Manuka Honey Scientific Evidence

Manuka honey on a spatula over a petri dish under a laboratory microscope

MANUKA HONEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Scientific Research on Manuka Honey

Honey has been valued in many cultures for centuries, and researchers have been studying Manuka honey for decades. Manuka honey is supported by over 100 research studies and clinical trials.

More than half of this research is laboratory or animal work. The rest are human trials, reviews of trials and background reviews.

We have linked to the peer-reviewed research papers below for reference, grouped by topic. Each paper is labeled with its evidence tier and study design.

BROWSE THE RESEARCH HOW TO READ THIS PAGE

How to read this page

What the labels mean

Each study sits in a research collection and topic, and carries two labels: its evidence tier and its study design. Each topic sums up what the research does and doesn't tell us, with a confidence level for each finding.

Research collections

Manuka science & composition: Research on what Manuka honey contains, how it is measured and tested, and how its compounds act in the lab.
Functional food research: Research on eating honey as a food and what it may change in the body. Most of this research so far is lab and animal work.
Therapeutic research: Research on honey used in clinical care or applied to the body, such as wound dressings, mouth rinses and sinus rinses. Some of the honey products studied are medical-grade, which is different from honey sold as food. These studies describe how honey was used in research; they are not claims about our honey.

Evidence tiers

Tier 1: Reviews: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that pool the results of several studies. Potentially the strongest evidence, depending on the quality of the studies they include.
Tier 2: Human intervention: Controlled trials in people, such as randomized controlled trials. Direct evidence in humans.
Tier 3: Other human evidence: Observational and uncontrolled studies in people. They can show links or early results but not cause and effect.
Tier 4: Preclinical: Lab, chemistry and animal studies. They explain how honey acts but cannot show a health benefit in people. A systematic review that pools only lab studies is shown here too.
Not tiered: narrative reviews, where experts summarize research without a set method for choosing studies. Useful background, but not graded as evidence.

Study designs

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Pools the results of several studies on the same question, using a set method.
Systematic review: Collects all the studies on a question, using a set method.
Narrative review: Experts summarize research on a topic, without a set method for choosing studies.
Randomized controlled trial: People are randomly given honey or a comparison.
Pilot randomized trial: A small first randomized trial, mainly to test whether a larger one can work.
Non-randomized clinical study: People are compared without random allocation.
Uncontrolled clinical study: People use honey with no comparison group.
Case report: Doctors describe one patient's treatment and what happened. It cannot show cause and effect.
Laboratory study: Honey or its compounds tested on bacteria, viruses or cells in a lab.
Animal study: Honey tested in animals.

Confidence in a finding

These labels rate how sure we are of the finding as written. They do not rate a health benefit. A lab finding can be rated High when many separate lab studies agree, and it is still a lab finding.

High: Further research is very unlikely to change this finding.
Moderate: Further research may change this finding.
Emerging: Early findings. Further research is likely to change this finding.
Preliminary: Very early findings. This finding is very uncertain.
More research needed: There is not enough research yet to draw a conclusion.

The research

Research collection

Therapeutic research

Research on honey used in clinical care or applied to the body, such as wound dressings, mouth rinses and sinus rinses. Some of the honey products studied are medical-grade, which is different from honey sold as food. These studies describe how honey was used in research; they are not claims about our honey.

10 STUDIES · REVIEWS, TRIALS, A CASE REPORT AND OTHER HUMAN STUDIES

Studies of honey applied to wounds, burns and skin. Most used medical-grade honey dressings.

Read customer reviews for wounds, burns and skin

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Honey dressings and healing time for partial thickness burns: High A Cochrane review of 2 trials (992 people) found honey dressings healed these burns about 4.7 days faster than conventional dressings.
Manuka honey dressings and diabetic foot ulcers: Emerging One trial of 63 people found a shorter average healing time, but the same share of ulcers healed in the end.
Manuka honey on eczema patches: Preliminary One small study of 14 adults, not blinded or randomized.
Manuka honey on eyelid surgery scars: Emerging One small trial of 55 people found no difference on scar scales, and less self-reported scar pain at 4 months on the honey side.

What it doesn't tell us: none of these studies tested eating honey, and most used medical-grade dressings rather than honey sold as food. For most other wound types, the Cochrane review rated the evidence low or very low quality.

Tier 1: ReviewsSystematic review and meta-analysis

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds

Authors: Jull AB, et al.

Published: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015

What it found: Reviewed 26 trials with 3,011 people. High quality evidence from 2 trials (992 people) found honey dressings healed partial thickness burns about 4.7 days faster than conventional dressings.

Limitations: For most wound types the evidence was low or very low quality, and it is unclear whether honey changes infection or side-effect rates for burns. The trials used honey on wounds, mostly as dressings, not honey that was eaten.

Study details

Honey tested: Honey in general, mostly dressings
How it was used: On the skin
Population or model: People with burns and with acute or chronic wounds
Sample size: 26 trials, 3,011 people
Honey origin: Not applicable (honey in general)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (honey in general)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Mostly honey dressings; types varied
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Varied by trial
Duration: Varied by trial
Comparator: Conventional dressings, silver sulfadiazine and other treatments
Outcomes measured: Healing time and rate; infection; side effects
Applicability to humans: People with wounds and burns, using honey on the wound; not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Cochrane review of honey for wounds

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

Manuka honey-impregnated dressings in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers

Authors: Kamaratos AV, et al.

Published: International Wound Journal, 2014

What it found: In 63 people with diabetic foot ulcers, Manuka honey dressings cleared bacteria faster and cut the average healing time from 43 to 31 days. In the end, the same share of ulcers healed in both groups.

Limitations: One clinic and 63 people; the abstract does not say whether it was blinded. The dressings were a wound-care product, not honey from a jar.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey dressings
How it was used: On the skin
Population or model: Adults with type 2 diabetes and neuropathic foot ulcers, at one outpatient clinic
Sample size: 63
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical-grade dressing
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Manuka honey-impregnated dressings
Duration: 16 weeks of follow-up
Comparator: Conventional dressings
Outcomes measured: Healing time; how quickly ulcers became free of bacteria; share of ulcers healed
Applicability to humans: People with diabetic foot ulcers, using a honey dressing; not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey dressing diabetic foot ulcer trial

Tier 3: Other human evidenceUncontrolled clinical study

Acceptability to patients of a honey dressing for non-healing venous leg ulcers

Authors: Dunford CE, Hanano R.

Published: Journal of Wound Care, 2004

What it found: In 40 people with leg ulcers that had not healed, ulcer pain and size went down and odor cleared with medical-grade honey dressings.

Limitations: No comparison group, so the changes cannot be put down to the honey; compression bandaging continued throughout.

Study details

Honey tested: Medical-grade honey blend
How it was used: On the skin
Population or model: Adults with leg ulcers that had not healed after 12 weeks of compression therapy, at four centers
Sample size: 40
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract (a proprietary blend)
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical grade (Medihoney, a proprietary blend)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Honey dressings, with compression bandaging continued
Duration: 12 weeks
Comparator: None
Outcomes measured: Ulcer pain, size and odor; patient satisfaction
Applicability to humans: People with leg ulcers, using a honey dressing; not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the honey dressing leg ulcer patient study

Tier 3: Other human evidenceNon-randomized clinical study

Honey is potentially effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: Clinical and mechanistic studies

Authors: Alangari AA, et al.

Published: Immunity, Inflammation and Disease, 2017

What it found: In 14 adults with eczema (atopic dermatitis), patches covered with Manuka honey overnight for 7 nights improved more than untreated patches on the same person.

Limitations: 14 people, not blinded or randomized. Skin bacteria did not change. The honey was irradiated (sterilized), so it is not the raw honey sold as food.

Study details

Honey tested: Medical-grade Manuka honey (gamma-irradiated), applied to the skin overnight
How it was used: On the skin
Population or model: Adults with eczema patches on both sides of the body
Sample size: 14
Honey origin: Not stated in the paper
MGO concentration: Not stated in the paper
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical grade (sterilized by gamma irradiation) for the skin test
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Applied overnight to one patch and covered with gauze; 1% honey in the cell tests
Duration: 7 days
Comparator: The same person's untreated patch
Outcomes measured: Eczema severity score; skin bacteria; markers in skin and immune cells
Applicability to humans: Adults with eczema, using honey on the skin; not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the honey atopic dermatitis study

Tier 3: Other human evidenceCase report

Resolution of folliculitis decalvans with medical honey

Authors: Yeh JE, et al.

Published: Dermatology Online Journal, 2019

What it found: A man with folliculitis decalvans, a rare scalp condition with painful pustules, cleared his scalp lesions after Manuka honey was added to his care. The authors suggest medical-grade honey may be a useful add-on.

Limitations: One patient and no comparison, so the result cannot be put down to the honey. The abstract does not say how the honey was applied or for how long.

Study details

Honey tested: Medical-grade Manuka honey
How it was used: On the skin
Population or model: One adult patient with folliculitis decalvans (a rare scarring scalp condition)
Sample size: 1
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical grade (as described by the authors)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: None
Outcomes measured: Clearance of scalp lesions
Applicability to humans: A single case of honey applied to the skin; not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey folliculitis decalvans case report

Not tieredNarrative review

Health Benefits of Manuka Honey as an Essential Constituent for Tissue Regeneration

Authors: Niaz K, et al.

Published: Current Drug Metabolism, 2017

What it found: Reviews what is known about Manuka honey in wound healing and tissue regeneration, including its MGO content and its antibacterial, antioxidant and immune effects. The authors say more studies are needed on its active components.

Limitations: A narrative review that summarizes lab and clinical findings rather than weighing them. Some of its statements come from lab research and do not show effects in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Not applicable (review)
Applicability to humans: Review of lab and clinical research on Manuka honey and tissue repair.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the review of Manuka honey and tissue regeneration

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

Effect of Manuka Honey on Eyelid Wound Healing: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors: Malhotra R, et al.

Published: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2017

What it found: In people after eyelid surgery, scars treated with Manuka honey plus Vaseline healed no differently on validated scar scales than scars treated with Vaseline alone. At 4 months, patients reported less scar pain on the honey side (0.48 vs 1.9 on a symptom score).

Limitations: Small single-blinded trial: 55 people were randomized and 46 were available for analysis. Honey was applied to the skin after surgery, so it says nothing about eating honey, and the pain result was self-reported.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey described as "active"
How it was used: Applied to the skin
Population or model: Patients having bilateral upper eyelid surgery (blepharoplasty); mean age 68
Sample size: 55 randomized; 46 available for analysis at 1 week
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: honey applied to one eyelid twice daily for 6 weeks, in addition to Vaseline 4 times a day on both eyelids
Duration: 6 weeks of treatment; assessed at 1 week, 1 month and 4 months
Comparator: The other eyelid of the same person, treated with Vaseline only
Outcomes measured: Scar scores on the Manchester scar scale and a modified eyelid scar scale; patient-reported symptoms and preferred side
Applicability to humans: Honey applied to surgical wounds on the eyelid; not a finding about eating honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey eyelid scar randomized trial

Not tieredNarrative review

The Medicine of the Manuka: an investigation of the usages and methods for utilization of honey derived from the pollen of Leptospermum scoparium in holistic nursing practice.

Authors: Old N

Published: Journal of Holistic Nursing, 2013

What it found: A review of how Manuka honey is used in nursing care, mainly as a topical wound-care, antibacterial, antifungal and anti-inflammatory product. The author concludes the literature supports it as a low-risk, cost-effective and accessible option, and calls for more research.

