PRESERVATIVES IN BUTTER

Shannon News, 2 January 1925, Page 3

PRESERVATIVES IN BUTTER

A RUINOUS PRACTICE. ■The day is approaching fast when New Zealand butter-makers will have to dispense with the use of preserva- j tives in the manufacture of butter, j The departmental committee appoint- 1 ed by the British Government to in- j qpire into the use of preservatives in j butter, recommended that a period of two years’grace should be ample to enable countries, using preservatives to so adjust their' methods of manufacture as would enable all butter to be produced and sold without preservatives. It was also pointed out that New Zealand, Australia, and the Argentine were practically the only countries exporting butter containing preservatives. ‘‘Seeing that these countries export at the present time large quantities of butter free from preservatives,” says the committee, ‘‘there should be no difficulty or hardship to dispense with it altogether.” The report points out that in 1922-23 samples representing 9695 boxes of New. Zealand butter were free from boric acid, these being-27 per cent of the total amount sampled. The New Zealand Department of Agriculture reports that out of 60,000 tons of butter exported in 193, 12,730 tons came from factories using no preservatives. In addition, many creameries using preservatives often sent out butter without preservatives in response to specific orders for such butter. Preserved Butter More Palatable. , Several witnesses engaged in the Australian and New Zealand butter trade gave evidence to the effect that preserved butter was more palatable than unpreserved; that the latter deteriorated quicker than the former, and that the circumstances of the trade rendered it necessary to keep large stocks in hand at various times of the year. This evidence, the committee considered, was discounted by the fact that these witnesses seemed to be quite unaware of the large amounts of unpreserved Butter which are already being sent from Australia and New Zealand. Butter, preserved and unpreserved, is shipped and treated in precisely the same way, and it appears that importers, distributors and retailers in Great Britain are quite commonly unaware

of the difference between the two classes. Preserved and unpreserved New Zealand, and Australian butter may be sold by the same retailer at ‘ the same price, and without knowing J which is preserved and which is unpreserved - ! Restricting our Markets. Apart from the finding of the committee of the British Ministry of ; Health, there is, however, a far more serious aspect which the New Zealand producers will, sooner or later, have to take into consideration. Great Britain is to-day the only country of any importance that allows the importation of preserved butter. America, Germany, and most of the other countries prohibit preservatives of any kind. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia arid America are all making butter free from preservatives. As a result of such a short-sighted policy, New Zealand and Australia restrict themselves to the one and only market —Great Britain. AVhat the Danes Say. The writer has .before him a Danish Government Report on the 1923-24 export of butter, which contains the following significant information: "Although Great Britain is our best customer, we are now in a position to fake the quickest advantake of other markets, such as America, Germany, Switzerland, etc. New Zealand, which is 1 our greatest competitor on the English market cannot compete with us in these countries as their butter contains boric acid. The American market became specially favourable during March, when we exported considerable quantities to that country, thereby keeping up our prices in London.” (During that period Danish butter in London was selling at 216/, and New Zealand at 160/.) "American buyers could not have procured colonial butter direct from England on account of this butter containing preservatives. . . . There is developing an ever increasing re-export trade in London, of which colonial butter cannot take advantage, as it contains boric acid.” Preservatives not Necessary. * It should hardly be necessary to quote further facts and figures, as |,he. above must convince the most sceptical user of preservatives of the folly of persisting in such a ruinous practice. What is more, preservatives are used by butter-makers to-day from habit more then from necessity. Because We had to resort to prefer - vatives in pre-pasteu•rising and neutralising days, we continue to do so. The British committee reported lh-.t, in most cases where preserved butter was analysed, the quantity of presertive actually found in the butter was so minute as to be quite useless for the purpose it was meant for. Butter factories pay hundreds, of pounds annually for preservatives, »nd there is no doubt that 80 per cent goes down the factory drain, yet too much is re- . tained to label the butter “free ft oo preservatives.” The sorry part of it all is, that it remained for one of our foreign competitors to enlighten us on such an important matter. There can be no doubt that with the up-to-date methods of manufacture adopted throughout this, country, New Zealand butter requires no preservative, but if there is butter of such a doubtful quality that preservatives are absolutely essential, such butter is not fit to be exported from the Dominion.

Abolition Certain

Butter-makers should therefore set out'to reorganise their i»etho.ds. The fact that it was announced in the King’s speech at the opening of the British Parliament, that measures would be submitted for the carrying out of the committee's recommenda-

tions, is proof positive that preservatives in butter, etc., will be prohibited. Butter-makers ancl managers who are wise will not wait for the prohibition, but give up using preservatives at the first possible opportunity.