THE PRICE OF MILK.

Evening Star, Issue 21743, 11 June 1934, Page 2

THE PRICE OF MILK.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —I sympathise with “ Bitten Again” in his attack on raising the price of milk, not because 1 do not think it a justifiable increase in the winter months, but because a rise in any commodity hits a section of the people very hard. When we consider the price men pay for a pint of beer, which is not nearly so necessary a commodity, with its light costs of manufacture compared to the drudgery on dairy farms, with its early hours and constant delivery in all weathers, one should not grumble at Cd a quart foxmilk in the winter months, if it were not fox- the fact that many children have to go xvithout at such a price. I do not agree.with “ Bitten Again ” when he says that “ the suburban producer has the remedy in his own hands 'by delivering his milk to the customers himself, and saving the cost which the vendor charges for delivery.” ’At the present time the method of delivering this necessary commodity is the silliest, 1 most wasteful, and extravagant one, and should not be continued in an intelligent community. In one street alone yoix see milk vans of all colours and sizes, up-to-date vehicles, and dilapidated, contraptions passing each other for hours on end delivering a pint here and a quart somewhere else, and this in a community that complains of the costs of . production. The present delivery of milk is about as old-fashioned as the street pump would be in these days, and .what would the modern woman think xf she had to carry all the water she used in the home from a pump at the corner? The drudgery of the dairy farmers would bo lessened by half if people would establish a municipal milk supply, where all the milk could be deposited at the depot, sterilised, and delivered by up-to-date methods, as is done with our letters. Cream, butter, and eggs could also be a part of this municipal scheme, 'and after paying the producers a fair return lor their produce, the people could buy all these items at a reasonable chax'ge and the municipality would get working costs out' of the undertaking and be doing a sex-vice to the people it represents. According to a report the Wellington municipal milk supply made a profit on its year’s working, and this, to my mind, should be given back to the people in the form of cheaper milk. We have health camps for children where they get plenty of milk for a few weeks, and then they are sent back to their homes where the milk is as scarce as money in a relief workers home, and we do this sort of thing instead of putting into practice a method of milk delivery that would ensure a plentiful supply of this necessary tooci all the year round, and also save a tremendous lot of dreary toil in a hardworking industry.—l am, etc., Modern Methods. June 11.

TO THE EDITOR. gir, —While not desirous of prolonging the controversy started by him, “ Bitten Again ” refers to the delivery ol milk as a privilege. If the private producer arranged for the distribution of his own milk he must of necessity pay for such distribution, and many producers are not prepared to undertake this method because of distance, inaccessibility, time lost, etc. There are big lorries constantly running to Otago Peninsula and out to the Taieri. and my advice to your correspondent is to have a trip or two with the collectors and thereby learn from experience what his mind is unable to grasp by conjecture. I thank “Bitten Again” for his extension of heartfelt sympathy, and leave him to think of purchasing from the man who both produces and sells.—' I am, etc., . No Undebcuttkk, June 11.