HONEY CONTROL BOARD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21325, 28 October 1932, Page 15

HONEY CONTROL BOARD

Sir,—ln a letter to (lie llekald, .Mr. H. Geddes urges the abolition of the Money Export Control Board. In view of Mr. Cockles' sweeping generalisations 1 would be glad of the privilege of stating the facts regarding the board's operations. The marketing of honey in England to day is carried on by a system of open competition such as Mr. Geddes advocates (apart from New Zealand's exports). The result is that the price obtained ranges between ljd and 3d per lb., and out of this the London agent deducts a commission. For many years New Zealand honey was marketed under the same system, and the result was that honey was sold at a loss. Beekeepers were forced to cooperate and press for protective legislation. Splendid honey from Russia is today being sold at, about, 2d per lb. Russia plans to shortly export 100 times as much honey as New Zealand does. The price in that event would aytomatically drop in a competitive market, and we* would have to accept the competitive price or cease to export. Under the Honey Board a distinctive method of marketing has been developed, that _is the subject of admiration and emulation in the beekeeping press of the world. Mr. F. Lawson, a British authority, in his book, "Honeycraft," says:—"The New Zealand Government has set an example to the world in the farsighted legislation enacted to foster and develop the honey industry. The control of the industry is a pattern for other countries, and the marketing policy has placed New Zealand honey beyond the effects of open competition, with returns that arc consequently a substantial improvement 011 those received for other imported honeys." Also, the recent report (upon the export marketing of honey) obtained by the Prime Minister by special instruction to the High Commissioner in London, was so completely favourable and even enthusiastic, that it has only to be read by any unprejudiced person to effectively dispose of any adverse criticism of the Honey Export Control Board. Mr. Geddes says that "honey is of no commercial value." As applied to the local market, this is mainly correct, but the reason is that honey producers had deserted co-operation and had adopted the policy Mr. Geddes advocates: Open competition. Beekeepers are now sadder and wiser (and poorer) men, and as a result have flocked back to the co-opera-tive system almost unanimously. A new voluntary co-operative company to mai'Ket honey has been formed with remarkable support, producers representing threequarters of the total honey production of the Dominion undertaking to become active members of the company. At large and representative meetings of producers to consider the, proposals for the company, strongly-worded resolutions of support of the policy and operations of the Honey Export Control Board were carried unanimously. This collective and overwhelming support for the board from producers gave very complete and effective evidence as to the high value placed by the producers upon the marketing operations of the board. As regards the distribution of honey to the consumer, the industry acknowledges the flcbt due to the genuine merchant and retailer in this respect. But, also, the industry fears the selfish, ruthless, greed-inspired operations of the speculator-dealer, whoso grasping ends are best served by chaotic disorganised conditions that make producers an easy prey. In conclusion, I would recommend anyone who is interested in the honey industry or in the operations of the Honey Board to read the three recent official publications:—"The Demand for Honey" and "Marketing of Honey and Beeswax in England," both written by the Empire Marketing Board, and "The Prime Minister's Report an Honey Marketing in United Kingdom." P. A. Hillahy. President, National Beekeepers' Association of New Zealand.