RETAILERS SEEK BOYCOTT

Southland Times, Issue 23740, 11 February 1939, Page 19

RETAILERS SEEK BOYCOTT

NEW ZEALAND LAMB

PROMPT REPLY MADE TO CRITICISM Under the heading “A Tilt at the Meat Board,” a long letter was recently published in The Meat Trades’ Journal, London, alleging that the board was taking unfair advantage of a sheltered position in Great Britain to boost lamb prices and under-sell the British farmer. It is also suggested that the board regulated supplies to maintain high prices, and the article contended that it would be a just retribution if British meat traders boycotted New Zealand lambs. The letter was read at a meeting of the Bournemouth Association of Meat Retailers by a vice-president, Mr A. Nottingham, and it was agreed that it should be forwarded to the National Federation of Meat Retailers, asking them to approve it and forward it to the board. “UNFAIR IMPUTATIONS”

The next issue of the journal contained a reply from Mr R. S. Forsyth, British representative of the New Zealand Meat Board. He said that the letter had, so far, not been forwarded to him, but it contained so many “inaccuracies and unfair imputations” that he felt he must reply to it immediately. Mr Forsyth gave the reason why New Zealand lamb has been realizing a slightly higher wholesale price than the best quality Home-grown lambs. This, he emphasized, was not because of any “sinister manipulation” of supplies by his board, which, as everybody in the meat trade knew, was not engaged in actual trading and had no control over prices in any way. The board’s policy was to maintain through regulated shipments a steady flow of meat of a standarized quality and grade, to avoid gluts and shortages, and to secure a stable price. It was the fact that New Zealand lambs have been selling at a higher price than Home-grown that evidently prompted the Bournemouth letter. Actually, there is no ill-feeling in any part of Great Britain against New Zealand because of this. The reason for the average protest is that the fluctuation of prices this year has tended to “squeeze” the retailors’ margin of profit, with the not unnatural result that he has had something to say about it. Commenting upon the letters, The Meat Trades’ Journal remarked editorially that Mr Forsyth “would seem to have adequately replied.” The only observation that it had to make was that “it pays to advertise.” It was suggested that if Home farmers wished to compete with supplies from overseas they must produce the quality and advertise it.