View report page

The method adopted in the "Assize of Bread", in King John's reign, was designed to control
the profit made by the baker, the selling price of a loaf being related to the price of a quarter of
wheat. The act proved ineffective and clauses to prevent adulteration were added and punishments
made more severe. In 1634 meal was included, but the first Act that laid down a clearly defined
standard for bread, specifying which ingredients could be used and prohibiting all others, was in
1836.
A few other foods came under the supervision of the City Companies: spices, for instance,
were "garbelled", i.e. subject to inspection, testing and confiscation if defective, by the
Mistery of Grocers under an edict of Henry VI, and some protection against the sale of bad fish
was afforded by the Fishmongers' Company, but such powers were mainly confined to the City of
London and the penalties imposed proved insufficient deterrent when weighed against the profits
of adulteration.
Tea became subject to adulteration almost as soon as it reached the shops in about 1657,
and in 1723/30 Acts were passed to prohibit dealers in tea from sophisticating, adulterating,
counterfeiting or fabricating tea. But in spite of the comprehensive wording introduced in the
later Acts, means of evasion were still found, e.g. by arranging that the persons fabricating the
fictitious tea leaves were not "dealers in tea".
The net was extended in the case of beer and porter by an Act in 1816, which made it an
offence for any brewer, dealer or retailer of beer to have in his possession any article that could
be used as a substitute for malt or hops. Coffee was also adulterated almost immediately after
it was introduced and an Act was passed in 1803 to establish a standard for coffee and prohibit
the addition of other vegetable substances, etc.
The sale of adulterated wine and unwholesome meat were prohibited by early Acts, but many
other foods that had become subject to adulteration were not covered, and to pass a separate Act
for every kind of food was too much for any Parliament.
The first attempt to secure the purity of all foods and drinks by one general Act was made in
1860s and the previous Acts, which had by then become operational within their limited fields,
were revoked. The new Act prohibited the addition of any substance that rendered a food or
drink injurious to health, and also prohibited the sale of adulterated food. Unfortunately it
proved inadequate, although recast in 1872, owing to the difficulty of proving when food or drink
is (a) injurious to health, or (b) adulterated.
The legal meaning of "adulterated" in relation to a particular food or drink, particularly
where a certain degree of admixture had become customary, led to interminable arguments between
"expert witnesses" and, because of the financial considerations involved, the defence
was not often lacking in expert advocacy.
The Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875 replaced the offence of "adulteration" by a new
offence of selling to his prejudice an article that was not of the nature, substance or quality
demanded by the purchaser. This provision has proved a very great benefit to the general public,
readily enforceable in any clear cut case of prejudice, and is retained to the present day.
But unfortunately there arose a great many instances where doubt existed as to whether a
purchaser was prejudiced, and as to precisely what degree of quality he was to be presumed to
have demanded. The questions arose, for instance, whether it was injurious to health or otherwise
prejudicial to put preservative into a perishable food; if not, which preservative was appropriate
and how much? And at what concentration did arsenical or metallic contamination render food
injurious to health? In more recent times similar questions have arisen about the use of artificial
colouring matters, antioxidants, mineral hydrocarbons and other food additives.
The multiplicity and technicality of the questions were beyond the capacity of the Law
Courts; and, moreover, to bring legal proceedings in doubtful cases, particularly where a manufacturer
might be trying to improve the quality and reduce the cost of his products, was to cause
hardship and considerable expense and should not be necessary. What was needed to avoid such
litigation was a specific Order or Regulation clarifying each point, not only to protect the public
but to inform manufacturers and dealers in food and drinks what additives, if any, can properly be
used without endangering health or impairing the product.
Finally, in 1925, after considering reports from two Departmental Committees and some forty
years after the introduction of preservatives into general use, detailed Preservatives Regulations®
were published by the Minister of Health under powers conferred upon him by the Public Health
Acts, 1875-1907.
This was a new method of food control, by delegation of authority to a Department of State
instead of by Acts of Parliament. And, being open to amendment in the light of future requirements,
departmental regulations heralded a notable breakthrough from the previous difficulties. Eleven
regulations limiting harmful additives and contaminants in food have now been made, and they
have proved of the greatest value in reducing undesirable constituents without involving costly
litigation.
56