Limitations: A narrative review in a nursing journal. The abstract does not say how studies were chosen or give any results, so the author's conclusion of a very effective intervention is stronger than the abstract can support. The uses described are topical, not eating honey.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey (honey from bees pollinating Leptospermum scoparium)
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Not applicable (review)
Applicability to humans: Not applicable (review of research on topical use).
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the review of Manuka honey in nursing practice

Not tieredNarrative review

Clinical and Postoperative Applications of Manuka Honey in Wound Healing: An Evidence-Based Review.

Authors: Alhabsi AN, et al.

Published: International Wound Journal, 2026

What it found: Reviews research on medical-grade Manuka honey in surgical, postoperative and chronic wounds, putting human trials first. The authors describe evidence that it acts against bacteria and biofilms, helps clear dead tissue gently and calms inflammation. Trial results were mixed. In a trial of 63 people with diabetic foot ulcers, ulcers under honey dressings healed in 31 days on average, against 43 days with conventional dressings. In a 31-person pilot, silver dressings healed 81.8% of ulcers in 12 weeks, Manuka dressings 50% and conventional dressings 40%. The authors call Manuka honey a promising addition to wound care and say stronger surgical trials are needed.

Limitations: A narrative review: the authors chose which studies to discuss without a set method, so it summarizes the field rather than weighing the evidence. They note the trials are small, differ in wound type, amount of honey and length, and many are more than ten years old. The studies used medical-grade wound products applied to wounds. The review itself separates these from Manuka honey sold as food, and it is not a finding about eating honey.

Study details

Honey tested: Medical-grade Manuka honey (dressings, gels and other wound products)
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical-grade wound products
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Literature from 1980 to 2025, most weight on the last 5 years
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Healing, infection, pain and comfort, as reported by the studies reviewed
Applicability to humans: Review of medical-grade honey products applied to wounds; not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the full text, Oct 28, 2026

Read the review of Manuka honey in surgical and chronic wounds

Tier 4: PreclinicalAnimal study

Local Honey as Topical Treatment in Chronic Wound Healing: An Experimental Animal Study.

Authors: Putri NM, et al.

Published: Annals of African Medicine, 2026

What it found: In 36 rats with chronic wounds, Manuka honey and two Indonesian honeys (Nusantara and Java honey) were each applied to the wounds and healing was tracked for 13 days. Wound area fell significantly across the three honeys (P = 0.021), and Manuka honey and Nusantara honey were more effective than Java honey (P = 0.009 and P = 0.03). The authors conclude that, in these rats, local honey could be a viable alternative to Manuka honey for chronic wound treatment, with similar benefits at lower cost and greater availability.

Limitations: Animal study in rats, not people. The honeys were applied to wounds: this is not a finding about eating honey, and the abstract does not say the honeys were medical-grade. Manuka honey was one of three honeys compared, not the focus, and the study does not name its origin, grade or brand. Some Manuka versus Java differences, such as slough reduction (P = 0.059) and collagen deposition on day 5 (P = 0.08), did not reach the usual cut-off for significance. The abstract does not describe a group with no honey.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey and two Indonesian honeys (Nusantara and Java honey)
How it was used: Applied to wounds in rats
Population or model: Rats with chronic wounds
Sample size: 36 rats
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not stated in the abstract
Duration: 13 days (measured on days 0, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 13)
Comparator: Nusantara honey and Java honey from Indonesia
Outcomes measured: Wound area, slough and collagen deposition
Applicability to humans: Honey applied to wounds in rats; not shown in people, and not a finding about eating honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 28, 2026

Read the rat chronic wound study comparing Manuka and Indonesian honeys

3 STUDIES · SMALL HUMAN TRIALS AND A LAB STUDY

Studies of Manuka honey on dental plaque and gums, and a lab study on bacteria linked to tooth decay.

Read customer reviews for oral care

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Manuka honey and dental plaque: Emerging Two small randomized trials (30 people over 21 days, 60 people over 72 hours) found less plaque than sugar-free gum or xylitol gum; in one, plaque was similar to chlorhexidine mouthwash. One also found less gum bleeding.
Long-term effects on gums and teeth: More research needed Both trials were short.

What it doesn't tell us: one trial used a purpose-made chewable honey product rather than honey from a jar, and the other was in healthy young men only. The lab study did not test the mouth.

Tier 2: Human interventionPilot randomized trial

The effects of manuka honey on plaque and gingivitis: a pilot study

Authors: English HKP, et al.

Published: Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology, 2004

What it found: In 30 volunteers over 21 days, plaque and gum bleeding fell with a chewable Manuka honey product. Sugar-free gum made no difference.

Limitations: Pilot of 30 volunteers, using a purpose-made chewable honey product rather than honey from a jar.

Study details

Honey tested: Chewable Manuka honey product
How it was used: In the mouth
Population or model: Volunteers
Sample size: 30
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Rated with another grading system; MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (a purpose-made honey product)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Chewable Manuka honey product, 10 minutes three times a day after meals
Duration: 21 days
Comparator: Sugar-free chewing gum
Outcomes measured: Plaque score; share of gum sites that bled
Applicability to humans: Volunteers, using a honey product in the mouth.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey plaque and gingivitis pilot trial

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

Effect of Manuka honey, chlorhexidine gluconate and xylitol on the clinical levels of dental plaque

Authors: Nayak PA, et al.

Published: Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, 2010

What it found: In 60 dental students over 72 hours, plaque scores with Manuka honey were similar to chlorhexidine mouthwash and lower than with xylitol gum.

Limitations: 60 healthy young men over 72 hours; it measured plaque only, not gum disease.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the mouth
Population or model: Healthy male dental students aged 21 to 25
Sample size: 60
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Manuka honey; amount not stated in the abstract
Duration: 72 hours, without brushing
Comparator: Chlorhexidine 0.2% mouthwash and xylitol chewing gum
Outcomes measured: Plaque score
Applicability to humans: Healthy young men, using honey in the mouth.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey dental plaque trial

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka Honey: A Potent Cariostatic Agent- An in vitro Study.

Authors: Beena JP, et al.

Published: International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 2018

What it found: On lab agar plates, Manuka honey held back Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus (bacteria linked to tooth decay) more than Dabur honey did, at both 25% and 100% strength. Both honeys worked better at 100% than at 25%.

Limitations: Lab study on agar plates with 40 specimens, five per honey and strength. It compared Manuka honey with one other honey only, and the abstract describes no comparison with a dental product. It was not tested in the mouth or in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey, compared with Dabur honey (a commercially available honey)
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus on agar plates
Sample size: 40 agar specimens: 20 per bacterium, 5 for each honey and strength
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 25% and 100% honey (units not stated in the abstract)
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Dabur honey at 25% and 100%
Outcomes measured: Width of the zone where bacteria were held back around each well
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested in the mouth or in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey tooth decay bacteria lab study

2 STUDIES · HUMAN TRIALS

Studies that used a Manuka honey solution as a sinus rinse after sinus surgery.

Read customer reviews

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Manuka honey sinus rinses and symptoms after sinus surgery: Emerging In a randomized trial of 42 people, symptom scores were no better with Manuka honey rinses than with saline.
Clearing bacteria from the sinuses: Preliminary Better than saline only in a subgroup of 16 people not taking antibiotics or steroids.
Immune signaling in sinus tissue: Preliminary One trial found differences in 5 of 17 signaling proteins, but did not report symptoms.

What it doesn't tell us: sinus rinses are a clinical use, so these studies say nothing about eating honey.

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

Manuka honey sinus irrigation for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Lee VS, et al.

Published: International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, 2017

What it found: In 42 people after sinus surgery, symptom scores (the main outcome) were no better with Manuka honey rinses than with saline. In people not taking antibiotics or steroids, more swabs came back clear of bacteria with Manuka.

Limitations: The main outcome, symptom scores, showed no difference from saline. The positive result came from a subgroup of 16 people, so it needs confirming. The honey was irradiated (sterilized), so it is not the raw honey sold as food.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Sinus rinse
Population or model: Adults with chronic sinusitis after sinus surgery
Sample size: 42 analyzed
Honey origin: Not stated in the paper
MGO concentration: Not stated in the paper
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical grade (sterilized by gamma irradiation)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 10% Manuka honey solution, half a bottle twice a day
Duration: 30 days
Comparator: Saline rinse
Outcomes measured: Symptom score (SNOT-22, main outcome); bacteria cleared; endoscopic score
Applicability to humans: Adults after sinus surgery, using honey as a sinus rinse; not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey sinus rinse trial for chronic sinusitis

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

The association of Leptospermum honey with cytokine expression in the sinonasal epithelium of chronic rhinosinusitis patients

Authors: Manji J, et al.

Published: World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 2019

What it found: In 46 people after sinus surgery, 5 of the 17 immune signaling proteins (cytokines) measured in sinus tissue differed from saline: four were higher with honey rinses and one was lower.

Limitations: Measured immune signaling proteins in sinus tissue, not symptoms. The abstract reports no clinical outcomes.

Study details

Honey tested: Leptospermum (Manuka) honey
How it was used: Sinus rinse
Population or model: Adults with chronic sinusitis after sinus surgery
Sample size: 46
Honey origin: Not stated in the paper
MGO concentration: Not stated in the paper
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the paper (a commercial honey sinus rinse product)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 5 to 7% honey solution in a 240 mL rinse bottle, twice a day
Duration: 12 weeks
Comparator: Saline rinse
Outcomes measured: 17 immune signaling proteins (cytokines) in sinus tissue
Applicability to humans: Adults after sinus surgery, using honey as a sinus rinse; tissue markers, not symptoms.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Leptospermum honey sinus cytokine trial

3 STUDIES · PILOT HUMAN TRIAL AND 2 LAB STUDIES

A study of Manuka honey sinus rinses in people with cystic fibrosis, and two laboratory studies of Manuka honey on bacteria from people with cystic fibrosis.

Read customer reviews

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Manuka honey sinus rinses in cystic fibrosis sinusitis: Preliminary One pilot trial of 10 people: well tolerated, with a better scope score than saline, but no significant difference in quality of life or bacteria.
Manuka honey against cystic fibrosis bacteria in the lab: Emerging Two lab studies found Manuka honey held back Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia samples from people with cystic fibrosis. With antibiotics the results were mixed: additive or synergistic in four strains, and in pig lung tissue models often better than either alone, but no difference for most samples in standard lab tests.

What it doesn't tell us: whether the rinses help, or whether the lab results carry over to the lungs. The authors say a larger trial across several hospitals is needed.

Tier 2: Human interventionPilot randomized trial

Manuka honey versus saline sinus irrigation in the treatment of cystic fibrosis-associated chronic rhinosinusitis: A randomised pilot trial

Authors: Lee VS, et al.

Published: Clinical Otolaryngology, 2021

What it found: In people with cystic fibrosis and sinusitis (10 analyzed), Manuka honey rinses were well tolerated and the doctor's scope score improved more than with saline. Quality of life did not differ significantly.

Limitations: Pilot of 10 people analyzed; its main aim was to test whether a larger trial could be run. Bacteria were no better controlled than with saline.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Sinus rinse
Population or model: People with cystic fibrosis sinusitis after sinus surgery
Sample size: 13 enrolled, 10 analyzed; no sample size calculation (pilot)
Honey origin: Not stated in the paper
MGO concentration: Not stated in the paper
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the paper
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Honey rinse made up at home, half a bottle twice a day
Duration: 30 days
Comparator: Saline rinse
Outcomes measured: Recruitment, retention and tolerability (main outcomes); quality of life; endoscopic score; bacteria cleared
Applicability to humans: People with cystic fibrosis after sinus surgery, using honey as a sinus rinse.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey sinus rinse trial in cystic fibrosis

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

A demonstration of the susceptibility of clinical isolates obtained from cystic fibrosis patients to manuka honey.

