A Spectator's Notebook

Pressure Group

current issue of Shopper's Guide, the publication in which the Consumer Advisory Coun- cil reports its investigations into the comparative qualities of different brands of the same goods, contains a report on tests carried out on seventy different sorts of grass seed. What this issue of the Shopper's Guide does not contain, however, is a report on what went on behind the scenes while the report was being prepared. Not having a garden of my own, the comparative germination-rates of Messrs. Sutton's seeds as against those of Messrs. Bees are not near to my heart. But as a student of human nature in all its lovable eccentricity, 1 was fascin- ated by the submerged bit of the iceberg, and would like to share my glimpse of it with others.

First, a brief summary of the Shopper's Guide report. Under the Seeds Act of 1920, standards are laid down with which seeds (including grass seed) sold for agricultural purposes must comply. Grass seed sold for domestic purposes, however, is not subject to any such regulation. A Govern- ment Committee which reported in 1957 recom- mended that buyers of grass seed for 'amenity purposes,' such as lawns, playing fields, golf courses and the like, should be given the same protection—in the matter of minimum standards —as agricultural users. The Committee recom- mended that when such seeds were sold it should be made clear whether they included ryegrass or not (ryegrass, it seems, is not good for high-quality lawns), that a minimum percentage for germina- tion, and a maximum for inert matter or impuri- ties, should be laid down, and that seed-packets should be labelled 'Not to be sold after . . .' and the appropriate date.

The Government has not acted on the recom- mendations in this Committee's report: and last year Shopper's Guide decided to do its own investigation of grass seed. A member of the staff wrote from her home address to sixty-four seeds: men and six large department stores, enclosing a 2s. bd. postal order and promising to pay any extra necessary, asking for a sample 1-1b. packet of 'a good, fine mixture of lawn seed.' That. in some cases, was what she got: but not in all. After the National Institute of Agricultural Botany had analysed and tested the packets of seed. it appeared that 'a good, fine mixture of lax% n seed' was subject to a wide variety of interpretations. The figures and tables, with the names of the better and worse suppliers, are fully set out in the Shopper's. Guide, and are not my concern. But a draft report in the investigation and analysis was prepared. At the end of this draft was a paragraph headed 'Five you can rely on,' and under that heading were listed the five firms that satisfied all the tests—for purity, accuracy of description. germination and the like. (In the final version of the report as published this heading was changed to 'Five excellent') And in September of this year the draft report was sent to the seventy suppliers from whom the samples of seed had been obtained, whereupon the fun began.

Some did not reply at all; some—notably the 'live you can rely on'—wrote appreciative and congratulatory letters. But from the rest a howl of rage. pain and dismay went up. 'May I respect- fully advise that in the interests of consumers this report should be scrapped forthwith . . . we . .

feel frankly it is a most unfair criticism . .' was among the mildest of the missiles launched against the Shopper's Guide and its elegant editor. Eliza- beth Gundrey. Some sounded a plaintive note: . . it would be both confusing and unfair to us if this information was published in your Shopper's Guide.' Some were bald : 'Mans of

'Bold sweeps of the brush!'

your statements are inaccurate and misleading. Some were silkily ominous: 'We would be rather inclined to think that publication of names of firms in the manner that appears to be invisaged [sic] might well be not only unfair but libellous comment.' Some were pompous: 'We should . . . be glad of your assurance that you will enable us to see a copy of any matter referring to our seeds for consideration by us and our advisers, a reason- able time before you print it . . . highly undesir- able for you to print anything at all which makes general references to the trade. . . .' Some were just naive ; '1 must inform you that it would be extremely damaging . . . not to be included in the "Five you can rely on," and that we would take the strongest possible exception to this.'

And some, of course, were from solicitors, which were the most silkily ominous of all. Such as: In the meantime you will probably feel that it would be unwise to effect a larger publication by including your Report in its present form in a future issue of Shopper's Guide.'

In the meantime, however, the Trade had been busy. In the November issue of The Nurseryman and Seedsman an editorial appeared, referring to the Shopper's Guide investigation. It included this passage : The gardening public could be gravely misled if it is widely circulated. . . . The seed trade . . . obviously has nothing to hide. . . . Publi- cation of something that is inaccurate at best and calumnious at worst can only cast doubts on the authenticity of the services which the council [the Consumer Advisory Council. publishers of Shopper's Guide] aims to give and do a grave disservice to an industry which has faithfully served generations of gardeners with undisputed satisfaction.

