MEAT TRUSTS.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIV, 24 August 1929, Page 11

MEAT TRUSTS.

NEED FOR CURBING LEGISLATION. MR W. D. LYSNAR’S VIEWS. In a letter to the editor of the London “Times,” Air W. D. Lysnar, AI.P. for Gisborne, writes as follows:—It is satisfactory to read the various publications in your journal on the subject of food supplies. The suggestion that foot-and-mouth diseases in either the Argentine or England has any important bearing upon the shortage of stock is not justified. The simple fact is that by the operation of the trusts in Argentine, England, New Zealand and Australia, it has made the production of fat stock unremunerative, and these operations are the direct cause of the shortage of fat stock to-day, and that will continue and become more and more aggravated until legislation is provided to deal with and curb trust methods. It should at once be recognised that the producers cannot fight the position themselves without the assistance of legislation both in England and in the dominions.

The Trusts in America. The meat trusts operated to turn the U.S.A, from, a large meat-exporting country to a deficiency country, and put many hundreds of thousands of farmers out of business; but that country passed legislation which in short freed it from the tentacles of the trusts by taking the control of the stockyards, freewfig and stock railway trucks completely 5 out of the hands of the trusts, and further enacted that none of the firms who dealt with meat in a wholesale way could be interested in any- retail business. From official American figures in 1927 the farmers were getting over £4 for a fat lamb, but before the elimination of the trust they were getting about £1 for the same class of lamb. Mr H. P. Williams, who was appointed a special commissioner for Australia to investigate and report on the meat question, made it abundantly clear in his valuable report thar. the Argentine farmers were in a wholesale manner going out of fattening stock because of the trust methods. His report also acknowledged that the power of the American meat trust was not a negligible thing, but went on to say that a firm in London now dominated the position, particularly as regards the beei trade, and if Australia did not wake up and organise for protection, its fat stock trade would become worth-

New Zealand’s Position. Now, regarding New Zealand’s position, dissatisfaction began about 1910 and unrest continued until 1917, when, through pressure, a Parliamentary Committee was set up to investigate. The Committee reported that there was a distinct danger in the meat and shipping trusts, and that the Government should make legislative protection; also that enormous profits were living made out of New Zealand released meat in Britain, and that the Government should forthwith consider a scheme for the export of frozen meat, and in conjunction with the Imperial Government, the distribution of meat in Britain. Since then in 1917, 1918. and 1921 Parliament made certain legislative provisions wit’: the object of trying to improve matters, but at the present time there is considerable public unrest upon this question in New Zealand as there has been no real solution obtained. The simple fact is that when dissatisfaction started there was a very large number of meat buyers operating in New Zealand. - Now there are not more than about what you can count on the .fingers of one hand; the others have either been bought out by the trusts or pushed out; and in my best judgment the meat trade of this country, New Zealand, Australia, and Argentine, and the hardships and difficulties of both the producers and consumers are to-day due mainly to the operations of the meat trust operating in London, and the question now resolves itself to this: Is the trust which controls the prices to be allowed to continue, or are the interests of many millions of consumers and farmers to prevail ? Sir William Haldane says: “The American packing houses engaged in this business claim and offer to prove that buying and selling direct they earn their whole expenses and profits from the by-products of the carcases, and thus the producers get the whole selling price of the meat, etc.” Now what do we find in the opening of last

I season, i.e., 1927-t-? The New Zea ; land farmers in mv district could only I get from the English buyers about 14s | fen- a fat ewe. equal lo about 3d I per lb, and about 18s for a fat ; lamb, which was equal to about 6d per j lb, and about 2os per 1001 b for best ox I beef, equal to about 3d per lb, and less for cow beef. At these prices the buyers take all by-products. Now, Air Editor, you and your leaders know if the thousands of retail shops controlled by the trust throughout England are ali lowing the consumers to purchase meat j at even approximately these prices; on i the other hand, it should be realised | that the above prices are not payable 1 to fanners. The question is how long is I this disparity to be allowed to con--1 tinue. If England does not take a hand i to assist in stopping this, the time will | come,when it will get very little meat j from beyond its seaboard. There might be some satisfaction to the producers if they knew- the consumer got the benefit of his cheap meat, but when he knows that the trusts and their organisations are deriving the benefit, to say the least it does not encourage the development of the meat trade. As results are proving, the farmer is being slowly forced to look for other avenues to live by or go out of business. Tn conclusion, I sincerely trust that in the interests of all classes of the. British Empire something will be done in a practical way in England to cooperate with the efforts being made by the Oversea. Dominions to grapple with a real national danger.

POSITION MISREPRESENTED. A LONDON (THTIC’S REPLY. (Oiir Special Goy-respondent). LONDON, May 31. The lettex- of Air W. D. Lysnar AI.P., in the Times (London) of May 20 was referred to a Smithfield authority for his criticism, and his view’s were that Mi- Lysnar had thoroughly misrepresented the position in the above letter. He went, on to say : “It is quite true that the buyers of meat in New Zealand have gradually been reduced, but that is not due to any action of the Trusts but occurred through the exporters paying the farmers in New Zealand (owing to extreme local competition to secure supplies) more than the parity of London values. This result is also reflected in the balance sheets of the big meat freezing companies—co-operative and otherwise—which have been buying meat from the farmers and shipping it to the British market. The Producer Protected. If the New Zealand farmers are not satisfied with the prices paid to them in the Dominion, they have always the open door to the great London City Corporation Market, probably the biggest open market oi its kind in the world. In this connection it is interesting to know that any small farmer may kill and freight his own meat to London at exactly the same rates as

any large exporter, and xvhen the meat arrives here the doors of the Smithfield Alarket are wide open to allow him to sell it through any of the stallholders on Smithfield fox- direct sale to the retail butchers. The retail butchers attend the Smithfield Market in their thousands every day, and as long as the New Zealand producer is able to market his meat direct to the retailer- there is nothing to fear from any trust or com bine. The producer in New Zealand has been receiving this season 9d to lOd per lb fox- his lamb on the farms, the buyer retaining the by-products, while the wholesale price of New Zealand lamb to-day in England is from B}d to 9Jd per lb. There is, therefore, no undue profit as far as the wholesale' distributor is concerned. AVith regard to retail prices, there is also no undue profiteering, as xve understand from visiting New Zealand farmers now in London, that the retail prices of New Zealand lamb in London are as low as the prices charges in the shops in New Zealand. imaginary Grievances.” It is difficult to see from these circumstances what injustice is being done to either the prpducei- in New Zealand ox- the consumer in this country. Certainly the Gisborne district which Mr Lysnar represents is not obtaining the very highest prices for their meat, but this is due to the inferior quality as compared with other districts in New Zealand. All- Lysnar, would, therefore, be rendering a greater service to his constituents if he would devote his energies to improving the quality of Gisborne meat rathex- than wasting his time on imaginary grievances against “Trusts.” A lettex- in reply to Air Lysnar’s assertions appeared in the Times of 27th in which his views of the position in the Argentine are stated to be errone ous.