Business Day published a story on December 15 about fake or adulterated honey having been found in some of the country’s informal, non-franchise outlets, which reminded me of some observations I made back in June 2018 when doing a blog.
Here goes: A few days ago, I tweeted about honey adulteration, which means producing fake honey with sugar or other ingredients. At the time, I suspected the issue would be linked only to foreign products.
Well, turns out we also have bad guys here in South Africa. How do I know this? From conversations with a couple of beekeepers in Howick, KwaZulu-Natal province.
Today, I went on a honey value-chain outreach programme there, and conversations with a couple of beekeepers suggest that adulteration is not only an issue of imported products but also has been happening in the country for some time.
Sadly, there is no enforcement, self-regulatory or ethical trade body to address the issue at the moment — the complaints to regulators have thus far landed on deaf ears.
This, of course, could be confusing for consumers; if the adulterated honey is labelled as “pure honey”, what does a consumer do? (I asked the beekeepers). The best indicator at the moment is “price” — I know that’s not the best barometer.
Still, the average 500-gram bottle of pure South African honey costs about R65 or more on the shelf. The adulterated honey often sells at a far lower price. In addition, consumers could look to trust larger brands, which are keenly aware of their reputation, or to artisanal products where they know the beekeeper.
The price issue is not only an indicator for consumers; it also has implications for the industry’s sustainability, most importantly for potential new entrants. The pure honey value chain is quite complex and labour-intensive, which increases input costs.
Competition from lower-priced “adulterated honey” would squeeze real beekeepers and damage the industry’s reputation and potential. Honey adulteration could also have health implications, as some consumers favour pure honey for its benefits.
Enough about my ranting — the key issues that were raised by the beekeepers in Howick today were:
• Adulteration (as discussed above)
• Honey labelling (more than three countries of origin were mentioned on one bottle, with no specifications of the amount from each country, and a lack of compliance with any legal requirements).
The “mixed labelling” issue on honey should not be taken lightly, especially given the recent upsurge of “natural honey” imports. South Africa’s honey imports increased from 476 tonnes in 2001 to 4,206 tonnes in 2017. That’s mainly due to steady domestic demand, coupled with a decline in domestic honey production, currently estimated at 2,000 tonnes, compared to consumption of 5,000 tonnes a year, according to industry experts.
On average, 76% of South Africa’s “natural honey” imports came from China over the past 17 years. I mention this because the Chinese honey has, in the past, dominated the headlines, but not in a good way. In 2014, food24.com published a story which highlighted that Chinese farmers had been caught producing counterfeit honey.
Europe has had similar experiences, to the extent that in 2014 European legislators ranked honey sixth on a list of 10 products most at risk of food fraud.
- Sihlobo is the chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.