“Meeting On Milk Will Not Solve All Faults”

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31062, 18 May 1966, Page 27

“Meeting On Milk Will Not Solve All Faults”

The meeting between the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board, the Committee of Supply, and other interested parties to discuss the city’s milk supply will not solve all the faults in Christchurch town milk supplies, or in the Milk Act of IM4, its amendments and regulations, said Mr G. J. Watson, president of the Milk Consumers' Protection Association yesterday. Consumers would still receive a very poor deal from this monopoly, he said.

Mr Watson said that last April a news statement was made that the Committee of Supply of Christchurch would call an open meeting with the Metropolitan Milk Board and other interested parties to discuss the supply of milk to the city, subject to the strict condition of newspaper reporters being present. “Upon making inquiries, as an interested party,” Mr Watson said, “1 was courteously informed' by the committee chairman, Mr E. F. Stokes, that the Milk Consumers’ Protection Association was not considered to be an interested party where solids not fat were concerned and that, although most welcome to be present, no representative of ours would be entitled to speak. That statement is contentious and is not supported by all members of the milk board. Apparently no member of the public will be permitted to inform the meeting of the sins of administration in milk supplies or to discuss any method of relief. “Adulterated Milk” “This association was formed in 1952 and was the first group to object to substandard milk being sold. We have always known that such milk, in the eyes of the law, is called “adulterated milk” and that it is illegal to sell

it. Moreover, the responsibility of policing the milk supplies of Christchurch is the chief statutary function of the milk board, who, in turn, think that the Department of Health is the only one that can prosecute offenders.

"Recently a statement was made by the Federated Farmers condemning the principle of being penalised for supplying milk deficient in solids not fat. Generally speaking, they do not want to introduce fresh blood into their Friesian herds, preferring to obtain quantity rather than quality, but there are numerous producers today whose milk standards are higher than the minimums set by law and it is possible to produce 4.0 in butterfat and 9.0 in solids not fat. “From the days of my youth, I well remember that the cheese factories of Banks Peninsula used to pay out on milk tests and that among their producers there was competition for the pride of first place on quality. All were keenly interested and their herds were mostly Holsteins, now called Friesians. “It is fair to say that pay-

ment on quality has everything to commend it, but if milk substandard in soli L not fat is to be incentive.y penalised as it is in some places, then milk of higher standards should be incentively rewarded. Another comparison is that milk deficient in butter fat is paid for as second grade but when deficient in solids not fat it is not. There should be no distinction. Deficiency should be called second grade and penalised accordingly. Just touch the producers’ pockets and results will come automatically in time. “In the meantime the law is still being broken but the Minister of Health should be congratulated, even if belatedly intimating to producers that if the Committee of Supply does not honour its obligations, then the department will do something about it.

“It is to be regretted that this meeting will not solve all the faults in Christchurch town milk supplies or in the Milk Act 1944, its amendments and its regulations. Consumers still receive a very poor deal from this monopoly.” Mr Watson said.