Authors: Jenkins R, et al.

Published: Archives of Microbiology, 2015

What it found: All 56 Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 55 Burkholderia samples from people with cystic fibrosis were held back by Manuka honey at 10% or less. Combined with the antibiotics tobramycin or colistin, honey was additive or synergistic in the four strains tested.

Limitations: Lab study of bacteria in a dish. It did not test honey in the lungs or in people, and the combination tests used only four strains.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia samples from people with cystic fibrosis
Sample size: 56 P. aeruginosa and 55 Burkholderia samples; 4 strains in the antibiotic combination tests
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: honey tested up to 10% (weight per volume)
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: The antibiotics tobramycin and colistin, alone and with honey
Outcomes measured: Lowest honey concentration that stopped bacterial growth; effect of honey with antibiotics
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested in the lungs or in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey cystic fibrosis bacteria lab study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Anti-pseudomonad Activity of Manuka Honey and Antibiotics in a Specialized ex vivo Model Simulating Cystic Fibrosis Lung Infection.

Authors: Roberts AEL, et al.

Published: Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019

What it found: All 28 Pseudomonas aeruginosa samples were susceptible to Manuka honey. In pig lung tissue models, 64% honey inhibited many samples that very high antibiotic concentrations could not, and honey with antibiotics often worked better than either alone.

Limitations: Lab and animal tissue models, not living people. 64% is a concentration used in the tissue model, not a dose for eating. Honey with antibiotics made no difference for most samples in standard lab tests.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab and on pig lung tissue
Population or model: 28 Pseudomonas aeruginosa samples; pig lung tissue (alveolar and bronchiolar)
Sample size: 28 bacterial samples
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 64% (weight per volume) honey in the tissue models
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime and tobramycin, alone and with honey
Outcomes measured: Bacterial susceptibility; biofilm reduction in lung tissue models
Applicability to humans: Lab and pig tissue only; not tested in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey pig lung model study

5 STUDIES · 3 ON HONEY IN GENERAL OR BUCKWHEAT, 1 MANUKA LAB STUDY, 1 BACKGROUND REVIEW

Studies of honey for coughs and colds, and a laboratory study on the flu virus.

Read customer reviews for colds, coughs and flu

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Honey in general for cough in children over 12 months: Moderate A Cochrane review of 6 trials (899 children) found honey probably eases cough more than no treatment or placebo, mostly after one night.
Honey in general for cold symptoms in children and adults: Emerging A review of 14 studies found honey improved symptoms compared with usual care; the studies had a moderate risk of bias, and the two placebo-controlled studies gave inconsistent results.
Manuka honey itself for colds, coughs or flu in people: More research needed No trial tested Manuka honey itself. Its antiviral evidence is one lab study on the flu virus.

What it doesn't tell us: whether Manuka honey works better than other honey for coughs and colds. Honey is not suitable for babies under 12 months.

Tier 1: ReviewsSystematic review and meta-analysis

Honey for acute cough in children

Authors: Oduwole O, et al.

Published: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018

What it found: 6 trials with 899 children. Honey probably eased cough more than no treatment, diphenhydramine or placebo, and made little or no difference compared with dextromethorphan.

Limitations: Most children were treated for one night only, and two of the six trials had a high risk of bias. Honey in general, not Manuka.

Study details

Honey tested: Honey in general
How it was used: Eaten
Population or model: Children aged 12 months to 18 years with acute cough
Sample size: 6 trials, 899 children
Honey origin: Not applicable (honey in general)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (honey in general)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (honey in general)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Varied by trial
Duration: Mostly one night
Comparator: No treatment, placebo, dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and salbutamol
Outcomes measured: Cough frequency, severity and duration; sleep; side effects
Applicability to humans: Children over 12 months with cough, eating honey in general.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Cochrane review of honey for cough in children

Tier 1: ReviewsSystematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness of honey for symptomatic relief in upper respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Abuelgasim H, et al.

Published: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 2021

What it found: 14 studies. Compared with usual care, honey improved how often people coughed and their overall cold symptoms.

Limitations: Moderate risk of bias across the studies; honey in general, not Manuka. The two placebo-controlled studies gave inconsistent results.

Study details

Honey tested: Honey in general
How it was used: Eaten
Population or model: Children and adults with upper respiratory tract infections
Sample size: 14 studies
Honey origin: Not applicable (honey in general)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (honey in general)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (honey in general)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Varied by study
Duration: Varied by study
Comparator: Usual care and placebo
Outcomes measured: Combined symptom score; cough frequency and severity
Applicability to humans: Children and adults with colds, eating honey in general.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the review of honey for upper respiratory infections

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

Effect of honey, dextromethorphan, and no treatment on nocturnal cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents

Authors: Paul IM, et al.

Published: Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2007

What it found: In 105 children with colds, one bedtime dose of buckwheat honey eased night-time cough more than no treatment. It was not significantly different from dextromethorphan.

Limitations: One dose at one practice, rated by parents; buckwheat honey, not Manuka.

Study details

Honey tested: Buckwheat honey
How it was used: Eaten
Population or model: Children aged 2 to 18 with colds, at one practice
Sample size: 105
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract (buckwheat honey)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (buckwheat honey)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (buckwheat honey)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: One dose of buckwheat honey 30 minutes before bed
Duration: One night
Comparator: Honey-flavored dextromethorphan and no treatment
Outcomes measured: Cough frequency and severity; child and parent sleep (rated by parents)
Applicability to humans: Children with colds, eating buckwheat honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the honey and night-time cough trial

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Anti-influenza viral effects of honey in vitro: potent high activity of manuka honey

Authors: Watanabe K, et al.

Published: Archives of Medical Research, 2014

What it found: In dog kidney cells (MDCK) in the lab, Manuka honey reduced influenza virus replication, with half of it blocked at 3.6 mg/mL. In the same cell cultures, it also lowered the amount of two flu drugs needed to stop the virus.

Limitations: Cells in the lab only. Concentrations in a dish do not show what happens when honey is eaten.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka and other honeys
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Influenza virus in dog kidney cells (MDCK)
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 3.6 mg/mL blocked half of the virus replication
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Other honeys; zanamivir and oseltamivir
Outcomes measured: Virus replication in cells
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey anti-influenza lab study

Not tieredNarrative review

Secondary Bacterial Infections Associated with Influenza Pandemics

Authors: Morris DE, et al.

Published: Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017

What it found: Reviews how bacterial infections add to illness during influenza outbreaks and which bacteria most often cause them. It did not test honey.

Limitations: Background on influenza, not research on honey. It says nothing about whether honey helps.

Study details

Honey tested: No honey tested
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Not applicable (review)
Applicability to humans: Background review on influenza; not about honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the review of bacterial infections in influenza outbreaks

12 STUDIES · TRIALS, LAB AND ANIMAL STUDIES

Studies of honey for mouth and throat side effects during cancer treatment, and laboratory studies on cancer cells.

Read customer reviews from people managing long-term conditions

What the research does and doesn't tell us

No benefit found for Manuka honey on mouth sores or painful swallowing during radiotherapy in adults: Moderate Two randomized trials in head and neck cancer found no benefit on mouth sores (golden syrup, placebo gel). A third, in lung cancer, found no benefit on painful swallowing.
Manuka honey for mouth sores in children having chemotherapy: Preliminary One small single-blind trial of 42 children found less severe sores and less pain than standard care.
Honey in general for mouth sores during radiotherapy: Emerging A review of 8 studies found honey delayed the sores and reduced treatment breaks and weight loss, but did not reduce how severe the sores became.
Lab and mouse studies on cancer cells: Preliminary Seven studies in cancer cells (colon, breast, lung and liver) or mice, including one where the honey was injected. None shows that honey treats cancer.

What it doesn't tell us: whether honey helps anyone having cancer treatment beyond the mouth-sore outcomes above. Always talk to your treating team before adding anything during treatment.

Tier 1: ReviewsSystematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness of honey on radiation-induced oral mucositis, time to mucositis, weight loss, and treatment interruptions among patients with head and neck malignancies: A meta-analysis and systematic review of literature

Authors: Co JL, et al.

Published: Head & Neck, 2016

What it found: 8 studies of people having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Honey delayed mouth sores and reduced weight loss and breaks in treatment, but did not lower how severe the sores became.

Limitations: Honey in general, not Manuka, and only 8 studies. Honey did not reduce how severe the mouth sores became, and the three adult Manuka trials in this topic found no benefit.

Study details

Honey tested: Honey in general
How it was used: In the mouth and swallowed
Population or model: People having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
Sample size: 8 studies
Honey origin: Not applicable (honey in general)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (honey in general)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (honey in general)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Varied by study
Duration: Varied by study
Comparator: Varied by study
Outcomes measured: Mouth sore severity and time to onset; weight loss; treatment breaks
Applicability to humans: People having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer; mouth-sore outcomes only.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the review of honey and radiotherapy mouth sores

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

The efficacy of honey or olive oil on the severity of oral mucositis and pain compared to placebo (standard care) in children with leukemia receiving intensive chemotherapy: A randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Authors: Badr LK, et al.

Published: Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 2023

What it found: In 42 children with leukemia having chemotherapy, those given Manuka honey had less severe mouth sores and less pain than those on standard care.

Limitations: 42 children in a single-blind trial; the abstract does not give the honey dose or how long it was used.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the mouth
Population or model: Children with leukemia having intensive chemotherapy
Sample size: 42
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Manuka honey; amount not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Olive oil and standard care
Outcomes measured: Mouth sore severity (WHO scale); pain
Applicability to humans: Children with leukemia having chemotherapy; mouth-sore outcomes only.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the honey versus olive oil mouth sore trial in children

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of active manuka honey and standard oral care for radiation-induced oral mucositis

Authors: Bardy J, et al.

Published: British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2012

What it found: 131 people having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer took Manuka honey or golden syrup for 6 weeks. There was no difference in mouth sores.

Limitations: Many patients stopped taking it once mouth sores began, which may have affected the result.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Eaten
Population or model: Adults having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
Sample size: 131
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract (described as active Manuka honey)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 20 mL four times a day
Duration: 6 weeks
Comparator: Golden syrup
Outcomes measured: Mouth sore severity; weight; infections
Applicability to humans: Adults having radiotherapy; mouth-sore outcomes only.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey and oral care mouth sore trial

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of manuka honey for radiation-induced oral mucositis

Authors: Hawley P, et al.

Published: Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014

What it found: 106 people having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer used Manuka honey or a placebo gel. There was no significant difference in any outcome, and many found the honey hard to tolerate.

Limitations: 57% on honey and 52% on placebo gel dropped out, mostly because of nausea, and 24 of 106 never had a mouth-sore assessment (81 were analyzed). The honey was irradiated (sterilized), so it is not the raw honey sold as food.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the mouth and swallowed
Population or model: Adults having radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, at two Canadian centers
Sample size: 106 randomized, 81 analyzed
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Irradiated (sterilized) organic Manuka honey
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 5 mL, swished and swallowed, four times a day
Duration: Through radiotherapy plus 7 days
Comparator: Placebo gel
Outcomes measured: Mouth sore severity on three scales; weight; symptoms; quality of life
Applicability to humans: Adults having radiotherapy; mouth-sore outcomes only.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey placebo mouth sore trial

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Prophylactic Manuka Honey for the Reduction of Chemoradiation Therapy-Induced Esophagitis During the Treatment of Lung Cancer: Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 1012

Authors: Fogh SE, et al.

Published: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2017

What it found: 163 people having chemotherapy and radiotherapy for lung cancer. Manuka honey was no better than standard supportive care at preventing painful swallowing.

