Farmers seek more research

Press, 20 August 1983, Page 2

Farmers seek more research

The meat and wool section of North Canterbury Federated Farmers wants the federation to actively encourage and support research projects involved with red meats, animal fats and human health.

“For too long we have accepted poor publicity on red meats,” said Mr O. J. T. Grigg, of Amuri, at a meeting of the meat and wool executive in Christchurch yesterday. Mr Grigg had moved a motion from the Amuri branch that Federated Farmers instigate medical research that could be used to refute the poor publicity that red meats had received world wide.

Mr J. G. McGrouther, of Darfield, pointed out that research could not be directed to reach certain conclusions or to “refute.” Instead research should be unfettered and, it was hoped, come up with answers acceptable to farmers.

He successfully moved as an amendment that the federation actively encourage and support research projects involving red meat, animal fats, and human health.

The North Canterbury meat and wool section’s chairman, Mr D. R. Davison, said the amended motion would go to the Dominion council of the meat and wool section in Wellington next week. A move at yesterday’s meeting by Mr A. D. H. Scott, of Hororata, to call for the referendum of farmers on meat marketing was defeated after a long and vigorous debate on matters before the present Task

Force inquiry into the project.

Mr Scott had said that farmers in his district were concerned that, in the worst case, the submission of the Meat Board to the Task Force would be adopted and the board would have total control of the industry.

He called for a referendum to be held “after all the relevant facts are known” to give farmers a say in their own industry. Several other speakers said that farmers did control the industry through their producer board representatives, who worked with the interests of producers at heart. Others said that the recommendation of the Task Force had to be. published before farmers could meaningfully comment on the proposals for the future. Sir Charles Hilgendorf, a past chairman of the Meat Board, said that he did not disagree that farmer opinion should be sought, but answers could not be satisfactorily gained through a referendum.

“In the immediate future there has to be some sort of control over meat marketing by the board,” he said, “and it is the worst time to make long-term decisions.”

Mr Scott’s motion was lost. A further motion from the senior vice-president of North Canterbury, Mr M. R. Murchison, was carried.

It read: The North Canterbury executive recommends that before a final decision is made on the future of the meat industry, that all farmers be fully informed so as to enable an informed decision to be made at national level.”