THE MARKETING OF FRUIT

Taranaki Daily News, 15 October 1930, Page 11

THE MARKETING OF FRUIT

I STANDARDISATION PLAN PARTIAL SYSTEM OF REGULATION TRIAL IN THE LARGER TOWNS. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The report of the Industries and Commerce, Committee of the House of Representatives on its inquiry into the grading, packing and marketing of fruit was presented in the House to-day. The report said evidence had been taken /from 44 witnesses from all over the country, and this had amply confirmed the contentions frequently put forward in the past by both producer and consumer that the disparity between the wholesale and retail prices was abnormally great. • The evidence had also ’confirmed complaints made by the Fruit Retailers’ Association of Wellington that unreliable packing, which sometimes amounted to fraudulent practice, was common in respect of fruit and vegetables offered for sale throughout New Zealand and that this packing had hampered free trading, to the detriment of the producer, the retailer and the consumer. ■ While it-is that the prevailing disparity between the wholesale and the retail prices of fruit and vegetables is affected by other factors such as high rents, the perishable nature of the commodity, etc.,” the report says, “the committee is forced to the conclusion that faulty packing has an extremely’detrimehtal effect, and consequently in the interests of all concerned in the industry this should be remedied with as little delay as possible.” The remedies generally advocated by those representing the different interests of the industry were compulsory standardisation of all fruit and vegetables offered for sale, both wholesale and retail, and the entire -elimination of all low grade fruit. While the committee appreciated the possible advantages that would accrue from standardisation, it felt it could not follow ■ in its entirely the advice tendered concerning it in view of the present difficulties. Its adoption would .involve drastic changes in the marketing system. However, it did recommend the adoption of a system of standardisation, but restricted both in its application and in regard to the produce to which it should apply. ■PRODUCER AND RETAILER. It was advisable that any ssystem should be\kept within such bounds as would ensure reasonably economic control and a maximum assurance of success. It was believed by the committee that the adoption of a restricted system of standardisation would. probably result in general standardisation becoming an accomplished fact more readily and satisfactorily than were a larger scheme adopted at once. The committee, recommended that standardisation should apply to the retailer as well as to the producer, so that any advantages to be derived from the system would be shared by the consumer. Outlining the I restricted system which it recommended, the committee srul that compulsory standardisation should be made to apply' to all apples, pears, lemons, onions and potatoes offered for sale through recognised commercial channels in the cities and larger towns. These commercial channels were defined as meaning all public auction marts, retail ‘fruit and vegetable shops, other stores selling, fruit and publicxfruit--stalls; ■ The ; articles mentioned ■ lent themselves more readily to standardisation 'than soft fruits and. other classes of vegetables, and the committee believed the benefits of standardisation would be more, quickly recognised if it were applied only to these classes of produce in the meantime.. The proposal concerning sales through commercial channels should meet all principal requirements, at the same time leaving the producer as unhampered as possible in the disposal of his produce by priv-. ate treaty either to- the consumer or to the fruit and produce trader, and the latter in the disposal of' unstandardised goods in any manner other than through the commercial channels referred to. It was evident that additional inspectors would be necessary to enforce the scheme, hence the proposal to confine standardisation to certain larger towns in the meantime. It was recommended that the additional cost of inspection should be borne by the industry, and to this end the committee advocated the imposition of a levy, not to exceed Id per package, to be collected through a duty stamp to be affixed by the producer to each package of standardised produce. It was recommended that the ■Minist®r;;pJiftuJd.he.'.empowered to extend the standardising' operations from time to time.

FAIR MARKETING ORGANISATION

“In the meantime the committee is of the opinion,” the report says, “thatmarketing methods with respect to fruit, vegetables and root crops, apart from apples, pears, lemons, onions and potatoes, could be improved by the introduction of what are known elsewhere as fair marketing organisations, and recommends that if-the producers cannot be prevailed upon to form such organisations the Department of Agriculture should consider the advisability of instituting a similar scheme for the whole of the Dominion. The principal requirement under this scheme is that of fair and honest packing.” Briefly, the scheme would be operated by the department issuing a registered mark to all market gardeners and others wishing to join. The rules would provide for fair anfl honest packing . nd suspension of the use of this registered mark if any producer’s package were found on inspection to be contrary o requirements. All fruit or vegetables packed under this scheme would be exposed for sale in auction rooms in lots separate from other produce of similar class, and the department would maintain a reasonably consistent scheme of inspection in these auction rooms. Together with this scheme would operate fair marketing regulations, under which dishonest packing would lead to prosecution.

The committee was strongly of opinion that a range of containers of shapes. and capacities suitable for all phases of the trade should be selected and brought into universal use by regulations. Under the Orchard and Garden Diseases Act, 1929, power already existed to give effect to the committee’s proposals, except those dealing with retail sale of, standardised fruit. As this could be provided for by means of a simple-amendment to the law the committee recommended the introduction of amending legislation this session.

DOUBTS ABOUT IMPORTED FRUIT.

Discussing imported fruit, the committee said it was unable to make any definite recommendations in view of the conflicting evidence offered. It was clear that exhaustive investigations should be made into this question, particular attention being paid to the carriage of fruit from the Pacific Islands, .te repacking in this country by auctioneers, which at present seemed to be done

without sufficient discrimination, and to the serious losses incurred by shipment of fruit in non-insulated vessels. Apparently some of the ships now being used for this purpose were quite unsuited for the work. Little evidence was offered on the subject of cool storage, and the committee recommended that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industries and Commerce should investigate the possibilities of developing cool storage of fruit in New Zealand. It especially recommended this‘suggestion to the Unemployment Board. The report adds: “In conclusion the committee desires to state that the present report does not claim to be entirely conclusive. The subject matter isToo large and involved for a sessional committee to deal with in all its ramifications. It is not even clear that a Parliamentary Committee has all the powers that are needed to clear up important doubtful points. In the opinion of the committee either it should be appointed as a recess committee with enlarged powers or alternately the inquiry should be continued in the fontcentres by the Department of Industries and Commerce, which already has all the needed, powers, and the Department of Agriculture, with which should be associated one or more members of Parliament.”