THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1925. BRITAIN'S FOOD.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 112, 14 May 1925, Page 6

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1925. BRITAIN'S FOOD.

The majority report of the British Food Costs Commission will displease those who object to any extension of State action in industry, and fail to satisfy those whose aim is the Socialist State. The majority report, which is signed by all save two of the members of this large Commission, recommends the establishment of a permanent food council, on which all interests would be represented, "to act as mediator between the producer, the trader, and the consumer, and to reconcile for a common end those interests which we do not regard as necessarily conflicting." Our summary of the report throws little light on the nature of this council. The powers indicated above are vague. What will be the limits of its authority? Will it be purely an investigating and advisory body, or will it have authority to enforce decisions? Vague though the recommendation is, however, it is important as showing the trend towards State action among opponents of Socialism. Mr. Baldwin himself, who appointed the Commission, would probably go further if he could do what he liked. He would have the State control all food imports. What has led the Commission to this conclusion more than anything else is the operation of rings and trusts in the food trade, and it is significant that the majority think it may be necessary for the Government to acquire, -for the protection of the British consumer, an interest in British

meat companies operating in the Argentine. The Commission has come to the conclusion that the State should be prepared to take action against combinations whose operations in food are against the national interest. That nearly all the Commissioners, men and women of divergent political views, should have agreed upon this is significant, even if, as is reported now, the pressure of Conservative objection will cause the findings to be quietly dropped. Another opinion expressed is that "the Government may find it desirable to discuss with the Dominions the possibility of encouraging the flow of food from the Dominions to the Home markets" —a generality that embraces anything and everything. We may note as bearing on this opinion the revelations that Dr. Haden Guest, a Labour member of the House of Commons, has made regarding the conditions in which fruit was packed in the Levant. Few British people stop to think of these things when they buy dried fruit from the Near East. If they did thej; might reflect that people there have ideals of cleanliness that are considerably lower than their own, and that the factory laws long in force in Britain and the Dominions do not apply to territories so near to Suez. Dr. Guest says conditions in tho Smyrna fruit trade aro indescribable. but one's imagination carries one some way. It is not pleasant to think that all the dirt

and disease of the East may come to us in food that often goes unwashed into our mouths. Dr. Guest is secretary of the Labour Party Commonwealth Group,! and stands out among his free trade ' colleagues in the party as a supporter i of Imperial preference. One conclusion I he would draw from the filth of the ! Smyrna packing ?heds is that peopli in | Britain (and the Dominions, for that I matter,) should be encouraged to buy ! their fruit from Australia and other I places within the Empire where clean con- I ditions are the rule. For this reason, if j for no other, products of Mildura, for I example, are to be preferred to fruit : packed in a reeking shed in a Turkish town. The point is not often raised, though it was made by Mr. Joseph i Chamberlain years ago in the early day; ' of the preference movement, but it is well worth emphasising.