The Great Manuka Honey Swindle - the UK's The Grocer has conducted a special investigation in manuka honey sold to consumers and finds awkward questions of the results of 6 out of 7 jars! (Saturday 28 June 2014)
Well, while it may be a bit of a shock to some consumers, actually the findings are probably of little surprise to industry insiders.
The article nails the core problem on the head in a quote from the testing laboratory: "The consumer expects active manuka honey to have the special properties that make it different from other honey types - in other words, NPA (non-peroxide activity, which is unique and stable) - this is what justifies the premium price of the product."
There is nothing actually new in that statement, which begs the question as to why so many companies / brands sell jars that have only been (supposedly) tested for the unstable hydrogen peroxide activity?
So, just which were the brands tested by The Grocer who have big questions to answer?
Aldi Specially Selected Manuka Honey - labelled Active 10+ - no npa detected
Pure Earth Raw Manuka Honey - labelled Active 30+ - no npa detected, and even peroxide activity only 17.5
Pure Gold - labelled Active 18+ - bought from Holland & Barrett - no npa detected, and peroxide activity only 12.5
Queen Bee - labelled Active 25+ - no npa detected, and even peroxide activity only 11.5
True Manuka Honey - labelled Active 25+ - no npa detected, and no only trace peroxide activity found.
Wedderspoon 100% Raw Manuka Honey - labelled 16+ - no npa detected, and no peroxide active detected.
The one jar that was found to be true to label, and to actually contain the special non-peroxide activity that genuine manuka honey should have, was the Medibee brand UMF10+, which had npa at 10.5
UMF is a licensed quality standard, that rate the potency based only on the special non-peroxide activity, as well as checking for a wide range of quality controls.
Pretty damming findings really. The question becomes whether Trading Standards or the Food Standards Agency will take any notice this time.
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/manuka/
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Trademark Office agrees some labeling of Manuka honey could mislead consumers
Source: One News
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/honey-trademark-bid-declined-5647576
An attempt to trademark six labels relating to the antibacterial properties of honey has been rejected by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) on the basis some could have potentially misled consumers.
Henry Soo Lee's application to register six trademarks was also opposed by the Unique Manuka Factor (UMF) Honey Association.
Mr Lee was ordered by the office to pay $6890 in costs to UMF after all six label applications were turned down.
Mr Lee is a director and shareholder of several companies in the health supplement and honey industry.
He applied to register four Non-Peroxide Activity (NPA) labels and two Total Activity Per cent (TAP) labels to use on honey products.
The association opposed Mr Lee's trademark applications for the TAP labels due to their potentially misleading nature.
All honeys have a certain level of antibacterial activity, usually due to the presence of hydrogen peroxide, which is referred to as peroxide activity.
UMF Honey Association general manager John Rawcliffe said peroxide activity is unstable and is degraded by light and heat.
A jar of honey that had been tested as to PA levels at the time of its production will probably not have the same PA levels when it is sold and consumed, he said.
Therefore labelling honey with a specific TAP level could be misleading, Mr Rawcliffe said.
Mr Lee said he did not intend to use the TAP label in a misleading way.
The association had opposed Mr Lee's applications because it had an obligation to protect the quality of the market and consumers, Mr Rawcliffe said.
The association also opposed Lee's application to trademark four NPA labels because the UMF Honey Association had a competing trademark it had licensed out to him.
NPA is a measure of the special antibacterial qualities in manuka honey. Honey with higher levels of NPA is more expensive.
The association focuses on the promotion of NPA as a measure of the special antibacterial qualities in manuka honey, and on maintaining the integrity and reliability of NPA as a measure of those special qualities.
The NPA label would be directly competing with the UMF Honey Association label, Mr Rawcliffe said.
Within the licence agreement those using the UMF label could not have a competing brand, he said.
"You can't have your cake and eat it."
Rawcliffe said 38 companies were licensed to use UMF's NPA label.
In the mid-1990s manuka honey was discovered to have special antibacterial properties that were more stable than those of other honeys. A lot of controversy has occurred over claimed benefits from it since.
Traders developed the rating systems so consumers could rely on representations made about the NPA level.
Further information about the differences consumers should know about between 'TA' labeled manuka honey and the UMF® quality standard certification can be seen here:
http://www.newzealandhoneyshop.co.uk/manuka-five-top-tips.html
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/honey-trademark-bid-declined-5647576
An attempt to trademark six labels relating to the antibacterial properties of honey has been rejected by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) on the basis some could have potentially misled consumers.
Henry Soo Lee's application to register six trademarks was also opposed by the Unique Manuka Factor (UMF) Honey Association.
