COMPANY FINED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 186, 21 May 1941, Page 3

COMPANY FINED

MIUC SUPPLY IN AUCKLAND. THE QUESTION OF TESTS. (P;A.) AUCKLAND, May 20- ’ The hearing of three charges against the Auckland Milk Company, Liff., of selling milk which did not comply with tho prescribed standards, adjourned from- hVWay, was concluded to-day before Mr F.-jK! Hunt, S.AI. The charges, which wore denied by. tho defendant company, were alleged to have occurred at Auckland and at Devonport jn February. Air G. S. JR. Aleredith represented tho Health Department, and Mr B. Elliot the defendant compauy.

Dr. Griffin, Government analyst, at Auckland, who had stated on the first day of the hearing that milk should he tested before delivery to consumers, was recalled by the Alagistrate. jin answer to questions by tho (Court, lie said that it would bo simple to test milk on arrival. It was essential to public health that this should he carried out.

Questioned by Air Elliot, who asked if it was not essential for milk to go from the farm to the consumer as quickly as possible, he said that purity was far more essential., . “This matter affects the, whole business of the Auckland companies, who are . doing ; every thing the v can; to, make milk phfe,” said' Air Elliot/'The defence was that all reasonable steps were being taken. He held that it was a universal experience that milk should be sent quickly to the consumer to ensure freshness, and it was impracticable to carry out reductase test, and know the result in time to withdraw any milk found defective. If they waited, delivery might be delayed 12 hours, and during the test the milk would he deteriorating. Extensive tests taken daily in the summer by the company and by a consulting chemist and analyst, were described by Air Elliot, who said a close check was kept on the supply in February, when the offences allegedly occurred. The weather was hot. and suppliers were experiencing difficulty with labour. Other companies wero also in the same predicament, and all were anxious to keep the standards up. C. Petersen, the company’s factory manager, said he was a graduate of a Danish dairy college, and had had experience in Denmark and Canada. He maintained that Dr. Griffin’s suggestion was impracticable, as keeping the milk would lower tho standard. Ho would prefer to pasteurise all milk, thus destroying all bacteria, but this was not allowed in the company’s licence from the Milk Council.

L. S. Spackman, a qualified analyst and consulting chemist, said the company’s plant was very satisfactory. He had told the company that it would gain no advantage in using the tests prescribed in the 1940 regulations. He said Dr. Griffin’s scheme was impracticable. The scheme would mean that the whole of the Auckland milk supply would bo affected, and tho milk would deteriorate until it would not be suitable. At tho present time quality was quite good, with only occasional lapses. The 1940 tests could not be carried out before the milk was delivered.

Air Meredith : AVhat protection would the public have? AVitness: Tho public’s protection should come from the sale of pasteurised milk.

The Alagistrate: But some care should he taken with raw milk. Witness: It should start at the farm.

O. R. Dec, the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company’s factorry manager at East Tamaki, agreed that the suggested test was impracticable under normal factory conditions. Dr. Griffin, who was again recalled by the Magistrate, was asked by Air Elliot if he knew of any company which carried out tho test he advocated.

Dr. Griffin: The wretched supply in Auckland shows that it is not carried out. Tho companies must cany it mm or go out of business. “Alilk is essential to tho public, and regulations havo been made for its sale,” said tho Alagistrate. “Small shopkeepers have been fined for selling inferior milk, but now the company is before the Court. It is said that it is impracticable for a sufficient cheek to be made.” Mr Elliot: AVe say we have taken all reasonable steps. The Magistrate: According to Dr. Griffin, all reasonable steps have not been taken. A fine of £5 will be imposed on each charge. At the request of Air Elliot the fine was increased to £5 Is, which will give the defendant company tho right of appeal.