Australian manuka honey producers score legal win over New Zealand producers in Europe, UK

Australian manuka honey producers have scored a win over their trans-Tasman rivals after New Zealand producers backed out of legal action aimed at preventing them from using the descriptive word.

FYI

Australian honey producers claim victory in trans-Tasman legal battle over 'manuka' title

New Zealand honey producers have backed out of legal action aimed at preventing Australian producers from using the descriptive word.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Adam Boot]

And my own comment, realize that if we can claim back the word "Manuka" and prevent the world market being flooded by other honeys from other countries labeled as Manuka, we could again start actually selling all we produce, and get a good price for it.

For New Zealand and the Manuka Industry the protection of the term Manuka is extremely important to the marketing mix long term. We often reference Champagne when arguing for protection. The process for the protection of the term Champagne took 100's of years. Naturally sparkling wine was first recorded in the 6th century. It gained no popularity until the 1670's. The first legal protection of the term Champagne came in the treaty of Versailles 1919. Champagne received more recognized protection as late as 2006 agreed between the USA and EU.
I am not suggesting that protecting Manuka should or will take as long. I am however suggesting that the process will take longer than most people want or expect and also that term protection is not the reason curranty for high stock levels and low prices.

The Manuka industry is small and immature as an industry. It remains in its infancy and has tremendous development ahead of it. 2020, 2021 and 2022 have provided global trade difficulties of an unprecedented nature. These difficulties were preceded by a bumper Manuka harvest.
China has historically been the largest single market for Manuka honey. For large periods China has been shut to trade through lockdowns. Global freight issues have compounded the problem. Covid has effected trade for periods in every part of the world and at slightly different times so the impact dragged on. Tourism both in NZ and in most strong Manuka markets froze. Without foreign visitors we also experienced a collapse of the Daigou market. We now have a serious situation in Europe with a global impact. In essence we have had the 'perfect storm'

At some point tourism will return to previous highs. Freight is stabilizing, China is emerging from total lockdown. At the same time the Manuka demand in the USA continues to grow as it does in the Middle east. Demand for Manuka will continue to increase in markets free to trade. The storm will pass and prices will stabilize. We will then be one bad harvest away from price hikes and the cycle will start again.

 

[Alastair]

W

 

[Alastair]

Funding comes from every UMF license holder through agreed increased levies.

Which comes from beekeepers, as I already said

If the beekeeper sells no honey and has no money, he cannot contribute obviously.

 

[Adam Boot]

Which comes from beekeepers, as I already said

If the beekeeper sells no honey and has no money, he cannot contribute obviously.

Not every Manuka Honey beekeeper is a member of the UMF. Not every packer is a member of the UMF. Numerous packers and brand owners have no Manuka hives but choose to be members of the UMF.

 

[Alastair]

True Adam.

But regardless, whatever way you want to phrase or wordplay this, end of day the money for this is generated from bees and beekeepers.

Packers, brand owners, and whoever else up the food chain you want to give a title to, owe their living and generate it from those at the bottom of the food chain, the beekeepers.

To make it really simple, if there were no bees beekeepers or honey, there would be no packers or brand owners.

Bottom line the money is generated from bees, not difficult to understand.

 

[Adam Boot]

Adam whatever way you want to phrase or wordplay this, end of day the money for this is generated from bees and beekeepers.

Not difficult to understand.

Actually all the money comes from the consumer.

 

[Alastair]

Semantics.

 

[Adam Boot]

True Adam.

But regardless, whatever way you want to phrase or wordplay this, end of day the money for this is generated from bees and beekeepers.

Packers, brand owners, and whoever else up the food chain you want to give a title to, owe their living and generate it from those at the bottom of the food chain, the beekeepers.

To make it really simple, if there were no bees beekeepers or honey, there would be no packers or brand owners.

Bottom line the money is generated from bees, not difficult to understand.

Alastair
What is difficult for me to understand is that people and parts of the industry still cannot see it as a 'whole' and insist on it being an us and them or one part being more important than another. Of course bees and beekeepers are critical, as are packers and brand owners, as are retailers and distributors and right at the top at the pointy end, it is the consumer who parts with a significant dollar value for a jar of Manuka Honey. Without a willing consumer none of the other parts exist. The bottom line is the the revenue flows down from the consumer and not up. Every single dollar in the industry originates with the consumer.
While some parts of the industry continue to believe that their link in the supply chain is of greater value or importance or relevance than the next link, then the industry will remain fractured.