Mr Lee was ordered by the office to pay $6890 in costs to UMF after all six label applications were turned down.
Mr Lee is a director and shareholder of several companies in the health supplement and honey industry.
He applied to register four Non-Peroxide Activity (NPA) labels and two Total Activity Per cent (TAP) labels to use on honey products.
The association opposed Mr Lee's trademark applications for the TAP labels due to their potentially misleading nature.
All honeys have a certain level of antibacterial activity, usually due to the presence of hydrogen peroxide, which is referred to as peroxide activity.
UMF Honey Association general manager John Rawcliffe said peroxide activity is unstable and is degraded by light and heat.
A jar of honey that had been tested as to PA levels at the time of its production will probably not have the same PA levels when it is sold and consumed, he said.
Therefore labelling honey with a specific TAP level could be misleading, Mr Rawcliffe said.
Mr Lee said he did not intend to use the TAP label in a misleading way.
The association had opposed Mr Lee's applications because it had an obligation to protect the quality of the market and consumers, Mr Rawcliffe said.
The association also opposed Lee's application to trademark four NPA labels because the UMF Honey Association had a competing trademark it had licensed out to him.
NPA is a measure of the special antibacterial qualities in manuka honey. Honey with higher levels of NPA is more expensive.
The association focuses on the promotion of NPA as a measure of the special antibacterial qualities in manuka honey, and on maintaining the integrity and reliability of NPA as a measure of those special qualities.
The NPA label would be directly competing with the UMF Honey Association label, Mr Rawcliffe said.
Within the licence agreement those using the UMF label could not have a competing brand, he said.
"You can't have your cake and eat it."
Rawcliffe said 38 companies were licensed to use UMF's NPA label.
In the mid-1990s manuka honey was discovered to have special antibacterial properties that were more stable than those of other honeys. A lot of controversy has occurred over claimed benefits from it since.
Traders developed the rating systems so consumers could rely on representations made about the NPA level.
Further information about the differences consumers should know about between 'TA' labeled manuka honey and the UMF® quality standard certification can be seen here:
http://www.newzealandhoneyshop.co.uk/manuka-five-top-tips.html
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Oh dear, 'Fake' Manuka Honey in the headlines
In today's New Zealand Herald on Sunday there is a story about fake manuka honey being sold around the world - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11113964. There is a similar story in the UK' Sunday Times.
One of the behind the scenes issues is that not all of the beekeepers and producers can agree on a set standard for manuka honey, or a definition for what should be able to be labelled as 'manuka'. Of course you will never be able to get all of them to agree, as with the demand and associated premium pricing for manuka there is money to be made by some in selling as low a quality product as possible.
Part of the issue applies to all types of honey - what should constitute a proper mono-floral product. After all the bees will always end up visiting a variety of flowers in the area even if there happens to be predominantly one type at the time.
Concentrating on the percentage of a single floral source however does not address the main concern from the consumers perspective when it comes to manuka.
The premium reputation that has come about for manuka honey is based around various scientific research showing benefits from a unique non-peroxide activity that some manuka has, and which is additional to the common peroxide activity found in all honeys (and that the peroxide activity is not stable).
So consumers have become educated to expect that they are receiving this special non-peroxide activity when buying a jar of manuka honey. Problem has become that with limited supply of honey containing this, many brands have instead supplied honey with none of the non-peroxide activity, instead labelling it based on a supposed level of common peroxide activity but failed to be clear to consumers on the difference.
It should be pointed out that while inevitably there are some New Zealand parties involved in this, it is not solely a New Zealand issue. Equally whether in the UK or other countries there are the local companies and brands involved.
Whilst these current headlines do not make pretty reading, hopefully in the interests of consumers around the world it will convince the appropriate authorities to more closely investigate and take action against those companies (in the UK or anywhere else) that have been misleading people.
The good companies have been trying to lead on this issue for some time, and this publicity of the issues should enable them to compete more fairly, and allow greater clarity to consumers on just which products do contain the unique non-peroxide activity.
One of the behind the scenes issues is that not all of the beekeepers and producers can agree on a set standard for manuka honey, or a definition for what should be able to be labelled as 'manuka'. Of course you will never be able to get all of them to agree, as with the demand and associated premium pricing for manuka there is money to be made by some in selling as low a quality product as possible.
Part of the issue applies to all types of honey - what should constitute a proper mono-floral product. After all the bees will always end up visiting a variety of flowers in the area even if there happens to be predominantly one type at the time.
Concentrating on the percentage of a single floral source however does not address the main concern from the consumers perspective when it comes to manuka.
