TALK ABOUT MILK

Taranaki Daily News, 18 February 1933, Page 10 (Supplement)

TALK ABOUT MILK

THE SUPPLY IN LONDON; QUESTION OF PASTEURISATION. English advocates of compulsory pasteurisation have a big fence to clear in the dairymen of London before they secure legislation granting the necessary powers. In November about 500 mastermen who are outside the big combines surged into a hall in London—a. hall-that was hardly big enough to hold them all—and ’ then registered a unanimous protest against the new movement. There was an unspoken declaration that the moving spirit behind the agitation are the big London combines, and that if they were successful it would mean the biggest threat that the “small” man has ever had to face. Up to the present most of the limelight has been shining on the Bill emanating from the Manchester Corporation, but it appears tnat a strong campaign is also afoot in London, and that the various boroughs have been circularised and the Public Health Committee asked to'record a vote on the matter. As in the case of Manchester, it is suggested that powers might be sought in the annual General Purposes • Bill of the London County Council, a measure which usually passes through its various stages without members paying a great deal of attention to its contents, so numerous are the clauses. So far the majority of the boroughs had not voted, and the dairymen decided to take every step to see that their point of view is made known. Pasteurisation in itself is not opposed, and it is emphasised that the London public is already able to get all the pasteurised milk that it wants. “SMALL” MAN’S PLAINT. The objection of the dairymen is one that will apply to most produce-retailers who happen to be in the affected areas, for the association that looks after the Lpndon men’s interests has computed that a retailer will have to be doing oyer 200-gallons a day before he will be able to afford the necessary expensive plant. If he is not able to do the pasteurising himself he will have it done by some more powerful concern, and the bottles he sends out will bear the imprint of that firm’s name, thus giving them a free advertisement. It was suggested that if the association joined hands with the National Farmers’ Union in fighting this menace to their existence they would be much more likely to meet with success. AN INSIDIOUS DECEPTIVE WAY. Mr. Hugh Jones said khe would not condemn pasteurisation; time-alone would prove its value. Whatever happened, the agitation was not a good onieh for the smaller man. Capital and brains, and the facility to look after oneself were going to beat them if they were not careful. There was more behind this than met the eye. It was- an insidious, deceptive way of getting the matter into the minds of the high authorities—with one object. The object was to do away with the little man and to make it impossible for him to continue in business. The combines had failed with the bottling question, and now there was. this new turn of events. Pasteurisation was only a way of covering up defects. It was going to make it possible for people to buy milk of any description, bring it to London, and bottle it, and that was an end of the matter.

After much discussion, the meeting unaminously passed a resolution regarding as a retrograde step the proposal to confer on local authorities the power to require all milk, other than that tuberculin tested, sold in their ’area to be | pasteurised. The resolution urged the Minstry of Health to bring pressure to bear upon the production of clean milk from the source of supply.