Burying the hatchet
Beekeepers and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) have agreed to move on and work together after their stoush over the definition of manuka honey.
The MPI wanted to work with beekeepers and the wider industry, deputy director general Bryan Wilson told about 60 beekeepers at a two-day mini conference held at Waikato University organised by New Zealand Beekeeping Inc.
‘‘The MPI has no axe to grind here, our role is to ensure what we produce in New Zealand is safe and consumable.’’ Wilson said he was open to listening to industry views.
‘‘I hope that me being here today is a signal that we want to collaborate and move forward and strengthen the position of New Zealand honey.’’
He also urged the industry to resolve any internal issues and present a more united front.
‘‘If you can’t decide, you put the MPI in the position of having to make hard decisions to protect New Zealand’s trade and reputation based on the best information we have. That can sometimes mean that no-one is happy.’’
On December 11, MPI announced its scientific definition of ma¯ nuka honey, which Agriculture and Food Safety Minister Damien O’Connor said was based on ‘‘robust’’ scientific work and peer reviewed by international experts. Introducing it would protect New Zealand’s trade reputation, O’Connor said.
Beekeepers objected to an aspect of the definition that required a kilogram of monofloral or multi-floral honey contain at least five micrograms of
2’- m et hoxy ace top he none( known as 2 MAP). In response, beekeepers filed legal action, claiming the definition could cost the industry
$100 million.
The MPI changed the definition late last month, requiring multi-floral honey only needing one microgram of the marker to be defined as ma¯ nuka honey. There is no change to the definition for monofloral ma¯ nuka honey, which remains at equal or greater than 5mg/kg for 2’-MAP.
NZ Beekeeping then withdrew the legal action.
NZ Beekeeping adviser Ian Fletcher said the industry was at a ‘‘punctuation mark’’ in its history after resolving its stoush with MPI over manuka honey’s definition.
Now was not the time to recount history or gloat over the MPI’s backdown over the definition change, he said.
The industry needed to ensure that this type of disagreement never happened again. That required getting their information right about the proposed definition’s economic impact and helping MPI with their role.
‘‘It’s not a game of rivalry, it’s a game of co-operation and we need to build that sense that we need to help others succeed if we are to create condition for success for beekeeping in New Zealand.’’
He said their immediate challenge for New Zealand beekeeping now was getting the conditions right domestically for the industry to flourish. Key to achieving that was biosecurity. A healthy bee population was required for people to invest in the industry into the future, he said.
The economics of beekeeping also needed to be communicated more clearly. There was a 10 to one difference in the money generated from honey and that from pollination services.
‘‘Pollination wins. It has 10 times more value in the New Zealand economy than honey.’’
If New Zealand’s biosecurity was compromised, the pollination side of the industry would also be affected, he said.
Importing countries set the standards for which manuka had to pass and those could be different from country to country. The definition created a framework to answer questions about what manuka honey was and helped protect the New Zealand brand.
‘‘That is the way we can make it work.’’