THE BUTTER QUESTION.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15567, 17 April 1916, Page 8

THE BUTTER QUESTION.

«— ___ TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —I shall'have "Skim Dick" on my side directly. He thinks Parliament said butter may contain 16 _ per cent, of water. H© has been deceived. Parliament said butter shall be deemed to be adulterated if it contains, or is diluted with any substance which diminishes its nutritive properties. He will agree with me. I hope, that whatever merits water nas it is not a food, From that it must follow that if bu£ ter "contains, or is diluted with" water, its nutritive properties are diminished, and in the sight of Parliament it is adulterated. As a sportsman, "Skim Dick" will admit that it isn't I who disputes the umpire's decision. If, as ''Skim Dick" assumes. Parliament is the umpire, the essential question in dispute is, "What is butter?" Dr. Wm. Fream says it "should consist of "little else than fat. but in practice this degree of perfection is never attained." But surely Parliament, as representing the consumer here and in England, is not unreasonable in expecting dairymen to aim at perfection, even if they cannot always attain to it. At the very least, Parliament would not expect dairymen wilfully to increase the proportion of water in their butter. For to do that is to defeat the very purpose of the Pure Foods Act. let that is exactly what dairymen are doing all over New Zealand. This correspondence has elicitfed admissions of it, and it is implied in "Skim Dick's" remarks about the. percentage of water. They used to make a much drier butter than they do now. They are diluting it because they found out that if they sent it Homo dry it was diluted by those who bought it, and they thought they might just as well have the profit so made themselves. You, Sir, have given your opinion that as regards our market in the Old County, this is a very shortsighted policy. How do we stand as regards the New Zealand market? Dr. Wm. Fream says: ''Market butter is sometimes deliberately overweighted with water, and a fraudulent profit is obtained by selling'this extra moisture at the price of butter." In his view the New Zealand consumer is being defrauded. The New Zealand Parliament, if the poor thing could speak, would say the same. It forebade dilution. But they are both wrong: butter diluted 16 per cent, can show its face in any count without being made to sweat one drop of the wVter in _ which it so abounds. What is the power which thus enables dairymen to drive their waggons and horses through an Act of Parliament? It resides in the person in authority who made the Regulations under the Pure, Foods Act. Jsy those he practically nullified that Act; stultified the Parliament that passed the Act, and cocked snooks at the nation that elected the Parliament. After solemnly declaring that butter is the solid product obtained by churning milk or cream—a definition practically in accordance with Dr. Wm. Fream's— ho goes on to say that that "solid" product may be nearly one-sixth water. His tongue must have gone into his cheek of its own accord as he wrote that. In my opinion, factory suppliers, thanks to the regulations maker, are •nil honest men lawfully selling what in the expressed opinion of Parliament is a dishonest product. In this anomalous position they have my svmpathy. Whether their policy in eo selling is or is not shortsighted you, Sir, can perhaps advise them. It tends to alienate town from country, and I don't believe it profits - them a ha'penny in the long run for a good honest product will always fetch its value. I don't-want a margarine factory here; I only warned "Cowspanker" that it might come. Of late years I have tasted some very poor butter, and the 3* tell me margarine is most delicately flavoured; but stillwell. concerning that substance, I am old-fashioned enough to feel , A QUALM OR TWO. [ U e arc unable to afford further space for this correspondence.—Ed. "Tho Press."]