D.D.T. Residue In Meat Could Wreck N.Z. Sales

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30275, 30 October 1963, Page 12

D.D.T. Residue In Meat Could Wreck N.Z. Sales

New Zealand could well lose its American meat market and wreck its world market if it does not get rid of D.D.T. residue in its meat, said Mr C. Hilgendorf, a member of the Meat Board in Ashburton last evening.

Mr Hilgendorf, addressing more than 250 farmers, at a meeting called to discuss the proposed restriction of D.D.T. superphosphate, said New Zealand could not possibly afford to lose her American market.

“We should take all steps we can before there is any question of a quota being placed on the market in other places,” he said. “It is of enormous importance to New Zealand that it gets rid of DDT in meat but it is not the Meat Board’s job to say how this is to be done. "I have no doubt that DDT causes residue in meat but it is equally clear that there has been some muddled thinking and s ne hysterica! things said. The Meat Board is not interested in residue except where it affects the consumption of meat. 'Many coun tries have attempted and have succeeded in putting on restrictions as far as residues are concerned and America is one of these.”

The export of meat to the United States had become very important. Eighty per cent of the beef went there, bringing in £2O million. “It is unlikely that we can send it elsewhere at present prices.”

The Meat Board had finally decided that although exporting meat tests showed that there was an excessive DDT content—in some cases higher than before, said Mr Hilgendorf. Farmers from North Canterbury to Waitaki attended the meeting which was chaired by Mr J. Brand, chairman of the Mid-Canter-bury provincial executive Federated Farmers. Meetings Held

The Agricultural Chemical Board's recommendation to the Minister of Agriculture was the result of meetings and discussions with interested parties which included Federated Farmers, and the Meat and Dairy Boards, said the registrar of the board (Mr R. Odinot).

“It is unfortunate that according to some people the board was incompetent to handle such matters,” he said. “This is a serious charge.”

"I wish to emphasise that it is not an etymological problem. To you it is but to us it is a problem of meeting certain standards of quality," he said. "This brings us to the need to utilise chemicals in

agriculture in such a manner that no unacceptable traces are found in our produce designed for internal consumption or for overseas markets.” He said New Zealand had to comply to the lowest rating of residues in meat and could not segregate meat going to one or another country. "If there was a residue of 100 parts in a million in the produce, it would not matter where it went. The country is going to kick up a shindy and it will take years to regain what we would have lost in name.

“You have to face up to the hard facts, we can not continue this present practice.”

Mr Odinot pointed out that one of the problems had been the drift of DDT superphosphate when it was being laid. This was unavoidable drift and contamination but the board could not axxej t the responsibility. Increased costs of alternative chemicals would not be as heavy as was led to believe, he said. Cost of 2H> of D.D.T. superphosphate was 10s an acre, which worked out at between 3s and 3s 4d an acre a year. Tentative costs for granulated super was 15s an acre, which was annual cost increase of Is 8d an acre a year and D.D.T. prills, 18s 6d for 161 b, an annual increase of 2s an acre. Restrictions If the grapevine was correct and regulations came in as from January 1, 75 per cent of farmers would not have a ready solution to porina, said Mir J. M. Kelsey of the D.S.I.R. “If the grapevine is correct again all that would be available would be D.D.T. prills and these are slow acting against grass grubs and porina in Canterbury conditions. "Farmers who wait for the damage to appear before spraying with prills will be in for a shock. Prills must be put on the pasture before damage appears, as an insurance.” Resolutions One of three motions passed by the meeting asks the Government to delay the implementing of the proposed regulations controlling D.D.T. super for one year to give time for the provision of a suitable alternative.

The motion says that the meeting was convinced that something should be done to reduce the D.D.T. residue problem but it was not convinced that alternative materials were available.

Speaking to this motion, Mr G. H. Blair said that if carried in its present form, there was a possibility that it might be turned down. The Federated Farmers will also be asked to press for the production of granulated superphosphate. The meeting decided to urge the Agricultural Chemicals Board to recommend to the Government that because of the special circumstances in Canterbury wet-mix D.D.T. super should be allowed during the changeover period following the introduction of regulations.