MPI unveils official mānuka honey definition

Mānuka honey will be given an official marker under a new testing regime issued by the Ministry for Primary Industries, as the UK recognises New Zealand's rights to the name.

Agriculture Minister Damien O'Connor announced the new standard for the honey today. The mānuka honey industry is worth nearly $180 million to New Zealand every year but there have been concerns about the authenticity of products sold as mānuka honey as more was being sold than was being produced in New Zealand, and it was not regulated until now. 

"The longer this was left unresolved, the more the mānuka honey industry and New Zealand's reputation was at stake," Mr O'Connor said. The export requirements on mānuka labelling will come into force from February 5, 2018.

Mr O'Connor also said the UK's trademark agency has just agreed to accept mānuka honey is only from New Zealand. In August, Comvita published research that identified signature compounds in mānuka, although these have not been included in MPI's definition, and Mr O'Connor said he wasn't sure what the industry would do now.

"I think everyone in the industry knew the need for a definition to be clarified," he said. "This won't please everyone but we believe it's absolutely necessary, it's scientifically robust and, while it may not be perfect, it is best international effort to get this right."

The honey will be tested for four chemical markers and one DNA marker before being sold overseas as mānuka. Industry groups had pushed for a definition based on the compound leptosperin but O'Connor said today that though it was considered very carefully, officials "weren't able to give an assurance it was scientifically robust and that the definition would meet the shelf life of mānuka honey in retail outlets." 

Producers will pay to have each batch of their mānuka honey tested, at about $150 per 200-litre drum, O'Connor said, adding that the price of genuine mānuka honey may increase due to the certification.

"There are still cowboy operators out there. In fact, there are two in court at the moment, so we have proof of adulteration over the years", Mr O'Connor said. "The cost will fall on producers but relative to the value of the honey this is a very small amount, and I think those that are genuinely exporting mānuka honey will see this as a very small cost to secure their product and its reputation."

The test can also identify whether the mānuka honey is monofloral – produced by the nectar of a single plant – or multifloral.

Mr O’Connor says this issue first came up in 2013 when some of New Zealand’s trading partners raised the issue of some of the mānuka honey being sold was “not true to label.”

He says traders in China and the UK have been seeking an official definition of mānuka honey for a while.

He says the $180 million mānuka honey market has been at risk, with consumers unsure if what they are buying is really mānuka honey.

He says the scale of the problem has never been identified – “what we did know is that there was more mānuka honey being sold than was being produced in New Zealand.”

“The longer this was left unresolved, the more that both the mānuka honey industry and, indeed, New Zealand’s reputation was at stake.”

The onus falls on producers to have their products tested, Mr O’Connor says.

“Producers will have to pay on a per batch basis, most of that is in a 200-litre drum and so it’s a relatively small amount of money, relative to the value of mānuka honey.”

He says the official certification of mānuka honey could, in turn, increase the price of the product.

“There is a very real possibility that, given the certification and the integrity of it, customers will want to buy something that is guaranteed to be mānuka honey.”

Manuka Health chief executive John Kippenberger has welcomed the decision.

“It’s critical New Zealand protects mānuka honey on the global market, where we see increasing adulteration and false claims of this highly valued product. 

“New Zealand is the only source of authentic mānuka honey and we have needed a clearer scientific definition that delineates genuine, premium product from the fakes.”

(BusinessDesk)