View report page

57
The total number of prosecutions under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act was fifteen.
The fines and costs, after deducting the costs given against the council, amounted to £13 2s.
The Misleading and Deceptive Labelling of Food.—On various occasions during the year,
notably in connection with jam, cream confectionery, sweets and vinegar, attention has been
directed to misleading and deceptive labelling. This practice appears to be on the increase, and
there can be little doubt that trade competition, the absence of fixed standards of composition
for various articles of food, and the absence of adequate legal requirements regarding the labelling
of such articles are responsible.
A number of provisions relating to labelling are contained in the Food and Drugs (Adulteration)
Act, 1928, but for the following reasons they are not of great value :—
(a) Section 30 of the Act provides that a person who wilfully gives a label with any article
of food or drug sold by him which falsely describes the article sold shall be guilty of an offence.
The value of this provision is limited by the word " wilfully," for it has been held in the High
Court that in order to secure a conviction the prosecutor must satisfy the Court that the
vendor had wilfully given a label knowing it to be false. It is a matter of difficulty to prove
this guilty knowledge on the part of the vendor, and consequently very few proceedings are
likely to prove successful.
(b) Sections 3 and 4 of the Act contain requirements regarding the labelling of compounds
and, in view of the bearing which these sections have upon the problem, it may be well to
quote them here :—
" 3. Provision as to sale of compounds.—If any person sells any compound article of food,
or any compounded drug, which is not composed of ingredients in accordance with the
demand of the purchaser, he shall be guilty of an offence."
" 4. Protection from liability where article properly labelled:—
(1) No person shall be guilty of any such offence as aforesaid in respect of the
sale of an article of food or a drug mixed with any ingredient or material not injurious
to health, and not intended fraudulently to increase its bulk, weight or measure, or
to conceal its inferior quality, if at the time of delivering the article of food or drug
he supplies to the person receiving it a notice, by a label distinctly and legibly written
or printed on or with the article or drug, to the effect that it is mixed."
Section 4 does not indicate what shall constitute a proper label other than that it shall be
"distinctly and legibly written or printed on or with the article or drug". As a result, manufacturers,
when labelling their products, have introduced ingenious devices to secure the protection
afforded by this section, in place of a frank declaration which might be detrimental to their sales.
These ingenious declarations are sometimes printed in letters so small as to be almost unreadable
except at very close sight, or in a colour calculated to render them hardly noticeable, or in a position
on the label where they are least likely to catch the eye of the purchaser. Examples have been
observed where all of these devices have been incorporated in the same label. The use of contradictory
statements on the same label is also frequently encountered; such descriptions as "Wood
table vinegar," "Rich concentrated tinned cream—contains 25 per cent, of butter fat" and "British
sherry " are examples.
Attention might also be drawn to what may be termed the "collateral advertisement," which
may be in the form of a newspaper advertisement, a handbill or a radio broadcast. No legislation
exists at present to control this form of advertising, and there are many instances where, although
the labels attached to the actual foodstuffs are in order, the advertisement makes extravagant
and unjustifiable claims for the article in question. The seriousness lies in the fact that a person
is frequently led to purchase an article by the claims made in the advertisement, little or no attention
being paid to the actual label attached to the goods.
The legal provisions to which reference has been made are identical with those contained in the
repealed Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and have thus been in operation for more than sixty years.
During this period the knowledge of food chemistry has increased rapidly, and it has been freely
drawn upon by those whose business and financial interests are bound up with food manufacture.
As a result, many kinds of manufactured foods unthought of or impossible of manufacture sixty
years ago have now been placed on the market. The keenest competition exists among manufacturers,
many of whom, unfettered by any legal standards of composition for these articles, have
introduced cheaper substitutes for normal ingredients or have reduced the amount of such ingredients,
thereby being able to sell at lower prices. These variations in the composition of foodstuffs are
not always adequately disclosed to the purchaser. This practice may be looked at from two points
of view : firstly, that of the purchaser who is prejudiced, and secondly, that of the honest trader
over whom the unscrupulous trader can enjoy an unfair advantage.
The following is a review of the council's recent experience in regard to articles sold in Kensington
under misleading descriptions.
(a) Jam.
Originally jam consisted of fruit plus sugar, but keenness of competition amongst manufacturers
to secure the "lion's share" of the trade led to the substitution of such cheaper substances as apple