Jump to content
api mania

Jellybush vs Manuka

Recommended Posts

With Respect to.

 

Long story short Frazz. Placebo helped me feel better.

 

I also have taste and ethics, so eating pam's clover blend, isn't really my thing.

 

I'd much rather enjoy a good tasting single origin wild harvest from the the edges of our fair country, made by a passionate beekeper who has benefited from a premium price for his harvest, over a low quality product that no one other than Pam wanted to put their name on, sold at a loss to the supermarkets just to ensure cashflow was available to pay staff.

 

Foodstuffs drove the Co-Op to the wall, which I believe facilitated their sale to Comvita.

 

My bigger picture issue is the content on Capilano's website, where they are blatantly misrepresenting the facts.

 

A Simplified Overview of the Various Activities in Manuka Honey | Capilano

 

Specifically, they are claiming that Manuka grows both in NZ and Australia, and that the indigenes of both countries used the honey. Effectively, Australia's largest honey supplier, is claiming Manuka as an Australian product.

 

The time frame for the MPI work is two years. We need to act faster than that, other wise Manuka will go the way of Russel Crowe's pavlova, and the value of the product will be eroded, but the misrepresentations won't stop.

 

We have to work together, otherwise other countries will steal a golden opportunity from us.

 

Also Frazz, 5+ has therapeutic effect externally. It is 5% as effective as phenol, and also has the benefits of Hydrogen Peroxidase and Defensin 1. It isn't a 1000+ MGO, but it's probably better than an open wound...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh spoken like a true packer @Love Honey

 

I thought the UMF club wanted anything under 8+ to not be allowed the active lable because its activity was so low it was the same as table honey on wounds?

 

If Australia have leptospurnam growing in their country is that not Manuka?

 

Why would Comvita be doing research into the activity of Australian Manuka honey if they didnt think there was some money to made selling the stuff under the Manuka label?

 

I cant speak for the Autralian Aboriginal but certainly we all know that NZ Maori never had Manuka honey until after the whiteys colonised and brought bees over.

 

Im not sure why you think the Pams product is low quality produced by a non passionate beekeeper?

There are many beekeepers in NZ that dont have the area to produce single source honey or in a patchy season like this last one has a honey with many different nectar sources, I dont think this makes it an inferior honey and certainly not a honey produced by a beekeeper who dosnt care.

 

I would be very interested to see a link to any studies done on wounds using 5+ That shows positive resilts over and above a table honey.

Ive not been able to find any.

 

If MPI allow imports from western Australia our packers in NZ can bring in Australian Manuka and blend it with our RewaRewa as they do now and increase the total volume of "active" honey.

That will increase the revenue coming into NZ and help out the ozzie beekeepers while suffering no downturn in supply when those rotten theiving Kanuka producers can no longer sell their honey as Manuka.

 

Laughing all the way to the bank.

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article regarding Ozzy "manuka"

 

Why do you think Comvita are putting money into research?

 

Could it have something to do with the wide open spaces available in oz for manuka plantations?

 

If one of NZ's major Active manuka producers is putting money into researching ozzie "manuka" what does it tell you kiwi producers?

 

Wild / Medicinal honey targeted by Australian researchers

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My bigger picture issue is the content on Capilano's website, where they are blatantly misrepresenting the facts.

@Love Honey could you please cite the claimed misrepresentations from that website? i had a pretty good look at it, but don't know the ins and outs of NPA vs UMF... I'm glad they're calling out the UMF crew on their attempt to define manuka honey as being restricted to solely those honeys produced by people that pay a fee to use the UMF label. I abhor the efforts to create a 'manuka standard' that is not open to be freely applied by any producers who meet that standard.

 

Specifically, they are claiming that Manuka grows both in NZ and Australia, and that the indigenes of both countries used the honey. Effectively, Australia's largest honey supplier, is claiming Manuka as an Australian product.

and they're right. the claim was indigenous use of the plant, not the honey...

It's been a while since i was heavily involved in plant systematics - but i'm fairly confident that manuka is Leptospermum scoparium, and this species is native to both Australia and New Zealand. So, any honey derived from this species in Australia is manuka honey, meaning that manuka honey indeed has the potential to be a product of both Australia and New Zealand.... must be scary for those who have used massive amounts of debt to try and take advantage of the goldrush that could be drawing to a close.

 

the value of the product will be eroded, but the misrepresentations won't stop.

if the product's value is based on falsehoods e.g. claimed health effects (with no research basis) greater than those from other honey types when taking as a food then, meh, it's almost inevitable that the value is a bubble situation unless people staunchly defend the lies...

 

Im not sure why you think the Pams product is low quality produced by a non passionate beekeeper?There are many beekeepers in NZ that dont have the area to produce single source honey or in a patchy season like this last one has a honey with many different nectar sources, I dont think this makes it an inferior honey and certainly not a honey produced by a beekeeper who dosnt care.

agree completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Specifically, they are claiming that Manuka grows both in NZ and Australia, and that the indigenes of both countries used the honey. Effectively, Australia's largest honey supplier, is claiming Manuka as an Australian product.

