I first became interested in manuka honey after seeing it described as a healing honey. The more I read, the more I wondered what made it different from an ordinary jar of honey—and whether the claims were really about eating it, putting it on skin, or using a medical wound dressing. Those are three different questions.
First, a spelling correction: it is manuka honey, named for the mānuka plant (Leptospermum scoparium). The original article and this page’s long-standing web address say “Hanuka.” I have kept the address so existing links still work.
What makes manuka honey different?
Bees make manuka honey from nectar associated with the mānuka plant. New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries uses laboratory tests for chemical markers and mānuka pollen DNA to distinguish honey exported as monofloral or multifloral mānuka. A high price or a striking label alone does not establish what is in the jar.
All honey contains a lot of sugar and relatively little available water. That environment can make it hard for some microbes to grow. Manuka honey also contains methylglyoxal, often shortened to MGO. In a laboratory study of honey samples, researchers measured unusually high MGO levels in six manuka honeys and found that diluted samples inhibited the growth of two kinds of bacteria. A later comparison of medical honeys found that manuka and another honey killed bacteria through different mixtures of substances.
These tests help explain why scientists became interested in manuka honey. They do not show that swallowing it kills an infection inside the body or that every manuka product will heal a wound. Bacteria growing in a laboratory dish are much simpler than a wound in a person.
What does a UMF or MGO number tell you?
Labels may show UMF or an MGO figure. These are ways of describing tested features of a particular honey, especially its characteristic antibacterial activity or methylglyoxal content. A higher number is not a proven dose for a cold, sore throat, skin condition, or other illness. Nor does a food-grade jar become a medical dressing because its number is high.
For eating, manuka honey can be enjoyed like other honey—on toast or stirred into food. It is still a concentrated source of sugar. The old claim that local honey reliably treats hay fever, or that taking manuka at the first sign of a cold provides an antiviral treatment, was not supported by the wound and laboratory studies discussed here.
Where medical-grade honey fits in wound care
The most practical medical use studied is as a prepared wound dressing. That means a product made and supplied for wound care, used alongside the usual assessment and treatment of the wound. It does not mean spooning supermarket honey onto a cut. An NHS wound-care formulary explicitly warns against using shop-bought honey on wounds because it can introduce debris or microorganisms.
Human results are mixed. In one study of 368 people with venous leg ulcers, everyone received compression bandaging. Half were assigned manuka-honey dressings and half usual dressings. After 12 weeks, the difference in complete healing was small enough that the researchers could not rule out chance; the honey group also reported more adverse effects. Compression and proper wound care remained essential.
A smaller trial in 63 people with diabetic foot ulcers reported faster healing with manuka-honey dressings than with conventional dressings. That is encouraging, but one small trial cannot settle which dressing is best for every kind of diabetic foot wound. These wounds need professional care because infection and poor circulation can become serious.
So I would not call manuka honey a universal wound cure. Medical-grade honey may be a useful dressing in selected circumstances, and a clinician can decide whether it suits the wound. A deep, spreading, infected, or non-healing wound needs medical assessment rather than a kitchen remedy.
What about skin creams?
Putting honey in a cosmetic cream is another step away from the wound-dressing trials. The amount of honey, the rest of the formula, and the condition being treated all matter. Laboratory antibacterial activity does not prove that a face cream improves skin renewal or treats eczema. I would judge a skincare product by evidence for that finished product, not by a general claim about manuka honey.
And honey should never be fed to a baby under 12 months because of infant botulism risk, whether the jar says manuka or not. The CDC explains the infant-honey precaution.
What the small eczema study adds
There is one small human study that helps put skin stories in context. In 2017, researchers asked 14 adults with eczema to put manuka honey on one affected area overnight for a week while leaving a comparable area untreated. The honey-treated patches looked better on the researchers’ severity scale. That is an interesting early signal, but 14 people over seven days cannot tell us whether it works reliably, whether it lasts, or how it compares with an established eczema treatment. The participants knew which patch received honey, and the researchers themselves called for randomized controlled trials.
That study used honey on eczema patches; it did not test every cream with manuka in its ingredient list. A cream can contain oils, preservatives, fragrances, or other substances that affect the skin. It also did not test acne, scars, hair growth, or eating honey. When reading personal accounts, it helps to ask what product the person used, what else changed, and what result they actually noticed.
Testimonials from Reddit users
These are firsthand accounts, not clinical trials. I have linked the posts so you can read each person’s full words and context. Some report improvement, some describe a short-lived benefit, and others report irritation or no effect. A Reddit comment cannot establish that manuka honey caused a change, but it can show why people try it and where expectations often outrun the evidence.
In a SkincareAddiction review, one person applied manuka honey to a red scratch on their cheek. They wrote, “By the end of the next day it was completely gone!” They also said long-standing redness around the nose had only diminished, rather than disappeared. The difference between those two observations matters: a small scratch may settle quickly on its own, while persistent redness has many possible causes. Their experience is encouraging to them, but it cannot prove that the honey shortened the healing time.
