Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If the Asurequality apiary database was shared with MPI for the purpose of tracing honey back to specific locations... what effect might that have on compliance with the AFB PMP?

 

Thing is they don't need to use the assure quality database.

All they need is the harvest declaration thats filled out and filed with each batch of honey extracted.

If at some time down the track theres a problem with the honey they contact the beekeeper involved and between them sort it out.

 

The apiary database on its own would be useless. What are they going to do? Go to the apiary and stand and look at it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

From what I understand the FORM, you can be convicted before, and you have to give details on it.

It is more like you declare "No, I never been convicted" and if they later will find out "You were" then that will be a problem for you. They just want to exclude lying.

 

I will say those not listed may have to face a lower price from the honey buyers. If you have 50kg of honey extracted by a extraction plant(who will also buy the honey from you) will you bother with the registration?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kiwi honey, wine face new Chinese rules - Business - NZ Herald News

Looks like this is what it's all about, but still don't agree with the way they are implementing it. There is almost no information in this article about the details of what is the requirements... However as Dal has said it's already covered from the harvest declaration and RMP...

 

Amazing how MPI don't appear to have discussed with those who are doing the real work... almost like a rush/reaction just to do something. Not a good way to get the industry on board.

 

Has everyone contacted MPI yet? if not do it! They need to hear the voice of those affected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do other exporters have the same rules ie your average dairy farmer would be a bigger risk give the history of milk products in China? If someone did have a shady past could they just get someone to fill it out seems very weak for the money

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK China is about to do to honey what they did to the baby milk industry.

 

Instead of dealing with a plethora of baby milk brands, and new brands springing up almost daily, China decided to import just a few approved brands.

 

Sounds reasonable?

 

What happened next was a lot of brands abitrarily were not approved, so lost their right to export to China, and the companies folded. Brands who were approved found approval a lot easier to get, if they brought in part Chinese ownership. The more Chinese the better, funny that. Most of the survivors have had the part Kiwi ownership slowly eroded since.

 

Filling in a form and paying $170 is going to be the least of some peoples worries.

 

Do I blame China? Let's put it this way. For a few years now people have been talking about the huge amount of fake manuka being sold. People have been saying we better be careful this might affect our exports. Well now the chook has come home to roost, turns out China doesn't want to import fake manuka.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote to MPI and got a reply basically saying they need the info and don't have access to the AFB data base.

I'm about to reply and tell them they don't need the database for the info they can get that from the harvest declaration we all fill out for every batch of honey taken to an extraction facility.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been sent more information regarding the submission process for this.

 

Proposals to strengthen the regulatory framework for export bee products

 

Proposals to strengthen the regulatory framework for export bee products

 

So back last year MPI put out a fairly vague proposal asking for beekeepers views on introducing more regulatory measures on bee products.

 

What's being proposed?

We are proposing to introduce the following regulatory measures:

 

 

  • Mandating electronic traceability of export bee products through MPI's Animal Products Electronic Certification System.
  • Mandating the listing of beekeepers who supply honey to premises operating under a risk management programme for the purpose of export to countries requiring official assurances.
  • Requiring unlabelled retail packs and bulk honey to be indelibly marked with information enabling effective product identification.
  • Expressly requiring compliance with the labelling provisions of the Food Standards Code.
  • Strengthening the verification framework in relation to export bee products.

 

 

So I don't see anywhere in here where it suggests that beekeepers be required to register in order to supply. In fact someone should have pointed out to them that technically all beekeepers are already listed as they supply the information in their Harvest Declaration form.

 

'Listing of beekeepers' implies some general data collection, not a registration process.

 

I can't see any reason for them to be dishonest about their proposals - so why do they choose to publish misleading, and vague information?

 

If they were straight up then an honest discussion could be had. Instead they've just managed to generate a significant level of suspicion about their purpose, and existence as a ministry.

 

Someone at MPI needs to be demoted to the mail room over this.

 

Funny thing is that if they wanted to save face they should have withdrawn their notice first thing Monday morning. It'll be interesting to see the repercussions as beekeepers will remember this for a long time.

 


  •  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Apiculture NZ's lack of any seeming leadership or outrage over this...my understanding is that those with current RMP's don't need to complete this form. As the larger operators, packers etc seem to have control of this organisation and likely already have RMP's am I being a conspiracy theorist if I suggest that Apiculture NZ's seeming lack of interest may stem from this? Seems like this penalises smaller operators and those who use contract extractors rather than the big guys....it also seems that these are the operators for whom this extra cost is potentially significant. They are also those who have very little changing from year to year and therefore will be paying a fee next year which doesn't even require any updating on the database.Those cows I hear mooing in the distance almost sound like cash registers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is involved in getting an RMP? And, can a small guy like me with no extracting plant even get one?