 

The time frame for the MPI work is two years. We need to act faster than that, other wise Manuka will go the way of Russel Crowe's pavlova, and the value of the product will be eroded, but the misrepresentations won't stop.

 

It's been a while since i was heavily involved in plant systematics - but i'm fairly confident that manuka is Leptospermum scoparium, and this species is native to both Australia and New Zealand. So, any honey derived from this species in Australia is manuka honey, meaning that manuka honey indeed has the potential to be a product of both Australia and New Zealand.... must be scary for those who have used massive amounts of debt to try and take advantage of the goldrush that could be drawing to a close..

 

There are more than 70 species of Leptospermum - some very closely related (at a DNA level) to what we call manuka (Leptospermum scoparium as you say tommy dave). Most - if not all - of these can be found in Australia and indeed, they also have small regions of L. scoparium in Australia. Work at the moment is developing (has developed) tests that discriminate manuka from jelly bush (and all other Leptospermums and kanukas) . . . .it is highly likely that a test suite will also be able to identify a NZ scoparium honey from an Australian one.

 

Two years? Hopefu of being well before then. Many of the tests have been developed I believe - it is now to the validation of these to accepted - ie international - standards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My position was based on the assumption that Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) is endemic to NZ. It turns out I was wrong. TIt isn't misrepresentation.

 

From: Leptospermum scoparium

 

Manuka is distributed through Australia and New Zealand. Apologies to all concerned.

 

Most australian product containing MGO is however from Leptospermum polygalifolium.

 

Tastes very different.

 

There is high MGO product coming out of Australia. CV are labelling it as Jellybush. NPA 18+. Many are labelling it as Manuka. Most of it is from polygalifolium, not scoparium. Different plants, same basic characteristics.

 

From discussions, the MPI project seeks to identify and verify the chemical markers (leptosperin) and DNA markers that are unique to Manuka, so that a standard can be defined and regulated. The theory is present, as demonstrated in research published last year. It is the methods and validation that are required.

 

Regarding bubble. I believe, that given the huge global demand, and the work being done to define a standard, we will see an increased consumer awareness, enhanced medical application and significantly reduced available global supply, as the counterfeit stock disappears. It wouldn't be surprising to see prices increase significantly further, and for the majority of usage to be in the therapeutic categories.

 

Regarding my Pam's comment.

 

I think you're missing the actual point, and are definitely misconstruing my words. I never said that Pam's was made by a passionless beekeeper, and you are reading the implication incorrectly.

 

Good multifloral honey is excellent, and we go through tonnes of it. It's high quality, delicious and really 'middle of the road' pleasantville. All you have to do is take a good crop and bottle it. It's that simple.

 

The last time I tasted something from a supermarkets budget category, it was very different, and somewhat disappointing. Given how good most honey is, and knowing how packing works, it smelt as if some fermenting honey was mixed with some bitter dandelion honey, blended with some overly heated stock and then backblended with a very average multifloral blend to produce a compliant food product that was between some very specific production parameters.

 

Fermenting honey, burnt honey and bitter honey are all cheaper than good quality M/F. You can blend them together to get a lower cost per kilo, and a honey that doesn't taste as good. But you can't sell burnt, fermenting or bitter honey as is. The same applies to honey with a tutin content over the legal limit. It's legal to sell if it's blended to below MRL's. What it does serve to do is to clear out the stockroom of bad honey, and reduce the overall cost per unit, and increase the profit margin, which is the often the primary driver of large, industrial production and supermarket buyers, as the consumer as well is often highly price sensitive.

 

These practises are not production techniques that I support or believe in. My thinking is that it should go out of the extractor and into drums. Then into the creamer. Then into jars. No blending, mixing, adulteration or otherwise silly business. Just good, clean honey that tastes like the day it was made.

 

It's pretty simple to get right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with most of what you have posted theres one point that continually frustrates me with the arguement of what defines Manuka honey.

 

That is the promotion and selling of 5+ active honey as Manuka honey with therapeautic benefits.

 

In an article by Peter Molan in the latest beekeeper he has once again stated that the activity scale tor Manuka honey should start at 8+ because anything under that is unmeasurable and has little to no therapeautic benefit.

 

You talk about counterfeit Manuka honey is not a fake to sell 5+ Active honey as a honey that is therapeutic?

Is it not fake to sell 5+ Active honey as being beneficial to health over other honeys when taken internally When 5+ has no more antibacterial activity in it than other honeys?

 

Im all for selling Active Manuka honey as therapeautic for wounds etc but its about time the selling of non active Manuka honey as therapeautic was made to stop.

 

To my mind this is as much a fraud as anything else.

 

Apparently Comvitas biggest selling product is 5+ manuka honey .... No wonder theres no push to get this type of honey relabelled how many other packers make most of their money from 5+?

