BUTTER QUOTA

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 20, 24 July 1933, Page 6

BUTTER QUOTA

(To the Editor.)

gj r) Your correspondent,' Mr. Leonard McKenzie, in his letter of July 17, only states one side of the important question of butter quotas. It is a fair question to ask who are the "powerful influences" .at • work in England in order to bring the quota system into operation. Of a certainty, they are not the bulk of the British people or their representatives, for it is in the interests of the masses (who are "consumers) to get butter at us low a price as possible. To my mind, the whole question ought to be" settled on the question as to whether saturation point has been reached, and not as to who is going to gain by it. Mr. McKenzie says that there is more butter offering vthan England can ever consume.. . This is not correct. The average New Zeahfnder consumes 341b of butter per year, whereas the' English average is only 2Qlb per year,. Is Mr. McKenzie going to say that we cat too much butter? Consider the increased consumption that would take place if every relief worker was on full wages. Does Mr. McKenzie know that, as a result of experiments conducted in England in soifce boarding sqhools for boys, the l>oys fed on New Zealand butter improved in weight, height, and general health second only to those boys who were given xan extra ration of a pint of milk daily? A pound per week wa^ the extra ration. Tie reason given was .that the New Zealand cow, living a more .healthy life, with more sunshine, etc., produced better quality milk with more -vitamins,' and yet some would have us give in to these "powerful influences" when we,' in addition to the British consuming public, are going ,to be the losers. Consider also, the enormous number of men who were rejected in England during the war as being unfit for military service and all the ill health that this signifies, and whether these; individuals would not have been bigger and .stronger if they had been decently fed during their childhood days, It is maintained that New Zealand farmers will gain (by increased prices) as a result of the restriction.- This is fallacious. Butter is in "competition with margarine, (all grades) and dripping, and there is no guarantee that increased prices will recompense the New Zealand farmer for the loss of production. Furthermore, you cannot produce less in quantity on a farm or any other business without raising your unit cost of production, for so many things remain unaltered in price, whether you produce, say, IO.QOOIb of butterfat or, 15,0001b. lam not saying that we will not hav,e a butter quota. It seems fairly evident that we will have to' have it, willynilly, but New Zealand should fight the thing whether it is an accomplished fact or-not.—l am, etc., '..;.-■;

H. G. RICHARDSON,