Why did 100% Pure New Zealand Honey provide honey to an offshore packer and then allow them to use the Unique Mānuka Factor (UMF) brandmark on that product, as detailed in UMF Honey: Made in Japan? A well-intentioned effort to maintain the standing of UMF, so says the chief executive, highlighting the convoluted environment which competing honey ‘rating’ systems have created.
“What I should have said, in hindsight, was, ‘just put MGO on it and don’t worry about it’,” 100% Pure New Zealand Honey chief executive Sean Goodwin says of their dealings with a Japanese honey client earlier this year.
In an effort to maintain a uniform rating systems on all their Honey Valley products – both those packed in New Zealand and the new product filled in Japan – the decision was made to allow use of the UMF brandmark, alongside a MGO rating
Many UMF licence holders display both UMF and MGO ratings on their mānuka honey, in an apparent effort to appeal to more consumers. It is those that market multiple labels in the same country, but use different ratings, which most frustrates Goodwin though, and is what he wanted to avoid.
“They have exactly the same label in one market with UMF on it and another with MGO on it. What is that? That is pulling down the UMF credibility in the market. Why are they doing it? It is completely against the rules,” Goodwin says.
The use of MGO, or any other rating system, diverts potential income from the UMF Honey Association (UMFHA), reducing their ability to undertake industry-good.
“When those companies skirt the rules, not only do they skirt the rules, but they take money from the organisation because that company that was trading as UMF is now trading has MGO. They don’t pay a royalty on it and therefore nothing goes back into supporting the certification trademark efforts or the legal protection on mānuka.”
So, what is UMFHA doing to prevent licence holders from actions which undermine their very value? Chief executive Tony Wright says, if the product doesn’t have a UMF label on they don’t follow it up, even when they know it is coming from one of their licence holders.
“We provide a licence to use a trademark, if the trademark is not being used, then the licence doesn’t apply. That is my view. If people want to debate that, we can have a debate. But simply, if you are not using the licence, you are not subject to the licence agreement,” Wright says.
With the New Zealand honey industry going through a restructuring of industry bodies, which could lead to stricter export standards, there is a path for some improvement.
“The opportunity with all of this is to highlight how much better we could be, collectively, if we agreed on how we are going to market ourselves and this product, at a base level, coming from New Zealand and going into international markets. We might actually head off some of the confusion that consumers have to suffer through. Maybe we will actually do better at selling product and having a better show in market,” Wright says.
Despite his staunch belief in UMF, Goodwin admits it is “not perfect by any stretch right now, given an unwillingness to enforce guidelines and the fact some of those guidelines are a bit wishy-washy at times.” However, the honey exporter believes a single, industry-wide, mānuka honey ratings mark must be achieved.
“How do we ensure that, if we are going to move forward as a unified industry – if that is even possible – that we respect the purpose of having a single mark?” he asks, adding “Educating consumers, and fighting the fight against opposition honey, i.e Australian honey, is what we should be about.”
Comments