The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED DAILY SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 1933. SHOULD THE DOMINIONS' MEAT BE BRANDED?

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 11833, 14 January 1933, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED DAILY SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 1933. SHOULD THE DOMINIONS' MEAT BE BRANDED?

The demand by the National P armors’ Union in Britain to the Ministry for Agriculture for the introduc ticni of a system of compulsory muring of imported moat is creating a great deal of interest and not a little concern both in Australia and in New Zealand. The main explanation put forward in support of the suggestion by the sponsors of the scheme is that such a step is necessary in order to protect the Home consumer. Inferentially, it is claimed it would also assist sfcockraisofs in the Dominions in meeting competition on the part of foreigners. Neither snggos Lion, however, appears to get. to the root of the matter.. Unquestionably, what is aimed at is that Ifomc-growri meat shall he preferred by the British housewife, with resultant advantage to the meat-growers at Home. It is not open to question, hut that there has been fraudulent misrepresentation in recent years by numbers of butchers at Home in respect of the origin of meat on sale In their shops. On the whole, however, prosecutions have not been so numerous as might have been anticipated. Tn most of thi> cases complaint has been that foreign moat has boon misrep. reschted ns either Aiistriii|aii) dr Npw Zealand/ The Meat/ Board ui this Dominion is in particular very hostile to the ' suggestion -and, indeed, H 33

threatened to fight it, and leave to oppose has been granted by the British authorities. ,As .far. as Australia is concerned, the Federal, Government makes no secret of the fact that it would prefer that tile idea were dropped and it has' offered t o support the protest. What has been said in hostility to the scheme is’ that, if the meat were branded, there would be a danger of blurring and smudging of the ink, to the detriment of the appearance of the-carcase. If, however, the marking were done, in such a manner ns not to detract from the appearance of the meat, this objection would, of course, lose a. lot of weight Stronger grounds of protest will require to be lodged. As we> hard already said, the ostensible reason for tlie application for the introduction of a system of marking imported meat is to prevent frozeii meat from Australia and New Zealand being sold as fresh English meat. This complaint A, certainly •flattering to the frozen meat from the Dominions. It is, however, easy to understand the viewpoint taken by the New Zealand Meat Board. Rightly, its members realise that meat, from oven New Zealand and Australia would he placed at a disadvantage if it had to- be marked. The general impression might soon arise that all branded meat was of inferior qliality. Tn 'connection with the demand for branding, it is interest ing to- note that the Medical Officer for Health for Islington, commenting on the hostility of the N.Z. Mo a t Board to the scheme, claimed in support of it that the ordinary Londoner was confused when buying meatin that lie thought of Canterbury (Kent) when ho saw lamb branded Canterbury (N.Z.)! It is beyond question that the branding scheme i* contrary to the spirit >'f the Ottawa agreements, which aimed at assisting the Empire producer. 11 rl’-a proposal had been limited to foreign meat, it: would have been a very difieienfc matter. No foreign country Could complain, seeing that at Ottawa what was decided was that the British consumer should bp encouraged to prefer next to home-grown. produce the Dominions’ products.