Sweet deception as weak oversight sees fake honey flow onto SA’s shelves

A few days ago I tweeted about honey adulteration, which means producing fake honey with sugar or other ingredients or the illegal practice of adding cheaper sweeteners like corn, rice, or beet syrups to honey to increase volume. 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, in KwaZulu-Natal.

Recently I went on a honey value-chain outreach programme 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. So I asked the beekepers: If the adulterated honey is labelled as “pure honey”, what does a consumer do? The best indicator at the moment is “price” – and I know this is not the best barometer.

On average, a 500g 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.

Implications for sustainability

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 were:

• Adulteration.
• Honey labelling (more than three countries in one bottle, with no specifications on 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 2,000 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 that highlighted that Chinese farmers had been 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 sixth on a list of 10 products most at risk of food fraud. DM

Wandile Sihlobo is the chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa. He writes the AgriView newsletter.