View report page

58
In 36 of the samples water was certified to have been added; in 14 the amount
was more and in 22 it was less than 5 per cent., taking the standard of the Board
of Agriculture. In 34 the samples showed deficiencies in milk fat; in 14 the
deficiency was more, and in 20 it was less than 5 per cent. In 4 instances both fat
had been abstracted and water added. Four of the samples contained traces of
artificial colouring matter. None showed the presence of Formic Aldehyde.
Legal proceedings were instituted in 31 or 38.7 per cent, of the cases in which
the samples of milk were below standard, and in 29 of these convictions were
obtained. In one instance the summons was dismissed, a warranty being proved,
and in one case the defendant was ordered to pay 2s., the cost of the summons.
With regard to the remainder of the samples below standard the small percentages
of adulteration rendered it so very unlikely that convictions could be obtained,
that prosecutions were not considered advisable. In five instances letters of
caution were sent to the vendors. The percentage of the adulterated samples in
which it was not thought advisable to prosecute was 61, as compared with 65 in
1911, 69 in 1910, 80 in 1909, 66 in 1908, 65 in 1907, 66 in 1906, 60 in 1905, and
55 in 1904.
In the cases in which convictions were obtained the penalties for milk
adulteration amounted to £77 10s., which is equivalent to about 6.9 per cent, of
the full amount of the penalties to which the defendants were liable as compared
with 6'6 per cent, in 1911, 4.4 in 1910, 28 in 1909, 11.2 in 1908, 5.6 in 1907,
5.6 in 1906, 7.8 in 1905, 6 in 1904, 8 in 1903 and 13 in 1902.
Taking fines and costs, which in the aggregate amounted to £109 7s. 6d., the
average amount paid by the defendants on conviction was £3 15s. 5d., as compared
with £2 8s. 3d. in 1911, £1 lis. 6d. in 1910, £12 6s. 4d. in 1909, £3 Is. 4d. in 1908,
£1 13s. 7d. in 1907, £2 9s. 6d. in 1906, £2 19s. 3d. in 1905, £2 6s. l0d. in 1904,
£1 18s. 6d. in 1903, and £2 18s. 4d. in 1902. The marked excess of the figures
for the year 1909 was due to two defendants being very heavily fined.