The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1925. EMPIRE FOODSTUFFS.

Evening Star, Issue 19017, 12 August 1925, Page 6

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1925. EMPIRE FOODSTUFFS.

Thk lnrgcr tho trade within the Empire the more prosperous and safer the Empire, says the ‘Daily Mail’ in commenting on the report of the Imperial Economic Committee on the marketing of overseas foodstuffs. This report, judged by the summary of it which has been cabled, does not appear to contain material stimulative of comment other than platitudes of the well-worn kind. It certainly has not the controversial element which attached to the first report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices which appeared three months ago. The Food Commission, it will he remembered, disclosed and commented on a good many doubtful practices in the distribution of the people’s food, but it wound up rather lamely with the proposal to set up a food council to bring about a hotter understanding between trader and consumer. The Imperial Economic Committee urges that an executive Commission should be set up to supervise the expenditure of the British Parliament’s annual grant for the marketing of Empire produce. It also insists that some department of State should bo responsible for seeing that the correct labelling of goods is observed by retailers. Beyond stressing the need for educating the British public to appreciation of the qualities of Empire produce, and taking the above steps to ensure that, when this favorable acquaintance develops into a preference, the buyer shall not be put off with a substitute falsely labelled under an Imperial guise, the report appears to exhaust its framers’ capabilities. It is perhaps disappointing, but there exists adequate reason why this must bo so. Britain finds herself totally unable, for fairly obvious reasons, to entertain the idea of preferential taxes on food, and the only apparent alternative method of fostering Empire trade contains within it certain elements of State Socialism, to which the Government in power and its advisors outside Parliament are not particularly drawn. Apart from the question of schools of political thought, the State Socialistic method is not considered by its opponents to be any more free than the Preferential tariff method from the objection that it would increase the cost of living to the British masses.

The position from this standpoint was pub by Mr T. H. Ryland, a member of the Royal Commission on Food Prices, in his minority report. In that document he thus stated his objections to the setting up of a food council: “While my colleagues concede that the competitive system has worked and has ensured the nation a regular and uninterrupted supply of bread and meat, nevertheless, in proposing the setting up of a food council, they propose a definite advance in the direction of State Socialism. Apart from objections to the amount of irritating interference with business by bureaucrats and amateurs which their proposals would involve, the gravest aspect of their scheme is that, while it is certain to impose a heavy burden on the taxpayer, it would entail a serious risk of actually increasing the cost of the people’s food. ... It is obvious that the new department would require a very largo supervisory staff, distributed throughout the country, for the effective performance of its inquisitorial duties in respect of as yet undefined permissible rates of profit, and of its other functions which are more or less indicated. My colleagues trust that the impression will not be formed that they suggest the establishment of a new department with an unwieldy staff engaged in a permanent inquisition into the wheat, flour, bread, and meat trades. How a small staff, with assessors, could suffice for the thorough performance of the council’s duties is not shown. The proposals, in fact, provide all the setting for the creation of another Government department of first-class dimensions.’’

The attitude of retail traders was at the same time forcibly put by the secretary of the Union of London Meat Traders, who said: “As to the charge of substitution and false description of meat, out of which the Food Commission’s proposal for registration of butchers arose, ho thought the inspectors appointed by the local authorities were very efficient and butchers’ shops were already very closely inspected. Ho added that retail meat traders in London were divided on the question of registration, but that there had been no official demand for it in London. Also (he added), this proposal means another form of control, and we have had some experience of that during the war. The tendency of the trade has been to improve, and reforms are coming from within rather tham from outside. Competition, too, is so keen, not only between groups of traders, but inside those groups, that prices are kept at the lowest figures. These will not be affected by registration or by the work of the Food Council, which will simply constitute an additional piece of machinery, performing no useful function and causing expense and irritation.” There may be some doubt in the mind of. the public whether competition and the force, of public opinion will suffice to keep the balance fair, particularly as the existence of rings in all departments of business renders the presentday definition of competition quite a different thing from'what it once implied. But the introduction of the xua-

chinory of State supervision is undoubtedly regarded by many as too expensive a euro altogether. And there is another aspect of the matter of recent development which possibly influenced the Imperial Economic Committee in restricting the scope of, its recommendations. An investigator pointed out not long ago that Britain in all probability would have to face increasing competition in obtaining her food supplies. “ Before tbo war,” said this -writer, “ this country absorbed practically the whole world output of refrigerated meat, but the decimation of the flocks and herds of the European countries that wore involved in the war and the disposition to eat more meat created by flic war-time habit of those who were engaged on military service have induced a phenomenal increase in tho imports of refrigerated meat into Continental countries, which now approximately equal the pre-war volume of imports of refrigerated meat into this country. To attempt to impose control upon the complicated processes of the food trades and to expose those engaged in those trades to further incalculable liabilities can only bo described as a policy involving very grave risk to the consumer.” Corroboration of this is found in tho fact that Australia and New Zealand are now less inclined than formerly to concentrate on Britain as a market, hut are seeking to open up new markets on the Continent of Europe. It would really appear that tho Imperial Economic Committee has delayed so long in presenting its report, that its freshness has become staled before its appearance. The report would also have had more interest in this part of the world if it had contained some reference to the vogue of co-operative marketing by producers in the overseas dominions.