Limitations: One dosing plan; the authors suggest testing other honeys. The honey was irradiated (sterilized), so it is not the raw honey sold as food.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey, liquid and lozenges
How it was used: Eaten
Population or model: Adults having chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer
Sample size: 163
Honey origin: Not stated in the paper
MGO concentration: Rated with another grading system; MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Irradiated (sterilized) honey
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 10 mL of liquid honey or 2 lozenges, four times a day
Duration: During chemoradiotherapy; main outcome at 4 weeks
Comparator: Standard supportive care
Outcomes measured: Pain on swallowing at 4 weeks (main outcome); opioid use; weight; quality of life
Applicability to humans: Adults having chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer; painful swallowing only.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey trial on painful swallowing in lung cancer

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

The IL-6/STAT3 Signaling Pathway Is an Early Target of Manuka Honey-Induced Suppression of Human Breast Cancer Cells

Authors: Aryappalli P, et al.

Published: Frontiers in Oncology, 2017

What it found: Manuka honey slowed the growth of two breast cancer cell lines in the lab, but not of normal breast cells.

Limitations: Cells in the lab only. Above 2.5%, the honey was harmful to the growth of all three cell lines, including the normal breast cells.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab (breast cancer cells)
Population or model: Two human breast cancer cell lines and normal breast cells
Sample size: 2 breast cancer cell lines and 1 normal breast cell line
Honey origin: New Zealand (a named commercial product)
MGO concentration: Rated with another grading system; MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the paper
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 0.3 to 1.25%
Duration: Not stated in the paper
Comparator: A matching sugar solution and normal breast cells
Outcomes measured: Cancer cell growth, death and invasion
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey breast cancer cell signaling study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Inhibition of Tyrosine-Phosphorylated STAT3 in Human Breast and Lung Cancer Cells by Manuka Honey is Mediated by Selective Antagonism of the IL-6 Receptor

Authors: Aryappalli P, et al.

Published: International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2019

What it found: In breast and lung cancer cell lines, Manuka honey blocked a growth signal (IL-6) from binding to its receptor.

Limitations: Cells in the lab only. It shows how honey compounds bind a receptor, not any effect in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab (cancer cells)
Population or model: Human breast and lung cancer cell lines
Sample size: 2 cancer cell lines (breast and lung)
Honey origin: New Zealand (a named commercial product)
MGO concentration: Rated with another grading system; MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the paper
Dose or concentration: Not stated in the paper
Duration: Not stated in the paper
Comparator: Not stated in the paper
Outcomes measured: A growth signal (STAT3) and receptor binding in cancer cells
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey breast and lung cancer cell study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka honey synergistically enhances the chemopreventive effect of 5-fluorouracil on human colon cancer cells by inducing oxidative stress and apoptosis, altering metabolic phenotypes and suppressing metastasis ability

Authors: Afrin S, et al.

Published: Free Radical Biology & Medicine, 2018

What it found: In colon cancer cells grown in the lab, adding Manuka honey increased the effect of the chemotherapy drug 5-fluorouracil.

Limitations: Cells in the lab only. This does not show what happens in people having chemotherapy.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab (colon cancer cells)
Population or model: Human colon cancer cell lines (HCT-116 and LoVo)
Sample size: 2 colon cancer cell lines
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: 5-fluorouracil on its own
Outcomes measured: Cancer cell growth, death and migration
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey colon cancer cell study

Tier 4: PreclinicalAnimal study

Intravenous administration of manuka honey inhibits tumor growth and improves host survival when used in combination with chemotherapy in a melanoma mouse model

Authors: Fernandez-Cabezudo MJ, et al.

Published: PLoS One, 2013

What it found: Manuka honey slowed the growth of three cancer cell lines in the lab. In mice with melanoma, honey injected into a vein slowed tumor growth by about a third on its own. With chemotherapy, tumor control was similar to chemotherapy alone, but the mice lived longer.

Limitations: Cells and mice. The honey was injected, not eaten, so this says nothing about eating honey.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Injected (mice)
Population or model: Three cancer cell lines, and mice with melanoma
Sample size: 3 cancer cell lines; number of mice not stated in the paper
Honey origin: New Zealand (a named commercial product)
MGO concentration: Rated with another grading system; MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the paper
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 50% honey solution, 100 μL injected into a vein
Duration: Twice a week for 3 weeks (safety test)
Comparator: Paclitaxel on its own, and untreated mice
Outcomes measured: Cancer cell growth; tumor growth and survival in mice
Applicability to humans: Cells and mice, with honey injected; not shown in people and not about eating honey.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey mouse tumor study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

The inhibitory effect of Manuka honey on human colon cancer HCT-116 and LoVo cell growth. Part 1: the suppression of cell proliferation, promotion of apoptosis and arrest of the cell cycle.

Authors: Afrin S, et al.

Published: Food & Function, 2018

What it found: In two human colon cancer cell lines grown in the lab, Manuka honey reduced cell growth, triggered programmed cell death and paused the cell cycle, with stronger effects at higher doses. The abstract reports no significant toxicity in non-malignant cells at similar concentrations.

Limitations: Work in cells in the lab, using two colon cancer cell lines. It does not show any effect in people, and nothing in it shows that eating honey affects cancer.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In cells in the lab
Population or model: Human colon cancer cell lines HCT-116 and LoVo, and non-malignant cells
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 0 to 20 mg per mL (HCT-116 cells) and 0 to 50 mg per mL (LoVo cells) for 48 hours
Duration: 48 hours of exposure
Comparator: Untreated cells and non-malignant cells
Outcomes measured: Cell growth, programmed cell death, cell cycle arrest and related gene and protein levels
Applicability to humans: Cells in the lab only; not tested in animals or people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey colon cancer cell study part 1

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

The inhibitory effect of Manuka honey on human colon cancer HCT-116 and LoVo cell growth. Part 2: Induction of oxidative stress, alteration of mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis, and suppression of metastatic ability.

Authors: Afrin S, et al.

Published: Food & Function, 2018

What it found: In two human colon cancer cell lines grown in the lab, Manuka honey raised oxidative stress, disrupted cell energy metabolism and reduced the cells' ability to migrate and invade, in a dose-dependent way. The authors say honey caused cell death partly through these routes.

Limitations: Work in cells in the lab, using two colon cancer cell lines. It does not show any effect in people, and nothing in it shows that eating honey affects cancer. The abstract does not give honey concentrations.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In cells in the lab
Population or model: Human colon cancer cell lines HCT-116 and LoVo
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Untreated cells (implied; not stated in the abstract)
Outcomes measured: Oxidative stress, antioxidant enzymes, cell metabolism, migration and invasion
Applicability to humans: Cells in the lab only; not tested in animals or people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey colon cancer cell oxidative stress study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka honey enhanced sensitivity of HepG2, hepatocellular carcinoma cells, for Doxorubicin and induced apoptosis through inhibition of Wnt/β-catenin and ERK1/2.

Authors: Al Refaey HR, et al.

Published: Biological Research, 2021

What it found: In cells in the lab, Manuka honey slowed the growth of two human liver cancer cell lines (HepG2 and Hep3B) and, combined with the drug doxorubicin, increased signs of cell death. The abstract reports no cytotoxicity in a non-cancer liver cell line.

Limitations: Cell study only, in cells in the lab. It does not show an effect in people, and it was not tested in animals. It used two cancer cell lines and one non-cancer cell line, and the honey grade, origin and MGO are not given in the abstract.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In cells in the lab
Population or model: Two human liver cancer cell lines (HepG2, Hep3B) and one non-cancer immortalized liver cell line
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract (3 cell lines)
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: honey concentrations that halved cell growth were 6.92% (HepG2) and 18.62% (Hep3B)
Duration: 48 hours of treatment
Comparator: Doxorubicin alone and combined with honey
Outcomes measured: Cell growth; markers of cell death; signaling proteins (ERK1/2, Wnt/beta-catenin, Bax, Bcl-2)
Applicability to humans: Cells in the lab only; not tested in animals or people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey liver cancer cell lab study

Research collection

Functional food research

Research on eating honey as a food and what it may change in the body. Most of this research so far is lab and animal work.

4 STUDIES · LAB AND ANIMAL RESEARCH

Laboratory studies of Manuka honey on gut bacteria and stomach lining cells, and two studies in rats.

Read customer reviews for gut health

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Manuka honey and gut bacteria or H. pylori in the lab: Emerging Two lab studies: most gut bacteria tested were held back at 5 to 10% Manuka honey (Enterobacter needed 10 to 17%), and honey blocked H. pylori from switching on inflammation pathways in stomach cells, with other honeys working too.
Manuka honey and stomach ulcers or colon inflammation in rats: Emerging Two rat studies found less stomach ulcer damage and less colon inflammation after Manuka honey, with lower oxidative stress markers. Neither tested people.
Gut health in people: More research needed No human gut health trial is cited in this topic. One trial of people eating Manuka honey (Wallace 2010, under Inflammation and antioxidants) found no change in their gut bacteria.

What it doesn't tell us: changes to bacteria in the lab or in rats don't mean better gut health in people, and no study here tested people with stomach ulcers or bowel disease.

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Molecular Mechanisms of Natural Honey Against H. pylori Infection Via Suppression of NF-κB and AP-1 Activation in Gastric Epithelial Cells

Authors: Abdel-Latif MM, Abouzied MM.

Published: Archives of Medical Research, 2016

What it found: Manuka and other honeys stopped H. pylori from switching on two inflammation pathways (NF-κB and AP-1) in stomach lining cells.

Limitations: Stomach cells in the lab; other honeys worked too, so the effect is not specific to Manuka. No human trial of honey for H. pylori is cited on this page.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka and other honeys
How it was used: In the lab (stomach cells)
Population or model: Human stomach lining cells (AGS) infected with H. pylori
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Up to 20% honey
Duration: 1 to 2 hours
Comparator: Other commercial honeys
Outcomes measured: Inflammation pathway activity (NF-κB, AP-1, COX-2) in stomach cells
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the honey H. pylori mechanisms lab study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

The controlled in vitro susceptibility of gastrointestinal pathogens to the antibacterial effect of manuka honey

Authors: Lin SM, et al.

Published: European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 2011

What it found: Most of the gut bacteria tested were held back by 5 to 10% Manuka honey, which worked better than artificial honey (a matching sugar solution).

Limitations: Lab study of gut bacteria; it does not show what happens to them when honey is eaten.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Common gut bacteria, including antibiotic-resistant strains
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Graded by non-peroxide activity (equivalent to 16.5% phenol); MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Standardized Manuka honey; grade not stated
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 5 to 17% honey
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Artificial honey (a sugar solution) and honey with its hydrogen peroxide removed
Outcomes measured: Lowest concentrations that stopped and killed the bacteria
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey gut bacteria lab study

Tier 4: PreclinicalAnimal study

Antioxidant, Anti-inflammatory, and Antiulcer Potential of Manuka Honey against Gastric Ulcer in Rats.

Authors: Almasaudi SB, et al.

Published: Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2016

What it found: In rats given alcohol to cause stomach ulcers, Manuka honey reduced the ulcer index and stomach lining damage, and lowered markers of oxidative stress and inflammation.

Limitations: Animal study in rats with ulcers caused by alcohol, compared with the drug omeprazole. It does not show what honey does for stomach problems in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Fed to rats
Population or model: Rats with ethanol-induced stomach ulcers
Sample size: 4 groups of rats (group sizes not stated in the abstract)
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Untreated control, ulcer-only group and the drug omeprazole
Outcomes measured: Ulcer index, stomach lining changes, oxidative stress and inflammation markers
Applicability to humans: Animal study; not tested in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey rat gastric ulcer study

Tier 4: PreclinicalAnimal study

Effect of different doses of Manuka honey in experimentally induced inflammatory bowel disease in rats.