The premium reputation that has come about for manuka honey is based around various scientific research showing benefits from a unique non-peroxide activity that some manuka has, and which is additional to the common peroxide activity found in all honeys (and that the peroxide activity is not stable).
So consumers have become educated to expect that they are receiving this special non-peroxide activity when buying a jar of manuka honey. Problem has become that with limited supply of honey containing this, many brands have instead supplied honey with none of the non-peroxide activity, instead labelling it based on a supposed level of common peroxide activity but failed to be clear to consumers on the difference.
It should be pointed out that while inevitably there are some New Zealand parties involved in this, it is not solely a New Zealand issue. Equally whether in the UK or other countries there are the local companies and brands involved.
Whilst these current headlines do not make pretty reading, hopefully in the interests of consumers around the world it will convince the appropriate authorities to more closely investigate and take action against those companies (in the UK or anywhere else) that have been misleading people.
The good companies have been trying to lead on this issue for some time, and this publicity of the issues should enable them to compete more fairly, and allow greater clarity to consumers on just which products do contain the unique non-peroxide activity.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Medicinal Manuka Honey Not All Equal - NZ News Report
Professor Molan, who undertook much of the original research into manuka honey and it uses in medical cases (eg wounds), is quoted as saying:
"A very large percentage of the honey that is sold and claimed to have anti-bacterial action doesn't. Only the proper manuka honey does."
His concern today is the wide variety of honey products purporting to contain manuka.
The best thing for us to do is point you in the direction of the NZ news report from the Waikato Times. It is reproduced online here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8764343/Medicinal-manuka-not-all-equal-research
"A very large percentage of the honey that is sold and claimed to have anti-bacterial action doesn't. Only the proper manuka honey does."
His concern today is the wide variety of honey products purporting to contain manuka.
The best thing for us to do is point you in the direction of the NZ news report from the Waikato Times. It is reproduced online here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8764343/Medicinal-manuka-not-all-equal-research
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Hope for a better honey harvest for 2013
The drier summer New Zealand has been having at the start of 2013, while not so good for farmers overall, has been a boost for beekeepers. Early reports are that there will be a better harvest of honey for this year, especially when compared to the poor 2012 year.
While the following news story is generalised and applies across all honey types, other comments also support a better year for the harvest of manuka honey as well. Of course it must be seen after the appropriate testing has been done as to how much of the manuka crop will contain the special non-peroxide property and be able to gain the UMF certification.
A NZ Herald news story:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10871028
While the following news story is generalised and applies across all honey types, other comments also support a better year for the harvest of manuka honey as well. Of course it must be seen after the appropriate testing has been done as to how much of the manuka crop will contain the special non-peroxide property and be able to gain the UMF certification.
A NZ Herald news story:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10871028
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Can 'DNA fingerprinting' of foods reduce fraud?
Food fraud across many products is a growing problem around the world. This is not just an issue with honey (although it is one of the most common ones), but can involve almost any food or drink product (wine also facing a number of problems). And as demand increases and supply becomes harder it is only likely to face further increase.
But could the answer be a type of 'DNA fingerprinting'?
Some scientists have been working on testing and measuring a unique profile for each product, narrowing it down also to the specific area in which it was produced.
If you've ever watched episodes of CSI and similar programs you will have noticed them analysing samples of virtually anything to find chemical identifiers. In the real world there are a growing number of laboratories that a wider range of people can access to carry out similar testing. It turns out that when it comes to foods, the differences in soil, climate, and even the type and quantity of fertiliser that may have been used on the soil all leave little markers that modern testing can identify and use to compare samples.
The BBC has recently done an article on this 'fingerprinting' of foods and the assistance to fighting fraud and false labelling that provides. Their article, which provides a good explanation, can be read here: Food fraud tackled by forensic scientists.
Although there is still more work to be done, it is becoming possible to show that a French wine from Chateux X really is from there, or that a jar of manuka honey really is actually manuka and has come from New Zealand (or not as the case may be).
Our only wish would be that the relevant authorities around the world will be quick to make use of these testing and verifying opportunities in order to tackle cases of fraud and mislabelling that occur, and provide some protection to consumers.
But could the answer be a type of 'DNA fingerprinting'?
Some scientists have been working on testing and measuring a unique profile for each product, narrowing it down also to the specific area in which it was produced.
If you've ever watched episodes of CSI and similar programs you will have noticed them analysing samples of virtually anything to find chemical identifiers. In the real world there are a growing number of laboratories that a wider range of people can access to carry out similar testing. It turns out that when it comes to foods, the differences in soil, climate, and even the type and quantity of fertiliser that may have been used on the soil all leave little markers that modern testing can identify and use to compare samples.
