Race seemed to be a critical consideration in a OneNews report headed Māori honey producer stung by mānuka rules, fights for future.
The first paragraph said:
A Māori honey producer on the East Coast is feeling the pinch of a weak global honey market and stringent honey regulations.
Just one?
What about the others?
And are Māori honey producers feeling the pinch whereas non-Māori honey producers have been immune from the adverse effects of a weak global honey market and stringent honey regulations?
If that be so, what is the reason for non-Māori producers being commercially advantaged?
On the other hand, if OneNews had talked with a non-Maori honey producer about the industry’s troubles, Point of Order reckons it is highly unlikely its report would have begun:
A non-Māori honey producer on the East Coast is feeling the pinch of a weak global honey market and stringent honey regulations.
If you read beyond the race-focused introductory headline and paragraph, you will learn OneNews is reporting on industry developments which – dare we suggest it? – affect producers regardless of their race.
It says:
Rangi Raroa has worked in the industry for two decades and has tasted the sweet success of a thriving industry, but he’s now in survival mode.
“We haven’t been able to sell honey in the last three years and we’re right at the stage of winding up, walking away from the hives because you can’t give them away.”
No other honey producers are named.
The report explains that five years ago, producers experienced a boom industry. In the decade leading up to 2020, the development of mānuka honey helped accelerate the growth of New Zealand’s beekeeping industry.
By the time the global pandemic hit, “the honey’s unique health properties were well-known and established, and “according to NZTE” exports of the honey rose from 2019-2021 with a general spike in 2020 due to Covid”.
Point of Order imagines NZTE refers to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the government agency charged with helping New Zealand businesses to grow internationally.
The report goes on:
Raroa said mānuka honey came under “feverish scrutiny” and there was a demand for proof of product from international markets.
The report then notes that, in 2018, the Ministry of Primary Industries introduced a way to authenticate mānuka honey by developing a test to identify a combination of five attributes used in the mānuka honey definition.
Vincent Arbuckle, New Zealand Food Safety’s deputy director-general, said the definition “and the strong scientific foundations it is built on” provided certainty to trading partners and consumers.
“The mānuka honey definition was the result of a robust three-year science programme that involved collecting plant and honey samples from across New Zealand to find markers in the honey that could be traced back to the mānuka plant.
“It was subject to a consultation process with industry and the public, and the science underpinning the definition underwent international scientific peer review.”
Arbuckle said most in the industry were happy with the mānuka honey definition, but concerns were raised at the time by some beekeepers that it did not appropriately account for natural regional variations of honey, so a reassessment was made in 2020.
“The findings of the reassessment involved analysis of a range of data collected from industry, and all findings were peer-review by domestic and international experts.
“The assessment was completed in 2023 and did not support any change to the mānuka honey export definition.”
But small producers said big honey companies stopped buying from them which left operators like Raroa with stock that had nowhere to go.
High production costs, low honey prices, the risk of diseased hives and inclement weather compound the challenges.
But it seems from this information that several small producers have been troubled by happenings in the industry and it is not just a Māori issue.
Moreover, the fellow who is named in the second paragraph perhaps is doing better than others:
Fortunately for Raroa, a recent sale has thrown him a lifeline.
A consignment of 38 barrels made up of honey from five Māori producers on the East Coast – “who are probably the last of the small beekeepers that’s still chugging along up the coast” – is headed for Germany.
The sale means they can pay the bills to keep the hives going for another season.
“There is a glimpse of hope on the horizon. The fact that these ones have moved and there’s a wee bit of interest out there makes us think, ‘oh well, things can only improve from here on’.”
The report proceeds to deal with effort to protect the industry.
The Mānuka Charitable Trust has been looking into a geographical indication system used by France and Italy.
Trust chair Kristen Kohere-Soutar said they want to see the system adopted by New Zealand to protect mānuka products.
This would disallow honey producers from calling their product mānuka honey if it does not come from New Zealand.
New Zealand Manuka Honey Appellation Society and Mānuka Charitable Trust fought in a years-long battle on behalf of New Zealand honey producers for the exclusive trademark rights to the word ‘mānuka’. But, in 2023, New Zealand’s Intellectual Property Office ruled against that.
Kohere-Soutar has not abandoned the case for protecting the “ manuka” nomenclature, emphasising the “distinctiveness of the Māori term, the terroir, the culture, and seven million years worth of our rākau growing in our country” producing this specific honey which made it unique.
But let’s not overlook the role of the bees. They were brought to this country from Europe in the 1800s.
And the English have yet to demand trading constraints on who may use the word “honey”.
Moreover, our dairy producers for years have campaigned robustly against geographical indications in the cheese business.
Fonterra was disappointed that the NZ-European Union Free Trade Agreement means New Zealand cheese producers no longer will be able to use the term “feta” after a transition period of nine years. But Fonterra retained the ability to use the terms parmesan and gruyere.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Just one?
What about the others?
And are Māori honey producers feeling the pinch whereas non-Māori honey producers have been immune from the adverse effects of a weak global honey market and stringent honey regulations?
If that be so, what is the reason for non-Māori producers being commercially advantaged?
