View report page

281 [1906
Acts the proviso in Section 1 of the 1899 Act:—"Provided that an article of food shall
"not be deemed to be adulterated by reason only of the addition of any preservative or
"colouring matter of such a nature and in such quantities as not to render the article in
jurious to health."
The Local Government Board does not discuss the legal aspect of the case, but again
urges that administrative action should be taken in cases where preservatives are reported
in milk.
I am personally of opinion that the Acts are not infringed when preservatives are used
in such an amount as not to render the article injurious to health, but at the same time I
recognise the fact that if prosecutions were instituted in such cases, convictions might be
obtained in a certain number of cases, where the defendant was ignorant of the provisions
of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.
If the mere presence of the preservative in milk, even in amount not sufficient to render
the milk injurious to health, is an offence, then it follows that the presence of any preservative
in any article of food, except butter, would be an offence, for the Acts do not differentiate,
in this connection between milk and other articles. Butter is excepted by the definition
in the Margarine Act, which allows the presence of preservatives.
There has been no new legislation since the report of the Committee on Preservatives
and Colouring Matters appeared, and if the presence of a preservative in milk is an offence
against the Acts, it must have been an offence before the report of that Committee appeared,
therefore the sittings and recommendations of that Committee were superfluous. In fact,
since the Sale of Pood and Drugs Act, 1875, became law, the presence of a trace of preservative
or colouring matter in any article of food (except butter since 1887) must have been
an infringement of that Act.
I have endeavoured to give my views on this question of preservatives, and whatever
is said about preservatives, applies equally well to colouring matters, although the Local
Government Board do not refer to them, merely as a Public Analyst who, in order to thoroughly
understand his business, has acquired a legal qualification, but I wish most distinctly
to guard myself from appearing to aspire to the position of legal advisor to the Council on
this or any other matter.
The question is absolutely one of law, and although from a careful study of the subject
I have been forced into certain conclusions, which I have laid before you, the proper responsible
officer to advise the Council is your Solicitor.
The letter of the Local Government Board raises a side issue by complaining that there
has been no mention of the presence or absence of preservatives in the Quarterly Reports of
the Public Analyst. The reason is obvious The Local Government Board prescribe a form
of quarterly report to which the Analyst must adhere, and there is no suggestion in this form
that preservatives should be reported on. As soon as the Local Government Board prescribe
a form of report with a column for preservatives, the column will be filled up.
Every sample of milk has been examined and reported on for boron preservatives during
much longer than four years, although not reported in the Quarterly Reports.
I return herewith, as requested, the letter from the Local Government Board.
Yours faithfully,
FRANK L. TEED.