Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Thank you for having me 🙂

 

I'm the Key Account Manager for Honey at Hill Laboratories.

 

If you have any questions regarding honey testing, or showing compliance for the most cost effective way possible, I'm happy to help.

 

Ask away!

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I'm the Key Account Manager for Honey at Hill Laboratories.

Are you willing to scratch all my invoices for a pot of honey.?😇 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @KelleeAntoinette, I've got batches of honey from three distinct honey pulls.

all in 2019 and north of wellington from locations with low likelihood of tutin issues but still want to test for that. 

One batch i'm very interested in finding out how it goes against the mpi manuka markers.

Best/cheapest approach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Trevor Gillbanks 😊

 

Am really enjoying reading through the other forums and gaining a further understanding of our Beekeepers struggles/views!

17 hours ago, nab said:

Are you willing to scratch all my invoices for a pot of honey.?😇 

@nab haha, send me an email at kellee.henton@hill-labs.co.nz and I will sort you out a discounted quote for all of your future testing 😉

11 hours ago, tommy dave said:

Hi @KelleeAntoinette, I've got batches of honey from three distinct honey pulls.

all in 2019 and north of wellington from locations with low likelihood of tutin issues but still want to test for that. 

One batch i'm very interested in finding out how it goes against the mpi manuka markers.

Best/cheapest approach?

Hi @tommy dave 😊

Firstly, if you have multiple honeys with a low likelihood of tutin then I'd recommend testing via composite testing. This is suitable for selling honey/export. As tutin is heavily regulated under the Food Act, it is important that the honey is sent in as individual samples with the lab to do the composite.

 

I have seen other questions on other forums as to why the lab must composite the samples so I will address this here too -  the MRL for any individual tutin sample is 0.7 mg/kg. When you composite, that MRL must be divided by the number of samples (ie = 10 sample composite = 0.7 / 10 = 0.07 mg/kg). As this MRL is very low, it is important that the honey samples are an accurate representation of each, they homogenized and weighed in the lab to ensure this.

 

In terms of the Manuka Markers, if you are just wanting to get a preliminary result, you can test just the four chemical markers. This will give you an idea of how the honey stacks up against the definition - you can then add the DNA portion to the same honey if you are wanting to sell/export (as we keep the sample for four weeks after testing) . Please note that if you are then adding DNA, it must be on the same honey within that four week period.

 

But our Manuka 5 Attributes test (both chemicals and DNA) and tutin are next day turn around time, so you'll have an answer pretty quickly 😉 

 

If you'd like a break down of pricing I can make you up a quote, just email me at kellee.henton@hill-labs.co.nz

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kellee

 

I have read, hopefully correctly, that in 2015 the Tutin level was dropped from 2.0 mg/kg to the current 0.7 mg/kg which is a significant reduction could you tell me a/ if my information is correct and b/ the resigning behind the redefinition of the Tutin level.

I'm a third year bee keeper so all this is new information to me on huge learning curve.

 

Thanks. Andrew

Share this post


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

if my information is correct

Yes

 

2 hours ago, AndrewNZ said:

the resigning behind the redefinition

Same as anything else, total risk aversion however slight. I test mine myself. Still here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hi Kellee

 

I have read, hopefully correctly, that in 2015 the Tutin level was dropped from 2.0 mg/kg to the current 0.7 mg/kg which is a significant reduction could you tell me a/ if my information is correct and b/ the resigning behind the redefinition of the Tutin level.

I'm a third year bee keeper so all this is new information to me on huge learning curve.

 

Thanks. Andrew

My understanding is that they found that with the higher test 2.0mg that when honey sat for a while that it actully grew a little or reacted with the honey and was potentially dangerous so they had to lower the starting point.

  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

My understanding is that they found that with the higher test 2.0mg that when honey sat for a while that it actully grew a little or reacted with the honey and was potentially dangerous so they had to lower the starting point.

 

Pretty much. There was some research published in 2014 which showed that when you eat honey containing tutin, it appears in your bloodstream after 1-2 hours, then again after 10-20 hours. This suggested there were multiple chemical forms of tutin which were naturally present in the honey. You can see that paper here.

 

Further research in 2015 conclusively showed that there honey contained additional forms of tutin called glycosides, which are tutin molecules with sugars attached to them. You can see that paper here here.

 

I believe the MRL was reduced in 2016 in response to these pieces of research, as the 2010 standard at 2.0 mg/kg didn't account for these additional forms of tutin.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So two blokes in the trial complained of a mild transient headache when ingesting honey with tutin levels of 2.0mg/kg which then led to a decrease in allowable levels to the ridiculously low level it is now.

damn I’ve got a bit of a headache right now, it must be some nasty spray residue in the kiwifruit I had for lunch.

