Māori honey producer stung by mānuka rules, fights for future
A Māori honey producer on the East Coast is feeling the pinch of a weak global honey market and stringent honey regulations.
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.'
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.
Raroa said mānuka honey came under 'feverish scrutiny' and there was a demand for proof of product from international markets.
Watch Rangi Raroa's full story on Marare on TVNZ+
In 2018, the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) 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."
Raroa said the markers had a dramatic impact on the mānuka honey produced from the East Coast, and claims some markers were "out of kilter".
"Some honey which was classed as good mānuka honey prior to these markers being established, no longer reached that qualification.
'This of course meant that our honey was then reduced in quality and in price. Then it was harder to find markets and [it] had a huge impact on the whole industry.'
Arbuckle acknowledged that while most in the industry were happy with the mānuka honey definition, 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."
To make things worse for producers, small producers said big honey companies stopped buying from them which left operators like Raroa with stock that had nowhere to go.
Factor in high production costs, low honey prices, the risk of diseased hives and inclement weather makes for stressful business.
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'.'
An advocacy group for the protection of mānuka and other taonga species is working behind the scenes to find ways to future proof 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.
'Anyone around the world producing honey, calling it mānuka honey that's not come from New Zealand - literally the courts will actually stop them from being able to trade. So that's the kind of protection that we need here.'
She said they want to see the system to be adopted, but that legislative change is needed for that to happen.
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 (IPO) ruled against that. While the outcome was disappointing, Kohere-Soutar said there were valuable lessons learnt.
'Essentially, what the IPO said was that our commercialised businesses were not speaking to the distinctiveness of mānuka such that consumers were clear that mānuka honey came only from Aotearoa New Zealand."
She said the lesson to industry was it's 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.
For the full Marae story, watch on TVNZ+
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Article – RNZ One of the experts said it would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. , Reporter Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries. A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled 'Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights'. It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer. The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee. It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.' The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. 'This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'.' But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective. He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits. Another issue was the 'takings or impairment principle'. The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation – paid with public money – if any future legislation caused them to lose money. Baker explained this would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation. This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry. This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health. 'And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups – even governments – promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest.' The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it 'appears to be the Bill's intention'. Seymour response Seymour accused Baker of 'alarmism'. 'What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny.' 'The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?' Seymour asked. 'What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?' 'This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'.'
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries. A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled "Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights". It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer. The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee. It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective. He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits. Another issue was the "takings or impairment principle". The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation - paid with public money - if any future legislation caused them to lose money. Baker explained this would have a "chilling effect" on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation. This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry. This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health. "And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups - even governments - promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest." The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it "appears to be the Bill's intention". Seymour response Seymour accused Baker of "alarmism". "What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny." "The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?" Seymour asked. "What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?" "This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'."
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Successful Childhood Immunisation Programme Delivering Results
Press Release – New Zealand Government The Immunising our Tamariki programme focuses on reaching children and families who are yet to receive their immunisation through traditional pathways such as GP practices, particularly in communities with historically low immunisation rates. Minister of Health A successful programme to help Māori health providers lift childhood immunisation rates will be renewed, Health Minister Simeon Brown says. 'The Immunising our Tamariki programme, originally launched in 2023 by Hon Dr Shane Reti, invested $50 million in Māori health providers to deliver targeted, community-based immunisation outreach. It aims to lift childhood immunisation rates for babies and children who may not be reached through traditional health channels such as GPs or pharmacies.' 'Since March 2024, the programme has delivered 41,719 scheduled childhood immunisations for children under 24 months, including 3,301 in May – the highest monthly total since it began,' Mr Brown says. 'In total, more than 132,000 vaccinations have been administered through the programme, with a record 18,555 given in April 2025 alone as part of preparations for winter – including influenza and other immunisations. It's a clear example of how backing local health providers and frontline workers delivers better outcomes for the communities they know best. 'The Immunising our Tamariki programme focuses on reaching children and families who are yet to receive their immunisation through traditional pathways such as GP practices, particularly in communities with historically low immunisation rates. 'We know we need to significantly lift immunisation rates for Māori to meet the Government's target of 95 per cent of children being fully immunised by 24 months of age. Targeted, localised outreach services are critical to achieving that goal. 'About 40 per cent of people immunised through the programme are also non-Māori, reflecting the essential role that community providers play in delivering low-cost, trusted health services for all New Zealanders.' As part of the programme's renewal to 30 June 2026, Health New Zealand will implement several changes to maximise its impact: All funding will go directly to frontline service delivery and qualified immunisation staff. Newly commissioned services must include clinical capacity to vaccinate – such as authorised vaccinators and cold chain infrastructure – so new providers can begin immunising immediately. Support will continue for Māori health providers to build trust and momentum in communities with high-needs, building on the groundwork laid during the COVID-19 response. 'These improvements will help deliver tens of thousands more immunisations in the year ahead, while relieving pressure on GPs and hospitals. 'One of the most important things we can do to protect children and families is to stay up to date with immunisations. This programme is a smart, targeted way of doing just that,' Mr Brown says.
