View report page

5.3

In 52 of the samples water was certified to have been added. In 8 the amount
was more than and in 41 it was less than 5 per cent., as indicated by the standard
of the Board of Agriculture. In 27 the samples showed deficiences in milk fat; in
12 of these the deficiency was less than and in 14 it exceeded 5 per cent. In 10 instances
both fat had been abstracted and water added, and one of these samples showed
also the presence of traces of artificial colouring matter. None of the samples contained
boric acid. In 11 instances not included in the foregoing the deviation from
the standard was so slight that the analyst remarked they might possibly have been
genuine, and they have been so regarded.
Legal proceedings were instituted in 28, or about 31 per cent, of the cases in
which the samples of milk were below standard, and conviction was obtained in
19 of them. In 7 instances the summonses were dismissed, warranties being proved ;
m 1 case the defendant absconded and could not be traced, and in 1 instance the
defendant died. In the remaining 69 per cent, of the samples below standard prosecutions
were not considered advisable, as the small percentage of adulteration rendered
it extremely unlikely that convictions could be obtained. The percentages
in which it was not considered advisable to prosecute in previous years were 80 in
1909, 66 in 1908, 65 in 1907, 66 in 1906, 60 in 1905, 55 in 1904 and 62 in 1903.
In the cases in which convictions were obtained the penalties for milk adulteration
amounted to £18, which is equivalent to 4.4 per cent, of the full amount
of the penalties to which the defendants were liable, as compared with 28 per cent,
in 1909, 11.2 in 1908, 5.6 in 1907, 5.6 in 1906, 7.8 in 1905, 6 in 1904, 8 in 1903, and
13 in 1902.
Taking the fines and costs together, which amounted to £30, the average amount
paid by a defendant on conviction was £1 lis. 6d., as compared with £12 6s. 4d.
in 1909, £3 Is. 4d. in 1908, £1 13s. 7d in 1907, £2 9s. 6d. in 1906, £2 19s. 3d. in 1905,
£2 6s. lOd. in 1904 £1 18s. 6d. in 1903, and £2 18s. 4d. in 1902. The large amount
for 1909 was due to two defendants being very heavily fined.