Australian honey producers are insulting and ignoring their own indigenous race as they seek to grab use of a word that is definitively Maori, Houpapa, the chairwoman of the Federation of Maori Authoties, said.
“What we have seen here in New Zealand is a strong relationship between Maori, Government and the industry play out in the past week with a hui demonstrating our unity and determination to retain exclusive use of the word for NZ,” she said.
“Manuka is a Maori word, with strong whakapapa so for our members in the wider honey and apiculture sector the claiming of the word is unacceptable.”
The trans-Tasman row over the use of manuka in honey labelling started late last year when NZ honey producers were granted United Kingdom Trademark Registry certification to use the term manuka.
The move prompted Australian producers to seek legal advice and lodge an appeal against the decision.
In its decision the UK authority said the word manuka was a Maori word used to describe the plant scientifically described as Leptospermum scoparium.
It acknowledged the tree grows elsewhere but was known by different common names in those areas, with manuka designating the plant growing in NZ.
Houpapa said if nothing else the Australian action had galvanised the apiculture industry, iwi and Government.
That included pushing hard for a review of Ministry for Primary Industries honey standards coming into force on February 5.
They had been subject to much push-back from the industry. which remains adamant flaws in the standards will compromise honey value and quality.
“We think more needs to be done here and an independent review of these standards should be carried out.”
Ngati Porou Miere general manager Victor Goldsmith and his East Coast iwi group working with beekeepers said efforts to grab the manuka title could extend to other varieties, including kanuka, and had to be stopped.
“The indigenous people of NZ have a long cultural association with manuka and we do not need to justify or prove it to anyone.”
He viewed the Australian efforts as purely a marketing ploy and ironic when that country’s indigenous people had their own name for manuka (kallara), which honey producers had chosen to ignore for the Maori term.
“They are simply trying to capture the premium position NZ has worked hard to earn the luxury of.”
He believes Australian producers recognise they stand on shaky ground trying to appeal against the UK decision, hence their call for a united Australasian effort to market manuka.
As part of their appeal Australian honey producers have compiled evidence they say shows the term manuka has been used in Australia and particularly Tasmania since the 1800s.
But should the certification stand, Australian honey producers that have used it face the prospect of being unable to sell into the UK under the manuka label and that might be only the start of market exclusion.
“We have won the first battle in the UK unless Australia win on appeal and then it will be China, the United States and the European Union,” Goldsmith said.
The rights to use terms like manuka also raise issues around Geographical Indications (GI), the protection of descriptions of products sourced from specific geographic regions.
In NZ a law change in 2016 meant only wines and spirits received that protection, ensuring products like Marlborough sauvignon blanc had to be sourced from a defined region.
Houpapa said FOMA members were surprised the GI rules had not been extended further to cover a wider spectrum of food products, as is the case in Europe.
“This is a wake-up call really.
“If we are to truly aim to add value to our food sector then we need to take this threat seriously and get some sort of protection around these food brands.
“That whole back story about whakapapa, source and provenance makes good sense and needs to be encouraged.
“I think FOMA and others realise the implications for other food products and we need to lead well on this one.”
