THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1935 BRITISH FOOD SUPPLIES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22141, 21 June 1935, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1935 BRITISH FOOD SUPPLIES

In his address to the British National Farmers' Union, Mr. Forbes took a broad view of the problems confronting food producers. He did not devote himself to New Zealand's particular interest but i!o that of primary producers as a whole, although he freely conceded j priority to the British farmers in; their own markets and asserted the; right, of the Dominions to second j place. Widening his ground again, j he 'showed that farming prosperity: could not proceed apart from that j of the consumers of its products. Plan» to help the farmers had therefore to be considered from the general as well as the particular point of view. Mr. Forbes can be congratulated on his fair and reasonable statement, one that should provni much more influential than if he had confined himself to New Zealand's case. A great deal of confusion and loss might have been avoided if in the first place Britain's food import and agricultural policies had been related to her other needs. Instead of applying such comprehensive methods, the solution of the problems of the various branches of British farming has been undertaken piecemeal, without any relation to each other or any reference to their effect on the national economy. AJ- j most every foodstuff has been | tinknred with—wheat, beef, bacon, mutl on, lamb,, potatoes, beet, herr ings, eggs and even hops—and the result is a patchwork. The question should be considered on the broad line* sketched by Mr. Forbes. British agricultural policy should be made a comprehensible and ordered whole, constructed so as to meet not only British farm needs, but also the requirements of a great Imperial trader. At present it leaves unansvpered the larger question of . overseas trade, while applying a maze of conflicting solutions to the problems of agriculture. A::iy number of instances of this conflict might be given, the British prefs having paid much attention to the anomalies created by the wisdom of the planners. One instance must suffice, however, and that one related to the immediate and pressing problem of beef. Even' with the existing subnidy of 5s per live hundredweight, British beef-raisers are losing money and many are switching over to milk, made lucrative by another of Mr. Elliot's plana. So the M<il!c Board is struggling to keep its finances afloat in the rising flood aboee consumers' requirements. At preuent . the excess supply is 10,000,000 gallons a month. This is turned into butter and cheese, often of low quality, and dumped on the market for what it will bring. To help the British milk producers to dis])Ose of this sideline, New Zealand has already been asked to accept butter and cheese quotas, and may be again when the Ottawa agreement expires on November 15. Thus it is seen that the beef problem affects the dairying industry, not only in Britain but in New Zealand and elsewhere. Nor does it end there. More dairying in Britain means more cow beef, the disposal of which is not only* affecting the generals meat market, but also reacting against the goodwill for Home-killed. In that way a new factor is brought to assist the steady decline in the demand for beef. The anomalies created when the State interferes with normal economic processes might be traced further, showing action and reaction, addition and subtraction, until finally no one could say where they stood or who had reaped the benefit. Enough has been said, however, to show that beef cannot be considered as a separate problem, nor milk nor anything else. Mr. Elliot's mistake has been in attempting to deal with them severally. If effective remedies are to be applied, agriculture must be considered as a whole, and also as a part of British national economy. That inclusive view was taken by Mr. Forbes in addressing the National Farmers' Union. He began well by saying that the solution of the agricultural problem lay in increasing consumption. That is the only sure and permanent way out. Curiously enough, the same remedy was offered by Mr. Elliot a fortnight previously. Speaking at a New Zealand Society luncheon, he said "the problem of the primary industries is to increase consumption." Since he admits that, .has he abandoned the idea of finding the solution in restricting supplies? Whatever Mr. Elliot may be thinking, the farmer's best policy is to supply a good article at prices his customers can afford to pay. If he can do that, there will be no need to talk of overproduction for a long time. His

trouble is that the price the consumer can afford to pay does not at present pay him. Obviously to restrict supply and so make the consumer pay more is to enter upon a descending spiral which must mean slow suicide for many producers and under-consumption for many more consumers. For Britain it also means, as Mr. Forbes pointed out, constricting overseas and employment at home—a most vicious spiral. The better way, the only sound and sure way, is to work on the cost factor, so that foodstuffs can be produced at prices ensuring maximum demand. Instead of seek-, ing to exploit the consumer, farm efficiency must be raised, so reducing costs to the level of prices. There is ample scope for improvement in New Zealand and, by all accounts, even, more on British farms. There they have still much to learn about specialisation, co-operation, grading and 'standardisation. A glance at current prices for fat stock in England would give New Zealand farmers cause to marvel. These should leave a profit margin, if full productive and distributive efficiency were secured. In the long run more will be gained by working for that, than by exploiting the market and so steadily constricting demand.