View report page

(4) Curry Powder
The Committee recount that before the Standard Order was made in 1949 sub-standard products
were on sale containing excessive amounts of salt or farinaceous material. They go on to say that
most curry powders now on sale contain over 90% spices and that there is little point in retaining
the statutory control. One would have thought the facts cited showed the need for the Order and
the success achieved by it.
On looking up my records I find that in the last six years nine consignments of curry powder
reached the Port of London which on analysis showed up to 50% of diluents, such as pea meal,
corn and ground pea hulls. How many consignments slipped through or were shipped to other
ports I do not know, but there is ample evidence of continuing attempts to pass off adulterated
curry powders.
In recommending the revocation of these Orders the Committee conclude that they are prepared
to rely on the general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and, should necessity arise, on
action by enforcement authorities, to see that the standards of these products do not fall below
the present minima.
The general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act were not sufficient to avoid the need for
the Standards Orders and, as experience has shown, their force is vastly reduced when a standard
is revoked. Would you blame a motorist for doing more than 30 m.p.h. on a road that had been
derestricted? Two Appeal cases, only too well-known to public analysts, will be sufficient to
iIlustrate the effect of revoking a standard.
In 1953 the Meat Products (No.3) Order, which required the minimum meat content of pork
sausages to be 65% and stipulated a maximum price, was revoked. In 1955 the Somerset County
Council took a prosecution against a firm for selling pork sausages containing only 50-55% of
meat, the analyst's opinion that pork sausages should contain at least 65% of meat being based
upon (a) several years' experience of pork sausages analyses and (b) the fact that a standard of
65% had been in force from 1950-1953. The case was dismissed and on appeal the Court dismissed
the appeal on the grounds that the analyst's standard was founded on an entirely false
basis."
In 1956 a prosecution concerning a pork sausage which contained 57.5% of meat was dismissed
at Rye, and on appeal the Lord Chief Justice said, dismissing the appeal, "These cases
will go on until some Minister issues an Order saying what a sausage is" and "The sooner it is
seen that these cases lead to chaos and it is prescribed what a sausage is, the better."12
In other words, if the Government decides there should be no legal standard for a food, what
right has a Public Analyst to attempt to establish one?
It is not contended that there need be a Standards Order for every single food and certainly
not for proprietary foods; but where a primary or traditional food or drink becomes subject to
gradual debasement experience has shown that the Food and Drugs Act alone is inadequate to
maintain its original nature and quality.
REFERENCES
D. & P. Brothwell, "Food in Antiquity", 1969 p 192
2 Pliny, Natural History, XVI11, c.29.
3 Drummond, J.C. & Wilbraham, A, The Englishman's Food, 1958.
4 A. Wynter Blyth, Foods: Their Composition & Analysis. Attributed to Vetruvius.
5 An Act for preventing the Adulteration of Articles of Food or Drink, 34 & 35 Vict. c.84.
8 The Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations, 1925.
H. Amphlett Williams, Food Sampling: Changing Trends, J.Roy. Soc. Health, 1961, 81, 141.
8 Surrey County Council v. The "Q" Ice Cream Company Ltd., Brit.Food J., 1937, 108.
9 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Report of Food Standards Committee on the pre1955
Compositional Orders, 1970.
10 Matthew, V. 13, Interpretation, "Cum Grano Salis", R.A. Fraser, Chem. & Ind., 1971, 247.
Marston v. Loney Brit. Food J., 1955, 105.
12 Thrussell v. Whiteman, Brit. Food J., 1956, 14.
58