MARKING COLONIAL MEAT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 769, 18 March 1910, Page 8

MARKING COLONIAL MEAT.

•V v - A. BRITISH 81LL. : ,-' Some years'. ago Mr. Cameron, New Zealand Produce Commissioner in Loudon, suggested in his reports to the Governmen that all New Zealand meat should be branded, in order to prevent butchers from passing "off. Australian and Argentine meat as New Zealand. These suggestions led to a little experimental marking, being'done,-but the outcry from the London' ,cndl and,'the ..dislike of the British butchering- firms to anything in the nature'of a brand,'soon led to the shelving of the matter. There are two sides to every question. While it is contended that-New -Zealand would gain by making its meat with a State brand which consumers would come to recognise and learn, stood for goodimeat, there are -' those --who" declare that prices are kept up ; by:'"the fact' that different butchers at" Home undoubtedly do pay a better figure for New Zealand meat than they otherwise could do, mainly by virtue of the fact.'.they'pass it off as British to their ■ This view of the situation appeals strongly to the British farmer, 'as the „ following extract from the - "Live Stock ' Journal" of February i will indicate:—

"At the meeting of the Council of this Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, held in London on Tuesday, the Earl', of Chichester presiding, after a resolution relating to the, salo of con-densed-milk had been passed, another to support the Meat Marking'.jßill, which is to. bo introduced into the House of Commons, was moved by Mr. R. Orlebar. ".The • Bill, which was discussed in the... House of Lords last 'session, he said, provided that ■ all .meat;-:, : ,sent>^intoi,this,..country should be: 1 ' plainry'Tnarfced''';either l ' 'Foreign' or.' 'Colonial,'"'to'show the ' bivyer that it was;impor.ted.;and..not,.,English meat. Bvery.ono of-the chief •joints'would have to be stamped, and the exporter would have''to' dp-the l stamping." -It presented no insuperable difficulty. There was also a clause-in the; Bill providing that a 'but'chTer . :wKo"> "dealt-, in .as well as meat..should. be_compelled to (announce tlie-'fact'on'-his- shop front, so . that his customers . might . know' he dealt itt'both qualities of meat. Dealing with the 'objections- to the' Bill which were : Taise'd in'tho .'House:.of. Lords, he' ! said the:-Merchandise; Marks Act did not meet the case; , ; \ :ji;: ;j. "That Act had .been in'operation for sixtoen<,years,. land /nai ; ;one.-:case under it-brought into > ft'''court 'bf'iaw had been successful. v. .'lt -.could; not, be said that it .was a'vexatious, law, because the only people who' wonlil be inconvenienced would be those. who sold meat • fraudulently. The way in,.which a great deal of : foreign meat,was passed off as English was very vexatious .to farmers. Then there was'the "mutton r chop argument. 'It was's'aid 'that-it.wtral'd be impossible to- have-ever-y little bit of meat stamped; but thatxould be.got.ovcr by eliminating ■ from, the- operations of -the 'let all joints of meat, weighing .less ■ than 21b. This was not ; Protection,'as Earl Carrington' seemed to think, .but only an attempt to put tho English! meat trade ou a' fair footing. ■ ;• . "Colonel Le .Roy Lewis, pointed out ;that in tho House - of. Lords the chief opposition to the measure came from the members on the opposite side of poli;«cs J.t.wns stated ■that: people-whb«had-once-tasted foreign' or. colonial meat; would never again touch auglish., /Afteriextensive 'experiments on his own palate,, he-had-ho hesitation in caymg that English-meat was far and away- the best, meat to be obtained in England. The: argument that everything, down to kidneys, would., have to lie stamped, was rubbish,-though there were countries where even the mutton chops ..vrpre..; branded.•., ••:...• : .',. ■- , ~• ,- ;'-.''.l!he,'niotion..wa's.;'c : arri'ed."v ' '■