View report page

The other aspect with which the purchaser is concerned, nature, substance and quality, is
also gradually being resolved by means of food standards orders made by the Minister under
powers delegated by the Food and Drugs Act; and from forty-five years' experience of trying to
maintain food quality by means of the bare Food and Drugs Act I am convinced that a specific
legal standard is necessary for each principal kind of food and drink.
The point at which the Food and Drugs Act fails is when adulteration is only slight, too
little to justify the legal process of prosecution and to have a reasonable chance of success in
Court. Thus by insidious degrees the quality of any food can be reduced without interference by
the Authorities appointed to enforce the Act.
Attention was drawn to many traditional foods and drinks that had gradually become debased
in this way in my address to the Royal Society of Health ten years ago.7 A single example, the
story of Ice Cream, will be sufficient on this occasion to illustrate the need for and the potential
benefit of specific legal standards.
At the end of the nineteenth century, according to the recipe books, Ice Cream had a basis
of around 25% of cream; and that was real cream, with about 40% milk fat, not the present day
"cream" with only 18% milk fat. The resulting 10% fat content became gradually reduced to
about 5% by commercial undertakings, and I well remember in the nineteen thirties trying to
persuade Local Authorities to prosecute on samples that showed only about 2%. The lawyers
refused, however, on the grounds that there was no minimum requirement and one could not say
there was no cream in the product. In 1937 my former chief, Mr. Edward Hinks, persuaded Surrey
County Council to prosecute on the grounds that a "Super Ice Cream" contained a mixture of
margarine fat and milk fat.8 Three experts for the defence argued that the purchaser was not
prejudiced, since he got something better than he had asked for. The Court held that the composition
of Ice Cream was a matter for the legislature, not for them, and dismissed the case.
Few, if any, other prosecutions of the kind were taken after that case and the "cream"
became gradually replaced by vegetable fats, although the name "Ice Cream" was retained.
Fourteen years later, when even the percentage of vegetable fat had become minimal in some
makes, the Ministry of Food issued the first Food Standard Order for Ice Cream. This Order
required a minimum of 5% fat of any edible variety. In 1952 the figure was reduced to 4% but it
was raised again to 5% in 1953. In 1959 the fat was required to be milk fat if the product was
described as "Dairy Ice Cream" or "Cream Ice", and in 1967 a labelling requirement was
added — "Contains Non-Milk Fat" to be stated on the container of any Ice Cream containing
fat other than milk fat.
Out of hundreds of samples analysed recently I have found hardly any that failed to comply
with the Standards Order, showing that by the simple publication of a specific Order the compositional
quality of a food can not only be maintained but varied and improved so as to accord
with whatever it is considered that the purchaser is entitled to expect.
We now have 26 Food Standards Orders or Regulations. Similar histories of falling quality
arrested by the Order could be written for each class of food, but once an Order has been made
it is rare to find a food or drink manufactured in this country that does not comply with it.
The recommendation of the present Food Standards Committee9 that Four Standards Orders,
which have in fact been operating quite successfully, should be revoked is therefore regarded as
a retrogressive step. The Orders in question are—
(1) Baking Powder and Golden Raising Powder
It was not uncommon before 1944, when the Standard was made requiring not less than 8%
available carbon dioxide, to find baking powders, usually badly packed or old stock, which yielded
less than 4% of carbon dioxide. These were still, legally, baking powder, but they spoiled a cake
unless the cook used an extra large proportion. Should we go back to those days?
(2) Edible Gelatine
Should we revert to the position before 1949, when some gelatines were of such poor setting
quality that one had to use 10-12% to make a jelly (at which concentration the taste of glue was
revolting) instead of the normal 2-3%? Vou cannot tell whether it will set by looking at it when
you buy it!
(3) Mustard
The argument for revocation seems to be that the only criterion is in the flavour, which can
be judged directly, (but only after the purchase has been made) and that there is a wide variation
in personal preferences. There is plenty of scope for varying the flavour in the compound mustard
pastes, which are not controlled, but if the powdered mustard seed from which the pastes are
made loses its aroma how can the desired pastes be made? If the salt have lost its savour,
wherewith shall it be salted?10 Evidence from the analysis of exporters' samples shows that
aroma deficient varieties of mustard flour are offered to British firms from time to time, and if no
aroma were required bylaw these cheaper kinds could gradually replace the mustard of the present
day. The position might even revert to that of a century ago, when it was argued on the Queen's
Bench that since it was well known that mustard was mixed with flour and other things such a
purchase could not be to the prejudice of the purchaser.
57