View report page

61
letters and " Paint " in small), " Price Is. 3d.," and in small type at the bottom of the label " Not
to be taken." The other label bore the words " Makers guarantee—Does not contain colouring
matter. Is made from spirits and iodine. Resublimed B.P. For external use only." Although
the price marked on the bottle was Is. 3d., the actual purchase price was 2d.
This sample proved to be a weak solution of iodine, whereas iodine paint is a compound preparation
and should contain the ingredients laid down in the Pharmaceutical Codex.
Grey Powder.—This is a British Pharmacopoeia preparation consisting of specified quantitties
of mercury and chalk, and is frequently prescribed for children. During the year several samples
were examined, and eight of them were found not to conform to the requirements of the British
Pharmacopoeia.
Prosecutions were undertaken in respect of four samples, and all were down for hearing on the
same day. The first case was heard at great length, and the Bench dismissed the summons and gave
20 guineas costs against the council; the remaining three summonses were thereupon withdrawn.
It was contended on behalf of the defendants that a grey powder purchased in a chemist's shop need
not necessarily conform to the British Pharmacopoeia standard and that a chemist might add a
diluent without giving notice of such addition to the purchaser.
It is significant that, notwithstanding the decision of the Bench, within one week of the hearing
one of the defendants altered the labels used by him in connection with the sale of grey powders so
as to give notice that the powders contained an ingredient not specified in the British Pharmacopoeia.
A brief reference has already been made to the difficulty of taking action under section 30 of the
Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928. In certain instances, however, where a label is misleading
and the purchaser is prejudiced by the article he receives, it might be possible to prosecute successfully
under section 2 of the Act. This section provides that no person shall sell to the prejudice of the
purchaser any article of food or drug which is not of the nature or substance or quality of the article
demanded. In the absence of definite standards, prosecutions under this section arising from
deceptive labelling entail considerable risk, and doubtless many local authorities have hesitated
to take this risk, in the knowledge that failure to secure a conviction would give impetus to the very
practice they were endeavouring to stop.
Another difficulty arises from the fact that retailers purchase many of the foods they sell in
tins or packets which are sealed and labelled by the manufacturer. The retailer, therefore, unable
to guarantee such articles himself, obtains a written warranty from the firm supplying him, and it
is reasonably certain that most summonses against retailers would be dismissed as a result of what
is known as a " warranty defence." It is true that proceedings might then be taken against the
person supplying the warranty, but by reason of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, such proceedings
must be taken within six months of the date of the warranty. In two recent cases in
Kensington where a summons against a retailer was dismissed on a warranty defence it was found
impossible to proceed against the wholesaler because more than six months had elapsed since the
date of his warranty. A large variety of foodstuffs, particularly those in tins, remain in saleable
condition for a year or more, and it is quite likely that cases similar to these two will arise in the
future.
In 1931 a departmental committee was set up to enquire into the working of the law as to the
composition and description of articles of food other than milk, and to report what alterations in
the law or its administration appeared desirable. The work of this committee was suspended later
in that year on account of the economic crisis, and when it was resumed two years later the terms
of reference were amended as follows :—
" To consider whether it is desirable that the law relating to the composition and description
of articles of food should be altered so as to enable definitions or standards to be
prescribed or declarations of composition to be required, for articles of food other than liquid
milk ; and if so to recommend what alterations of the law are required."
The Committee completed its work in 1934, and the following are extracts from its report :—
" Our answer to the question which we are asked to report upon is that it is desirable
that the law relating to the composition and description of articles of food should be altered
so as to enable definitions or standards to be prescribed, or declarations of composition to
be required, for articles of food other than liquid milk."
" At the same time we wish to state that in our opinion the case for the extension of
standards or definitions to all articles of food is not made out. We consider that in a large
number of cases the housewife to-day gets an article of the nature, substance, and quality
she demands and that she would not be benefited by a multitude of standards, definitions or
declarations of composition. We are satisfied, however, that in some cases standards or
declarations of composition or definitions of some kind are necessary for the protection
of the consumer."