 

mild transient headache...give me a break

first mistake was using men in the trial !

1.8 mg/kg

ran out of time to edit 

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well .... I can see the reasoning in using men for the trial. Women seem to have a headache most of the time so the trial might well be inconclusive  .....and now I think I'll just duck for cover.

Edited by jamesc
  • Haha 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! the age old question.

 

"If women are so good at multi tasking why can't they have a headache and sex at the same time?"

Any spare room in your shelter @jamesc

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/04/2019 at 10:08 AM, AndrewNZ said:

Hi Kellee

 

I have read, hopefully correctly, that in 2015 the Tutin level was dropped from 2.0 mg/kg to the current 0.7 mg/kg which is a significant reduction could you tell me a/ if my information is correct and b/ the resigning behind the redefinition of the Tutin level.

I'm a third year bee keeper so all this is new information to me on huge learning curve.

 

Thanks. Andrew

Hi @AndrewNZ,

 

It look like I've already been beaten to answering most of this question!

 

The MRL of tutin was reduced to 0.7 mg/kg in March 2015 due to further toxicology research - this document explains the reduction and reasoning well https://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/dmsdocument/10136/direct - but to put it simply at 2.0 mg/kg people were still getting sick.

 

For any science buffs out there, this report explains some of the reported cases of tutin poisoning in NZ, symptoms and the kinetic of tutin and the human body - "Experimentally, the median oral lethal dose(LD50) of tutin in mice is 4.7mg/kg body-weight."

 https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2018/vol-131-no-1473-13-april-2018/7544

 

Furthermore, Andrew, this is my favorite document on tutin which you may find useful https://apinz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1331_Saturday_TutinArticle_Digital_FINAL.pdf

 

Happy reading!

On 25/04/2019 at 1:06 PM, yesbut said:

Yes

 

Same as anything else, total risk aversion however slight. I test mine myself. Still here.

Hi @yesbut 😊

 

I'd be interested to hear how you are testing your honey for tutin? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But to put it simply at 2.0 mg/kg people were still getting sick.

 

Can you please link me to some documented examples of this ?

Share this post


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

 

Can you please link me to some documented examples of this ?

"Some individuals were found to be able to very efficiently convert tutin glycosides into tutin and therefore the temporary maximum levels for tutin in honey of 2 mg/kg was not sufficiently protective of human health."  https://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/dmsdocument/10136/direct

 

"Based on the results of the human pharmacokinetic study, it is considered possible that adverse effects such as mild light-headedness and headache may be experienced following the consumption of honey containing tutin at the current ML of 2 mg/kg. ii Such adverse effects are more likely if a large amount of honey (≥0.9 g of honey per kg bodyweight) is consumed in one sitting, as was the case in the pharmacokinetic study. The risk of adverse effects is increased if the ingested honey has a ratio of tutin glycosides to tutin at the high end of the observed range." https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/proposals/Documents/P1029 Tutin in honey SD1 Risk Assess.pdf

 

And this is the research paper on the study mentioned above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514003640

 

Kellee 😊

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great information Thanks Kellee and everyone else my honey tested this year at 0.75 mg/kg and I'm assuming that is down to the drought we here in the top of the south but it also means that I shall be testing next year to check if it was a one off.

If I come across a Tutin bush am I allowed to deal with it?

 

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, AndrewNZ said:

If I come across a Tutin bush am I allowed to deal with it?

Sure.  As long as you are not eating it.

However. Tutin is the Toxin.  Tutu is the plant.

Edited by Trevor Gillbanks

Share this post


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

Sure.  As long as you are not eating it.

However. Tutin is the Toxin.  Tutu is the plant.

If its a dying Tutu Bush then its better for my honey! 

Share this post


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

 

Hi @yesbut 😊

 

I'd be interested to hear how you are testing your honey for tutin? 

A tasting regime over the course of a few days,  from my bucket of amalgamated harvest. 

 

9 minutes ago, AndrewNZ said:

If its a dying Tutu Bush then its better for my honey! 

Actually Tutu as well as being extremely common is a valuable plant. It's a rapid coloniser and the first plant to appear on for example a roadside slip or eroding stream banks. You'd be better looking for ways to demolish the local scolypopa australis aka Passion Vine Hopper

 

Share this post


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

So two blokes in the trial complained of a mild transient headache when ingesting honey with tutin levels of 2.0mg/kg which then led to a decrease in allowable levels to the ridiculously low level it is now.

damn I’ve got a bit of a headache right now, it must be some nasty spray residue in the kiwifruit I had for lunch.

