ECONOMIC REPORTS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19616, 21 October 1925, Page 12

ECONOMIC REPORTS.

PROTESTS FROM RETAILERS PRIOE OF NEW ZEALAND BUTTER, QUESTION OF LABELS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, September 3. What might be called the limited view of the Imperial Economic Committee's reports is being expressed freely by various retailers writing to The Grocer. For instance, a correspondent wants to know whether the. advertising of New Zealand butter is going to make it any cheaper for the consumer. He protests, he says, the spending of £2OOO per day to advertise colonial products if the money is to be provided by the Home Government. " The high prices the producers have obtained hitherto for their products," he goes on to say, "have been to the detriment of the grocer distributor, as they have meant very much reduced profits for the retailer. It is not nearly so easy to pass on increased costs to the consumer in face of the very severe competition that exists at the present time, and in this connection I would like to draw the attention of your renders to the speech of the chairman of directors of the Bank of New Zealand, in which he states that the value of butter and cheese, exoorted in 1924 amounted to £10,445,832 and £7.354,651 respectively, compared with £2,140,019 and £2,195,278 in 1914, these two articles alone showing an increase in values of £13,465,186, and he goes on to state that the export returns for the season which is now closing are not yet to hand, but it is anticipated that there will be a substantial increase. " The average price realised per lb on butter for 1924 was Is 6§d, compared with Hid in 1914. This gentleman goes on to lament that the butter-fat per cow produced in New Zealand is not so great as the butter-fat per cow produced in Denmark, and stated that if an increase of 101 b of butter-fat per cow per annum could be realised, that would mean an extra million pounds sterling to the dairymen. He further stated that 'if the yield could be brought up to 2501 b of butter-fat per cow per annum, even though no increase took place in the number of cows, the value of butter and cheese exported would, at current prices, be raised by another eight million pounds annually.' " UTTERLY CALLOUS." "What strikes me as being so utterly callous in that report is that there is no indication whatsoever that, even if by improving the strain of their herds the yield of butter-fat per cow could be largely increased, there is any intention on the part of the Bank of New Zealand and the dairying industry of reducing the export price and bringing it somewhere approximating the export prices that obtained in 1914. It is this reduction in price that the trade and public want,' and it is the high prices demanded by producers and manufacturers alike that are responsible for a great deal of the unrest in the industrial world to-day. "I think one of the most useful things that the new Food Council could do in the interests of the trade and the public would be to investigate the cause or need for the greatly-increased cost of butter, cheese, and many other articles of daily consumption to-day, as compared with the prices obtained pre-war. It certainly seems to me that the dairying industry have a lot to explain away, as to why they need 7d per lb more in 1924 than was considered satisfactory in 1914, for every pound of butter they export." LIMIT TO LABELS. In an editorial The Grocer also appeals for further consideration of the Economic Committee's reports, especially in regard to the matter of labelling. "There must be a limit to the use of labels," says the writer. "Assuming that these proposals become law, and the bacon curers of a foreign country organised a regular supply of a superior quality of bacon, what a magnificent free advertisement they would get by reason of all this compulsory marking! And yet this committee say: 'Anything which by reason of complexity of detail has the effec of harassing the retailer would, we feel convinced, defeat its own object.' Very true! The best thing colonials can do is to work amicably with the retailer instead of calling for legal pains and penalties. Durinpr this year the grocers have been asked to show Emnire goods, to put them to the front, to state their origin and in general to give them a good 'push.' They have willingly responded both employers and staffs. There is no need to appeal to their patriotism and goodwill ; they heartily favour colonial goods. Grocers can help to make Empire produce identifiable, but producers must do their share of the work. If progress in this direction has to be made, it will need to be done apart from Acts of Parliament, for without doubt attempts (o legalise the committee's proposals or to pass the Merchandise Marks Bill will meet very strong opposition. '