The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1930. CHEESE STANDARDS.

Southland Times, Issue 21265, 11 December 1930, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1930. CHEESE STANDARDS.

Speaking in general terms, it is not unjust to say that the North Island exerts a greater influence in dairying matters than the South, and that the influence of Southland is less than the influence of the South Island, so that it is significant that there is in the North Island a big body of opinion opposed to the continuation of the export of ‘‘standardized” cheese. This opposition has been articulate in Taranaki, the province from ■which, the first proposal to export standardized cheese came, and it has been strenghened by' the decisions of the Dairy Control Board speaking on behalf of the industry. Therefore, it is unwise to put forward the idea that the objection to standardized cheese comes from a small section of the industry or that it is being engineered by a coterie which does not understand the position. The latest move is that the minimum percentage of butter-fat shall be raised and that the name shall be changed from “standardized” to “eheddar”. This request is, in itself, a confession that standardized cheese earned for itself a bad reputation last season, and that continuation of the scheme under that name is unwise. But it will be remembered that when this project was discussed by a conference in Wellington, prior to its being legalized, the stringent requirements of the British Pure Pood Laws were mentioned by the representatives of the Dairy Division, and, we understand, any diminution of the amount of butter-fat. in the milk by artificial means in the course of manufacture must be made known when the goods arc marketed in the Old Country. If this is true, the increase of the minimum will not remove the obligation to disclose that skimming has been done, and the cheese manufactured under this process will come under suspicion, despite the new regulations. The introduction of the new name will not be without its dangers, because the purchaser in Britain will become aware that “eheddar”, is a new cloak to hide an old process. So far as the maintenance of New Zealand’s reputation for quality is concerned the retention of the term “standardized” is better • because it gives no suggestion of deception; but obviously the promoters of this method of making money do not wish to pursue that line —they wish to get away from the unsavoury reputation earned by the term “standarized cheese.” That is .where our correspondent the other day went wrong when he referred to the manufacture of whey butter. Whey butter is an article well-known in the trade, and it never masquerades as something as good as butter made from fullcream. To put whey butter on the London market under the title of “New Zealand Farm butter - ” would be dangerous, and such a practice would not be tolerated by the industry for one minute. So far as the Romney wool argument is concerned, we think the i ntroduetion of a “standardized” bale from which a certain quantity of the wool was withdrawn or info which other less valuable wools were inserted, would be a case analogous to “standardized” cheese, as a deliberate act, and ■would call for action for suppression to maintain the Dominion’s reputation for honest dealing. Deter-

ioration in the quality of Romney wool has not come as a deliberate attempt to reduce quality or quantity in order to secure returns in other directions. The reputation of New Zealand cheese is too precious a thing fo be risked lightl.y, and when any departure from the practice which has built up that .reputation results in objections and warnings from those who arc handling New Zealand’s goods in the Old Country, it is time to protect, not the London agent, but the New Zealand producer against the evil resulting from the actions of his short-sighted fallows.