 

mild transient headache...give me a break

first mistake was using men in the trial !

1.8 mg/kg

ran out of time to edit 

not real men used,

2 minutes ago, yesbut said:

A tasting regime over the course of a few days,  from my bucket of amalgamated harvest. 

 

Actually Tutu as well as being extremely common is a valuable plant. It's a rapid coloniser and the first plant to appear on for example a roadside slip or eroding stream banks. You'd be better looking for ways to demolish the local scolypopa australis aka Passion Vine Hopper

 

looks nice in the garden as well,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, AndrewNZ said:

If I come across a Tutin bush am I allowed to deal with it?

Dont wast your time with it, you would have to kill every plant in a 5km+ radius of your hives to be sure that you may be ok.

The plant itself is ok so are the flowers, its the bloody Aussies that feed off it that are the problem, kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, KelleeAntoinette said:

"Some individuals were found to be able to very efficiently convert tutin glycosides into tutin and therefore the temporary maximum levels for tutin in honey of 2 mg/kg was not sufficiently protective of human health."  https://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/dmsdocument/10136/direct

 

"Based on the results of the human pharmacokinetic study, it is considered possible that adverse effects such as mild light-headedness and headache may be experienced following the consumption of honey containing tutin at the current ML of 2 mg/kg. ii Such adverse effects are more likely if a large amount of honey (≥0.9 g of honey per kg bodyweight) is consumed in one sitting, as was the case in the pharmacokinetic study. The risk of adverse effects is increased if the ingested honey has a ratio of tutin glycosides to tutin at the high end of the observed range." https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/proposals/Documents/P1029 Tutin in honey SD1 Risk Assess.pdf

 

And this is the research paper on the study mentioned above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514003640

 

Kellee 😊

 

 

 

Thanks for the info.

in my mind it’s a complete over reaction to lower the level so much.

How many beekeepers have been effected with the change to such low levels. 

especially when it was a very small trial.

To give any credence to two blokes having a slight transient headache is a joke in my eyes. 

 

The honey that we have that failed the standard by a small margin is being eaten on our toast and used in our hot drinks and not a headache in sight. 

 

Edited by frazzledfozzle
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

 

 

 

The honey that we have that failed the standard by a small margin is being eaten on our toast and used in our hot drinks and not a headache in sight. 

 

 

 

Interesting comments @frazzledfozzle  A few years ago we got kanuka from a new site, very thick (no hot room) had to milk it through the filter socks which took two days.   In bulk been stirred.  I always had a good slurp on my fingers before washing them.  That tested at nearly a 7  and I thought wow you silly woman.  But no adverse affects.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

 

Interesting comments @frazzledfozzle  A few years ago we got kanuka from a new site, very thick (no hot room) had to milk it through the filter socks which took two days.   In bulk been stirred.  I always had a good slurp on my fingers before washing them.  That tested at nearly a 7  and I thought wow you silly woman.  But no adverse affects.

 

Its one of the many reasons I didn’t want a bar of the proposed levy and why I would never vote for a levy that went solely to research because a lot of so called research is a crock especially in today’s world of over the top OSH safety requirements.

8 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

 

Its one of the many reasons I didn’t want a bar of the proposed levy and why I would never vote for a levy that went solely to research because a lot of so called research is a crock especially in today’s world of over the top OSH safety requirements.

 

Its not just a research or beekeeper thing, government and govt policy is taking over our lives and how we are able to live them more and more.

 

We are dictated too and wrapped in cotton wool because we aren’t allowed to use our common sense and make our own decisions.

 

At one end you have Kids that aren’t allowed to climb trees in school for fear of getting hurt. And we have no winners or losers in sport at some primary schools.

 

Then you have RMP operators that have to document every single mouse they catch in their traps , how many traps they have and how often they get checked etc..

 

I get so mad when I hear of all the BS that’s going on in our lives today due to both local and national government.

 

So when I read that so called research, which involved one trial with 6 men 2 of which had a mild transient headache,  led to such a big reduction in the tutin limit ,which in turn has affected our business it makes me distrust the process and lump it in with the kids not climbing trees basket.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DuncanCook said:

Ah! the age old question.

 

"If women are so good at multi tasking why can't they have a headache and sex at the same time?"

Any spare room in your shelter @jamesc

Of course .... only two rules .... no self inflicted headaches, and no sex in the cave.

  • Haha 2

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

×
×
  • Create New...