 

[Dennis Crowley]

Alastair
What is difficult for me to understand is that people and parts of the industry still cannot see it as a 'whole' and insist on it being an us and them or one part being more important than another. Of course bees and beekeepers are critical, as are packers and brand owners, as are retailers and distributors and right at the top at the pointy end, it is the consumer who parts with a significant dollar value for a jar of Manuka Honey. Without a willing consumer none of the other parts exist. The bottom line is the the revenue flows down from the consumer and not up. Every single dollar in the industry originates with the consumer.
While some parts of the industry continue to believe that their link in the supply chain is of greater value or importance or relevance than the next link, then the industry will remain fractured.

Totally agree, the money does not come from the beekeeper, it comes to the beekeeper from the consumer.
Alastair, there are plenty of beekeepers in NZ who don’t make money off their hives, they called hobbyists, the only difference between them and you is that you have 400 ? hives and not 2, if you sell your products to whom ever buys them. If no one buys them u have a lot of costs and a lot of product that is of no value. Value comes from someone else who sees it and is happy to part with their cash for it. We have to look as a whole industry not separate entities.

 

[Alastair]

What is difficult for me to understand is that people and parts of the industry still cannot see it as a 'whole' and insist on it being an us and them or one part being more important than another.

I don't find it hard to understand, it's life. I've heard beekeepers besmirch packers, and packers besmirch beekeepers.

But that's not me, so don't include me in it, I don't think like that at all. Nor do I appreciate the wordplay, and the attempt to try to frame me as something I am not at all, just to try to win a rather silly argument.

Not here to back and forth with either of you and not sure what useful point you are trying to make.

To put it simply, we all know honey has to be packed. We all know honey has to be sold.

Happy?

 

[Alastair]

And oh, I don't have 400 hives, got around 200 and continuing to sell off till I hopefully get to around 100, as a retirement hobby. So I call myself a hobbyist if either of you have a need to further define me, call me a hobbyist.

 

[Dennis Crowley]

And oh, I don't have 400 hives, got around 200 and continuing to sell off till I hopefully get to around 100, as a retirement hobby. So I call myself a hobbyist if either of you have a need to further define me, call me a hobbyist.

200 cool, wasn’t sure, hence the question mark. Doesn’t change the situation, your last line in your post saying ‘ money comes from the bees’ is wrong. If that was the case we would not have beeks sitting on crops they can’t sell, it was all produced by bees. I wasn’t trying to define you, just showing the difference between beeks, (which I know u understand) and the income direction for those beeks who choose to use get involved with commerce.

 

[Alastair]

your last line in your post saying ‘ money comes from the bees’ is wrong.

Dennis, taking something someone said out of context, and then rewording it to something a little different to what they actually said, so you can then tell them they are wrong, is dishonest in the extreme. Pointless, and will not convince the other person of your rightness. Would you like if I did the same to you? Next time you quote me, at least say what I actually said rather than make something up. Even subtle twists can make quite a difference.

just showing the difference between beeks, (which I know u understand) and the income direction for those beeks who choose to use get involved with commerce.

Excellent. Pleased that like myself, you understand the concept.

Anything else you want to back and forth about, or shall we return to the topic of the thread?

 

[Adam Boot]

Dennis, taking something someone said out of context, and then rewording it to something they did not even say, so you can then tell them they are wrong, is dishonest in the extreme. Pointless, and will not convince the other person of your rightness. Would you like if I did the same to you? Next time you quote me, at least say what I actually said rather than make something up. Even subtle twists can make quite a difference.



Excellent. Pleased that like myself, you understand the concept.

Anything else you want to back and forth about, or shall we return to the topic of the thread?

Alastair
This is what you said and it is fundamentally inaccurate. I simply tried to clarify the economic chain that supports all in the industry. If you disagree with me, then that is also fine. You can believe any economic model you choose. I am simply making a point.

"Packers, brand owners, and whoever else up the food chain you want to give a title to, owe their living and generate it from those at the bottom of the food chain, the beekeepers.

To make it really simple, if there were no bees beekeepers or honey, there would be no packers or brand owners.

Bottom line the money is generated from bees, not difficult to understand."

 

[Alastair]

I simply tried to clarify the economic chain that supports all in the industry. If you disagree with me, then that is also fine.

But I don't disagree with you.

You have an overactive imagination and have read into what I said, things that are not there.

Oversensitive? Is the rain causing you stress? Relax, chill out, and read it again. Your objections are mere semantics.

If this is a burning issue for you, start a thread on it. And then perhaps allow this thread to return to the actual topic.

 

[Bron]

Boys, I think it’s time to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Alastair]

I think we already resolved and ended it seeing as the last post was more than a day ago, and no need to agree to disagree, as we actually agree, best I can tell. But thanks anyway Bron.

 

[Adam Boot]

Boys, I think it’s time to agree to disagree and move on.

Thanks Bron. I think we are all on the same page.