The BBC has recently done an article on this 'fingerprinting' of foods and the assistance to fighting fraud and false labelling that provides. Their article, which provides a good explanation, can be read here: Food fraud tackled by forensic scientists.
Although there is still more work to be done, it is becoming possible to show that a French wine from Chateux X really is from there, or that a jar of manuka honey really is actually manuka and has come from New Zealand (or not as the case may be).
Our only wish would be that the relevant authorities around the world will be quick to make use of these testing and verifying opportunities in order to tackle cases of fraud and mislabelling that occur, and provide some protection to consumers.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Manuka Honey Quality Questioned - NZ News Report
As just reported in New Zealand's main newspaper - The New Zealand Herald - a university PhD student has found that fewer than half of the 26 manuka honeys she tested were 'true to label'.
Although this is a new 'news story' in terms of the testing and results found by Lincoln university, it is not new 'news' in terms of the actual issues over the quality and truthfulness of labelling of honey.
Some of it is related to lack of consensus over definitions (eg what constitutes a mono-floral honey), and plenty of it is down to dubious or straight out unscrupulous practices.
Importantly it should be noted that some of the issues highlighted in this story do not only affect manuka honey, and that globally honey (i.e all honeys) has been placed in the top 3 of foods that have food fraud problems.
A couple of important corrections should be made to the NZ Herald article as written (journalistic errors do not help matters): The newspaper articles states that "manuka honey's high level of antioxidants and hydrogen peroxide - which aid its antimicrobial or bug-killing activity - ... make it more expensive than other products". Actually hydrogen peroxide activity exists in all honeys and is not what makes manuka well sought after. Rather it is a unique non-peroxide activity that only some manuka honey (not all) contains that provides additional stable antibacterial powers, and is what much of the supporting research is based on.
Also at the end of the article we believe that the journalist has got her prices mixed up, and the higher figure should relate to this year, being up from last year, due to the increased worldwide demand and the much lower harvest this year from poor weather.
Those two points noted, here is the link to the Herald article you can read for yourself:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10841750
Next, it should be pointed out that pollen counts, and how 'pure' a mono-floral honey is, is a separate issue from the antibacterial potency of the honey which is what most people are interested in manuka honey for. The pollen count aspect applies to any type of honey, and it relevant around the world. The problem is that there is a shortage of supply of good quality manuka honey, and many beekeepers are able to make significantly more money from mixed honey (eg may contain some manuka source, but equally has lots from other plants flowering at the same time, and is essentially a blended product at best, and often merely a general bush honey) by labelling it as 'manuka' due to whatever small percentage of manuka it may contain.
It comes down to simple human nature - when (according to this research) more than half of products are labelled incorrectly, that is a significant portion of beekeepers who are making good money from doing what they currently are - there is only a disincentive (lower income) for them to reach a consensus on a definition and agreed pollen count ratio for what can be labelled as manuka. This is an area that really requires some government / authorities action in determining the rules.
Manuka honey has become renowned for its unique antibacterial and healing properties. In reality it is only some manuka honey that actually contains these extra benefits, and it is based on the existence of the extra non-peroxide activity in some batches. This is something separate and different to the pollen count, and is tested and measured differently. So you could have two samples of honey with different pollen count measures, eg one that is 90% manuka pollen and another that is 80%, yet that in itself does not determine their antibacterial or antimicrobial potency.
The accepted international standard firstly discounts that hydrogen peroxide activity (contained in all types of honey), and isolates the non-peroxide activity, which is then measured and compared to phenol as a comparison standard.
Under the UMF® quality standard, only the measure of non-peroxide activity is used to provide the rated strength (as this corresponds to some relevant research). Now an issue is that this is a voluntary standard, so that companies are not required to abide by it. And again there is some incentive for some not too. As the common hydrogen peroxide activity can also be tested for and measured, what some companies do is obtain a certified laboratory test for 'total activity', and include the hydrogen peroxide level in order to show a higher rating number. They can use terms such as 'Active' or 'Bio-Active' on the labelling with this, as there are no controls over use of these terms. Companies have to obtain a license and meet a wider set of quality standards in order to use the UMF® quality mark.
Thus (and using a known, proven example) you can have a jar labelled as 'Active 18+' where the rating is only derived from hydrogen peroxide and contains no detectable amount of non-peroxide activity. This is NOT equivalent to a jar labelled UMF® 18+ which is based on non-peroxide activity only. The other aspect is that peroxide activity can naturally dissipate, and in the example being referred to here, when the jar of 'Active 18+' was taken from a shop shelf and tested, it actually had no detectable level of any activity at all.
