View report page

44
The addition of thickening substance to cream is prohibited. A thickening substance is
defined as sucrate of lime, gelatine, starch paste or any other substance, which when added to cream
is capable of increasing its viscosity, but does not include cane or beet sugar.
The penalty for an offence under the Regulations is a fine not exceeding £100, and in the case
of a continuing offence a further penalty not exceeding £50 for every day during which the offence
continues.
These Regulations are generally in accordance with the views which have been put forward
by the Council for many years past, and there is good reason to be satisfied with them, for they
prohibit the addition of those preservatives which the Council have endeavoured to exclude from
foodstuffs in this Borough, and they sanction the use of only two preservatives, namely, sulphur
dioxide and benzoic acid, which may be regarded as harmless in the quantities prescribed and in
regard to which the Council have never seen fit to take proceedings.
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1927.— This Act is designed to give effect to the recommendation
of the Departmental Committee on Preservatives and Colouring Matters in Food that
"any prohibitions or limitations imposed by Regulation should bind the Courts in proceedings
taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts." The Act applies to all Regulations made
under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, dealing with the composition of,
or additions of any ingredient or material to, an article of food. Thus, the standards laid down
by the Condensed Milk Regulations and the Dried Milk Regulations, as well as the prohibitions
and restrictions in the Preservatives Regulations, will in future be conclusive for the purpose of
proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875.
THE USE OF PRESERVATIVES IN CREAM.
The Council have for many years past taken a deep interest in the controversy in regard to
the use of preservatives in cream and, now that the Law has finally required cream to be entirely
free from preservatives and thus the Council's wishes have been granted, it will be of interest to
members of the Council to have before them a history showing the steps which have been taken in
arriving at this goal.
In 1901, a Departmental Committee appointed by the Government to consider the use of preservatives
in food, recommended "that the use of boric acid in cream in an amount not exceeding
0.25% (17.5 grains per pound) be permitted—the amount of such preservative to be notified by
a label upon the container.''
The Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington, from time to time, urged the then Local
Government Board to give effect—by legislation or otherwise—to the recommendation of the
Departmental Committee, and in 1909, in the absence of any action in the direction indicated, the
Council notified cream vendors in the Borough that, pending further legislation, they would take
proceedings against persons selling cream containing boric acid without making clear disclosure of
its presence and also that in cases where such disclosure was made, proceedings would still be taken
in cases where the quantitv of boric acid found to be present exceeded 17.5 grains per pound—the
equivalent of the limit suggested by the Departmental Committee.
In 1912 the Local Government Board issued the original Milk and Cream Regulations which
were made under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907. These were framed in
such a manner as to allow of the impression being formed that the addition of boric acid to cream
in any amount was permissible providing the receptacle containing the cream bore a certain form
of declaratory label.
That the addition of boric acid to cream was illegal was clearly proved by the High Court
decision in Cullen v. McNair (1906) 72 J.P. 376, which established the fact that the presence of
0.313 per cent., or 21.91 grains per pound, of boric acid rendered the cream injurious to the health
of children and invalids, it being held also by the High Court that the limitation of the judgment
to children and invalids did not exonerate the vendor, such persons being a substantial part of the
community. In the case of Whale v. Bennett (British Food Journal, May to September, 1913),
the Justices at the London Quarter Sessions, after hearing a mass of expert evidence, decided that
cream containing 0.3157 per cent., or 22.309 grains per pound, of boric acid was injurious to
health—there was no suggestion here that children and invalids were the only persons injuriously
affected and there was no limitation of the judgment to children and invalids—and that the sale
of such article, even when labelled, was an offence under Section 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1875.
In this connection it should be borne in mind that, under Section 8 of the Sale of Food and
Drugs Act, 1875, where a food is mixed with an ingredient which is injurious to health, disclosure
by label is no defence.
In 1917 the Local Government Board issued an order amending the Regulations of 1912 by
adding to the provision that no preservatives should be added to cream except boric acid, the
words "in amount not exceeding 0.4 per cent. (28 grains per pound) " and by requiring
the declaratory labels to bear the words "Not suitable for infants or invalids."
This Order was, in the view of the Council, misleading, inasmuch as it might be understood
by implication to sanction the addition of boric acid to cream up to the amount stated, subject to
such amount being declared.