STANDARDISED CHEESE.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 276, 21 February 1929, Page 6

STANDARDISED CHEESE.

REGULATIONS EXPLAINED! Outcome of Industry’s Request. | , Address by Mr. Singleton. | Addressing a conference of dairy j factory managers in Wellington last I ■week, the director of the dairy divi- | sion of the Department of Agricul- i ture (Mr. W. M. Singleton) explained what had led up to the new regulations governing “ the of cheese and replied at length to the criticism they have aroused. “ The chief centre of discussion,” he said, “ appears of late to have switched over from cream grading to the manufacture of standardised cheese. A meeting was held in Wellington in December last, which was attended by representatives of the Dairy Control Board, the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited, the National Dairy Association, the South Island Dairy Association, the New Zealand Dairy Factory Managers’ Association, the South Auckland Dairy Association, the Wairarapa Federated Dairies’ Association, the Federation of Taranaki Cooperative Dairy Factories, and the Bush District Dairy Companies’ Association. The Manawatu and West Coast Dairy Companies’ Association, although invited, had no delegate:

present. The great strength of the representation of our cheese manufacturing districts at this meeting will be recognised. j Purpose of New Regulations. I “To appreciate the purpose and I effect of the amending regulations of i December, 1928, it is necessary to re--1 call the position prior to that date. ! Since 1922 it has by statute been il- | legal to attempt to export any cheese | containing less than fifty per cent of j milk fat in the water free substance. The law in force in the United Kingj dom prohibited, and still prohibits, I the branding as ‘ full cream ’ of any I cheese not made completely from ( whole milk. 'To comply with the j United Kingdom requirements the I 192fi regulations .provided two brands

| for the .exportation of cheese —the j ‘ full cream factory cheese’ brand for | cheese made completely from whole j milk, and the ‘ modified milk cheese ’ ! 1 brand for cheese which, might be 1 ! made from a blend of whole milk and separated milk provided the percent- | 1 i age of fats was maintained to that i j J required by law.” , | After pointing out that the use of ’ i skimmed milk as starter had led to j abuse, Mr. Singleton proceeded: y “ The position was fully discussed l| at the December conference, which - I passed a resolution to the effect that - 1 ‘ full cream cheese ’ should be cheese - ' manufactured from whole milk with 3 j whole milk 4 starter, if any. The - i meeting considered that it was necest j sary to debar entirely the use of sepi, arated milk starter in whole milk 3S cheese factories.

Standardising Made Legal. “At the same time the position i was provided for of manufacturers who might prefer to test the market with a product of high standard I quality, but nevertheless not in all cases made from whole milk. The conference therefore asked me to recommend the gazetting of a regulation providing for an additional brand for ‘ factory cheese 50 per cent or Over.*

“ The Government considered that the recommendation of such a representative meeting could not be ignored, and the amending regulations of 1928 were immediately issued, giving effect to the desire expressed by the conference on both the above points.

“ The position now is that cheese, j however manufactured, must be ex- j octly true to brand. Dairy companies have the option < f making full cream cheese or str.ndaidised cheese, but are debarred from making part skimrnilk cheese and branding it *as * full cream.* “ The present position makes it necessary for the separating of milk to i be carried on at a whole milk cheese factory, and makes it therefore permissible to forbid separation of milk in such factories. Once separation is {forbidden, it becomes possible effectively to administer the regulations ! and to ensure that for the future '.nothing but 4 ‘full cream* cheese j reaches the United Kingdom under that description, that the reputation I of the * full cream * brand is adeI quately protected in the British markets, and that no company may by 1 contravening the law obtain an uni fair advantage over its law abiding j competitors. Objection to Regulations, j “ The principal objections to the • new regulations appear to be: — | “ (1) That the effect of the new

brand ‘ Factory cheese—fat 50 per cent or over,’ on the London market had not been sufficiently studied; (2) that the regulations should not have been brought in during mid-summer; (3) that the proposals should have been more widely referred to the industry before the amending regulations were gazetted; (4) that injustice had been done to the cheese factories of the Dominion through sudden and complete stoppage of the skimming of milk as starter. “ It is recognised that the effect of the new brand of cheese on the British market has yet to be determined. This is probably the most important objection yet raised. The new brand permits dairy companies, so desiring, to try out that market, with a legally branded article, and, while it is possible that this may have some undesirable reflex action on the price of < full cream ’ cheese, there is the chance that, on the contrary, it may appreciate the price of ‘ full cream. In any case it is deemed to be in the interest of the ‘full cream’ brand that we should not export as ‘full cream,’ cheese made from other than whole milk. “ The objection that the regulations should not have been brought in in mid-summer cannot be taken very

seriously. If standardised cheese is to be made at all it will be principally between New Year and the end of the season. “ With reference to the third objection it must not be overlooked that the question of an additional class is not new. At a meeting of cheese company representatives in Wellington in September, 1922, the question of a new brand for standardised cheese was discussed, and I then offered to recommend an amended brand with the words * full cream deleted and such words as ‘minimum fat 50 per cent in dry matter,’ insertj ed. Since then the matter has been

discussed on various occasions. The suggestion for postponing the amending regulations was received too late to permit of its being seriously considered. After the regulations were gazetted, and prior to the receipt of any objection, there had been re-reg-istrations, based on the new regulations, of factories as standardised milk cheese factories. These, at this date, represent some 26 dairy companies with '55 cheese factories, which during the 1927-28 season ] manufactured 19,363 tons cheese or j over 25 per cent of the total cheese graded.

“ This third objection, that it, ‘that : the proposal should have been more 1 widely referred to the industry before being gazetted,’ is the one which has been most generally raised, and came in the first instance from the Bush District Dairy Companies’ As- 1 sociation, and was published in the press at the time. It would appear that most of the protestors got their inspiration from the Bush District Association’s resolution.

“So far as these protests came from dairy companies which for years past had not used separated milk starter, they cannot have been based on any direct inconveniences inflicted, as the altered regulations entailed no change in these companies’ operations. Some of the companies which objected to the gazetting of the regulations without consulting the industry more widely are known to have no specific objection to the regulations as such. “ The disuse of separated milk starter does, however, partake' of the nature of & restriction. It will be apparent from what has been stated in the foregoing that the discontinuance of separated milk starter at whole milk cheese factories is necessary if the brand ‘ full cream ’ is to be adequately protected. This procedure, although necessitating some sacrifice on the part of companies manufacturing whole milk cheese is directly in the interests of such companies, since they have much to lose if the reputation of the ‘full cream’ brand is depreciated.

“The dairy companies which have been illegally exploiting the brand 4 full cream * must carry the bility for the debarring of the use of separated milk starter. Summary. “In summarising the position it ! may be stated that tl'.c question of a 1 new brand has been discussed for ' years. The general position has become more acute each year inasmuch as there has been an increasing tenj iency to defy the law. The Wellingi ton meeting in December passed ceri tain resolutions which, if given effect, • should place matters on a definite , and honourable basis. That meeting was probably the most distinctively

representative of the cheese-produc-ing districts yet held. No delegate stated he was not empowered to vote, and no delegate asked to have his vote recorded at variance with the meeting’s decision with respect to any resolution. The decisions arrived at were those made by representatives of producers. “ The Government has given effect to the requests of the conference. The new class for cheese has been made available. Many dairy companies have re-registered their factories, and New Zealand is now making cheese true to brand. “ In conclusion I submit that it is fair to assume that the resolutions as carried at the Wellington and the regulations giving them effect, will meet with the approval of the cheese producers, and I believe such is already generally the case where there is no misunderstanding of the previous and present positions.”