To show the relative existence of the various potencies of manuka honey (i.e how much of each strength is harvested), have a look at these combined test results of manuka for 2012 here.
Despite the negative picture that this NZ Herald news story presents, it can also be seen in a positive light in helping make consumers a bit more wary of what is being presented to them, and hopefully it can also help stir the relevant authorities into taking some action and creating and enforcing some appropriate standards. The main point of that sentence being 'action', and not just making comments.
Although this is a new 'news story' in terms of the testing and results found by Lincoln university, it is not new 'news' in terms of the actual issues over the quality and truthfulness of labelling of honey.
Some of it is related to lack of consensus over definitions (eg what constitutes a mono-floral honey), and plenty of it is down to dubious or straight out unscrupulous practices.
Importantly it should be noted that some of the issues highlighted in this story do not only affect manuka honey, and that globally honey (i.e all honeys) has been placed in the top 3 of foods that have food fraud problems.
A couple of important corrections should be made to the NZ Herald article as written (journalistic errors do not help matters): The newspaper articles states that "manuka honey's high level of antioxidants and hydrogen peroxide - which aid its antimicrobial or bug-killing activity - ... make it more expensive than other products". Actually hydrogen peroxide activity exists in all honeys and is not what makes manuka well sought after. Rather it is a unique non-peroxide activity that only some manuka honey (not all) contains that provides additional stable antibacterial powers, and is what much of the supporting research is based on.
Also at the end of the article we believe that the journalist has got her prices mixed up, and the higher figure should relate to this year, being up from last year, due to the increased worldwide demand and the much lower harvest this year from poor weather.
Those two points noted, here is the link to the Herald article you can read for yourself:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10841750
Next, it should be pointed out that pollen counts, and how 'pure' a mono-floral honey is, is a separate issue from the antibacterial potency of the honey which is what most people are interested in manuka honey for. The pollen count aspect applies to any type of honey, and it relevant around the world. The problem is that there is a shortage of supply of good quality manuka honey, and many beekeepers are able to make significantly more money from mixed honey (eg may contain some manuka source, but equally has lots from other plants flowering at the same time, and is essentially a blended product at best, and often merely a general bush honey) by labelling it as 'manuka' due to whatever small percentage of manuka it may contain.
It comes down to simple human nature - when (according to this research) more than half of products are labelled incorrectly, that is a significant portion of beekeepers who are making good money from doing what they currently are - there is only a disincentive (lower income) for them to reach a consensus on a definition and agreed pollen count ratio for what can be labelled as manuka. This is an area that really requires some government / authorities action in determining the rules.
Manuka honey has become renowned for its unique antibacterial and healing properties. In reality it is only some manuka honey that actually contains these extra benefits, and it is based on the existence of the extra non-peroxide activity in some batches. This is something separate and different to the pollen count, and is tested and measured differently. So you could have two samples of honey with different pollen count measures, eg one that is 90% manuka pollen and another that is 80%, yet that in itself does not determine their antibacterial or antimicrobial potency.
The accepted international standard firstly discounts that hydrogen peroxide activity (contained in all types of honey), and isolates the non-peroxide activity, which is then measured and compared to phenol as a comparison standard.
Under the UMF® quality standard, only the measure of non-peroxide activity is used to provide the rated strength (as this corresponds to some relevant research). Now an issue is that this is a voluntary standard, so that companies are not required to abide by it. And again there is some incentive for some not too. As the common hydrogen peroxide activity can also be tested for and measured, what some companies do is obtain a certified laboratory test for 'total activity', and include the hydrogen peroxide level in order to show a higher rating number. They can use terms such as 'Active' or 'Bio-Active' on the labelling with this, as there are no controls over use of these terms. Companies have to obtain a license and meet a wider set of quality standards in order to use the UMF® quality mark.
Thus (and using a known, proven example) you can have a jar labelled as 'Active 18+' where the rating is only derived from hydrogen peroxide and contains no detectable amount of non-peroxide activity. This is NOT equivalent to a jar labelled UMF® 18+ which is based on non-peroxide activity only. The other aspect is that peroxide activity can naturally dissipate, and in the example being referred to here, when the jar of 'Active 18+' was taken from a shop shelf and tested, it actually had no detectable level of any activity at all.
To show the relative existence of the various potencies of manuka honey (i.e how much of each strength is harvested), have a look at these combined test results of manuka for 2012 here.
Despite the negative picture that this NZ Herald news story presents, it can also be seen in a positive light in helping make consumers a bit more wary of what is being presented to them, and hopefully it can also help stir the relevant authorities into taking some action and creating and enforcing some appropriate standards. The main point of that sentence being 'action', and not just making comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)