Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1931 RUSSIAN BUTTER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 4 August 1931, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1931 RUSSIAN BUTTER

THE saying that imitation is the sincercst form of flattery will not seem a true adage to New Zealand dairy-farm-ers whose butter-boxes, used for the exportation of their excellent product to England, have been copied in every particular by the Soviet Government of Russia, which is striving to capture the English butter-market. The cablegram, referring to this matter and printed by us yesterday, left no doubt as to the exactness of the imitation:

Every dimension is the same, even the grading mark stencilled outside is the same.' When the outer covering is removed there is nothing to distinguish between it (the Russian butter) and the New Zealand article, unless the grocer himself uses an identifying ticket.

Of course a distinctive method of packing New Zealand batter is used for the purpose of differentiation, in order that the buyer may be able to detect at a glance Ne'w Zealand butter oxposed for sale. Knowing the superiority of the New Zealand article, a superiority to which the Russian butter-maker cannot attain, the Russian Government impu.Jenlly endeavoured to pass off its inferior product as superior by imitating, not New Zealand’s scrupulously clean and hygienic methods of production, but exactly copying this country’s method of packing its superfine butter for. export. Strangely enough, the conditions under which 'Russian butter is produced were described in a, paragraph (in our “local and general” column yesterday) furnished to a contemporary by Mr J. M. Schapiro, who recently returned to Auckland from Russia, where lie had taken special notice of the conditions under which butter is produced in that country. Without knowing anything of the Russian Government's method for passing off its inferior product as New Zealand butter, Mr Sehapiro said : Conditions under which Russian butter is produced should preclude its use iu other European* countries, where the standard of living is higher than that in Russia, and _ where hygienic principles of production are taken as a-matter of course. . . . So far from being clean he —(Mr Sehapiro) —thought definitely that, the (Russian) butter would be disease-carrying. The cows and the pigs lived and slept in the place where the cows were milked, and the sheds looked as though they had never been cleaned since they were built. Dried . cow-dung, inches deep, covered the floor, while the walls were grimy, with the accumulated dirt of the years.

We re-print that paragraph because wo hope that this article will be read in England by the New Zealand High Commissioner, who will thus have in his possession a means wherewith to enlighten. British housewives as to the difference of the conditions under which New Zealand butter and Russian butter are produced—the former under conditions of scrupulous cleanliness enforced by the New Zealand Government inspectors, and the Russian butter produced as Mr Sehapiro describes. When we seek tiie origin of this attempt to pass off Russian butter as the product of New Zealand, we think wo see the hand of Mr Saul Broil, who is described by a prominent London journal as “Moscow’s irrepressible trade emissary in England.” It seems that Comrade Bron had high hopes of persuading the Socialist Government of Britain to grant the Moscow Government long term credits which were to be used for building in British shipyards some fifty vessels for the Russian Government. Comrade Broil’s little plan was as ingenious as it was complete.' Russian products, produced by means of the Soviet’s slave-labour, were to be shipped to Britain in vessels built in British yards for tho Soviet Government, and the British taxpayer was to foot the bill ill the hope that the Bolshevists of Russia would one day repay the money with interest! But Mr Ramsay MacDonald and his colleagues did not fancy that their prestige with the British electors would bo enhanced by supporting such proposals, the more especially as there were, and still are, a large number of British vessels in English ports, ready for sale or chartering. It is understood that the British Socialist Government was willing to furnish credits for such a scheme, but apparently the Russians wanted nothing less than a fleet of fifty new vessels of their own, built by means of the British taxpayers’ money. The negotiations foil through, as was right that they should.’ But apparently Comrade Saul Bron, nothing daunted, has come forward with another plan for giving the British Government the opportunity of furthering Russia’s economic development.

Comrade Saul Broil —(we read) — has cunningly declared that Russia’s foremost need is really electrical equipment for her vast new factories ; that British craftsmen in this particular line are esteemed the world over; and that there are wonderful orders awaiting British electrical equipment manufactures if the (British) Socialist Government will only provide new credits.

We do not know if this second plan of squeezing-money from the,.Bi'itish taxpayer succeeded any better than the first, but it was reported in London that Mr MacDonald and his colleagues looked favourably upon Comrade Broil's second scheme for using British capital for the purpose of promoting Russia’s industrial plans for underselling British manufacturers in their home market. No plan seems too fantastic for entertainment by Comrade Broil and his colleagues in London; no device for “stealing a march” on John Bull, it seems to them, should be neglected. This dodge of “getting up” Russian butter-boxes in the exact likeness of the New Zealand product, seems to be in keeping with the methods of the Soviet's business representative in London. Whether the project which they have in mind is great or small, it seems that they invariably will “play their game” in accordance with rules which are of their own I curious devising, and quite different 'from the accepted rules of civilised and cultured nations.