Authors: Prakash A, et al.

Published: Phytotherapy Research, 2008

What it found: In rats with chemically induced colon inflammation, Manuka honey reduced colon damage and inflammation over 14 days of dosing, and improved antioxidant measures.

Limitations: Animal study with 6 rats per group. The authors say the results need confirming in human studies.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Fed to rats
Population or model: Rats with colon inflammation caused by a chemical (TNBS)
Sample size: 30 rats in 5 groups of 6
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 5 g/kg and 10 g/kg of body weight by mouth
Duration: 14 days
Comparator: Untreated and vehicle groups, and the drug sulfasalazine
Outcomes measured: Colon damage scores and antioxidant measures
Applicability to humans: Animal study; the authors say it needs confirming in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey rat colitis study

7 STUDIES · LAB, ANIMAL, ONE HUMAN TRIAL AND A BACKGROUND REVIEW

Laboratory and animal studies on inflammation and oxidative stress, and one human safety trial.

Read customer reviews for inflammation

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Markers of oxidative stress and inflammation in cells and animals: Emerging Four lab studies and one rat study found changes in markers of oxidative damage or inflammation. In the two white blood cell models, the effect depended on the honey concentration and some signals went up.
Honey eaten daily for 4 weeks in healthy adults (a safety trial): Emerging One crossover trial of 20 people eating 20 g a day found no change in an allergy marker, a sugar-damage marker or gut bacteria. A small study like this does not prove safety for everyone.
Anti-inflammatory or antioxidant benefits in people: More research needed No study in this topic measured these in people.

What it doesn't tell us: markers in cells and rats don't show a health benefit in people.

Tier 2: Human interventionRandomized controlled trial

Demonstrating the safety of manuka honey UMF 20+ in a human clinical trial with healthy individuals

Authors: Wallace A, et al.

Published: British Journal of Nutrition, 2010

What it found: 20 healthy adults aged 42 to 64 ate 20 g of Manuka honey a day for 4 weeks. An allergy marker (IgE), a marker of sugar damage (CML) and their gut bacteria did not change.

Limitations: 20 healthy adults over 4 weeks, designed to test safety, so it cannot show benefits. A small safety study does not prove safety for everyone.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Eaten
Population or model: Healthy adults aged 42 to 64
Sample size: 20
Honey origin: New Zealand (a named commercial product)
MGO concentration: Rated with another grading system; MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract (a named commercial New Zealand Manuka honey)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 20 g a day
Duration: 4 weeks, crossover with a 2-week break
Comparator: Multifloral honey
Outcomes measured: Allergy marker (IgE); sugar-damage marker (CML); gut bacteria
Applicability to humans: Healthy adults eating Manuka honey; safety only.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey safety trial in healthy adults

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Protective effects of Manuka honey on LPS-treated RAW 264.7 macrophages. Part 2: Control of oxidative stress induced damage, increase of antioxidant enzyme activities and attenuation of inflammation

Authors: Gasparrini M, et al.

Published: Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2018

What it found: In mouse immune cells exposed to a bacterial toxin, Manuka honey lowered oxidative stress and inflammation markers (TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6).

Limitations: Mouse cells in the lab. Lab concentrations do not show what happens when honey is eaten.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab (mouse cells)
Population or model: Mouse immune cells (RAW 264.7 macrophages) exposed to a bacterial toxin
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Cells without honey
Outcomes measured: Markers of oxidative stress and inflammation in cells
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey macrophage oxidative stress study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka honey attenuates oxidative damage induced by H2O2 in human whole blood in vitro

Authors: Živković L, et al.

Published: Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2018

What it found: In human blood samples in the lab, Manuka honey reduced DNA damage caused by hydrogen peroxide, and on its own did not cause DNA damage in these cells.

Limitations: Human blood cells in the lab, not in the body. Adding honey before the damage made no significant difference; the effect was seen when honey was added after it.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab (human blood)
Population or model: Human whole blood cells
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 25 to 1,000 μg/mL
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Hydrogen peroxide without honey
Outcomes measured: DNA damage in blood cells
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey blood oxidative damage study

Tier 4: PreclinicalAnimal study

Manuka honey protects middle-aged rats from oxidative damage

Authors: Jubri Z, et al.

Published: Clinics, 2013

What it found: Middle-aged rats fed Manuka honey for 30 days had less DNA damage and lower levels of a marker of fat damage (malondialdehyde).

Limitations: 24 rats. Animal results may not carry over to people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Eaten (rats)
Population or model: Young and middle-aged male rats
Sample size: 24
Honey origin: New Zealand (a named commercial product)
MGO concentration: Not stated in the paper
Food-grade or medical-grade: Food grade (raw, unblended honey bought from a pharmacy)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 2.5 g per kg of body weight a day, given by mouth
Duration: 30 days
Comparator: Plain water
Outcomes measured: DNA damage; a marker of fat damage (malondialdehyde); antioxidant enzymes
Applicability to humans: Rats; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey rat oxidative damage study

Not tieredNarrative review

Oxidative stress, inflammation, and cancer: how are they linked?

Authors: Reuter S, et al.

Published: Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 2010

What it found: Reviews how long-lasting oxidative stress can drive chronic inflammation, and how both are linked to chronic diseases including cancer. It did not test honey.

Limitations: Background science on oxidative stress, not research on honey. It does not show that honey affects oxidative stress, inflammation or any disease.

Study details

Honey tested: No honey tested
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Not applicable (review)
Applicability to humans: Background review on oxidative stress and inflammation; not about honey.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the review of oxidative stress, inflammation and cancer

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka honey modulates the release profile of a dHL-60 neutrophil model under anti-inflammatory stimulation.

Authors: Minden-Birkenmaier BA, et al.

Published: Journal of Tissue Viability, 2020

What it found: In a lab model of immune cells called neutrophils, 0.5% Manuka honey raised the release of several signaling molecules and lowered proteinase 3, while 3% honey raised TNF-alpha and IL-8 and lowered the others. A subset of results was repeated in primary human neutrophils.

Limitations: Work in cells in the lab, with effects that varied by concentration. The authors say future work in living wounds is needed, and it does not show an effect in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In cells in the lab
Population or model: dHL-60 neutrophil cell model; a subset repeated in primary human neutrophils
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 0.5% and 3% honey
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Cells without honey under the same anti-inflammatory stimuli (implied; not stated in the abstract)
Outcomes measured: Release of cytokines, chemokines and matrix-degrading enzymes
Applicability to humans: Cells in the lab only; the authors call for future in vivo work.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey neutrophil cell inflammation study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

The Effect of Manuka Honey on dHL-60 Cytokine, Chemokine, and Matrix-Degrading Enzyme Release under Inflammatory Conditions.

Authors: Minden-Birkenmaier BA, et al.

Published: Med One, 2019

What it found: In a lab model of white blood cells (differentiated HL-60 cells) under inflammatory stimuli, 0.5% Manuka honey lowered the release of many inflammation signals, including TNF-alpha, IL-1 beta and MMP-9, and raised others, including VEGF and IL-8. At 3%, honey lowered all the signals measured except TNF-alpha, which rose.

Limitations: Cells in the lab, one cell line model, and the results were mixed and depended on the honey concentration. The authors say studies in living animals or people are still needed.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In cells in the lab
Population or model: Differentiated HL-60 cells (a white blood cell model) under inflammatory stimuli
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract (one cell line)
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 0.5% and 3% honey (volume per volume)
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Not stated in the abstract
Outcomes measured: Release of cytokines, chemokines and matrix-degrading enzymes
Applicability to humans: Cells in the lab only; not tested in animals or people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey white blood cell inflammation lab study

Research collection

Manuka science & composition

Research on what Manuka honey contains, how it is measured and tested, and how its compounds act in the lab. Australia has over 80 native Leptospermum species. Several studies here used New Zealand Manuka honey, which comes from one species, Leptospermum scoparium.

To see how authentic Australian Manuka honey is verified, read Authentic Australian Manuka Honey: Testing Explained.

8 STUDIES · LAB CHEMISTRY, REVIEWS AND AN ABSORPTION STUDY

Studies on methylglyoxal (MGO), the compound measured to grade Manuka honey, on how Manuka honey is tested to check it is genuine, and on how its compounds are absorbed.

Read customer reviews

What the research does and doesn't tell us

MGO and antibacterial activity in lab tests: Emerging Lab chemistry on six New Zealand Manuka honeys found MGO was the main antibacterial compound, and a lab study found higher grades held back mouth bacteria more than lower grades or ordinary honey.
A higher MGO grade having more effect in people: More research needed No study in this topic tested people.

What it doesn't tell us: the chemistry used New Zealand samples, and none of these studies show that a higher MGO grade does more in the body. The authenticity studies are about checking the honey, not about what it does.

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Identification and quantification of methylglyoxal as the dominant antibacterial constituent of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honeys from New Zealand

Authors: Mavric E, et al.

Published: Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 2008

What it found: Identified MGO as the main antibacterial compound in New Zealand Manuka honey, at up to 100 times the level found in conventional honey.

Limitations: Lab chemistry on six New Zealand Manuka honey samples, tested against two bacteria. It measures MGO and lab activity, not any effect in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey and pure MGO
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Honey samples, including 6 New Zealand Manuka honeys, tested against E. coli and S. aureus
Sample size: 6 Manuka samples among other commercial honeys
Honey origin: New Zealand
MGO concentration: 38 to 761 mg/kg in the six Manuka samples
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (lab samples)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Honey diluted to 15 to 30%; MGO 38 to 761 mg/kg in the Manuka samples
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Other honeys and pure dicarbonyl compounds
Outcomes measured: MGO and related compounds in honey; lowest concentration that stopped two bacteria growing
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey methylglyoxal chemistry study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Antibacterial potential of Manuka honey against three oral bacteria in vitro

Authors: Schmidlin PR, et al.

Published: Swiss Dental Journal, 2014

What it found: Higher-grade Manuka honey held back three common mouth bacteria better than lower grades and a Swiss multifloral honey. Below NPA 15, Manuka was no better than ordinary honey. The antiseptic chlorhexidine was strongest of all.

Limitations: Lab study against three bacteria only. Chlorhexidine, a standard antiseptic, worked better than every honey.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey at several grades
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Three oral bacteria (S. mutans, P. gingivalis, A. actinomycetemcomitans)
Sample size: 3 bacterial species
Honey origin: New Zealand
MGO concentration: Graded by NPA (below and above NPA 15); MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Manuka honey products below and above NPA 15
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Chlorhexidine, saline and a Swiss multifloral honey
Outcomes measured: Growth of three mouth bacteria
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey oral bacteria lab study

Not tieredNarrative review

Therapeutic Manuka Honey: No Longer So Alternative

Authors: Carter DA, et al.

Published: Frontiers in Microbiology, 2016

What it found: Sums up Manuka honey research from the early antibacterial tests to how it works, and sets out the open questions and gaps.

Limitations: A narrative review: the authors chose which studies to discuss without a set method, so it summarizes the field rather than weighing the evidence.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Not applicable (review)
Applicability to humans: Not applicable (review of lab and clinical research).
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the review of Manuka honey research

Tier 3: Other human evidenceUncontrolled clinical study

In vivo absorption and metabolism of leptosperin and methyl syringate, abundantly present in manuka honey.

Authors: Ishisaka A, et al.

