Fruit Marketing

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22082, 3 May 1937, Page 8

Fruit Marketing

The report of the Fruit Marketing Committee, released by the Government on Thursday, drives 211 pages of typed foolscap against the hard problem, how to give the grower better prices and the consumer cheaper fruit at the same time., Change the industry and the commodity, and the same problem will be found to recur not at all infrequently; and this is a very good reason for viewing the committee’s recommendations doubtfully. They are the recommendations of desperate counsellors for a desperate case; and there is no sufficient proof that the case of the horticultural industry—the fruitgrowers and market gardeners—is desperate or beyond remedies within their own power to devise and apply. In only one respect does the committee appear to offer a specific costreducing suggestion: it declares that “ in large “ cities, at least, there are far too many whole- “ salers, and a reduction in the numbers and “ the establishment of up-to-date municipal “central fruit markets, equipped with modern “appliances, should enable wholesalers to operate on a lower selling commission.” But at present the committee sees no possibility of reduction, except in the abolition of the receiving and delivery charge. Otherwise, the question of costs is not explored- This seems

a great defect in the report, sinoe both wholesalers and retailers are acquitted of making “ excessive profits ” while the growers are said to be receiving “ too low prices.” The plain inference is that the cost-structure is too elaborate and weighty and that the committee’s useful task might have been found in a detailed examination of it, leading to proposals to simplify and lighten it. Instead, the committee adopts the blanket solution for all difficulties: the control of the marketing of all horticultural products by the Primary Products Marketing Department. It recommends the appointment of a Director of Fruit Marketing, aided by a consultative committee of growers, exporters, brokers, and retailers; it recommends the setting up of district marketing authorities and the licensing of the retail trade. It suggests that the full powers of control to be created need' not all be used at once; the consent of the growers should be wooed, but if it cannot be won they should be coerced. How this system of control and licensing would achieve the objects which the committee itself defines—better prices in the orchard, lower prices in the shop windows —is not The public and the industry, in all its branches, are asked to accept the recommendations on trust; and they are asked too much.