SALE OF EGGS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20459, 10 November 1934, Page 7

SALE OF EGGS.

Legislation Desired by Fanciers. PROTECTION FOR HOUSEWIVES Recommendations for legislation to bring the sale of eggs under the provisions of the Pure Foods Act were passed by delegates to the thirty-fifth annual conference of the South Island Poultry, Pigeon and Canary Association last evening. The New Zealand Utility Poultry Club had tabled a remit that the South Island Association should urge the Poultry Board to inaugurate a Dominion mark scheme covering the sale of eggs on the local market. To Protect the Housewife. It was stated by Mr Turner IWoolston) that before an egg entered Britain it must be marked. In New Zealand, there was no national mark which indicated to the housewife that it was a quality egg. The mark would make for separate classes and prices, and would protect the housewife. The Government should enforce this standard, and prevent the poultryman from selling inferior eggs. Mr Turner gave a demonstration with several eggs. They were seen to be bad. Nearly every country except New Zealand, added Mr Turner, had enforced standards. It was necessary to improve the standard for the protection of all consumers and prevent them from being victimised. Once the value of the system was known only marked eggs would be bought by the housewife. British System. In Britain “selected” eggs were sold as much as 4d below' the cost of “national mark eggs.” Since the inception of the scheme consumption had increased by 66 per cent and British eggs brought higher prices than Danish, which were formerly on a parity. A Dominion mark and penalty for selling bad eggs would mean, in Mr Turner's opinion, a jump in consumption of 25 per cent as had occured in Canada. Mr H. W. Boyns thought this marking scheme might prove a hardship to the small man w-ho was forced to sell to the stock agent. He proposed an amendment “That the conference urge on the Poultry Board that the Government be approached to bring the sale of eggs under the Pure Foods Act.” After further discussion the amendment was carried.