Published: Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 2017

What it found: After healthy volunteers ate a trial dose of Manuka honey, two of its compounds (leptosperin and its breakdown product methyl syringate) appeared as metabolites in blood and urine within 30 to 60 minutes and had mostly cleared from blood within 3 hours.

Limitations: A test of absorption in healthy volunteers with no comparison group, plus mouse and lab work. The abstract does not give the number of volunteers. It measured what the body does with these compounds, not any health effect.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Eaten by volunteers
Population or model: Healthy adult volunteers, plus mice and liver preparations in the lab
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract (healthy volunteers)
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 15 g of Manuka honey eaten once
Duration: Blood and urine followed for up to 4 hours
Comparator: None
Outcomes measured: Levels of leptosperin and methyl syringate metabolites in blood and urine
Applicability to humans: Shows these compounds are absorbed and processed after eating; no health effect was measured.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey leptosperin absorption study

Not tieredNarrative review

The super-food Manuka honey, a comprehensive review of its analysis and authenticity approaches.

Authors: Hegazi NM, et al.

Published: Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2022

What it found: Reviews the laboratory methods used to check that Manuka honey is genuine and not adulterated, including mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance and fluorescence analysis. The authors say the honey's unique constituents allowed it to be told apart from other honeys by these methods.

Limitations: A narrative review of literature from 2010 to mid-2021 found by keyword search of two databases. It covers how honey is tested for authenticity, not what honey does in the body, and it does not weigh the quality of the studies it covers.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Literature from 2010 to mid-2021
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Analytical methods and chemical markers used to check Manuka honey authenticity
Applicability to humans: Review of laboratory methods for authenticity testing; no health outcome assessed.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the review of Manuka honey authenticity testing methods

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

The origin of methylglyoxal in New Zealand manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey.

Authors: Adams CJ, et al.

Published: Carbohydrate Research, 2009

What it found: Methylglyoxal in New Zealand Manuka honey forms from dihydroxyacetone, a compound in Manuka flower nectar. Freshly made honey had low methylglyoxal and high dihydroxyacetone, and storing it at 37 degrees C lowered the dihydroxyacetone while methylglyoxal rose.

Limitations: Chemistry done in the lab on New Zealand honey and nectar. It explains where methylglyoxal comes from and says nothing about any effect in the body. The abstract does not give sample numbers.

Study details

Honey tested: New Zealand Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: New Zealand Manuka honey, clover honey and Manuka flower nectar
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: New Zealand (Leptospermum scoparium)
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not applicable (chemistry study); honey stored at 37 degrees C
Duration: Storage time not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Clover honey with added dihydroxyacetone
Outcomes measured: Levels of dihydroxyacetone and methylglyoxal in honey and nectar
Applicability to humans: Laboratory chemistry only; no health outcome assessed.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey methylglyoxal origin chemistry study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Proteomic analysis of honey. Identification of unique peptide markers for authentication of NZ mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey.

Authors: Bong J, et al.

Published: Food Chemistry, 2021

What it found: Analysis of New Zealand Manuka honey found 50 proteins from bees and 17 from the Manuka plant. Twelve candidate peptides were picked as markers unique to Manuka honey, and nectar tests confirmed they come from Leptospermum scoparium.

Limitations: Qualitative lab analysis aimed at checking honey authenticity. It measured no health outcome, and the abstract does not give the number of honey samples.

Study details

Honey tested: New Zealand Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: New Zealand Manuka honey and Manuka nectar
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: New Zealand (Leptospermum scoparium)
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not applicable (chemical analysis)
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not stated in the abstract
Outcomes measured: Proteins identified in honey and candidate peptide markers for authentication
Applicability to humans: Laboratory analysis only; no health outcome assessed.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey protein markers authenticity study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Utility of the Leptospermum scoparium Compound Lepteridine as a Chemical Marker for Manuka Honey Authenticity.

Authors: Lin B, et al.

Published: ACS Omega, 2020

What it found: Researchers built a mass spectrometry test for lepteridine, a compound specific to Leptospermum plants. Its results matched two other measurement methods, and a lepteridine threshold separated Manuka honey from non-Manuka honeys in a set of commercial samples.

Limitations: A chemistry study of authenticity that measured no health effect. The abstract does not give the number or origin of the samples, and the comparison was against the New Zealand regulatory definition. The authors say lepteridine could work as a screening method, not as a replacement for full testing.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Commercial honey samples, Manuka and non-Manuka
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract (compared with the New Zealand regulatory definition)
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (authenticity test)
Dose or concentration: Not applicable (no dose; chemical measurement)
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: HPLC-UV and fluorescence measurements; non-Manuka honeys; the New Zealand regulatory definition
Outcomes measured: Lepteridine concentration; whether samples were identified as Manuka honey
Applicability to humans: Lab chemistry only; no health outcome measured.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey lepteridine authenticity marker study

15 STUDIES · LAB RESEARCH AND 2 REVIEWS

Laboratory studies testing Manuka honey against different kinds of bacteria.

Read customer reviews

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Manuka honey killing bacteria in the lab, including antibiotic-resistant strains: High Twelve lab studies and a review of 16 lab studies found activity against many kinds of bacteria, including antibiotic-resistant strains. In the medical-grade honey study, 4 to 14.8% honey killed eight wound bacteria; Manuka honey killed C. difficile at 6.25%. Several studies also tested honey with antibiotics: some combinations worked better together in the lab, and some did not.
Bacteria becoming resistant to honey: Emerging In one lab study, resistance to honey could not be induced, including under conditions that quickly produced resistance to antibiotics. A review of 16 lab studies found that a bacterium's antibiotic resistance did not change how sensitive it was to honey.
Treating an infection in people: More research needed None of these studies tested people.

What it doesn't tell us: killing bacteria in a dish doesn't show that eating honey treats an infection. The concentrations that worked in the medical-grade study (4 to 14.8%) are ones a wound dressing can maintain.

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

The unusual antibacterial activity of medical-grade Leptospermum honey: antibacterial spectrum, resistance and transcriptome analysis

Authors: Blair SE, et al.

Published: European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 2009

What it found: Killed eight species of wound bacteria at 4 to 14.8% honey. The bacteria did not become resistant to the honey, under test conditions that quickly produced resistance to antibiotics.

Limitations: Lab study using one medical-grade honey, at concentrations reached in a wound dressing. It says nothing about eating honey.

Study details

Honey tested: Medical-grade Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Eight species of wound bacteria, plus the gene response of E. coli
Sample size: 8 bacterial species
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical grade
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 4.0 to 14.8% honey
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Antibiotics, in the resistance test
Outcomes measured: Bacteria killed; whether resistance developed; bacterial gene activity
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Leptospermum honey antibacterial spectrum study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka-type honeys can eradicate biofilms produced by Staphylococcus aureus strains with different biofilm-forming abilities

Authors: Lu J, et al.

Published: PeerJ, 2014

What it found: Manuka-type honeys broke down Staphylococcus aureus biofilms, including MRSA strains, better than clover honey or a sugar solution.

Limitations: Lab study on one bacterium. MGO on its own did not clear the biofilms, and low honey concentrations increased biofilm growth in some strains.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka-type honeys
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Staphylococcus aureus strains, including MRSA
Sample size: 4 S. aureus strains, including 2 MRSA
Honey origin: New Zealand (Manuka, a Manuka and kanuka blend, and clover honey)
MGO concentration: Listed for each honey in the paper; MGO on its own tested at 100, 700 and 900 mg/kg
Food-grade or medical-grade: Includes a medical-grade Manuka honey
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 1 to 32% honey
Duration: 24 to 48 hours
Comparator: Clover honey, sugar solution and MGO on its own
Outcomes measured: Bacterial growth; biofilm formation and removal; whether resistance developed
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey Staphylococcus biofilm study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Antibacterial effect of Manuka honey on Clostridium difficile

Authors: Hammond EN, Donkor ES.

Published: BMC Research Notes, 2013

What it found: Manuka honey killed three strains of Clostridium difficile at 6.25% honey.

Limitations: Lab study on three strains of one bacterium. It does not show whether eating honey affects C. difficile in the gut.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Three strains of Clostridium difficile
Sample size: 3 bacterial strains
Honey origin: Not stated in the paper
MGO concentration: Graded by phenol equivalence (more than 18%); MGO not stated
Food-grade or medical-grade: A wound-care Manuka honey, a named commercial product
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 6.25 to 50% honey
Duration: Up to 7 days
Comparator: No comparison honey; different honey concentrations compared
Outcomes measured: Lowest concentrations that stopped and killed the bacteria; zones of inhibition
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the full paper (PubMed Central), Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey C. difficile lab study

Tier 4: PreclinicalSystematic review

Clinical Significance of Manuka and Medical-Grade Honey for Antibiotic-Resistant Infections: A Systematic Review

Authors: Nolan VC, et al.

Published: Antibiotics, 2020

What it found: Across 16 lab studies, honeys including Manuka were active against most of 32 bacterial species, and resistance to several antibiotics did not change how sensitive the bacteria were to honey.

Limitations: Pools 16 lab studies, so the results are laboratory measurements, not outcomes in patients.

Study details

Honey tested: Several honeys including Manuka
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: 32 bacterial species, across 16 lab studies
Sample size: 16 studies of 18 honeys
Honey origin: Various (18 honeys)
MGO concentration: Varied by study
Food-grade or medical-grade: Includes medical-grade honeys
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Varied; lowest effective concentration 0.1%
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Lowest concentrations that stopped bacteria growing, across studies
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the review of Manuka honey and antibiotic-resistant infections

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Comprehensive In Situ Killing of Six Common Wound Pathogens With Manuka Honey Dressings Using a Modified AATCC-TM100

Authors: Watson D, et al.

Published: Wounds, 2017

What it found: In lab tests, medical-grade Manuka honey dressings killed more than 99.999% of six common wound bacteria and a yeast placed in the dressing, even when re-challenged daily for up to 7 days. Dressings without honey did not.

Limitations: Measured killing inside the dressing only, not in a wound. The study was funded by the dressing's maker.

Study details

Honey tested: Medical-grade Manuka dressings
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Six wound bacteria (including S. aureus and P. aeruginosa) and one yeast (C. albicans), placed in dressing samples
Sample size: Tested in triplicate
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: 449 and 496 mg/kg in the two dressings
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical grade (dressings with 449 and 496 mg MGO/kg)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Honey-impregnated dressings, each challenge incubated for 24 hours at 34°C
Duration: Re-challenged daily for 3 or 7 days
Comparator: Dressings without honey
Outcomes measured: Bacteria and yeast surviving in the dressing after each challenge
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the abstract on the Wounds journal site, Oct 26, 2026 (no abstract on PubMed)

Read the Manuka honey wound bacteria lab study

Not tieredNarrative review

Antibacterial activity of Manuka honey and its components: An overview.

Authors: Johnston M, et al.

Published: AIMS Microbiology, 2018

What it found: Gives an overview of Manuka honey's antibacterial activity, linking its potency to methylglyoxal and phenolic content, noting that Gram-negative bacteria are more resistant than Gram-positive ones, and note that bacterial resistance to honey had not yet been identified.

Limitations: A narrative review: the authors chose which studies to discuss without a set method, so it summarizes lab research rather than weighing it.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Not applicable (review)
Applicability to humans: Review of lab research on antibacterial activity.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the overview of Manuka honey antibacterial activity

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Antibacterial activity of varying UMF-graded Manuka honeys.

Authors: Girma A, et al.

Published: PLOS ONE, 2019

What it found: Manuka honey held back growth of 128 bacterial samples from wounds, including drug-resistant strains, and worked better against Gram-positive bacteria than Gram-negative ones. The lowest-graded honey was the most active, which the authors link to likely changes in its methylglyoxal content over time.

