Tēnā koe John,

Thank you for your official information request as below.

Your request will be considered and an answer provided in accordance with the requirements of the Official Information Act 1982.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please email [email address].

Ngā mihi,

Gabrielle Mackintosh | Ministerial Support Officer
Ministerials & Business Support | Office of the Director-General
Ministry for Primary Industries - Manatū Ahu Matua
Telephone: 0800 00 83 33 | Web: www.mpi.govt.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hill [mailto:[FOI #5971 email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2017 8:03 a.m.
To: Ministerials <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Why leptosperin was excluded from identifying manuka honey in the MPI manuka honey science program

Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

1) Why was Leptosperin recorded in MPI Science summary as not being only found in manuka plants.
Please explain which other plants it was found in.

2) Nectar Sample 15-76 from MPINectarta 14-15 is categorised as species Trifolium repens showing that Leptosperin was in at high levels of 9934 mg/80%sugar

Was this one sample the reason that Leptosperin was considered to be in other plants?

If so then Sample 15-76 shows that 2' Methoxyacetophene is in Trifolium Repens at high levels also at 219 mg/80%sugar

Does this mean that 2' Methoxyacetophene is in other plant species?
Does this mean that your science is incorrect as you have stated in table A pg 26 that 2’ Methoxyacetophene is only found in manuka plants?

Did you consider that this sample had been incorrectly categorised and labelled?

If correctly labelled then do you agree that your published science is incorrect and your CART statistical model has been fed incorrect data about 2' Methoxyacetophene?

If incorrectly labelled then do you agree this is not a reason to say that Leptosperin is in other plants

3) Sample 15_16 categorised as Restia, which is not a plant name and cannot be found as a NZ plant.
Please explain what plant species this is from and why false data has been included in the data set

Is this incorrectly labelled and therefore does not apply to any plant species and has been incorrectly, tested and categorised.

If the answer is yes then do you agree that the result is an error?
If the answer is no please advise what the species is, and if other samples have been taken to validate the result.

Was this the reason that Leptosperin was considered to be in other plants?

There are minute amounts of leptosperin (less than 1% of average of Leptossperin Scoparium) in 1 sample of Weinmannia racemose and 15 samples of Kunzea ericoides.

Was this the reason that Leptosperin was considered to be in other plants?

4) Why were the following Leptospermum species from Australia classed as NZ plants, when they would have been imported from Australia

• What area in NZ were samples of the nectar obtained from?
• Was the area they were obtained from rural, urban (within city, town city limits)
• If they were from urban areas, were they in enough quantity (please advise quantity, age of plants and size of area) that there was any likelihood of commercial honey collection in the area.
• If they were from rural areas were they in enough quantity (please advise quantity, age of plants and size of area) that there was any likelihood of commercial honey collection in the area.

• Please advise if these leptospermum varieties were the reason that Leptosperin was considered to be in other plants

• If the plants in the testing are NOT involved in the New Zealand honey production then why were they tested for Leptosperin?

A summary of the manuka honey programme MPI Technical paper 2017/28

4. Objectives 2) Manuka Honey Science program Identifying manuka Honey Establishing plant and honey reference collections to ensure selected attributes are fit for purpose

How does selecting plants that are NOT from NZ and not involved in the New Zealand honey production provide attributes that are fit for purpose?

5 Scope
Manuka honey from New Zealand when sold as a food, How does selecting plants that are NOT from NZ and not involved in the New Zealand honey production fit this scope?

6 Attribute list
Was the attribute list written to specifically exclude the chemical marker Leptosperin, as the published literature showed that Leptosperin was also in the Australian leptospermum varieties?
Was the selection of chemical markers pre-determined and the attribute list written according to that predetermination?
6. Selecting the attributes – Are the attributes only found in the manuka plant and/or in other Leptospermum species or plants involved in New Zealand Honey production
5) Is the published attribute list in A summary of the manuka honey programme MPI Technical paper 2017/28 , the original attribute list or an amended list?
If amended please provide amendment dates and amendments Please provide all versions of the attribute list, and all communication written and email and all meeting notes and personal file notes relating to the attribute list.

6) Please explain the science process that led to the decision that leptosperin levels in manuka honey cannot be used to separate monofloral from multifloral honey.
Did the science team read the published literature Kato et Al 2014 Did the science team refer to other published and peer reviewed papers on the use of Leptosperin which correlated to the purest of manuka honey?

Please show me all the data (used and unused) and the rational for the conclusion that leptsoperin could not be used as a chemical marker in th MPI manuka honey science program. I require full disclosure of the discussion , written notes, emails, meeting notes, personal files notes which led to this decision.

Yours faithfully,

John Hill

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #5971 email]

Is [MPI request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Ministry for Primary Industries? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This email message and any attachment(s) is intended solely for the addressee(s)
named above. The information it contains is confidential and may be legally
privileged. Unauthorised use of the message, or the information it contains,
may be unlawful. If you have received this message by mistake please call the
sender immediately on 64 4 8940100 or notify us by return email and erase the
original message and attachments. Thank you.

The Ministry for Primary Industries accepts no responsibility for changes
made to this email or to any attachments after transmission from the office.

hide quoted sections

Dear John Hill

 

Please see attached response to your Official Information Act request from
6 June 2017.

 

Andrew Barrowclough | Adviser, Official Information Act
Office of the Director-General | Ministerials and Business Support
Ministry for Primary Industries - Manatū Ahu Matua | Pastoral House 25
The Terrace | PO Box 2526 | Wellington 6140 |
New Zealand | Web: [1]www.mpi.govt.nz

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email message and any attachment(s) is intended solely for the
addressee(s)
named above. The information it contains may be classified and may be
legally
privileged. Unauthorised use of the message, or the information it
contains,
may be unlawful. If you have received this message by mistake please call
the
sender immediately on 64 4 8940100 or notify us by return email and erase
the
original message and attachments. Thank you.

The Ministry for Primary Industries accepts no responsibility for changes
made to this email or to any attachments after transmission from the
office.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/

hide quoted sections

Dear John Hill

Please see attached response to your Official Information Act request.