A commenter discussing chronic acne reported that nightly manuka masks seemed to clear their skin faster than a past treatment, and that the skin felt less oily. That is a strong personal impression, yet the post does not include a comparison in which everything else stayed the same. Acne often changes over weeks and months. The wound studies in this article do not show that a food-grade honey mask can replace prescribed acne care.
In that same acne discussion, another user had almost the opposite result: “it didn’t do anything but drip all on me and on my floor.” The mess sounds trivial beside wound healing, but it affects whether someone will keep using a product. It also shows how far a face mask made from a jar of honey is from the controlled, prepared dressings used in clinical trials.
One r/eczema poster said a homemade manuka balm had helped painful, cracked skin around the face and on the arms. Their phrase was that it had “saved my face and arms.” The same post also attributed hair regrowth to the balm, a much bigger claim than the observations support. Because the balm was a mixture and there was no untreated comparison, neither ingredient nor cause can be identified from the story. Still, the account communicates the relief this person felt.
A different eczema commenter tried a Medihoney cream and felt calmer at first, but said “it could not control flare ups.” That distinction is useful. A product might feel soothing on application without controlling the condition over time. It also reminds us that a branded cream is a finished formula, not the same thing as the medical honey dressings studied for ulcers.
One user with eczema described putting a manuka-containing cream on cracked hands and waking with “tiny itchy bumps.” They had previously used the cream on other body areas without the same problem. They could not tell whether honey or another ingredient caused the reaction. The important part of the account is the unexpected change in response from one patch of skin to another; a product’s natural origin does not make every formulation comfortable for sensitive skin.
A person with dyshidrotic eczema tried honey overnight on a finger and noticed heat and tingling, then thought the finger looked more swollen with more visible blisters the next morning. They asked whether that might be part of healing. There is no reason to assume worsening irritation is a useful stage of treatment. The post is a reminder to take a reaction seriously rather than interpret every uncomfortable sensation as proof that a remedy is working.
Another parent in an eczema discussion described mixed results on their daughter: mild patches on the arms seemed better, while worse patches behind the knees “did nothing but dry her out more.” The account also mentions an earlier ankle injury for which the parent believed manuka had helped. It is a good example of why one successful experience cannot predict the next one, even within the same family and even when the product name is the same.
A particularly brief reply to someone shopping for manuka honey said it “was a waste of money for me.” That person did not give a diagnosis, product details, or treatment period, so the comment tells us little about effectiveness. It does capture a real consequence of the marketing: manuka honey can cost considerably more than ordinary honey, and a high price is frustrating when the hoped-for change never appears.
A parent describing dry skin said their son’s skin felt softer after a routine involving manuka honey and olive oil before and after showers. That is a genuine observation, but the routine combined two products and changed how the skin was moisturized around bathing. We cannot assign the improvement to manuka alone. This is especially relevant when comparing a multi-ingredient routine with a study of one defined dressing or product.
In a discussion of honey face masks, one experienced commenter said they had not found honey to do much for their skin, “even manuka honey,” and found masks messy. Another person in the same conversation used it mostly for hydration rather than blackheads or acne. Those comments help narrow the question: feeling softer for an evening is a different outcome from clearing a skin disease. The studies here do not establish that a mask shrinks pores or removes blackheads.
A user discussing a manuka rescue cream said it cleared eczema around their eyes but “will not work on my Cupid’s bow.” That uneven result is more informative than a blanket claim that a cream cures eczema. Different facial areas can be exposed to different irritants and have different skin problems. The comment does not identify the active ingredient, but it does show why a person might continue using a product for one spot while seeking other care elsewhere.
Finally, a poster who changed several habits wrote, “Manuka honey strangely made my eczema worse.” They also described using ordinary honey, oats, and cooler showers. Because several things changed, the post cannot isolate why the eczema later improved. Its most relevant lesson for this article is simpler: a positive reputation for a natural product does not mean every person’s skin will tolerate it.
Read together, these accounts describe different products, conditions, and ways of using honey. Most concern cosmetic use or eczema, while the stronger controlled research above concerns medical-grade wound dressings. Personal stories can help a reader form better questions, but they should not be counted as thirteen independent demonstrations of a treatment effect. For an open or infected wound, the distinction between a sterile medical product and food honey is especially important.
Studies behind this article
- Mavric and colleagues, 2008: a laboratory analysis found high methylglyoxal levels in six New Zealand manuka honeys and linked that compound to antibacterial activity in test dishes. It did not test treatment in people.
- Kwakman and colleagues, 2011: two medical honeys killed tested bacteria through different mechanisms. This explains possible activity but does not establish a cure for a human infection.
- Jull and colleagues, 2008: in 368 people with venous leg ulcers, manuka-honey dressings did not significantly improve healing at 12 weeks compared with usual care, and adverse effects were more common.
- Kamaratos and colleagues, published online 2012: in a smaller diabetic-foot-ulcer trial, honey dressings shortened time to healing. The result is promising for that specific setting and needs to be read alongside larger and different wound trials.
- Alangari and colleagues, 2017: fourteen adults applied manuka honey to one eczema patch for seven nights. The treated patches improved, but the small, unblinded study cannot establish a reliable eczema treatment.