Limitations: Lab study of bacteria in a dish, using a small number of honey samples from one manufacturer. It did not test honey on wounds or in people, and the authors say the grade alone may not predict antibacterial effect.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey in three grades (5+, 10+ and 15+) from one manufacturer
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: 128 bacterial samples from wound cultures (Gram-positive, Gram-negative, drug-susceptible and multi-drug resistant)
Sample size: 128 bacterial samples (73 staphylococci incl. 25 MRSA, 22 Pseudomonas aeruginosa incl. 10 multi-drug resistant, 33 Enterobacteriaceae incl. 14 multi-drug resistant); number of honey samples not stated
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Three grades from one manufacturer: 5+, 10+ and 15+
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: lowest concentration to stop growth (MIC50) was 6%, 7% and 15% honey for staphylococci across the three grades, and 21% to 27% for Pseudomonas and Enterobacteriaceae
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: The three honey grades compared with each other
Outcomes measured: Lowest honey concentration that stopped bacterial growth (MIC)
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested on wounds or in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey grades wound bacteria lab study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka honey inhibits adhesion and invasion of medically important wound bacteria in vitro.

Authors: Maddocks SE, et al.

Published: Future Microbiology, 2013

What it found: Manuka honey broke up biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Streptococcus pyogenes and caused extensive bacterial cell death. Lower doses also reduced these bacteria sticking to skin proteins and to human skin cells.

Limitations: Lab study using bacteria in dishes and cultured human skin cells. It did not test honey on real wounds or in people, and the abstract gives no honey concentrations.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab, on bacteria and human skin cells
Population or model: Laboratory and clinical isolates of S. aureus, P. aeruginosa and S. pyogenes; cultured human keratinocytes
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not stated in the abstract (sublethal doses used for the adhesion tests)
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Not stated in the abstract
Outcomes measured: Biofilm disruption, bacterial binding to proteins, adhesion to and invasion of skin cells
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested on wounds or in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey wound bacteria adhesion biofilm study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Manuka honey inhibits the development of Streptococcus pyogenes biofilms and causes reduced expression of two fibronectin binding proteins.

Authors: Maddocks SE, et al.

Published: Microbiology, 2012

What it found: Manuka honey killed Streptococcus pyogenes in both free-floating cultures and biofilms, though biofilms needed higher concentrations. It also stopped the bacteria binding to the human protein fibronectin and lowered the activity of two genes for fibronectin-binding proteins.

Limitations: Lab study of one strain of Streptococcus pyogenes (M28) in dishes. It did not test honey on wounds or in people, and the abstract gives no honey concentrations.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Streptococcus pyogenes strain M28, in free-floating and biofilm cultures
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: not stated in the abstract (biofilms needed higher concentrations than free-floating cultures)
Duration: Biofilms tested at 24 hours
Comparator: Not stated in the abstract
Outcomes measured: Bacterial killing (MIC, MBC), biofilm structure, binding to fibronectin and fibrinogen, gene expression
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested on wounds or in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey Streptococcus pyogenes biofilm study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

In vitro synergy between manuka honey and amikacin against Mycobacterium abscessus complex shows potential for nebulisation therapy

Authors: Nolan VC, et al.

Published: Microbiology, 2022

What it found: In the lab, Manuka honey inhibited Mycobacterium abscessus and a range of drug-resistant clinical isolates, and it worked synergistically with the antibiotic amikacin. In a lab inhalation model, adding honey meant a lower amikacin dose could be used with greater effect.

Limitations: Lab study only. It did not test honey in the lungs or in people, and the abstract gives no honey concentrations or isolate numbers. The idea of adding honey to nebulized antibiotics is the authors' proposal, not something tested in patients.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab, including a lab inhalation model
Population or model: Mycobacterium abscessus and drug-resistant clinical isolates
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: The antibiotic amikacin, alone and with honey
Outcomes measured: Bacterial growth; whether honey and amikacin worked together; amikacin dose needed in an inhalation model
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested in the lungs or in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey amikacin Mycobacterium abscessus study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Synergy between oxacillin and manuka honey sensitizes methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus to oxacillin

Authors: Jenkins RE, et al.

Published: Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2012

What it found: In the lab, Manuka honey and the antibiotic oxacillin together inhibited MRSA synergistically, and the honey reversed the bacteria's resistance to oxacillin. MRSA cells exposed to honey showed lower activity of the mecR1 gene.

Limitations: Lab study of bacteria in a dish, not tested in people. The abstract does not say how many strains or what concentrations were used beyond naming sub-inhibitory honey levels, and the authors note other honey and antibiotic pairs still need testing.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: sub-inhibitory honey concentrations combined with oxacillin (amounts not stated in the abstract)
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: The antibiotic oxacillin, alone and with honey
Outcomes measured: Bacterial growth; oxacillin susceptibility; mecR1 gene activity
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey MRSA oxacillin lab study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Improving antibiotic activity against wound pathogens with manuka honey in vitro.

Authors: Jenkins R, Cooper R.

Published: PLOS ONE, 2012

What it found: In the lab, 15 antibiotics were tested with and without Manuka honey against MRSA and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, two bacteria that often infect wounds. The honey was tested at 5% in the growth medium, just under the level that stopped the bacteria alone. Against MRSA, honey worked in synergy with tetracycline, imipenem and mupirocin: each antibiotic stopped growth at a fraction of the amount it needed alone (for imipenem, less than a hundredth in three of the four test methods). Against Pseudomonas, honey added to the effect of rifampicin, tetracycline and colistin. The authors suggest these pairings could be explored in future for infected wounds.

Limitations: Lab study of bacteria in a dish, using one strain of each bacterium, so it does not show what happens in a wound or in people. Honey did not improve rifampicin against MRSA. The paper describes the honey as medical-grade Manuka honey. It is not honey sold as food.

Study details

Honey tested: Medical-grade Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: One MRSA strain (EMRSA-15) and one Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain
Sample size: Not applicable (lab study)
Honey origin: Not stated in the paper
MGO concentration: Not stated in the paper
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical-grade Manuka honey
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 5% Manuka honey in the growth medium (honey alone stopped growth at 6 to 7%)
Duration: Lab tests of up to 24 hours
Comparator: 15 antibiotics, each alone and with honey
Outcomes measured: Amount of antibiotic needed to stop bacterial growth, alone and with honey
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested in wounds or in people.
Checked: Against the full text, Oct 28, 2026

Read the Manuka honey and antibiotics wound bacteria lab study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Antibiofilm Activity of Manuka Honey in Combination with Antibiotics.

Authors: Campeau ME, et al.

Published: International Journal of Bacteriology, 2014

What it found: In the lab, Manuka honey with vancomycin acted synergistically against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms, and with gentamicin it was additive against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Under the microscope, Manuka honey changed the biofilms more than an artificial honey with the same sugars.

Limitations: Lab study on one S. aureus strain and one P. aeruginosa strain, not tested in people. The abstract gives no honey concentrations.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka honey, compared with an artificial honey with the same sugar composition
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Biofilms of S. aureus IDRL-4284 and P. aeruginosa PAO1
Sample size: One strain of each bacterium
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: The antibiotics vancomycin and gentamicin, alone and with honey; artificial honey with the same sugar composition
Outcomes measured: Combined activity index against biofilms; biofilm appearance under an electron microscope
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey vancomycin gentamicin biofilm study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Antibiotic-specific differences in the response of Staphylococcus aureus to treatment with antimicrobials combined with manuka honey

Authors: Liu M, et al.

Published: Frontiers in Microbiology, 2014

What it found: In the lab, manuka-type honey combined with rifampicin, oxacillin, gentamicin or clindamycin often acted synergistically against Staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA. Some strains that resisted an antibiotic alone responded to it once honey was added, but not every strain responded the same way.

Limitations: Lab study, not tested in people. Results varied by strain and antibiotic, and the abstract does not give strain numbers or honey concentrations.

Study details

Honey tested: New Zealand manuka-type honey (the abstract says manuka-type, not a single named Manuka product)
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Multiple Staphylococcus aureus strains, including clinical isolates and MRSA
Sample size: Multiple strains; number not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: New Zealand
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: Not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: The antibiotics rifampicin, oxacillin, gentamicin and clindamycin, alone and with honey
Outcomes measured: Whether honey and each antibiotic worked together; antibiotic susceptibility
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka-type honey Staphylococcus antibiotic combination study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Rifampicin-Manuka Honey Combinations Are Superior to Other Antibiotic-Manuka Honey Combinations in Eradicating Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms

Authors: Liu MY, et al.

Published: Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017

What it found: In the lab, Medihoney with the antibiotic rifampicin strongly reduced Staphylococcus aureus biofilm and the viability of the bacteria inside it, more than the other antibiotic pairings tested. Combinations with clindamycin, gentamicin and oxacillin were antagonistic at low honey levels because biofilm grew more, but not at inhibitory levels.

Limitations: Lab study on one S. aureus strain (NCTC 8325), not tested in people. Medihoney is a medical-grade wound product, so this says nothing about honey from a jar. The abstract gives no honey concentrations.

Study details

Honey tested: Medihoney (a medical-grade Manuka honey)
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Established biofilms of S. aureus strain NCTC 8325
Sample size: One bacterial strain
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Medical-grade (Medihoney)
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: sub-inhibitory and inhibitory honey concentrations (amounts not stated in the abstract)
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: The antibiotics rifampicin, oxacillin, fusidic acid, clindamycin and gentamicin, alone and with honey
Outcomes measured: Biofilm biomass; viability of bacteria in the biofilm; whether honey and each antibiotic worked together
Applicability to humans: Lab only; wound-product honey on biofilms; not tested in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Medihoney rifampicin Staphylococcus biofilm lab study

3 STUDIES · LAB RESEARCH AND A REVIEW

Laboratory studies on how MGO from Manuka honey interacts with immune cells and how honey acts on a virus in cell cultures, and a narrative review of honey compounds with antiviral activity in lab research.

Read customer reviews for immune support

What the research does and doesn't tell us

MGO from Manuka honey and immune cell activity in the lab: Preliminary One lab study found MGO from Manuka honey enhanced the activation of one type of immune cell (MAIT cells).
Honey and viruses in the lab: Preliminary One lab study found Manuka and clover honey held back varicella zoster virus in cultured cells. A narrative review of honey compounds in lab research says how they might act on viruses is still unclear. No study here tested people.
Immune effects of eating Manuka honey: More research needed The authors say it is not known whether MGO eaten in honey has this effect. The one trial of people eating Manuka honey, under Inflammation and antioxidants, found no change in the allergy marker it measured.

What it doesn't tell us: a lab result in immune cells doesn't show that eating Manuka honey supports immunity.

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

Mānuka honey-derived methylglyoxal enhances microbial sensing by mucosal-associated invariant T cells

Authors: Tang JS, et al.

Published: Food & Function, 2020

What it found: In lab cell tests, MGO from Manuka honey enhanced the activation of a type of immune cell (MAIT cells).

Limitations: Lab study. The authors say it is not known whether MGO eaten in honey has this effect in the body.

Study details

Honey tested: MGO from Manuka honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Human immune cells (MAIT cells)
Sample size: Not stated in the abstract
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not applicable (MGO from Manuka honey tested directly)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable (MGO from Manuka honey)
Dose or concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not stated in the abstract
Outcomes measured: Activation of MAIT immune cells
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not shown in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 26, 2026

Read the Manuka honey methylglyoxal immune cell study

Tier 4: PreclinicalLaboratory study

In vitro antiviral activity of honey against varicella zoster virus (VZV): A translational medicine study for potential remedy for shingles

Authors: Shahzad A, Cohrs RJ.

