View report page

92
in his hands cither to break the contract or to enrich the milk to the Official
Standard, if he wishes to continue to the end of the half-yearly contract,
whichever course will pay him best at the moment.
It is, therefore, evident that milk purveyors can take care of themselves in
their own defence, and it is inadvisable to spend the ratepayers' money in
protecting trade interests, and not those of the small traders but only those of
the great dealers. In fact 98 per cent. of the expenditure upon the promiscuous
sampling and analysis of milk at railway stations produces no result, and
the remaining 2 per cent. protects special trade interests and not the public.
The conclusion St. Pancras came to in 1901, which is confirmed by the
results in Islington in 1902, was that by purchasing samples of milk of retail
vendors, the adulteration of milk can most effectually be controlled.
Sampling Milk sold by Wholesale Dealers.—Wholesale dealers include all
dealers who sell milk to other dealers and to retailers, and also those dealers
who sell milk both by wholesale and in retail. Those who carry on the wholesale
and the double system of trading no doubt are sufficiently strong commercially
to demand warranties, but the smaller dealers who are retailers only
are not, and do not obtain warranties. Consequently to sample milk upon
delivery to a retailer is futile, unless he has a warranty and can produce it.
No retailer has ever done so in my experience, because retailers are under the
impression that it is not their business to ascertain what kind of milk they
purchase, inasmuch as they are empowered by law to take it upon trust or
"belief" (see Sec. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875), and because
wholesale dealers will not give retailers warranties, for good reasons that will
be subsequently shown, and that without the production of a warranty no
prosecution can proceed, and consequently retailers knowing this do not ask
for samples of wholesale dealers' milk to be taken upon delivery to them (the
retailers).
Sampling Milk sold by Retail Vendors.—Although no actual figures are
available to show the percentage of adulterated samples obtained from different
classes of dealers in milk, except the farmer or producer and the retailer or
ultimate vendor to the public, nevertheless the impression left upon the mind
is that the smaller amount of milk sold the greater the probability of adulteration,
so that, if milk dealers are roughly classified as those selling—(1) a
gallon or two a day, (2) a churn or two a day, (3) several churns a day, and
(4) a van load or more churns daily—it would appear that amongst the firstmentioned
class adulteration is most frequent, whereas amongst the lastmentioned
it is least seldom found. This distinctly indicates that attention
should be directed in the first place towards controlling the milk distribution
of the smallest retailers, and working backwards to the large dealers and the
producers.
Sec. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, provides that if a
defendant—for instance, a retailer who has been proved by a public analyst's
certificate to have sold milk to an inspector or his agent not of the nature,
substance and quality demanded of him,—proves (1) that he sold the milk in
the same state as when he purchased it, (2) that he had no reason to believe
that at the time when he sold it the milk was not of the nature, substance, and
quality demanded of him, and (3) that he has a written warranty of the nature,,
substance, and quality of the milk,—then he shall be discharged from the
prosecution.