View report page

69
THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1899.
The Public Health Committee, on 3rd October, instructed the Public Analyst and myself
to report, jointly, with reference to a circular letter from the Board of Agriculture, in which it was
"suggested that in the absence of any special circumstances indicating the commission of fraud,"
the local authority might, in the first instance (i.e., before taking proceedings under the Sale of
Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899) call the attention of the vendor of milk to the adverse report
of the public Analyst, and afford him an opportunity of submitting any explanation he might
desire to offer on the subject. The joint report was as follows—
"The issue of the said circular letter of the 29th December, 1901, to which attention
is drawn in a further circular letter, dated 16th March, 1905, was due to ' numerous
representations' received by the Board ' from dairy farmers and others complaining of the
institution of proceedings in cases in which, as alleged, the deficiency of milk-fat or milksolids,
as compared with the limits laid down in the Sale of Milk Regulations, 1901, was
due to accidental causes, and not to any fraudulent action on the part of the vendor.'
"In the 1901 circular letter, the Board expressed the opinion that, 'if the explanation
were one which the Local Authority felt able to accept, they might, in the exercise
of their discretion, refrain from the institution of proceedings, or withdraw any summons
which it might have been necessary to take out, in order to avoid the failure of proceedings.'
It is stated in the circular letter of March 1905, that ' the experience of the past three
years has confirmed the propriety of the views expressed by the Board on the subject,—
practically in condemnation of their own regulations—and that they would be glad to learn
that (the Council) have made arrangements to proceed on the lines suggested; and if not,
that the matter will be further considered at an early date.'
"In the year ended June 30th, 1905, 204 samples of milk were collected for analysis
in the Borough, and we are not aware that the collection of any of them was governed
by the presence of ' special circumstances indicating the (probability of the) commission
of fraud.' Of the said samples, irrespective of nine described as of ' inferior quality,'
thirteen were adulterated; that is, generally, were found to be deficient in milk-fat or nonfatty
milk-solids. We are not aware that in regard to any of these thirteen cases, there
were 'special circumstances indicating the commission of fraud;' and had the Council
adopted the advice tendered by the Board in 1901, every one of the vendors might have
been afforded an opportunity of submitting any explanation he might have desired to offer
for the condition of the impugned samples.
"It must be pointed out that the Milk Regulations were framed by the Board, and
that the standards are minimum standards. The Board, in fact, in the 1901 circular letter,
state that ' the limits below which a presumption is raised that the milk is not genuine
were necessarily fixed at figures lower than those which were usually afforded by genuine
milk' ; and they further state that ' the evidence given before the Milk Regulations
Committee tended to show that the practice of fraudulently mixing separated milk with
new milk has become increasingly prevalent'—a statement, which, so far as we know, not
having been controverted, makes the Board's recommendation all the more inexplicable.
"The Board in the 1901 circular letter, said it was very desirable that farmers and
dairymen, and all other cowkeepers, should have samples of the milk of their cows tested,
from time to time, so as to enable them to guard against the effects of seasonal and other
variations in the quantity of milk-fat contained in the milk. If this course were adopted
—and producers know when to expect 'seasonal and other variations,' and how to correct
them—it is not likely that genuine milk would be vended of a quality below the official
standard. The Board, themselves, moreover, are ' satisfied that if the keepers of cows would,
from time to time, test the quality of their milk for themselves, any legitimate ground of complaint
on the part of the producers as to the administration of the law, so far as the
adulteration of milk is concerned, would speedily be removed.'
"The course recommended by the Board does not appear to us to have been conceived
in the public interests, and we do not feel justified in recommending it for adoption by the
Council."
The Committee took no action in the matter.