This editorial came into the hands of the editor of Shopper's Guide because one seedsman sent it to her. This was also true of articles in the Horticultural Advertiser, round which an elab- orate comedy was played. Several of the listed seedsmen complained that publication of the gist of the report had been made in the Horticultural Advertiser, as indeed on September 16 it had. Miss Gundrey explained, however, that this had been entirely without her knowledge and approval (as, indeed, it had), and that it was a breach of copyright. She then asked the Horticultural Advertiser for a copy of the magazine with their remarks in it, only to be refused! She asked again, and got back the most delightful letter of this Whole ragamadoglio.

With regard to your request for, firstly, a copy of our Official Organ, and, secondly, of a cutting from it. I have again considered this matter but 'urve come to the conclusion that this request nust be refused.

It raises a point of principle, namely, whether this Organ—which is strictly 'Confidential to the Trade' and is only supplied upon an understand- ing by traders that they will not divulge its contents or let non-traders see their copy—can be supplied to Editors or•Editresses outside our Trade. The answer is that it cannot. . . . More- over, it seems to me that if we sent you one cutting, you will naturally treat this as a prece- dent for having other cuttings on the same sub- ject. . . . Clearly we cannot send cuttings to people who ask for them merely on the ground that they choose to take some interest in Trade matters.

Further, we have decided that this whole matter must be dealt with not by the Editress of a Periodical but through the Secretary either of the Consumer Advisory Council or the British Standards Institution. and in these circumstances

perhaps you will refer the matter to him. . . . Anyway, this was of no avail, for a copy was obtained from a friendly seedsman, and Miss Gundrey learned from it that the Shopper's Guide report had indeed been anticipated; an article summarised the conclusions of the report, listed all the firms involved, and described the methods adopted by the investigators. But it also gave a hostage to fortune in the following words : . . . there can be no argument that 'a good, fine mixture' means just that, and to offer anything that does not confirm [sic] to this description is sailing dangerously near the wind. Furthermore, to sell a good, line mixture of lawn seed con- taining rye grass without any indication of the fact might well be construed as misleading and taking advantage of the ignorance of the customer.

At the same time, the seed trade organisations had been meeting and discussing the Shopper's Guide report. First into the post was the Horticultural and Botanical Association :

. . . an unwarrantable attack on an honourable trade with the tradition of public service . . . a smear which would react on the whole trade, whether good or bad ... deprecate very Strongly the methods used by your organisation to obtain the samples . . . savours of a trick . . . would have been more straightforward to have em- panelled several persons, including a member of the trade. for the purpose of providing authorita- tive advice . . . if your article is published in its present form we shall take all steps . . . to refute it and condemn it.

Then the other two trade' associations concerned (in both senses of the word), the Seed Trade Association and the Horticultural Trades Associa- tion, joined forces to send a long lawyer-and- expert letter, going through the draft report point by point, criticising, defending and suggesting. Publication was postponed, and a number of the criticisms and suggestions acted upon. The asso- ciations were still not satisfied ('Our members consider it invidious that five firms have been singled out . . still misleading'), but Shopper's Guide had gone as far as they proposed. and the report went to press.

The moral, I suppose, is that although 'the seed trade has nothing to hide' anybody in this country who attempts to talk honestly and disinterestedly about the quality of goods sold, or who attempts to compare one brand with another, or who points out, as this report did (in its- final version, too, I am happy to say), that one firm, asked for a good, fine mixture of lawn seed, sent something contain- ing 14.7 per cent. of inert matter (dirt, broken seed and the like), runs into difficulties beside which the dramatic critics who did not care for Aunt Edwina were on a hayride. Shopper's Guide and its friendly rival Which? have attempted to do something that has been too long neglected in Britain; they have tried to provide for the benefit of consumers a running commentary on value for money. They have found it none too easy; if the kind of pressure exerted by seedsmen and their representatives is typical of what happens every time one of their candid reports is prepared, they deserve even more of our admiration. For my part, as I say, I have no lawn, and Chewings Red Fescue is nothing but a name to me, and not a particularly nice one, at that. Still, the more light shed on pressure groups the healthier for all of us, whether we have lawns or not.

BERNARD LEVIN