DOMINION HONEY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 138, 15 June 1927, Page 21

DOMINION HONEY

TRIBUTE TO QUALITY

A GERMAN ACTION

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE

(From "The Post'i" Reprtsantative.) LONDON, 23rd April.: An action was recently heard in tha County Court ot Freiburg, Germany, which had to do with the quality of New Zealand honey. It appears that the pronounced success following the introduction of the honey into Germany, incurred the resentment of prominent German beekeepers, with the result that one of the leading merchants connected with the industry, Mr. Paul Watzel, brought an action against Messrs.' Jung and Co., who are the representatives of Messrs. A. J. Mills and Co. Messrs. Mills and Co. supply the following report concerning the proceedings: "The parties bringing the motion have submitted that the accused, as the soiling agents of New Zealand honey for Baden, offer this honey for sale,' and both themselves, and through retail dealers, distribute printed matter and' insert advertisements regarding the quality and comparative value of New Zealand honey. These advertisements, which are very cleverly prepared, also contain incorrect statements regarding the occasion and purpose of aelling this honey, which are calculated to create in the minds of the public the impression that a specially favourable offer is being made. In this way, it is alleged, the accused, for purposes of competition, have acted in a manner which constitutes an' offence against honourable commercial practice. On the strength of paragraph* 1, 3, and 25 of the Law to Restrain Unfair: Competition, they have therefore brought a motion that the defendants should le restrained, by an interim order of the Court, and on pain of a fine or term of imprisonment for every case of: infringement, from maintaining in any public declarations or statements which are ir tended to be read by a large circle of the jrabhc, that: New Zealand honey is the best honey and the best flower honey in the world; centrifugal honey contains in some cases up to 70 per cent.' of cane sugar, and is therefore inferior value. German honey, which is mixed with sugar, is heated up again and suffers in value owing to the over-heatings. Only honey with a soft, thick creamy consistency, as shown by New Zealand honey, and not the viscid honey (German), like syrup, is the genuine mature flower honey; New Zealand honey is the most valuable on the world market; New Zealand honey is shipped under^ official supervision only. ;;; '.'The defendants pleaded that the motion should be refused. They admitted that they had distributed the printed matter, which was issued by the New Zealand Honey Marketing Company for Central Europe/Wiesbaden, and'that" tney had occasioned advertisements to be inserted in the newspapers. They denied, however, that they had commit; ted any offence against the provisions of the Law to Restrain Unfair Competition. For^replies to the ■' individual points raised they referred '■' to the ? n c t mf?oi Urn Ot their representative dated 12th January, 1925 " -

THIS JUDGMENT. It is quite clear that the Judges in this case employed the best available experts, and gave the most careful consideration to the rights: and wrongs in connection with the matter, :and as a result delivered the ...following jude£'7 ffl >WhA h £t WM> corded thlt xsew Zealand honey is unquestionably the good thing that it is claimed to be. . The motion which has been brought is_only partly established. The plaintiffs are justified in taking exception to the statements in the printed matter to the effect that practically all the honey which has hitherto been offered to the consumer, and especially the transparent, so-called centrifugal honey, contains greater or less quantities of cane sugar (in some cases as much as 70 per cent.). In exhibit 10 this contention takes the following form- The transparent centrifugal honeys which are offered for sale as guaranteed pure bee honey contain almost without exception solutions of cane sugar. "With this German honey a comparison is drawn in the printed matter of New Zealand honey which, according to tho analysis of Professor Fresenius, contains approximately 80 per cent, grape and fruit sugar—which passes direct into the blood stream—and no cane | sugar of any kind—which give* rise to uric acid secretions (gout, etc.). inese statements are inaccurate and create the impression that a specially f- ourable offer is being made? According to the evidence of the Municipal Examination Office, pure German honey also contains fruit sugar to an amount between 70 and 80 per cent, in the case of flower honey and approximately 00-70 per cent, in the case of honey obtained from coniferous trees. The sucrose content (cane or beet "sugar) is. up to 5 per cent, in flower honey and up to 10 per cent, in the other kind of honey. AN" IMPLIED BEPBOAOH. "According to the report of Dr. Kora, exception would be taken under the provisions of the Foodstuffs Act to any honey which contained more than 8 to 10 per cent, sucrose, because under these circumstances it would be safe to infer that sugar had been added to the honey ct that the bees had been supplied with sugar by way of food. The contention that centrifugal honeys contain in some cases as much as 70 per: cent, cane sugar is described by an export as one calculated to mislead the public. Such honey would be declared at onco as adulterated. The inexperienced public who read the propaganda matter of the defendants must get tho impression that German honey is adulterated to a greater or less degree by, the unlawful addition of'sugar. Thig implied reproach the Court, in agreement with the terms of the report; must reject as absolutely groundless and unjustifiable. By this, reproach and aspersion is cast on the honey trad* and bee-keeping community. "It is not permissible to generalise in this way individual instances which arise every; now and then of culpable adulteration* of honey, and apply them indiscriminately to the whole of the German honey 1, production and the honey trade. A» both parties to the suit, under the pro* visions of paragraph 3 of the • Law to Restrain Unfair Competition, ' havt grounds for bringing the motions which stand in their respective names, the interim order of the Court had to be" granted to the limited extent"set on* in the judgment. The remaining items in the motion brought by the .plaintiff had, on the other hand, to be rejected as not having been established. A REMABKABLE CONCLUSION. "The possibility of misleading thai public is as good as impossible. In no sense do the words appearing in the newspapers contain an incorrect statement within the meaning of paragraph' 3 of the Law to Restrain Unfair Competition. "On these grounds the judgment has been promulgated as stated. It was unnecessary to hear Mr. Schulxe, the director of the selling organisation in. Wiesbaden of the Marketing-Co., who had been summoned as a witatw *nd actually appeared, in order to confirm the accuracy of the statements advanced by the defendants. The true facts of the case on which the decision was based - were adequately authenticated, by the documents which had been. d«>