PRESERVATIVES IN BUTTER.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 14 May 1928, Page 2

PRESERVATIVES IN BUTTER.

EFFECT OF THE BAN. AUSTRALIAN QUALITY LOWERED. It would appear that the last word lias not yet oeen said about the prohibition of the use of preservatives in butter imported into the United Kingdom. "While as yet there have been no serious complaints about the keeping quality of the New Zealand article, which does not contain preservatives, Australian manufacturers of dairy produce, as was expected, are not finding the new position as easy. This is the impression gained from a communication received by an Auckland firm of dairy produce exporters from their London principals, says the “Taranaki Herald.” The letter deals particularly with the manner in which the ban ou preservatives affects unsalted butter, the statement being made that so much trouble is now experienced with unsalted and “unpreservatised” Australian butter that the firm in question is “leaving it severely alone.” “Up to the present we have had no serious complaint about the New Zealand article.” It is stated that New Zealand unsalted butter continued to command a premium of four to six shillings over . salted, but Australian unsalted butter was “hanging fire at about the same level • as Australian salted.” It is, of course, well known that many New Zealand dairy factories abolished the use of preservatives, a long while ago without the marketing of their produce in the homeland suffering. That, it is generally conceded, was made possible by the fact that high-grade butters skilfully made possess in themselves very valuable keeping qualities. A member of the dairy export trade, who has just returned to the city after visiting a groat number of North Island factories, said that nowhere had he heard any complaints about the keeping quality of their “unpresorvatised” output. Discussing the position, an exporter commented that any difficulty which might arise would be in the small retail trade, where shop butter might he kept for fairly long periods under conditions of storage which were not the best for New Zealand dairy interests, but the development of the situation would be watched. The most significant feature of the London letter describing liow the ban has prejudiced the Australian article is that it hears out the forecast made about the position of the Commonwealth when the new regulations were about to be enforced.