Opposition to Meat Board

Press, 25 February 1977, Page 3

Opposition to Meat Board

PA London| The British Imported Meat Trade Association says that it opposes the New Zealand Meat Board’s decision to intervene in the British lamb market because of the recent fall in the price of NewZealand lamb. The association said in astatement that the association) and the New Zealand Meat; Exporters’ Council were) united in their total disagree-: ment with the unilateral ac-j tion by the New Zealand Meat Board in establishing a purchasing company in London) to intervene in the pricing i mechanisms of the frozenlamb market. Any intervention by the board in the United Kingdom' market mechanism could lead to artificial price levels, which) would have the opposite effect to that intended, the associa-. tion said. A “lamb mountain”! could be created, which could, not be to the benefit of prodivers or consumers. The association said arriv-j als of new-season lambs in January were delayed because;

11 of a strike in New Zealand, t forcing up London prices.) t Considerably increased recent! I arrivals coinciding with slack) . demand had resulted' in a I ( marked drop in prices. • However, in the last few (days there had been signs i that these lower prices had ■stimulated demand, and this ' trend should be accelerated I by a major television promotion campaign arranged by J the board. Fears of bad publicity in 'the Britain as a result of the /Meat Board’s intervention on Jthe lamb market were voiced i at the annual meeting of the ' Gear Meat Company. Ltd, in 'Wellington yesterday. ; The managing director (Mr !'L. A. Cameron) said it might I seem that New Zealand was /endorsing the E.E.C. with high-priced food for British • : consumers. ' i However, Mr Cameron said | I he felt the board had acted! ‘with responsibility in regard! i to farmers. Gear’s general manager, international marketing and fin-) ance (Mr I. R. McDougall)!

, said he did not feel the Meat . | Board had panicked. It was attempting to put a :i bottom on the market which i'had first to be stimulated by demand. It was now a matter ■ of wait and see for the next ; three or four weeks. I He said Gear was watching ; the situation closely and he I did not think there would be - any sales to the board, and i ‘‘certainly not by us.” Mr Cameron said there i were not many traders in ■ lamb in Britain and quesi tioned why they had not just I quickly joined forces. ! Asked from the floor i whether the Meat Board should market all meat, Mr • Cameron said a monopoly : would be a disaster. ; He said the Meat Board i stood behind competition but i noted that the danger the board faced in protecting 11 price structure was that it) l)affected competition. II Both the prices being re-) iceived and the level of con-) sumption of lamb sales in the) J United States at nresent were, i j “pretty good,” the chairman i

of the Meat Producers’ Board (Mr C. Hilgendorf) said in Adelaide yesterday. Mr Hilgendorf has finished a three-day meeting of the lamb promotion co-ordination committee — an organisation of home producers and importers supplying the American lamb market.

The American Sheep Producers’ Council and the two major importers on to the American market — New Zealand and Australia — are represented on the committee.

“We had a most successful meeting which continued the close collaboration enjoyed over the last seven years,” Mr Hilgendorf said. “Nothing startling emerged. The meetings are held for the purposes of co-operation and this includes ironing out anv difficulties there might be over the timing of lamb shipments."

He said that none of the difficulties at present being experienced with the marketing of lamb in Britain were being faced on the American market.