View report page

49
2. In accordance with the method which has been followed for many years past and approved
by the highest authorities, the contents of this package have been prepared with a small
quantity of copper.
(Copper equivalent to 1.3 grains of copper sulphate per lb. was found by the Public
Analysts
3. The colour of these beans is preserved by sulphate of copper, the smallest quantity of
copper being used to ensure finest quality and is not injurious to health.
(Copper equivalent to 21 grains of copper sulphate per lb. was found by the Public
Analyst.)
4.
SUPPORT HOME
INDUSTRIES.
The colour of these Peas is preserved
by Sulphate of Copper, the smallest
quantity possible being used to ensure
finest quality.
(Copper equivalent to 1.5 grains of copper sulphate per lb. was found by the Public
Analyst).
Power to take proceedings against persons adding preservatives or colouring matter.
As far back as 1890, the Vestry of Kensington urged the Local Government Board to introduce
a Bill for the amendment of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, so that the manufacturers of,
and wholesale dealers in, adulterated articles may be rendered liable to penalties as well as retailers.
No less than 15 of the other local authorities in the Metropolis expressed concurrence with the views
of the Kensington Vestry, and communicated with the Local Government Board in favour of the
Act being amended in the direction indicated.
In 1892, the Vestry again invited the Local Government Board's attention to this matter. In
1894, a conference of local authorities of London, convened by the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover
Square, passed resolutions in favour of bringing the manufacturers of, and wholesalers in,
adulterated articles within the scope of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act.
Under the law as it now stands, the person selling an article to an Inspector of a local authority
is responsible under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and it is not uncommon to hear a
retailer inform the magistrates that he was unaware of the presence of preservative in respect of
which the prosecution had been taken, until he received the summons. The magistrates sometimes
reply that the defendant could have protected himself by obtaining a report from a private analyst.
Such a course is possible, and, indeed, probably profitable in the case of a large firm, but it seems
unreasonable to expect a small retailer to consult an analyst at a cost of several guineas in respect
of each consignment of goods which may contain preservative. The retailer is frequently innocent,
and he should be afforded some protection in this matter.
In the case of articles in bottles, tins, cartons, packets, etc., in which the container is unopened
by the retailer and sold exactly as received by him, the law should require a printed label stating,
not only the kind and amount of preservative or colouring matter, but also the name and address
of the person responsible for the actual adulteration. In the case of foreign articles, the name and
address should be that of the importer.
When a label does not conform with the Regulations made in respect thereof, the local
authority should be empowered to take proceedings at a Court having jurisdiction within their own
area against the person who is responsible for the issue of the declaration, namely, the person whose
name and address is on the label, and they should not be required to proceed against the retailer.
If a sample be found to contain preservative (1) not allowed by regulation, (2) not mentioned:
on the label, (3) in excess of that allowed by regulation, or (4) in excess of that stated on the label,
and such sample was sold by the retailer in an unopened container, the person whose name and
address appear on the label, and not the retailer, should be made responsible at law.
In this way the small retailer, who cannot afford the services of an analytical chemist, could
protect himself by the mere precaution of seeing that the name and address of the producer are on
the label.
Cases will occur in which a sample does not reach the required standard of purity, and does
not bear the name and address of the producer. Owing to the article having passed through the
hands of various middlemen in the market, it might be difficult and expensive to trace the producer.
In view of this, the law should make the retailer responsible if he sells an article which does not
bear the name and address of the producer, and is found to contain preservative in excess of that
allowed by the Regulations made in respect thereof. If the retailer fails to take the simple
precaution indicated he cannot reasonably object to being saddled with the responsibility.
There is nothing new in asking for the name of the producer to appear on the container, for it
is required in the case of certified milk and condensed milk by the Regulations controlling the sale
of these articles.
Anything in the nature of the warranty defence, so common in milk cases, should be cautiously
avoided.
SUPPLY OF EXTRA NOURISHMENT FOR EXPECTANT AND NURSING
MOTHERS AND FOR INFANTS.
The Council's scheme for the supply of milk to expectant and nursing mothers and infants
under the age of five years, and the supply of dinners to expectant and nursing mothers has been