DOMINION MEAT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18089, 16 May 1933, Page 11

DOMINION MEAT

MARKING OF PRODUCE COMPLAINT FROM LONDON CONTRARY TO PRACTICE Astonishment is expressed by Auckland meat exporters and officials at t he cablegram from London, published on Saturday, alleging adverse effects from the marking of New Zealand meat. All the points raised in the cablegram are said to be contrary 10 New Zealand practice and experience and therefore, not applicable. The cablegram stated that Hr. Dunlop Young, chief meat inspector in London, in giving evidence at the meat marking inquiry, said ii he wine a butcher he would certainly prefer unmarked meat. “Alluding to New Zealand experiments of marking advertisements on carcases,” said the. message, “Air. Young said he thought a small stamp on the principal joint would be a guarantee of origin, inspection and wholesomoness, without adding to the cost. “Recently he had seen cases ol internal decomposition of New Zealand mutton, presumably duo to too long hanging before going to the chilling rooms. The use of extensive ink marking created an immense risk ot the fat absorbing methylated spirit. Witness instanced meat absorbing the flavor of oranges on the same ship and also an oily taste from oil-burning vessels.”

ONLY LOCAL MEAT STAMPED. “It is .difficult to know what the message means,” said one exporter, “for the reason that no New Zealand carcases exported to Britain bear u mark. The wrapping is marked wiln the stamp of the works of origin, and the meat is ticketed with a printed ticket; issued by the Department ot Agriculture. Certainly I have never heard of advertisements being stamped on meat.”

The only meat to bear a stamp was that used for New Zealand consumption, and this was marked to meet the requirements of the law. The stamp showed the works of origin and was applied with a special ink that was entirely harmless. As was to be expected there had never been a complain that the stamp had harmed the meat.

Referring to the statement that. New Zealand mutton had been affected presumably through hanging too long before going to the chilling rooms the exporter said the system of .slaughtering and freezing would not allow this to happen. Assuming that decomposition had been detected in a carcase, such a case would be extremely rare. As for the absorption of the taint of oil and oranges during shipment, he did not think this could happen with meat that had been frozen.

An official of the Department id Agriculture said he was at :i loss to understand the reference to marks on Now Zealand meat in London, since the only meat, marked was that for New Zealand consumption. He had nevi'r heard of advertisements being stamped oh ’.New Zealand meat. II such an instance had occurred lie could only suggest that someone in London had been experimenting in that direction. No marks were placed on the meat before it left New Zealand. INK ENTIRELY HARMLESS. !

The ink used for marking 'meal on the New Zealand market was entirely harmless and had never caused complaint. Methylated spirit would bo applied only if the ink had become thick, and it quickly dried out, ll had never caused any adverse ell'cct. He could not recall the last occasion on which there had been complaint of meat absorbing taint, in transit. .Such an occurrence was very rare.

The. inquiry in Britain is being made into an application for an Order-m-Council under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, to require the marking of imported meat and dressed and undressed poultry with an indication of origin. For the purpose of the application the term “meat ” includes beef, veal, mutton, lamb, bacon, hum, pork, offals and sausages, but docs not. include cooked, canned or potted meat.