Defence Of Regulations Attacked

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32213, 4 February 1970, Page 10

Defence Of Regulations Attacked

The defence of the petfood section of the Meat Regulations, 1969, by the Director of the Meat Division of the Department of Agriculture (Mr I. G. Watt) in “The Press” last week would have been more convincing had it been based a little more on fact and a little less on emotion, said Mr G. M. Edmonds, in a statement on behalf of the Social Democrat Group.

"Allowing that it was not the intention of the regulations to put people out of business, there is no doubt that this would be a direct result of their implementation,” Mr Edmonds said. Mr Watt had said that the pet-food section of the regulations contained reasonable requirements which were expected to provide a safe . means of feeding pets, and|j

of protecting their owners against the risk of infection.

“Just as Mr Watt attributed to Mr A. B. Flutey part of a statement I made, he likewise attributed to Mr Fluted a statement on the killing of dying stock which originated from a spokesman for the Department of Agriculture in Christchurch on January 16,” Mr Edmonds said.

His group would like more factual evidence of “dead stock which could have died from a variety of causes, including many infectious diseases which can seriously affect both humans and animals,” actually being sold in pet-meats shops. Mr Watt’s justification for the regulations on the grounds that "this type of meat presented a very real risk to the pets to which it is fed, and to the owners of such pets including their children” was tantamount to an allegation of dangerous irresponsibility and indifference on the part of pet-meat suppliers.

“How many cases of food poisoning, may we sak, have been traced to pet meat?” Mr Edmonds said.

“While we agree that the meat industry is very vulnerable to adverse publicity, we cannot agree with Mr Watt’s blanket assertion that ‘meat is meat in the eyes of the public here and in overseas countries, whether the meat concerned is intended for human consumption or not’ If this were so, may we ask why the regulations for the slaughter of animals for pet food are so much more rigorous than those for the killing of deer and other game for human consumption? “There are so many peculiar things in these regulations that do not add up that it is only just and right that interested persons should have a chance of discussing the various clauses with the Department of Agriculture,” Mr Edmonds said. “If the regulations are—as the chairman of the dairy section of North Canterbury Federated

Farmers (Mr F. H. Eggleston) called them—‘a mighty big sledge-hammer to kill a very small fly,’ it would seem as though our original claim of unbridled bureaucracy may not have been very wide of the mark. “Meanwhile, we have received word from the private secretary of the Minister of Agriculture that our public petition protesting against the enforcement of Part 13 of the Meat Regulations has been placed before the. Minister, and that he pro-.' poses to reply as soon as pos-‘ sible.”

The Social Democrat Group 1 had also accepted an invita- j tion from a pet-meat retailed in Cuba Street, Wellington;; to organise a similar petition - with letters to members of-* Parliament in Wellington. ‘.‘Although this is outside the sphere in which Social' Democrats hope to have some; influence, it is, nevertheless, ’ complementary to the peti-. tion within the Christchurch area,” Mr Edmonds said. 7