The Business Day has a story today about “Fake honey” detections in some informal, non-franchise outlets of South Africa. This reminded me of the observations I once made back in June 2018.
What follows are observations I made on the 27th of June in 2018, typing a blog from the Pietermaritzburg Airport. 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 program there, and conversations with a couple of beekeepers suggested that adulteration is not only an issue of imported products but 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 this is not the best barometer.
Anyways, on average, a 500-gram bottle of pure South African honey is about R65 or more on the shelf. The adulterated honey often sells at a far lower price than this. In addition, consumers could look to trust larger brands that have a reputation to protect, or to artisanal products where they know the beekeeper.
This pricing issue is not only an indicator for consumers but also has implications for the industry’s sustainability, most importantly for potential new entrants. The pure honey value chain is a bit complex and labour-intensive, which increases input costs.
Then, competition with lower-priced ‘adulterated honey’ would squeeze real beekeepers and also lessen the potential for new entrants.
Honey adulteration could also have health implications, as some consumers favour pure honey for its health 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 3 countries in 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 products should not be taken lightly, especially given the recent upsurge of ‘natural honey’ imports into South Africa.
South Africa’s honey imports increased from 476 tonnes in 2001 to 4,206 tonnes in 2017.
This is mainly due to steady domestic demand, coupled with a decline in domestic honey production, currently estimated at 2000 tonnes, against consumption of 5,000 tonnes per annum, according to industry experts.
But it is worth noting that, 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 ran an article which highlighted that Chinese farmers were caught producing counterfeit honey.
Europe had similar experiences with imported honey, and the challenge grew to such an extent that in 2014, European lawmakers ranked honey 6th on a list of 10 products most at risk of food fraud.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
