'Manuka' & 'Jelly Bush' Honey nothing more than a money grab?

[omnimirage]

How can you possibly sell it for that much? That's absurdly high.

[Wombat2]

I sell my regular honey for about $43 per kg so it doesn't seem that bad to me!

  - I just got knocked back from a local retailerl I was looking to carry my honey - "na ya too dear at $12/kg"

[omnimirage]

I look to not sell mine for much more than $10 a kilo, since that's how much my competitors sell it for.

[PhilK]

How can you possibly sell it for that much? That's absurdly high.

Adding perceived value to a product. We have very nice 280g jars, a cool label, and OK marketing if I do say so myself. Sell them for $12 a jar or $20 for two.

Mostly selling to people we know who don't mind helping us out a bit, but also sold out at our local markets when we went down there last time.

[deknow]

It's a bit more than 'paid for some research', it is a marketing campaign boosted by 'research'.

When you use a standard test but come up with a trademarked name for the test, then no one else can can perform the standard test and compare it to the results of the trademarked test.

If I sold water and trademarked a unit of measurement of volume (call it a 'glompf'), I can advertise that my waterbotitle has 10 more 'glompfs' then the competition.  ....the value of the claim is based on what a glompf is....a cc or a litre. 

There is an active ingredient in any of the Manuka honeys (including Jellybush) that is an anti-microbial, in addition to the usual effects of honey which already make it an antimicrobial.  The Australian and New Zealand beekeepers used to feed the Manuka honey to the hogs because the taste is so strong.  Someone got smart and paid for some research to back up the idea of it as a folk remedy and now it sells for an outrageous amount.

[omnimirage]

Is that truly how it works? If that's the case, it's possibly not more effective than regular honey, am I mistaken?

[Michael Bush]

>If that's the case, it's possibly not more effective than regular honey, am I mistaken?

I think they have an antibacterial "ingredient" that is naturally in the Manuka that is more effective, per se.  But honey is already antibacterial.  It's like antibacterial soap.  All soap is somewhat antibacterial.  But antibacterial soap has some added ingredient (probably one that will give you cancer, at least that is the history of all the previous antibacterial soaps...) that specifically kills bacteria.  Does that mean you hands will be cleaner?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

[Willy]

I think manuka oils are the same as teatree oils?  I can't say I like the taste at all, though the smell is wonderful.  It's very strongly antibacterial and antifungal and makes up a high proportion of 'safe' medicines for fish - it's used also as an anti-parasitic there.

Not sure what the point would be in consuming it, as most of the health benefits for humans are in external application, where it helps with dandruff, etc.

It's the same plant, Leptospermum scoparium - common or garden tea tree, grows on any bit of scrubby bushland here in Tas. The NZ flora is thought to have originally evolved in Australia.

The New Zealanders seem to be pretty talented in making everyone think something's uniquely New Zealand in origin - Kiwi fruit are a classic example, originally from China but after a spindoctor campaign in the 60s, you wouldn't know it now.

Correct.

Leptospermum scoparium is Manuka and Leptospermum polygalofolium is the jelly bush which has similar properties to Manuka and is more widely spread up the east coast of Australia.

Capilano wouldn't  buy out the largest producer of Jelly bush honey in australia unless they thought it had a strong future.

willy