COLONIAL MEAT AND GANGER.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 265, 18 November 1901, Page 4

COLONIAL MEAT AND GANGER.

Sin. -1 have received from a friend at Home the following which appeared in the London Kc.io. It- is as well for us to know what- is said about our products however unfounded the charges may be. For that reason I think the extract may interest- some of your readers. —1 aui, etc., Farmkr.

■ KXTKACT. i At this time when the public mind is occupied by the diverse opinions of Dr Koch and our own leading medical men in regard to the danger of tuberculosis in cattle to the meat consumer, it may be interesting to learn something of the probable stare of that meat imported to us from the Antipodes. V ill you kindly favor mo with space for two quotations in reference to this matter'? One is from a private letter received this week from Australia. “ I have seen hundreds (of sheep) driven into Wanganui, some unable to walk, some with legs broken. But 1 must say none of the drovers are cruel ; they carried them where they could. Dut they arc responsible for each sheep, and if it does not arrive alive in the auction yard, they have to pay 10s a sheep. When conveyed in trucks they are so huddled together and frightened that they knock over the water provided for them and refuse to eat.”

Now we have a doctor's opinion, stated in the Laufct, that the tiesh of terrified cattle becomes poisonous, certainly in all probability hurtful to the consumer. The second quotation is from a letter from the secretary of the “ Animals' Protection Society, N.5.W.," Ah F. Montagu liothery. Many bullocks are so badly injured through (the use of) — “ The heavy brands, that sores of a cancerous nature frequently follow upon the injury,,which must, more or less, affect the whole* carcase, and bo a source of danger to the health of the people who consume the meat. The irritation arising from the heavy brand causes the boast to rub the parts —lienee the sores, which forming under the hide, are removed in the operation of flaying, and little is to be seen on the carcase after the beast- has been bled ; but, nevertheless, the danger is there, From tho humanitarian point of view, it is only necessary to see tho hides to realise the amount of unnecessary cruelty practised upon the animals.” May not tho above account for the alarming increase of cancer in this country during the last yearslf Dr Koch’s theory be proved wrong, which common sense says it will be, how is this poison in the meat (alive or dead) imported to us for our consumption to be prevented ? To detect it appears impossible.—F. W. Phillips, 87, Wood-vale, Forest-hill.

it appears that the above letter was not allowed to remain unanswered. The London correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald gives the rest of the story as follows : —The revival of an old aspersion upon the qualities of Australasian meat, ho says, nas led this week to a particularly livelynewspaper controversy. A Mr E. W. Phillips, actuated, it is to be hoped, by purely humanitarian motives, has been writing to some of the leading papers declaring in effect that the cattle and sheep intended for transportation to this country aro brutally ill-treated before they reach the slaughterhouse, and darkly suggesting that the injury thus done to the live animal recoilji on the consumer in this country, and may help to account for that spread of cancer which everybody recognises and deplores. Koine Australians in London, I notice, are treating this delightful theory as if it were just as new as it is fantastic. This is not the case. The specific attribution of the spread of disease to over-driving and to the sores occasioned by branding may have a trace of novelty about it, but long, long ago the oldfashioned family butcher—who in those times did deal exclusively in the homogrown article, and had not learnt to select prime colonial joints and palm them off as the best English and Scotch—used to hint darkly to his customers of mischief which followed the consumption of “ corrupt ” moat from over the seas. Not only was cancer said to follow the reckless enjoyment of viands of this kind, but what was generally known as “ blood-poisoning ” was declared to bo a constant result of it, and parasitic diseases too horriblo to be discussed were- supposed to be among the possible sequeke of a debauch of imported moat. Certainly in those days the process of refrigeration had not reached the perfection it has now, and the imported product did leave something to bo desired. However, Mr Phillips has suffered greatly through boing a little belated in his prejudices. Mr Copeland has come down-up-on him in a sarcastic humor ; and as far as I have seen ho lias the press on his side. He quotes tho New South Wales law with regard to the cruelty to animals,' especially in matters of overloading and overcrowding. As to the branding, ho unmistakably scores. Cattle bred for beef, he observes, are seldom branded more than once, and this invariably occurs when they are calves. “Is it not rather surprising,” he asks, “ then, that, though the animal lias resisted cancer during its period of growth from a calf into a fat bullock, it is no sooner skinned for tho English market than tho flesh becomes caueerous ?” Ho also wants to know how it is that the workmen of Australia aro so very much alive, seeing that they oat this cancerous meat three times a day from their childhood onwards. Mr Cameron, tho produce Commissioner of Now Zealand, also comes to the rescue and explains the New Zealand Slaughtering Act; while Mr Edward Gorton, of Topsham, Exeter, who writes as an expert of 2d years’ standing with regard to the importation of New Zealand meat, has also many practical things to say at tho expense of the gentlemaii who has raised tho controversy. Now Mr Phillips falls hack to the gtatenjent that he was only “quoting,” and intimates his intention to write out to Australia for further information. His critics aro asking why he did not take this precaution before rushing into print.—H.JJ. Herald. j