Published: Translational Biomedicine, 2012

What it found: Manuka honey and clover honey both held back varicella zoster virus (the virus behind chickenpox and shingles) in human cells grown in the lab, at about 4.5% honey by weight.

Limitations: Lab study in one type of cell with a virus sample from one patient. It was not tested on skin or in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Manuka and clover honey
How it was used: In the lab
Population or model: Human melanoma cells (MeWo) infected with a clinical varicella zoster virus sample
Sample size: 1 clinical virus isolate (cell numbers not stated in the abstract)
Honey origin: Not stated in the abstract
MGO concentration: Not stated in the abstract
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not stated in the abstract
Dose or concentration: Trial dose, not a suggested use: 0 to 6% honey (weight per volume) in the cell culture medium
Duration: Not stated in the abstract
Comparator: Not stated in the abstract
Outcomes measured: Antiviral activity (the honey concentration that cut virus activity by half)
Applicability to humans: Lab only; not tested on skin or in people.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the Manuka honey varicella zoster virus lab study

Not tieredNarrative review

Antiviral and Immunomodulatory Effects of Phytochemicals from Honey against COVID-19: Potential Mechanisms of Action and Future Directions

Authors: Al-Hatamleh MAI, et al.

Published: Molecules, 2020

What it found: Reviews compounds in honey, including methylglyoxal, that have shown antiviral or immune-supporting effects in the lab, and how they might act on the virus that causes COVID-19. The authors say how these compounds work is still unclear.

Limitations: A narrative review of lab research on honey in general, not Manuka specifically. The authors note there is still a lack of evidence about honey's role in COVID-19, and it did not test honey in people.

Study details

Honey tested: Honey in general (its compounds)
How it was used: Review of research
Population or model: Not applicable (review)
Sample size: Not applicable
Honey origin: Not applicable (review)
MGO concentration: Not applicable (review)
Food-grade or medical-grade: Not applicable
Dose or concentration: Not applicable
Duration: Not applicable
Comparator: Not applicable
Outcomes measured: Not applicable (review)
Applicability to humans: Review of lab research on honey compounds; no human evidence on COVID-19 is reported in the abstract.
Checked: Against the PubMed abstract, Oct 27, 2026

Read the review of honey compounds and COVID-19

Page last reviewed: October 27, 2026. Spotted an error, a correction or a retraction? Contact us.

What Makes Biosota Honey Medicinal?

Premium medicinal Manuka honey is defined as high-grade MGO Manuka honey that is scientifically tested for its natural compounds.

This honey is naturally bioactive, and laboratory studies have measured its antibacterial, antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activity.

Many people make Manuka honey part of a daily wellness routine, in food and drinks or on the skin. Our How to Use guide covers suggested use.

The higher the MGO number, the stronger the antibacterial activity in laboratory tests.

Minimum MGO 260mg/kg is considered medicinal grade.

At Biosota Organics, our passion lies in Manuka honey, cultivated with science, love and generations of beekeeping experience.

The MGO levels of Biosota’s high strength medicinal Manuka honey ranges are regularly tested and verified authentic by independent accredited laboratories in Australia and New Zealand.

Which strength should I choose?

Our strength chart explains each MGO grade, and the How to Use guide covers suggested use and how to take it.

See the MGO strength chart How to use Manuka honey

Frequently Asked Questions

Manuka honey comes from the nectar of Leptospermum (Manuka) plants and naturally contains methylglyoxal (MGO). Australia has over 80 native Leptospermum species; New Zealand has one. In a lab study of New Zealand Manuka honeys, MGO was the main antibacterial compound, at up to 100 times the level found in ordinary honey. In a Swiss lab study on three mouth bacteria, Manuka honey above NPA 15 (the equivalent is MGO 550+ grade) held them back better than lower grades and a multifloral honey, while below NPA 15 it was no better than ordinary honey. Minimum MGO 260mg/kg is considered medicinal grade. Every batch of Biosota Manuka honey is independently lab tested for its MGO level.

MGO (methylglyoxal) is a naturally occurring compound in Manuka honey. Lab studies have identified it as the main source of Manuka honey's antibacterial activity. The MGO number shows how many milligrams of MGO are in 1 kg of honey, so MGO 1200+ means 1200 mg of MGO per kg.

Manuka honey is supported by over 100 research studies and clinical trials. More than half of the studies in our Manuka Honey Scientific Evidence research are lab or animal studies. The human trials are mostly small. The clearest human evidence is for honey dressings on partial thickness burns, which are medical-grade wound dressings, not the honey sold in jars: a Cochrane review of 26 trials found high quality evidence from two of them (992 people) that honey dressings healed these burns about 4.7 days faster than conventional dressings. For most other wound types, the evidence was low or very low quality. A Cochrane review of six trials in 899 children aged 12 months to 18 years found that honey in general probably eases cough more than no treatment, diphenhydramine or placebo. Honey is not suitable for babies under 12 months. Each study we cite is labeled with its type, so you can see the level of evidence.

Both. More than half of the studies in our Manuka Honey Scientific Evidence research are lab or animal studies. The rest are human trials, small human studies and reviews of trials, plus some background reviews. Lab studies show how the honey acts on bacteria and cells. They don't show what it does in the body, which is why each study is labeled with its type.

Yes. Our customer reviews page collects what customers have written about Manuka honey. Reviews are individual experiences, not research, and results vary from person to person.

Let us help you find your strength

Answer a few quick questions and we will match you to a strength range.

TAKE THE FREE QUIZ

Manuka Honey Scientific Evidence

Scientific Research on Manuka Honey

What the labels mean

The research

Therapeutic research

Manuka Honey on Wounds, Burns and Skin: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds

Manuka honey-impregnated dressings in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers

Acceptability to patients of a honey dressing for non-healing venous leg ulcers

Honey is potentially effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: Clinical and mechanistic studies

Resolution of folliculitis decalvans with medical honey

Health Benefits of Manuka Honey as an Essential Constituent for Tissue Regeneration

Effect of Manuka Honey on Eyelid Wound Healing: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

The Medicine of the Manuka: an investigation of the usages and methods for utilization of honey derived from the pollen of Leptospermum scoparium in holistic nursing practice.

Clinical and Postoperative Applications of Manuka Honey in Wound Healing: An Evidence-Based Review.

Local Honey as Topical Treatment in Chronic Wound Healing: An Experimental Animal Study.

Manuka Honey and Oral Care: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

The effects of manuka honey on plaque and gingivitis: a pilot study

Effect of Manuka honey, chlorhexidine gluconate and xylitol on the clinical levels of dental plaque

Manuka Honey: A Potent Cariostatic Agent- An in vitro Study.

Manuka Honey Sinus Rinses: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Manuka honey sinus irrigation for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial

The association of Leptospermum honey with cytokine expression in the sinonasal epithelium of chronic rhinosinusitis patients

Manuka Honey and Cystic Fibrosis: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Manuka honey versus saline sinus irrigation in the treatment of cystic fibrosis-associated chronic rhinosinusitis: A randomised pilot trial

A demonstration of the susceptibility of clinical isolates obtained from cystic fibrosis patients to manuka honey.

Anti-pseudomonad Activity of Manuka Honey and Antibiotics in a Specialized ex vivo Model Simulating Cystic Fibrosis Lung Infection.

Manuka Honey and Colds, Coughs and Flu: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Honey for acute cough in children

Effectiveness of honey for symptomatic relief in upper respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of honey, dextromethorphan, and no treatment on nocturnal cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents

Anti-influenza viral effects of honey in vitro: potent high activity of manuka honey

Secondary Bacterial Infections Associated with Influenza Pandemics

Manuka Honey in Cancer Care: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Effectiveness of honey on radiation-induced oral mucositis, time to mucositis, weight loss, and treatment interruptions among patients with head and neck malignancies: A meta-analysis and systematic review of literature

The efficacy of honey or olive oil on the severity of oral mucositis and pain compared to placebo (standard care) in children with leukemia receiving intensive chemotherapy: A randomized controlled trial (RCT)

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of active manuka honey and standard oral care for radiation-induced oral mucositis

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of manuka honey for radiation-induced oral mucositis

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Prophylactic Manuka Honey for the Reduction of Chemoradiation Therapy-Induced Esophagitis During the Treatment of Lung Cancer: Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 1012

The IL-6/STAT3 Signaling Pathway Is an Early Target of Manuka Honey-Induced Suppression of Human Breast Cancer Cells

Inhibition of Tyrosine-Phosphorylated STAT3 in Human Breast and Lung Cancer Cells by Manuka Honey is Mediated by Selective Antagonism of the IL-6 Receptor

Manuka honey synergistically enhances the chemopreventive effect of 5-fluorouracil on human colon cancer cells by inducing oxidative stress and apoptosis, altering metabolic phenotypes and suppressing metastasis ability

Intravenous administration of manuka honey inhibits tumor growth and improves host survival when used in combination with chemotherapy in a melanoma mouse model

The inhibitory effect of Manuka honey on human colon cancer HCT-116 and LoVo cell growth. Part 1: the suppression of cell proliferation, promotion of apoptosis and arrest of the cell cycle.

The inhibitory effect of Manuka honey on human colon cancer HCT-116 and LoVo cell growth. Part 2: Induction of oxidative stress, alteration of mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis, and suppression of metastatic ability.

Manuka honey enhanced sensitivity of HepG2, hepatocellular carcinoma cells, for Doxorubicin and induced apoptosis through inhibition of Wnt/β-catenin and ERK1/2.

Functional food research

Manuka Honey, Gut and Stomach: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Molecular Mechanisms of Natural Honey Against H. pylori Infection Via Suppression of NF-κB and AP-1 Activation in Gastric Epithelial Cells

The controlled in vitro susceptibility of gastrointestinal pathogens to the antibacterial effect of manuka honey

Antioxidant, Anti-inflammatory, and Antiulcer Potential of Manuka Honey against Gastric Ulcer in Rats.

Effect of different doses of Manuka honey in experimentally induced inflammatory bowel disease in rats.

Manuka Honey, Inflammation and Antioxidants: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Demonstrating the safety of manuka honey UMF 20+ in a human clinical trial with healthy individuals

Protective effects of Manuka honey on LPS-treated RAW 264.7 macrophages. Part 2: Control of oxidative stress induced damage, increase of antioxidant enzyme activities and attenuation of inflammation

Manuka honey attenuates oxidative damage induced by H2O2 in human whole blood in vitro

Manuka honey protects middle-aged rats from oxidative damage

Oxidative stress, inflammation, and cancer: how are they linked?

Manuka honey modulates the release profile of a dHL-60 neutrophil model under anti-inflammatory stimulation.

The Effect of Manuka Honey on dHL-60 Cytokine, Chemokine, and Matrix-Degrading Enzyme Release under Inflammatory Conditions.

Manuka science & composition

What Makes Manuka Honey Different: The Research

What the research does and doesn't tell us

Identification and quantification of methylglyoxal as the dominant antibacterial constituent of Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honeys from New Zealand

Antibacterial potential of Manuka honey against three oral bacteria in vitro

Therapeutic Manuka Honey: No Longer So Alternative

In vivo absorption and metabolism of leptosperin and methyl syringate, abundantly present in manuka honey.

The super-food Manuka honey, a comprehensive review of its analysis and authenticity approaches.

The origin of methylglyoxal in New Zealand manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey.

Proteomic analysis of honey. Identification of unique peptide markers for authentication of NZ mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey.

Utility of the Leptospermum scoparium Compound Lepteridine as a Chemical Marker for Manuka Honey Authenticity.

Manuka Honey's Antibacterial Activity: The Research