THELong before the name MÄnuka became synonymous with a booming honey industry, celebrity endorsements and protracted world conflicts, it was known in Maori legend. After TÄne Mahuta, the god of forests, separated his parents from their locked embrace, he set out to cover PapatÅ«Änuku (his mother earth) with trees. One of these trees, born from his union with Tawake-Toro, was the MÄnuka, with its dense and thorny foliage, delicate white flowers and unique pollen.
MÄnuka is considered a taonga, or treasure, of which the Maoris are considered the kaitiaki (guardians). The Maori legend and relationship with MÄnuka has become an important tool in a global battle to protect the MÄnuka brand of honey from Aotearoa in New Zealand, the bitterest part of which lies between New Zealand and Australia.
The lucrative honey is produced from bees feeding on the pollen of the Leptospermum scoparium plant, native to Australia and New Zealand, and is renowned for its antibacterial properties. In New Zealand it is called MÄnuka, in Australia it is more commonly referred to as Tea Tree, but the word Manuka (without macron, which is used to indicate a long vowel) has been in common use in Tasmania for at least 100 years. years.
Both countries make honey, both label it MÄnuka, or variations of it, and both have multi-million dollar export industries that depend on this brand.
Some New Zealand lots with a particularly high UMF (Unique MÄnuka Factor) rating sell for between NZ $ 2,000 and 5,000 per jar at luxury stores like Harrods in London. Its value and global demand have led to a series of crimes in New Zealand, with reports of beehive thefts, secret poisonings and brawls between beekeepers over land use.
A fight over who can claim MÄnuka’s name has also raged for years between Australia and New Zealand, with the latest showdown fast approaching.
New Zealand’s MÄnuka Honey Appellation Society first applied for the brand name in 2015, and the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office finally accepted in 2018. But the Australian Manuka Honey Association filed for a objection. A similar sequence of events unfolded in the UK, after his office accepted a trademark application in New Zealand and Australia objected – that hearing is due for reconsideration this month.
The hearing at the New Zealand office was scheduled to take place on August 18, but was canceled when the country entered a nationwide lockdown to eradicate a coronavirus outbreak. A decision on a new date is pending.
The MÄnuka Charitable Trust – a group representing industry, iwi (tribes) and government – was formed after Australia filed its objection and will defend New Zealand’s name, backed by government funding of NZ $ 6 million.
Its president, Pita Tipene, said the goal was simple: to prevent the term MÄnuka Honey from being used on products made outside of New Zealand.
“For Maori, it means our reo is respected and a precious taonga [treasure] is honored and protected. For consumers, this means they can be confident that they are getting genuine New Zealand-produced honey from our MÄnuka trees. It also protects industry, export earnings and jobs.
Tipene compared their plight to that of France which is fighting to prevent wine producers from labeling their sparkling wines as champagne.
âNow anything labeled champagne has to come from that region,â he said. “For us, it goes even further because MÄnuka is our taonga and our reo [language]. “
New Zealand was the only country in the world to have a formal scientific definition of MÄnuka-derived honey, which was regulated by the Ministry of Primary Industries, Tipene said.
âThis definition requires that all honey exported from New Zealand under the name ‘MÄnuka honey’ (which includes variations on the name) meet testing requirements, ensuring that it is pure and conforms to labeling. This allows consumers to trust this authentic and unique New Zealand honey.
“Both countries are losers”
John Rawcliffe, chief executive of the UMF Honey Association, which verifies the authenticity and antimicrobial activity of MÄnuka honey, said the brand was aimed at protecting what was unique to New Zealand.
Rawcliffe pointed out that Australia had 83 varieties of Leptospermum, which the industry classifies there under a broad umbrella like Manuka. Corn not all of these Leptospermum varieties are created equal.
âIt’s like calling all species of citrus an orange,â he said.
“If they turn around and say, ‘I’m going to call these different Manuka honeys because I can quickly make a dollar out of them,’ that’s short term, it’s incorrect and it doesn’t help the consumer, nor does it. helps Australian beekeepers.
âIt is absolutely essential to transform these products into an artisanal journey. If we don’t, we market it and destroy it, âRawcliffe said. âBoth countries are losers because we both have a history of our land, our product and our environment. “
But Australia argues that New Zealand’s attempt to tag a plant’s name is wrong.
Australian Manuka Honey Association (AMHA) President Paul Callander said the anglicized word “Manuka” has been used in Australia for over 100 years.
âWe will never use the Te Reo MÄori version of the word, however, the word Manuka as we spell it has no meaning in the Maori language. We consider it an Australian word.
(Rawcliffe disputes this, saying that if someone added a macron to the word Harrods, or Penfolds, the name of an Australian wine producer, all hell would break loose.)
Callander said two Maori members of the AMHA board supported Australia’s position and that there was no âunified Maori approachâ to protect the name.
“It’s not really about benefiting the Maori, it’s about controlling the industry.”
Callander said it was a false comparison to compare MÄnuka to champagne. “Manuka is not a geographic name, it is a plant name, and is not entitled to place name protection.”
He said the industry was an uneven playing field with New Zealand dominating the market. Now the New Zealand association had added insult to injury by targeting individual Australian beekeepers trying to market their own products.
âIf you go after the bankruptcy of our beekeepers, we’re going to be pretty upset. “
The AMHA produced a 5,000-page document for its legal challenge, but Callander said the preference would be for New Zealand and Australia to work together, share the name, collaborate in the market, and jointly set standards for industry.