THE NEED OF MEAT MARKING.

Evening Post, Volume LVII, Issue 21, 26 January 1899, Page 4

THE NEED OF MEAT MARKING.

A cable message from London published in our issue of yesterday states that the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with food adulteration has been announced by the Right Hon. W. H. Long, President of the Board of Agriculture. It would be easy to show how much the people of this colony, as large consumers of British manufactured foods, are interested in such legislation ; bufc our present purpose is to show that we are more concerned in preventing fraudulent misrepresentation to the detriment of our food products in Britain, and that if our Government will at once make proper and at the same time emphatic representations to the British Minister charged with the carriage of this measure against food adulteration, a very great service may be rendered to the producers of this country. Ever since the fine quality and flavour of New Zealand mutton became known to the trade and the public in the Old Country it has been the custom of fraudulent dealers to palm off upon consumers inferior meat, mpstly Argentine, but commonly Australian, as the product of New Zealand. That this practice operates very injuriously upon our dead meat trade has long been recognised, and some two years ago an attempt was made to procure legislation by the Imperial Parliament to compel the marking of all imported meat in such a way as to show the country of its origin. Such a measure would have meant hundreds of thousands of pounds of added profit to our producers, but it would also have meant a very serious diminution of the fraudulent gains of the British butcher, and because of the latter reason it never came to pass. There is no man, we believe, connected with this trade who knows more of its inner ramifications than Mr. Thomas Mackenzie, the late member for Clutha, noAVj and for some time past, resident in London. Discussing the matter in October last with our London correspondent, Mr. Mackenzie said :—": — " It is perfectly true that among many of the London butchers an extensive system prevails of supplanting New Zealand meat by Argentine. There are many shops in which our trade is honestly carried out, but there are members of the trade who do the very reverse. For instance, at the present time our primesl Canterbury meat wholesale is 4d per lb, yet here is a circular in which a firm advertises 'prime Canterbury mutton' from l^d to Ad per lb. No one can sell Canterbury mutton at that rate, for, as I have been told, he would have to pay 4d if he bought the whole sheep. I could quote numerous instances to the same effect. Regarding the marking of the meat, that is the one thing the dishonest butcher dreads. When it was proposed to pass the Meat Marking Bill here two years ago, what was the consequence? The meat section of the London Chamber of Commerce bqcame greatly alarmed, and held meetings to protest against the proposal. I succeeded in obtaining admission to one of these meetings, and I urged that the measure should te allowed to pass, feeling sure that if English buyers could get our meat for what it really is it would increase the consumption, and satisfy buyers. But the butchers opposed it at every point. It was arranged at that meeting of which I have spoken that v I should give evidence before the Select Committee on the Bill ; but I knew perfectly Avell that I should not be called upon, and I never was. Now had the trade not been interested in maintaining the system in a very substantial way, why should they have objected to this Bill ?" As we have seen, the Bill that would have protected our meat by the marking of it came to naught, but why should not the necessary provision be contained in the measure now announced by the President of the Board of Agriculture? We would suggest that the Agent-General be advised by cable to urge the matter in the proper quarter forthwith as by special direction of the New Zealand Government.