I had brief look. I asked the question on here so there will be a thread on it. Basically build a hygienic vermin proof structure to store your honey, show how you can transport it hygienically between extraction plant and your storage as well. Have the new system audited, pay a fee. Have it audited annually pay a fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read through this feed - and also read Pinnacles contribution about the Chinese wanting new import rules on Kiwi Wine and Honey. I was at a Manuka meeting a couple of weeks back where the scientist said "7 times more Manuka honey is sold than produced in NZ". So I guess either our record keeping/statistics are crap - or someone is adding DHA/MGO and/or blending Manuka honey - either here or in our honey destinations (or all of the above ) and selling it as Manuka. Either way it has the potential to absolutely stuff the Manuka honey industry in pretty short order like Melamine did for SanLu - which would make our dreams of Manuka millions disappear in short order - we have a product of which the important bits can be synthesised in a lab - so we need people to want to buy into the "Manuka Story" and be willing to pay top dollar for the 'real thing'. Bad press will kill it. Fast.

I'm looking at the registration as a positive thing to show we are trying to do our bit to tidy things up and control cowboys - but I agree the price is over the top and will tend to force smaller producers onto the black market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the rules and regs along with testing of honey in NZ I imagine most of the fraud is going on in the country that's importing, eg China.

 

What will me paying a fee to MPI do to change that?

Good point - especially as Time magazine had an expose' on the Chinese manufacturing honey in factories some time ago - but I guess we can only look after our side of the fence while pointing out that they need to fix their side. Otherwise they will just point at us and say we need to start the clean up first, the Chinese are a tad touchy with regard to trade issues like that. My personal belief is that you are correct as to where the bulk of the fraud is going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the rules and regs along with testing of honey in NZ I imagine most of the fraud is going on in the country that's importing, eg China.

 

What will me paying a fee to MPI do to change that?

Do you think it might help if you paid a fee directly to the chinese officials to help corruption go away Frazz?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I had brief look. I asked the question on here so there will be a thread on it. Basically build a hygienic vermin proof structure to store your honey, show how you can transport it hygienically between extraction plant and your storage as well. Have the new system audited, pay a fee. Have it audited annually pay a fee.

Dansar is right - all the pieces of the export supply chain need to have an RMP. Companies like Mainfreight are registered because they store export honey.

 

Here's the MPI reference:

 

Risk Management Programmes (RMPs) for bee products

If you process or store bee products for export, you must operate under a registered RMP. You can develop this using a template and Code of Practice (COP).

 

Who operates under an RMP

You must operate under an RMP if you export to countries that require official assurances and are one of the following:

 

 

  • a secondary processor – that is, you extract, process, pack or store bee products

  • an operator who stores bee products intended for export.

 

There are 2 RMPs which apply to bee product businesses:

 

 

  • Bee products RMP, which is used by secondary processors

  • RMP for stores (cold & dry), which is used by operators who only store bee products for export.

 

The link is here: Risk Management Programmes (RMPs) for bee products, Honey & bee, MPI, food

 

 

.... I was at a Manuka meeting a couple of weeks back where the scientist said "7 times more Manuka honey is sold than produced in NZ". So I guess either our record keeping/statistics are crap - or someone is adding DHA/MGO and/or blending Manuka honey - either here or in our honey destinations (or all of the above ) and selling it as Manuka.

The problem is honey from somewhere labelled and sold as Manuka in China.

 

 

Either way it has the potential to absolutely stuff the Manuka honey industry in pretty short order like Melamine did for SanLu - which would make our dreams of Manuka millions disappear in short order - we have a product of which the important bits can be synthesised in a lab - so we need people to want to buy into the "Manuka Story" and be willing to pay top dollar for the 'real thing'. Bad press will kill it. Fast.

 

Yes that's the issue in 1.

 

 

I'm looking at the registration as a positive thing to show we are trying to do our bit to tidy things up and control cowboys - but I agree the price is over the top and will tend to force smaller producers onto the black market.

 

I attended a conference recently and Manuka adulteration or straight counterfeit was a key topic. MPI are trying to establish biomarkers that identify Manuka from other honey and said they were confident they were making progress. Another speaker (International bloke) said the German Honey Institute (world's foremost honey institution) had been trying to establish biomarkers for varietal honey for 20 years (in Germany) without success as the bees are both non-discriminatory when discharging their cargo of nectar and pollen on arrival (i.e. dump the load in a cell and move on) or discriminatory as they sometimes separate pollens elsewhere in coordinated way i.e. not stored with the nectar they brought in on that mission. The conclusion being the pollen in a cell is not necessarily from the flower the nectar came from.

 

A contrasting comment was made at the conference that a major manuka seller was not inclined to accept biomarkers. The inference was establishing accurate assays of manuka would severely curtail the amount of Manuka able to be sold.

 

Hmmm, interesting was the least of my thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh and we are back to the support for this coming from those who think it will help us to tidy up information and fraud around our supply. No decent beekeeper would argue with that! The issue is that we are paying an extra fee, having to fill out another form that actually does nothing meaningful for unclear results. How about we make it easier rather than more complicated to follow the rules around beekeeping in NZ....say 1 form that is clear and 1 fee that covers everything....then a harvest Dec type form that goes in with each load of extracted honey.....get some trained people who actually monitor what is going on in the industry in terms of honey source and disease. I'll happily pay my fee for that 'cause I'm ACTUALLY GETTING SOMETHING FOR IT! Paying a new fee and filling out another form for no reason and with no clearly stated aims just does my head in!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   Restore formatting

  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...