View report page

- 54 -
was due to war-time difficulties. Remedial
proposals either by fixing a minimum legal standard
or making a higher presumptive standard, and a
further suggestion for a scheme of payment on the
basis of compositional quality, were rejected by
the Working Party.
When considering the proposal for introducing
absolute standards, the Working Party took the view
that this would certainly improve the average quality,
but that it would also reduce the amount of milk
available for consumption and that both producers and
distributors would resent a departure from the
traditional view that milk, as it comes from the cow,
is "genuine". It was considered that the interests
of the consumer could be safeguarded by less drastic
means.
It was recommended that the best way to bring
about improvement was by means of closer co-operation
between producers, distributors, advisory services
and research institutes. This long-term proposal
does nothing to assist those whose primary interest
is in the supervision and control from the angle of
consumption. Any scheme which still allows a
standard other than a fixed legal standard will still
handicap local authorities in their endeavours to
ensure that milk of a reasonable standard is being
supplied to the consumer.
A further effort to improve the quality standard
was taken in the early part of this year during the
Committee stage in the House of Lords of the Pood and
Drugs Amendment Bill. An amendment was proposed
to require a minimum butter-fat content of 3 per cent.
Opinions expressed by local authorities' associations
and the Milk Marketing Board were quoted in support
of the amendment.
The amendment was, however, withdrawn after an
assurance had been given on behalf of the Government
that every endeavour would be made to raise the level
of milk production so that the fat content would be
above 3 per cent.
In Kensington during the twelve months ended
30th June, 1954, three hundred and seventy-two samples
of milk were analysed; three samples were deficient
in butter-fat and twenty-six were deficient in solidsnot-fat.
The deficiencies in the case of the butterfat
varied between 2 per cent, and 7 per cent., and in
the case of the solids-not-fat, between 1 per cent,
and 2 per cent.
The majority of the deficiencies were from bulked
supplies and occurred during the late winter and spring
of this year. During this period it is well known that
the quality of milk is at its lowest.
In each case where the milk was below the presumptive
standards the suppliers were asked for an explanation.
In the main the replies were to the same effect - that
every effort was made to balance the supplies before
release to the public but, owing to individual and seasonal
variations in fat and non-fat solid content, this was not
always possible. Nevertheless the milk was as supplied
by the cow.
As the matter now rests it appears that in the absence
of legal standards the Council can take no action in cases
where milk as produced by the cow falls below the
presumptive standards. "