The Gazette 1977

APRIL 1977

GAZETTE

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. 51

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.