The Gazette 1977

GAZETTE

APRIL 1977

The 1899 Act attempts

(inter alia)

to prevent the

importation of margarine masquerading as butter and

contains provision for the proper marking of such

imported articles as margarine, condensed milk and other

agricultural products unless adequately marked so as to

indicate their true identity. The Act conferred powers on

the Local Government Board and on the Board of

Agriculture analogous to those conferred by the Sale of

Food and Drugs Act 1875.

The Board of Agriculture is also empowered to make

regulations for determining the standard constituents of

dairy produce.

The legislation of the time appeared somewhat

obsessed with the passing of margarine as butter because

even before the 1899 Act the Margarine Act of 1887 had

carefully defined the distinction and imposed regulations

as to the clear marking of containers and the imposition

of penalties for infringement thereof. So strongly did they

feel about the subject that they cast the onus on the

vendor to show, if charged, that he had no reason to

believe thai the article was butter when relying upon a

warranty to that effect from the manufacturer. And the

powers of procuring samples for analysis conferred upon

authorised officers under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act

1875 were extended to the procurement of samples of

butter suspected of being margarine. Clearly the

cholesterol scare had not raised its head in those days.

Continuing the theme the Butter and Margarine Act of

1907 set out to make provisions with respect to the

manufacture, importation and sale of butter and

margarine and similar substances. This Act extended

inter alia

the powers of inspection of premises registered

under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts to premises

engaged in the manufacture of these products and to take

samples.

The adulteration of butter is prohibited and the

moisture content regulated. There is also provision for the

prohibition of preservatives of specified substances.

There is a reiteration of the prohibition against the use

of a name other than the word "margarine" to describe

this product and one suspects at this stage that the

Legislature was intent upon protecting the home butter

industry rather than safeguarding the public health.

The Sale of Food and Drugs (Milk) Act 1935

We now pass from 1907 to 1935 in which year was

enacted a statute entitled the Sale of Food and Drugs

(Milk) Act and was described as an Act to amend the Sale

of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1907 in relation to milk

and certain lactic products. This extended the penalties

applicable for infringements of the 1875 Act to

purchasers of milk, cream or buttermilk which was not of

the prescribed standard. The standard could be fixed by

regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture after

consultation with the Minister for Local Government and

Public Health.

The liability imposed by this Act was not absolute so

far as the purchaser was concerned, since the Act enabled

him to plead warranty if he had purchased it from a

supplier and served the prescribed notice after the

offending sample had been taken.

The following year, it was found necessary to pass an

amending Act viz. the Sale of Food and Drugs (Milk) Act

1936.

This extended the class of officers authorised to

procure and take samples of milk.

I will now turn to the statutes which have been enacted

in our own time and which are of a much more

comprehensive nature.

The Health Act 1947

The most important of these is the Health Act 1947,

Part V of which as amended by Sections 38 and 39 of the

Health Act 1953 deals with food and drink.

The Act, in Section 53, again attempts a definition of

"Food", for the purpose of Part V of the Act and it is

defined as "every article used for food and drink by man,

other than drugs or water and —

(a) Any article which ordinarily enters into or is

used in the composition or preparation of human

food.

(b) Flavouring matters, preservatives and

condiments.

(c) Colouring matter intended for use in food, and

(d) Compounds or mixtures of two or more foods."

The Act empowers the Minister for Health after

consultation with the Minister for Industry and

Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture to make

Regulations for the prevention of danger to the public

health arising from the manufacture, importation, storage

or distribution of food, the prevention of contamination

and the prohibition of the sale of food intended for human

consumption or of living animals or constituents of foods

which are diseased, contaminated or otherwise unfit

The provisions are far reaching and it is the first

attempt to deal with the problem as a whole rather than in

a piecemeal fashion.

The penalties, however, are lamentable, the

maximum fine being £100 with a further fine of

£10 per day for a continuing offence or, at the

discretion of the Court, a term of imprisonment for a

period not exceeding six months or to both fine and

imprisonment. Since our Courts are unlikely to impose

prison sentences for offences of this nature, which, whilst

they may be a good deal more injurious to the public, do

not carry the same odium as shop-lifting, petty theft or

vagrancy, where there does not seem to be any such

reluctance, the only effective deterrent, in my view would

be the power vested in a Court of greater jurisdiction than

the District Court, to make closure orders for serious or

repeated offences.

Part V of the 1947 Act also enables Regulations to be

made for the licensing and registration of persons and

premises engaged in the manufacture, importation,

storage or distribution of food intended for human

consumption. The Minister for Health is next empowered

to make regulations prescribing a standard for the

composition of any food and the labelling thereof.

The penalties for infringement of these regulations are

again inadequate. For afirst offence, the maximum fine is

£20 and in the case of a second or subsequent offence,

a fine not exceeding £100. The Court has

a discretion if satisfied that the offence was committed by

the personal act or culpable negligence of the defendant to

impose a prison sentence of six months.

The true sanction, of course, is the wide publicity given

to the prosecution of these offences. In my experience a

few lines in small print in an evening newspaper reporting

the conviction of a store under this Act had the

instantaneous effect of reducing the sales of that

commodity in that store by 50% for a period of several

months.