapidly changing rates and their ability to adulterate by the drum (as in, buying the chemicals in . . .)

Many touted the UMFHA standard as being the way to go . . .which would have smoothed the way for Australian honeys which have much higher levels of these markers (even leptosperin)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Bighands because you are so interested in 1080 and honey why don’t you test some of your hives / honey. 

I think it’s probably something you should be doing if you think there’s a possibility of contamination 

 

 

The last time my honey  was tested for 1080 was in 2000 by esr and it came back zero.It will come back zero again as they have not dropped 1080 where my hives are.All I am doing is opening peoples eyes to the possible contamination of our products.

Share this post


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

 

Fera used to be the government authority until they were spun out as a separate organisation I believe.

I think MGO/DHA were not accepted because of their rapidly changing rates and their ability to adulterate by the drum (as in, buying the chemicals in . . .)

Many touted the UMFHA standard as being the way to go . . .which would have smoothed the way for Australian honeys which have much higher levels of these markers (even leptosperin)

Much better explanation than mine. 

Share this post


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

The last time my honey  was tested for 1080 was in 2000 by esr and it came back zero.It will come back zero again as they have not dropped 1080 where my hives are.All I am doing is opening peoples eyes to the possible contamination of our products.

 

I agree with @Daley you are scaremongering.

if you want to go down the track of opening peoples eyes to possible contamination there would be a myriad of things you could put higher on your list than 1080 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

No way am I holding the government to ransom and I am not using  this forum to persue my personal agenda.All I am doing is pointing out a few facts that some beekeepers are not aware of. An example is the dairy industry.China is now testing instant baby formula for 1080 as it looks as though the dairy companies dont. I do believe that they are going to test our honey as well. MY STAKE i am a hobbyist who exported to the usa but sell honey at markets now.I have had bees since 1977 so have lots of changes in the industry.

I know who you are

I would suggest that a more appropriate way to educate Beeks in this situation would be by phone or word of mouth
I can assure you that word travels fast in this industry when Beeks find out something of real interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Adam Boot there is an article in the guardian about doctors encouraging people to eat honey and not take antibiotics for a cold .

It did not say Manuka , just honey .

A good thing for all honey .

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

How to misread and miss interpret 101.

- I said do NOT blame the Government.

- The Apiculture industry in NZ must lead the charge with self policing.

- Any agenda I have is the long term growth, increased value and sustainability of the NZ honey industry

- I did not start this topic. I responded. You know full well the skin I have in this game or has the very first post on this topic passed you by. 

- If I am off the mark? Would you please point out what part of clear skinning, uncontrolled bulk shipping, deliberate avoiding of the MPI definition, lack of unity over standards and definitions is actually working to our long term good? 

 

Please enlighten me!

 

Adam

Lol Adam, I would have a hair trigger at the moment also Lol
 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

That is a slightly different scenario if it was a wound dressing or ointment. The bulk Manuka may well have been shipped to the UK where the product production and irradiation took place. 

In another lighter vein....the Australian faux Manuka may not need to be irradiated?

They irradiated a large swath of the country themselves (with the Brits). Anyone else remember the reports of radioactive rain falling on Melbourne? Bout 24 hours after one of the above ground tests.

Share this post


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

To further expand on this topic, I would like to say that in my opinion much of the bad press is self inflicted by the Manuka industry in NZ. We allowed bulk Manuka to leave these shores without any control over the end product. As an industry we have not marketed and explained the MPI Definition. We even have people producing 'clear skin product' or jars of honey without labels for export. The labels are put on by overseas packers thus avoiding the MPI definition and NZ labelling laws. Lets not kid ourselves or blame the Government. This is the result of a get rich quick mentality. A lack of unity and desire to raise standards and little or no long term view to the sustainability and growth and value of an industry. Rather than constantly leading the way, being at the forefront and defining Manuka to our own ends we have deliberately been asleep at the wheel. We are now playing catch up and fighting back fires for a product we should have complete ownership and control over from it's origin, to it's name, to its very essence. 

 

Adam

Adam, as a non beekeeper, you have no way of understanding that some of the manuka being sold overseas has no NZ content at all - including the honey, and we can also have container loads of drumed honey leaving NZ labeled as something completely different, and no-one knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Philbee said:
4 hours ago, Bighands said:

No way am I holding the government to ransom and I am not using  this forum to persue my personal agenda.All I am doing is pointing out a few facts that some beekeepers are not aware of. An example is the dairy industry.China is now testing instant baby formula for 1080 as it looks as though the dairy companies dont. I do believe that they are going to test our honey as well. MY STAKE i am a hobbyist who exported to the usa but sell honey at markets now.I have had bees since 1977 so have lots of changes in the industry.

I know who you are

 

Big Hands- he can't wear gloves, drinks tea instead of water (no water, even on hot days) and drove a hilux with the spare tyre on the roof.  A delayed welcome home. 

Share this post


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

In another lighter vein....the Australian faux Manuka may not need to be irradiated?

They irradiated a large swath of the country themselves (with the Brits). Anyone else remember the reports of radioactive rain falling on Melbourne? Bout 24 hours after one of the above ground tests.

Ali, that explaines the Aussie toothless mullet big gut singlet n thong wearing sites I saw over there, n that was just the kids

  • Haha 5

Share this post


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

If we make enough noise Fera and others will look to the MPI Definition for guidance. 

"Fera" is Fera Science Ltd of UK?

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...