OCR Text |
Show ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ' PRICE FOOD PRODUCER RECEIVES I AND PRICE CONSUMER MUST PAY a IRTHUR CAPP1 K United stales s .i.ilor from Kansas Written cspia tilly for The International Interna-tional .cvs Si rv led. WASHINGTON. Jan. 1. Something Some-thing Is radically wrong with a national na-tional system of distribution which 1 permits of absolute Waste of food pro-dui pro-dui tS In one section of the country when In other sections there exists good demand. That condition occurs frequently In the United states. In the, frult-prodUCing sections of Michigan Michi-gan and New York press reports de-Iclare de-Iclare that large quantities of fruit rotted rot-ted and was wasted because there was no market for it. At the same lime high prices prevailed for fruit in the Mid-West, where the crop was cut short by late spring frosts. Producers In New York and Michigan, the reports re-ports state, did not obtain profitable-prices profitable-prices lor their crop despite the fact that other sections of the country were anxious to buy. Probably Inadequate transportation facilities and shortage of labor wore factors in this condition. But at any rate the system of distribution distribu-tion failed to function to the profit either of the producer or the consumer. con-sumer. ii Y DOLL VII Is ll DETJ I There is all enormoii.; spread between be-tween the price the producer obtains for his products and the price the consumer pays for them. This spread occurs in the marketing and distribution distribu-tion of thus, products The California I Fruit Growers' Exchange made an Investigation In-vestigation to determine how the consumer's con-sumer's dollar wo,s divided. Thirty j representativ e markets were included, land 5,485 reports wenp obtained. The 1 results showed that the factors enter-ling enter-ling into the division of the consumer's dollar spent In buying citrus fruit in 1914. arc: Retail distribution cost (gross 1. 82. 8 per cent; lol.l.ers' distribution cost (gross), 8 2 per cent; growers' selling I cost, 1.0 per rent, freight and refrlg-aratlon refrlg-aratlon cost, 2.05 per cent, packing J house cost, 7.4 per cent; cost of picking pick-ing and hauling to packing house, 2.4 .per cent; proportion retained for fruit ion the tree, 26.7 per cent. These figures are supplied by G. Harold Powell, general manager of the California Fruit Growers ex-i change, Los Angelr. They show that) the retailer gets 33. 3 per cent and the ! grower 26.7 per cent of thi- consumer's' i dollars. The ost ofjobbing and ret;iJl-! jing Is 41 o per cent. En one town the-jobber the-jobber s markup was 10 per cent, and' in nnotlier town 22 pel cent, showing q Wide variation The retailers' margins mar-gins ran from 20 to 75 per cent. Herbert Hoover recently made thu (statement "The margins between our farmers and tho wholesalers In com-; modules---other than grain. In some in -Unices even in normal times, aro the highest in any civilized country ."! fully 86 per cent higher than In most European countries." HERE FARMER b isi S. Mr. Hoover also said: "Analysis of the character of the I margin between the farmer and the vvholesaler will show that decreases in price find Immediate reflection on the farmer, while Immediate Increases in! price .ire absorbed by the trades bo-1 tw. en. and the farmer gets but a lag-j I glng Increase.' 1 Prices of hogs obtained by farmers.' I prices paid by the consumer and the 1 margin between, as shown in government govern-ment statistics for 1914. 1919 and 1920, indicate an enormous loss to (both the producer and the consumer to the one in tho low price obtained and to the other in the excessive price paid. These figures are: Price of hogs In principal stutes per 1U0 pounds: 1914. $7.4a 1919 $16.27; 1920, $15.37. Price of cured products to consumer for the 100-pound 100-pound hog. 1914. $18.97; 1919, $37.23; 1920, $37.71. Margin between the farmer far-mer and tho consumer, 1914. $11 o2 1919. $21.06; 1 920. $22 34. While the farmer has gained about $7.92 In price the margin has increased in-creased by $10.82 to the consumer The consumer has paid 30 cents more. While) the farmer got 90 cents less during dur-ing the last year. FA ULTY THAN SPORTATIOX. Inadequate transportation facilities add to tlu- costliness of the distribution system. In the face of a car shortage the producer cannot move his products readily, and often Is forced to sell on a glutted market at low prices. The consumer, on the other hand, Is forced tq pay an Increased price for his foodstuffs food-stuffs due to a lack of equipment to bring iho commodities to market. An Investigation made by the United States Food .Administiation showed that In the case of potatoes the margin mar-gin between the producer and the consumer con-sumer broadened 100 per cent in periods of car shortage. Epormoua numbers of persons arc engaged In the final processes of distribution, dis-tribution, increasing the cost. One city has 0110 meat retailer for every 400 Inhabitants. It has been carefully estimated es-timated that one dealer could adequately ade-quately serve every 1,200 persons The result of such a condition is that the retailers operate on a high margin nnd that only a small Income is obtained by any of them. Thus it is evident that our wasteful system of distribution bj an unfair tax on both the producer and the consumer. con-sumer. This can be reduced. It will be possible to place a larger purl of the consumer's dollar In the hands of the, f irmer and nt tho same time sup-! ply food to the cities at a lower cost I 00- |