Normal
The other thing the govt did wrong was to set those markers & levels. They disqualified the highest UMF honey i.e. Northland's.If the govt did what Winston Peters (among others) wanted they would have said that UMF honey = Manuka, which makes sense to the market and provides official support to the strongest advocate for MH. Instead they've informed the market that UMF doesn't necessarily = Manuka, thereby creating doubt in the market. Manuka was in high demand and got big bucks for its efficacy not for its Manukaness (however that was defined), the govt redefined the game as Manukaness and consumers shrug and say 'so what'.Additionally, the market and pricing was created from Dr Molan (and others) published research and promotion of "Manuka"'s efficacy against external wounds & burns. There has been very little significant research produced showing Manuka's efficacy over the last 20 years. Consumers need new research, new reasons to buy, and they haven't had it.
The other thing the govt did wrong was to set those markers & levels. They disqualified the highest UMF honey i.e. Northland's.
If the govt did what Winston Peters (among others) wanted they would have said that UMF honey = Manuka, which makes sense to the market and provides official support to the strongest advocate for MH. Instead they've informed the market that UMF doesn't necessarily = Manuka, thereby creating doubt in the market. Manuka was in high demand and got big bucks for its efficacy not for its Manukaness (however that was defined), the govt redefined the game as Manukaness and consumers shrug and say 'so what'.
Additionally, the market and pricing was created from Dr Molan (and others) published research and promotion of "Manuka"'s efficacy against external wounds & burns. There has been very little significant research produced showing Manuka's efficacy over the last 20 years. Consumers need new research, new reasons to buy, and they haven't had it.
