View report page

22
left much to be desired, the actual confectionery was harmless. Another complaint was made that a
yeast loaf caused burning of the throat, but members of your analyst's staff ate the bread without
any ill-effect. Garden peas were reported as unfit for consumption, but your analyst could find no
fault with them, and grapefruit sections were thought to be mouldy, whereas in fact there was no sign
of mould growth. Complaints of mouse dirt in sausages were found to be caused by dyes used in
manufacture.
The bone attached to a piece of meat stated by the complainant not to be chicken was found to be
chicken bone and the skin was that of a fowl. One person objected that some tea was contaminated
with oil because it did not sink in boiling water. No oil was found to be present, but it is interesting
to note that a tea-taster insists on water used in his tests being freshly boiled so that the tea does not
sink to the bottom of the cup. Finally, some crab sandwiches were examined because of a complaint
that they had been made with paste and not with crab meat, but, on examination it was clear that
dressed crab had been employed and that no paste was present.
Food vendors should thus realize that it is in their own interests that members of the public take
their complaints to an unprejudiced specialist for examination. The Public Analyst is unaware of the
identity of the shop from which any complaint arises. At the present time he finds that probably
not more than half of the complaints made by members of the public are justified. Nevertheless this
high proportion of unjustified complaints received from the public serves to indicate that the Analyst
frequently supports the manufacturer and that therefore their allegations in Court that the Public
Analyst is not qualified to speak on what the public is entitled to expect are unfair.
Food Legislation and Recommendations during 1956.
On the 1st January the new Food and Drugs Act, 1955, came into operation. It is a consolidating
Act and repeals The Food and Drugs Act, 1938, The Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial
Cream) Act, 1950, and The Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954. The last-mentioned Act was
passed with the knowledge that it would never come into force as such, but that it would provide
material for consolidation into the present Act. Whether such a procedure was wise or not is doubtful;
if the Food and Drugs Act, 1954, had been allowed to operate for a few years before the whole Act
was consolidated an opportunity would have been provided to discover whether all its provisions were
workable. From the public analyst's standpoint there are several weaknesses. The definition of food
in Section 135 is not as good as that in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. With the new Act one finds
that a food includes " article and substance used as an ingredient in the preparation of food or drink,"
but sections 91 and 92 of the Act also provide for "substances capable of being used in the preparation
of food," and it remains for the High Court to decide what is the difference, if any, between an article
or substance used as an ingredient in the preparation of food and a substance capable of being used
in the preparation of food. This point could have been resolved during the course of the Bill through
Parliament and, in your analyst's opinion, it should have been settled.
The first Food and Drugs Act was passed in 1860, but there is still no legal definition of a medicine,
although the definition of a drug states that it includes medicine for internal or external use. The
definition of a "substance recommended as a medicine" given in the Pharmacy and Medicines Act,
1941, is unsatisfactory as it is difficult to know exactly what constitutes an ailment, infirmity, or injury
affecting the human body. The new Act states that a food does not include articles or substances
used only as drugs but, whilst this may be comprehensive, it is far from clear. Patent and proprietary
medicines, however, are no longer exempt from the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act.
From the public analyst's point of view one of the chief advantages of the new Act is that a
part-time public analyst, when acting in that capacity, now enjoys the protection of the local authority.
Previously a part-time public analyst has been personally liable to penalties, in the event of a mistake
having been made by him either in his analysis or in his recommendations or actions to support his
views.
One point entirely new to Food and Drug administration is that provision has been made whereby
a public analyst, who is unable to carry out an effective analysis of a sample because he lacks the
necessary apparatus or knowledge, may pass it to the public analyst for another area who possesses
such apparatus or knowledge. Unfortunately expensive physical apparatus is being introduced at
such a rate that soon it may be impossible to carry out the whole analysis of a sample in one laboratory,
but as the Act has been worded the whole analysis must be carried out under the control of one
analyst only.
From the general administrative angle, the period during which proceedings may be commenced
for samples, other than milk, has been extended from 28 days to two months and the time during which
proceedings for giving a false warranty may be commenced has been increased to twelve months.