Town Milk

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30592, 7 November 1964, Page 14

Town Milk

The low solids-not-fat content of town milk supplied in the Christchurch area has for many years been a matter of concern to the Christchurch Milk Board and to the Government departments concerned. Canterbury is one of the least suitable districts in the country for dairy production, which accounts to some degree for this situation. If Christchurch consumers are actually paying for a solids-not-fat content they are not receiving, have they any redress? Can a system of penalties and incentives for suppliers lift the solids-not-fat content without making town supply uneconomic? There is no simple answer to these questions. The questions are complicated—as are all problems connected with town-milk supply—by the subsidy on milk, by the division of responsibility, and by the cumbersome administration of the system. The removal of the subsidy and the adoption of the principle of “ the user pays ” would simplify the problem considerably. The excellent milk powder now available in New Zealand retails in convenient packs at prices below the actual cost of town milk. Because the subsidy reduces the retail price of milk by about one-third, however, few customers buy powdered milk. If the subsidy was removed, and liquid milk prices were varied according to seasonal conditions, powdered milk might capture a substantial share of the market, at least during the winter. The consistently high solids-not-fat content of powdered milk would appeal to many consumers. Another possibility is the sale during the winter of reconstituted milk produced, possibly, from powdered milk made from surplus town-milk supplies in the flush of the previous production season. Removal of the subsidy would save the taxpayer more than £5 million a year and would cost the consumer something less than that. It would involve reorganisation of the town milk industry; but that might well be in the industry’s long-term interests.