Jump to content
tristan

manuka wars

Recommended Posts

600 ha is just enough ( sacrificial ) buffer . You can take other (legal ) measures to ensure you get more of your crop.

And how does that work please Shem?

 

where there's manuka it's 50 hives every 200 to 300m along the road; and things have already gotten ugly

It's the same here on this side of the harbour, but to my knowledge it hasn't gotten ugly, there is only one bigger local beekeep and a few smaller guys. everyone else is from the east coast or further afield, i don't know of any conflict here as yet. i also haven't heard of any theft. but then i'm probably outside of the loop = and happy for it !

 

The thieves wear bee suits (duh ); use stolen vehicles; take the bees only and burn the hive ware; torch the apiary site. steal the trail cams etc

thats just the normal old dope growers diversified into bees - same tactics different monster

 

Then there are some genuinely good people.

yes there are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
600 ha is just enough ( sacrificial ) buffer . You can take other (legal ) measures to ensure you get more of your crop.

I'm curious about this. I've seen this sort of low number (under 1500m to boundary) quoted in several places. Well inside the foraging distance of bees. How does it work?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time for a hive levy for R+D help with product security

 

Working on it with an inventor.

 

Open the lid and it sets off an alarm to your phone. GPS so you can watch your hives drive down the road. Invisible, sits in the brood box embedded in the frames. Can also put it in honey supers. None can detect until it's too late.

 

And affordable. Soon everyone will be using a hundred.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on another very different note, it would appear that the UMFHA have filed an application for 'Certification' mark covering the words MANUKA HONEY, in a number of classes.

 

Which would seem that they are attempting to trademark something intrinsic. It would seem to me the same as if they were trying to trademark 'Clover Honey' as a certification, or 'Whole Fat Milk'.

 

Which would seem counter to New Zealand's obligations to Codex under our EU third countries registration.

 

Honey is a product, monofloral honey has a 'standard', not a certified trademark that prohibits others from doing the same. Similar to appelation/region controllee. If it is from the region and meets the standard, then it can be called champagne.

 

Even the action of attempting to trademark it would appear to be anti-competitive behaviour, which the Commerce Commission would probably have issues with.

 

I would love to know more about the details of this suit. It will be a complicated one, that's for sure.

PDF_Report_TM.pdf

PDF_Report_TM.pdf

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Love Honey I agree UMFHA won't succeed with that trademark application if the purpose is to deny NZ genuine MH producers from using it. The only way it would be approved is if it is inclusive of other NZ MH producers, and the purpose of the trademark is to protect the integrity of MH.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "integrity" of Manuka honey?

Or the " integrity" of active honey?

 

They are two different things.

 

One things for sure the UMFHA will be looking out for itself and its big money corporates.

 

Interesting how so many with ties to the UMFHA are now on the new interim governance board for the apiculture industry.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's info about the trademark application:

 

Maori honey interests support manuka trademark - Business - NZ Herald News

 

"We don't want someone in Timbuktu selling manuka honey. We want to protect this for all of New Zealand, for those who have the land and those who have the beekeeping skills and for New Zealand beekeepers to grow this industry collectively. The classification won't be owned by the association, it will be owned by New Zealand. We recognise that is fundamental to the proposition."

 

The push, similar to moves made by France to protect the name 'champagne' and Scotland to protect 'whisky', would restrict the name to the region the product comes from and came after feedback from the industry, consumers and offshore regulators."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article.Victor has received a S.F.F. grant to study how he can get the tribes working together,great idea but Icannot see it working.Having worked with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The classification won't be owned by the association, it will be owned by New Zealand. We recognise that is fundamental to the proposition."

 

The push, similar to moves made by France to protect the name 'champagne' and Scotland to protect 'whisky', would restrict the name to the region the product comes from and came after feedback from the industry, consumers and offshore regulators."

 

Its all a bit odd.

 

Region controllee is governed by E/C law.

 

They actually wrote it into existence.

 

Scientifically, the approach being taken, to use trademark law to protect the identity of New Zealand manuka honey would seem incorrect, when one takes a global perspective.

 

We have a strong adherence to Codex Alimentarius. As do Australia, and many other countries. Most signatories to the UN Accords and World Trade Organisation treaties.

 

There is robust science available that allows for clear identification of honey produced from the nectar of flowers of Leptospermum scoparium. MPI are currently enhancing and validating this science.

 

At which point it will be possible to apply to the International Honey Board for recognition of the 'Manuka Standard'.

 

Product sold as Manuka Honey would need to comply with this standard, as applies to any other honey sold as a certain type or grade. Non-compliance with these standards, or mislabelling, is thus directly limited.

 

No one has to pay to be 'certified', except the labs doing the testing. The product itself is certified, rather than the producer.

 

This is the rational, functional and legally defensible way forward.

 

To attempt to use trademark law leaves the situation open to tortuous litigation.

 

Specifically, because the Australian fauna also possess Leptospermum scoparium, and produce high MGO honey from other leptospermum species with similar levels of antibacterial effectiveness.

 

And the trademark law of New Zealand does not apply in China. NZ Courts can only adjudge on what is within their jurisdiction.

 

This approach is bottom up, rather than top down. Which is why I reiterate that it feels like a desperate move, from a group that seems to be losing market share as the customer becomes increasingly educated and more entrants, especially australian ones, start publicising their MGO rating.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking in my scrying glass I see a dim image of "O no, a glut of manuka honey" and then "Oh, it's all cobblers anyway apart from the medical grade".

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They tried to do that last year though, the buyers saying they wouldn't pay for low grade, but they did, and they will again next year. I'm not selling high grade to anyone who won't take it all and they want my honey they can offer me their best price.

I set my price and whoever will pay it will get it all, I don't want to sell to different buyers I just want someone who will come and take it all with a big truck and pay me a fair amount for the product I work my bum off for, for a whole year before I get paid.

  • Like 3

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...