In December Apiarist’s Advocate published an opinion piece by mānuka honey early-adopter Phil Caskey titled Mānuka Honey: What Went Wrong? And a Road to Recovery where the concept of a revitalised Unique Mānuka Factor (UMF) brand was floated, with a renewed focus on the science behind the brand, more prominent use of UMF on labels and a turn away from trademark attempts for the term “manuka honey”. Two beekeepers who were among the group of six who first sat around a table and coined the association that is now UMF Honey Association read Caskey’s words and offer their thoughts.
It was the late 1990s when the Active Manuka Honey Association first got off the ground, and John Bassett, then-owner of Waitomo Honey Ltd in Te Kuiti, was appointed the inaugural chairman. Across the table John Gavin, of Gavins Apiaries in Northland, was a fellow founding member. Both men are still members of what is now the UMF Honey Association – Bassett a life member – and thus supportive of the group’s work. However, there are improvements that could, and should, be made they say.
While Bassett says he might remember some events slightly differently from Caskey’s account, “what is particularly important is that he highlights the scientific background to the success story of our brand”.
“Further to what Caskey has said, I agree that it would be timely to re-enact the original standards of a minimum of UMF 10+ for a monofloral honey with the level of antibacterial activity that the customer can expect to receive from the product,” Bassett says.
Now “retired” on the Thames Coast, he assists a business partner to manage around 300 hives and maintains an interest in mānuka honey production.
Gavin is still active in the Gavins Apiaries business and concurs with both Bassett and Caskey in the need to get back to a higher-activity honey under the UMF brand. Most of all he feels for the end user of mānuka honey.
“The customer is thinking ‘MGO40, that is better than a UMF20.’ They don’t know about the UMF difference. They have no idea,” Gavin says.
He questions the validity of honey with as low a rating as MGO40 being deemed ‘mānuka’ honey, having not seen such honey produced in his own hives.
“Is it mānuka? That is the thing. It says on the label it is, and it probably meets the target which the Ministry for Primary Industries says it is, and it used up all the bush honey sitting around New Zealand. They are obviously selling huge volumes of it around the world.”
Bassett is also aware of the need to market such lower-activity honey effectively, but like Caskey and Gavin does not believe the UMF brand is the way to do it. He says a lot of customer confusion could be cleared up with more appropriate labelling of mānuka honey products.
“Honey of lower than NPA 10 can be assimilated into 10+ mixes or marketed for what it actually is – a highly respected bush/mānuka blend. The misleading term of ‘multifloral Manuka’ should be replaced with the term “BLEND” with lettering of equal size/prominence to the nectar source, or sources, on the label,” Bassett says.
The UMF pioneer says it also rankles him that much of the research into mānuka honey’s benefits – “anti-viral, anti-oxidant and even anti-cancer properties” – cannot legally be portrayed on labels in New Zealand because medicinal claims cannot be made. Plus, inconsistent labelling between New Zealand and overseas markets leaves tourists here confused when buying mānuka honey he says.
Both men are united in their, and Caskey’s, view that a better way forward for presenting mānuka honey to market should be sought, so that a healthy long-term industry can be built for all, rather than one where certain players benefit at the expense of others.
“I can understand why they are doing it. They are getting honey offered to them pretty cheap,” Gavin says of those selling low activity honey using the mānuka name, adding “but, we can’t live on low value honey as an industry”.
Comments