The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 9, 1935. More About Meat

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21418, 9 March 1935, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 9, 1935. More About Meat

We print this morning the full texts of the British White Paper on meat supplies and of the New Zealand Government's reply. The text of the White Paper agrees with the cabled summary printed yesterday, and adds only two points which require comment. One is the statement that the fall in meat prices on the British market is due to " the gen■'eral phenomenon of the world " depression,", and also to expansion of overseas production. In an important respect this is misleading. It may be true that these two courses have produced the fall in million and lamb prices. It would seem, however., that the main cause of the fall in beef prices is a swing of public taste away from beef. The following table, taken from the ■'"Economist," shows the supplies of beef and veal to the British market. over the last four years: REEF AND VEAL (In thousands of tons) 1930 1932 1933 1934 ImportsEmpire . • 81 115 119 Foreign •• 583 531 496 451 Total .. G46 615 611 600 Home supplies .. 622 573 560 Total supplies 1268 1188 1171 Wholesale Prices (Annual Average) (per 81b) 1930 1932 1933 1934 5/8 4/11 4/5 4/4 ' The only inference to be drawn from these figures is that the decline in beef prices is not due to an ! increase in oversea supplies. The second point requiring co.m- . ment arises in the British Government's statement that its intention is " to assure to efficient home proJ " ducers a reasonable return, and " not to stimulate an artificial exi " pansion of the United Kingdom 1 " livestock industry." In the light of the figures we have just quoted, this assurance is beside the mark. It is not a question of artificial ex- | pansion but of the artificial maintenance of a level of prices and production which is out of relation to demand. It may fairly be claimed that Mr Elliot has an inverted view of the consumer-pro-ducer relationship. His object seems to be to insulate the producer from the effects of changes in public taste. The weakness of the British Government's general argument when it is applied specifically to beef is worth emphasising because, as the New Zealand Government has seen very clearly, the whole meat question turns on beef. The British sheep industry is, from the point of view of total production, capital investment, and labour employed, much less important than the British beef industry. It is, moreover, reasonably prosperous and could probably hold its own without the assistance of subsidies or quotas. The trouble is that, in order to bolster up the beef industry, it is necessary to raise mutton and lamb prices as well, since an increase in beef prices alone would merely accelerate the decline in the consumption of beef. The New Zealand Government | comes to the heart of the matter when it says that, under the levy scheme, " our [New Zealand] mut"ton and lamb producers would be " heavily penalised to assist in the " solution of what is essentially a "beef problem." It is true that the British White Paper leaves open to negotiation the question whether the levy should apply to beef and veal only or to mutton and lamb as well; but it seems incredible that either Argentina or Rhodesia would consent to a levy on beef and veal only. For all practical purposes, j the scheme for a levy applies to both classes of meat. In a sense, of course, the weaknesses in the British case for the levy are beside the point. The British White Paper is an ultimatum, and a blunt one at that. The Dominions are told that the British meat industry must be protected at all costs and that, unless they agree to the levy scheme, there will be " drastic reductions of imports. The weakness of the New Zealand Government's reply is that it is merely a plea for more generous treatment. It gives no indication whether New Zealand will, as a last resort, accept quotas, or whether it prefers the levy or some combination of the levy with quotas.