 

With all the blending going on I expect its nearly all of them.

 

Its fraud no matter how you try to justify it.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@frazzledfozzle Comvita is not selling 5+ as therapeutic. The UMFHA position is and has been that only 10+ and above can be promoted for any therapeutic purposes. Prof. Molan once told me that all his published therapeutic research was with Manuka rating UMF 10-12, therefore he could confidently say that anything above 10 would produce those results. He couldn't say the same for Manuka <10, since it hadn't been tested and published (which doesn't mean it's ineffective).

 

Molan's statement re. anything below 8+ is unmeasurable is a head scratcher. I was reading this article yesterday (Adams, C. J. et al., Carbohydr. Res. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.carres.2007.12.011) written by his colleagues at Waikato University, and they seemed to have no problem testing below 8+:

 

"The clearance zones obtained were compared with a set of phenol standards (2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% (w/v) phenol in HPLC grade water). Activity was then expressed as the equivalent phenol concentration (1% w/v). Commercially this value is expressed as UMF (Unique Manuka Factor)."

 

@Love Honey re. the Comvita Jellybush honey. Yes, they clearly and correctly identified it as JB. It was only produced once, it was a dog i.e. didn't sell, we had to write off lots of stock that didn't sell within the expiry period. I then deleted it. While the NPA level is comparable to Manuka, JB tasted terrible even when fresh, compared to Manuka.

The Aussies calling JB "Manuka" are doing Scoparium (i.e. real Manuka) a dis-service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robsbp take a look at Molans article in the latest beekeeper mag regading testing and activity of manuka under 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@frazzledfozzle , I had read that before writing.

It's difficult to reconcile why others over the past 15-20 years would test to lower levels (e.g. using the agar diffusion assay, labs used to report down to NPA 4.2 not 8), yet Molan says anything below 8+ is unmeasurable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[uSER=100]

Molan's statement re. anything below 8+ is unmeasurable is a head scratcher. I[/uSER]

[uSER=100]

i think he means unmeasurable using the methodology described as Allen/molan/reid 1991 from which npa is defined or something?

 

@frazzledfozzle , I had read that before writing.

It's difficult to reconcile why others over the past 15-20 years would test to lower levels (e.g. using the agar diffusion assay, labs used to report down to NPA 4.2 not 8), yet Molan says anything below 8+ is unmeasurable.

he doesn't quite say that. He goes on to say that the higher NPA values were obtained using one methodology, and the lower NPA values using another methodology (=testing a more concentrated solution of honey to have a higher level of activity on the test plate) - see the paragraph in the left column of p15 of the beekeeper mag.[/user]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also says that anything below 8 has little or no activity.

so to sell manuka honey on the back of an activity rating that isnt actually active is the same as selling non manuka honey as active?

 

If you put a number and a + on a jar of honey you are saying it is active and therefore is special when in reality its a table spread nothing more

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@frazzledfozzle ozzle. The interim manuka guidelines are of the same view as you. The use of therapeutic claims on labels, such as activity, is prohibited on a food product, as per NZFSA regulations.

 

Stating MGO levels is not. Its a step in the right direction.

 

@Rob&\#039;s BP - Yes. Australian Jellybush tastes rather less delicious. I found this the other day in an IGA.

 

They're not selling it as a therapeutic product, but rather relying on the strength of the Manuka brand to move their stock.

 

 

 

Capimanuka.jpg.3001a54f20d4bba739880e2a3fc6f62d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found this the other day in an IGA

Is that in NZ. I thought we could not import honey into NZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public perception means Manuka honey = antbacterial / special properties over and above any other honey.

 

Just look at the number of other products being sold with Manuka honey as a special ingredient, everything from lozenges to face creams.

 

We all know theres no added benefit by having Manuka honey as an ingredient its just marketing on the back of BS

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody should give @frazzledfozzle a helmet & rocket launcher & despatch her to sort out ISIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UMFHA position is and has been that only 10+ and above can be promoted for any therapeutic purposes. P

@Rob&\#039;s BP - is the UMFHA position that it can be promoted for therapeutic purposes derived from merely eating the honey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw leptosperin mentioned on the UHFMA web site is this validated or just welcome ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Im no scientist I guess there must be a minimum level of leptosperin present to be a marker for monofloral Manuka honey?

 

It could make a difference for those producing active honey in the 5+ range that is "contaminated" by other floral sources?

 

Because it has low activity it can be sold as Manuka honey but the honey is not "wholly or mainly" sourced from Manuka. Which is one prerequisite for selling a honey as mono-floral.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean it whether this is scientifically validated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@frazzledfozzle The use of therapeutic claims on labels, such as activity, is prohibited on a food product, as per NZFSA regulations.

]

 

Does this include Comvita selling Ozzie jellybush in Oz with an NPA label or is it to stop NZ selling NZ Manuka in Oz with an NPA label?

.

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...