On the other hand, if OneNews had talked with a non-Maori honey producer about the industry’s troubles, Point of Order reckons it is highly unlikely its report would have begun:
A non-Māori honey producer on the East Coast is feeling the pinch of a weak global honey market and stringent honey regulations.
If you read beyond the race-focused introductory headline and paragraph, you will learn OneNews is reporting on industry developments which – dare we suggest it? – affect producers regardless of their race.
It says:
Rangi Raroa has worked in the industry for two decades and has tasted the sweet success of a thriving industry, but he’s now in survival mode.
“We haven’t been able to sell honey in the last three years and we’re right at the stage of winding up, walking away from the hives because you can’t give them away.”
No other honey producers are named.
The report explains that five years ago, producers experienced a boom industry. In the decade leading up to 2020, the development of mānuka honey helped accelerate the growth of New Zealand’s beekeeping industry.
By the time the global pandemic hit, “the honey’s unique health properties were well-known and established, and “according to NZTE” exports of the honey rose from 2019-2021 with a general spike in 2020 due to Covid”.
Point of Order imagines NZTE refers to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the government agency charged with helping New Zealand businesses to grow internationally.
The report goes on:
Raroa said mānuka honey came under “feverish scrutiny” and there was a demand for proof of product from international markets.
The report then notes that, in 2018, the Ministry of Primary Industries introduced a way to authenticate mānuka honey by developing a test to identify a combination of five attributes used in the mānuka honey definition.
Vincent Arbuckle, New Zealand Food Safety’s deputy director-general, said the definition “and the strong scientific foundations it is built on” provided certainty to trading partners and consumers.
“The mānuka honey definition was the result of a robust three-year science programme that involved collecting plant and honey samples from across New Zealand to find markers in the honey that could be traced back to the mānuka plant.
“It was subject to a consultation process with industry and the public, and the science underpinning the definition underwent international scientific peer review.”
Arbuckle said most in the industry were happy with the mānuka honey definition, but concerns were raised at the time by some beekeepers that it did not appropriately account for natural regional variations of honey, so a reassessment was made in 2020.
“The findings of the reassessment involved analysis of a range of data collected from industry, and all findings were peer-review by domestic and international experts.
“The assessment was completed in 2023 and did not support any change to the mānuka honey export definition.”
But small producers said big honey companies stopped buying from them which left operators like Raroa with stock that had nowhere to go.
High production costs, low honey prices, the risk of diseased hives and inclement weather compound the challenges.
But it seems from this information that several small producers have been troubled by happenings in the industry and it is not just a Māori issue.
Moreover, the fellow who is named in the second paragraph perhaps is doing better than others:
Fortunately for Raroa, a recent sale has thrown him a lifeline.
A consignment of 38 barrels made up of honey from five Māori producers on the East Coast – “who are probably the last of the small beekeepers that’s still chugging along up the coast” – is headed for Germany.
The sale means they can pay the bills to keep the hives going for another season.
“There is a glimpse of hope on the horizon. The fact that these ones have moved and there’s a wee bit of interest out there makes us think, ‘oh well, things can only improve from here on’.”
The report proceeds to deal with effort to protect the industry.
The Mānuka Charitable Trust has been looking into a geographical indication system used by France and Italy.
Trust chair Kristen Kohere-Soutar said they want to see the system adopted by New Zealand to protect mānuka products.
This would disallow honey producers from calling their product mānuka honey if it does not come from New Zealand.
New Zealand Manuka Honey Appellation Society and Mānuka Charitable Trust fought in a years-long battle on behalf of New Zealand honey producers for the exclusive trademark rights to the word ‘mānuka’. But, in 2023, New Zealand’s Intellectual Property Office ruled against that.
Kohere-Soutar has not abandoned the case for protecting the “ manuka” nomenclature, emphasising the “distinctiveness of the Māori term, the terroir, the culture, and seven million years worth of our rākau growing in our country” producing this specific honey which made it unique.
But let’s not overlook the role of the bees. They were brought to this country from Europe in the 1800s.
And the English have yet to demand trading constraints on who may use the word “honey”.
Moreover, our dairy producers for years have campaigned robustly against geographical indications in the cheese business.
Fonterra was disappointed that the NZ-European Union Free Trade Agreement means New Zealand cheese producers no longer will be able to use the term “feta” after a transition period of nine years. But Fonterra retained the ability to use the terms parmesan and gruyere.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Sounds like the problem is that the free rides Maori businesses get in NZ will not apply to the international market. In NZ, if Maori say their honey is Manuka, it is. End of story. Disagreeing with a Maori is racism - ask Willie Jackson. But internationally, people want scientific tests done to show it is Manuka. But "western" science is so colonial...
And those non-Maori honey producers will be taxed at the full business rate, whereas the former likely gets a break. Nothing like a competitive advantage, but then they've got to get to that $130Billion economy somehow, I s'pose?
My beekeeper has not sold any honey in the last two years, reason been the value of that honey would not cover his costs, he has been sitting on 80 drums waiting for the price to increase, which it is finally doing, one of his mates is sitting on 400 drums, and yes we are all white boys, it seems us white boys have no value?
Post a Comment