Egg Marketing

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23750, 23 September 1942, Page 2

Egg Marketing

The Government’s egg marketing scheme for Canterbury, further details of which were given in “The “ Press ” yesterday, is intended primarily to make possible a more even distribution of eggs within New Zealand and to make it easier for the New Zealand Government to meet its export commitments. These are legitimate purposes. The expansion of egg exports in the last year# or so has created a severe shortage of eggs in some parts of New Zealand. Last (winter, for instance, some North Island districts were without eggs for many weeks at a time. The Canterbury area, however, which produces the great part of the country’s egg consumption, was never seriously short; and it is only just that, since the shortage will certainly grow more acute, available supplies should be distributed more equitably over the country than they have been in the past. To ensure more equitable distribution, and also to enable the Government to meet export requirements with as little dislocation as possible of local markets, the establishment of a centralised marketing system seems unavoidable. This does not alter the fact that the system which has been adopted has some questionable features. As far as the Canterbury area is concerned, there will probably be an increase in the cost of marketing eggs, in the amount of transport involved in marketing, and in the time an egg takes on its journey from the hen to the consumer. The Canterbury consumer, in short, is likely to suffer for the sake of consumers in other parts of New Zealand and overseas. But a more disturbing aspect of the scheme is that it is one more example of producers and wholesalers of a commodity combining with the State to create a monopoly with an inherent interest in keeping up prices. A poultry farmer whose comments on the scheme were reported in “ The “ Press ” yesterday said with devastating candour that big producers had long been seeking to have alj eggs centrally marketed and that the State “had done in “ one stroke what these producers “ had been trying to effect for “years,” The desire of the big producers for a centralised marketing system arises, of course, in the desire to prevent price-cutting by small producers who supply direct to shops instead of through a wholesale organisation. It is thus clear that the State, in creating an egg marketing monopoly, assumes at the same time a responsibility to protect consumers. So far, there is not much evidence that this responsibility is taken very seriously. The statement by an officer of the Inter-

nal Marketing Department on the operation of the scheme in the country districts shows an anxious solicitude for the interests of shopkeepers and producers but omits any mention of the consumer interest.