Meat Board Policy

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31987, 14 May 1969, Page 16

Meat Board Policy

Sir,—The chairman of the Meat Board, as a farmer, appears to be more concerned with the return to his fellowfarmers at the expense of the freezing companies than with promoting the sale of meat in overseas markets. The I farmer has the option of tak-

ing the schedule price or shipping on his own account, so why object if the freezing companies accept all the risks and then make a profit? You do not hear anything from the board about the return to the farmer being too high when in a bad year the freezing companies lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. The board is sitting on s9sm taken from the producers, and if it cannot find ways and means of using this money for the benefit of the producers it should be returned to them. Alternatively, employ experts in sales and research who know what they are doing.—Yours, etc, NO NONSENSE. May 13, 1969. Sir,—The statement on lamb prices made by the chairman of the Meat Board was unwise and unfair to the export meat companies. Surely statements, if any, should follow, and not precede, any inquiry the board may hold. The chairman gave no recognition of the capital and operational costs of the freezing industry, shipping and insurance charges, and overseas marketing and development costs, nor to price fluctuations on the London market. Producers are obviously satisfied with schedule prices, otherwise more would ship on their own account. Comparatively, very few do because they are unwilling to take the risks involved. Producers and the export meat industry have a right to expect only considered and factual statements from the Meat Board: indeed many must be wondering whether the Meat Board as presently, constituted and manned it ih fadt a competent body.—Yours, etc, FAIR-MINDED. May 13, 1969.