FULL SHOW | January 26, 2021 from GlobalHQ on Vimeo.
After detection of low levels of glyphosate in some NZ honey, Japan has threatened to halt future shipments if sampling detects 5% or more of imports with glyphosate that exceeds the country’s limit.
The Japanese limit for glyphosate residue is .01 per kilogram (10 parts per billion), one tenth of NZ’s standard of .1mg per kg (100 parts per billion).
The Japanese limit is also five times lower than the European Union’s strict .05mg per kg maximum residue limit (MRL).
A Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) survey conducted last year on NZ honey samples found from 270 raw honey samples and 90 retail packaged products of mono and multi-floral honey, 77.7% had no glyphosate residues.
None of the retail samples contained glyphosate levels over NZ’s regulatory limits and almost 20% had glyphosate between the lowest lab detection level and regulatory level limits.
MPI pointed out that if a five-year-old consumed honey right up to the regulated .1mg/kg, they would need to eat almost a quarter of a tonne a day for the rest of their life.
The Japanese threat has the industry on high alert, with industry leaders scrambling to confirm the number of samples reported as being over the limit, and examine how the sector may work more closely with landowners to reduce glyphosate contamination.
But Manawatu honey producer Jason Prior of DownUnder Honey says the scare raises a bigger issue about the prevalence of glyphosate in all foods grown, rather than honey alone, and what constitutes an acceptable MRL level in markets.
“Japan’s levels are 10 times lower than ours, it almost suggests this could be a non-tariff trade barrier, and not based on science,” Prior said.
Increasingly sensitive lab tests mean residues are capable of being detected at lower and lower levels, often far from being toxic to humans.
Prior says he would be more concerned about the high level of adulteration occurring in global honey supplies, with estimates up to 60% of honey has sugar additives included in it.
Apiculture NZ chief executive Karin Kos confirmed the Japanese limit was significantly lower than NZ’s but regardless, there was pressure on NZ to conform to that limit, even if it was driven by consumer perception rather than a genuine food safety risk.
Glyphosate testing was now required by MPI on any NZ honey being exported to Japan, and failure to provide test results meant no export certification would be granted.
“After last year’s MPI report we have done a lot of work around education and information campaigns with beekeepers, and worked with Federated Farmers and regional councils, but it is not an easy issue to fix,” Kos said.
Kos acknowledged there is reputational risk for NZ when products are being marketed for their purity.
“Whether we like it or not, we have to find a way to manage this,” she said.
She has had no indication other export markets are likely to be on higher alert to glyphosate residues, and noted it was not only a NZ problem.
However, she added Japan’s response has been surprising.
UMF Honey association spokesperson John Rawcliffe says there is a risk to Manuka honey’s position in the market, despite that variety being more bush-based and less exposed to glyphosate transfer to hives from pastoral areas.
“Sometimes it is blended, and sometimes it may be from bush near pastureland, but in general, based on the MPI work last year, it is more pasture-based honeys affected,” Rawcliffe said.
He says the Japanese threat cannot be treated lightly, and the industry needed to look hard at how the issue would be managed.
Prior says there may be a need for greater research by a group like Landcare to determine more exactly the sources of glyphosate contamination.
Glyphosate’s role in food production has become clouded in controversy in 2015 amid claims by International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organisation agency, that it was a carcinogen.
However, a subsequent review determined it was dependent upon type and extent of human exposure.
This was later reinforced by the UN determining it was unlikely to pose a risk to humans from exposure through the diet.
NZ’s Environmental Protection Agency also determined it was unlikely to be carcinogenic.
