TESTS OF MILK SUPPLY

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27586, 17 February 1955, Page 15

TESTS OF MILK SUPPLY

PROSECUTION OF VENDORS MAGISTRATE SUGGESTS FULL CHECK “It would seem desirable that, if it is reasonably possible, where a check on milk is made it should be made right along the chain from source to finish. That would be more satisfactory than getting one unfortunate vendor who may not be the real offender," said Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., after hearing two cases in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in which milk vendors were charged with selling milk which did not comply with the required standard in that it was deficient in milk fat. Angus Charles Palmer, a milk vendor for whom Mr J. B. Weir appeared and entered a plea of guilty, was fined £2 on a charge of selling milk deficient in milk fat. Mr P. T. Mahon, for the Health Department, said that an inspector bought milk from the vendor in Kaiapoi on December 15. It was analysed and the milk fat was found to be 2.45 per cent. The minimum under the Food and Drugs Act was 3.25 per cent. Mr Weir said the milk was all bought from one supplier. The inspector took samples from a five-gallon can of loose milk and also from bottled raw and pasteurised milk. The only sample found deficient in fat was that from the five-gallon can. Palmer strenuously denied any knowledge that the milk was deficient in fat. The only explanation he could give was that the loose milk had been poured from a large can of milk from which the top half already had been poured without the whole can being properly stirred. Most of the fat would therefore be poured off before Palmer got his milk. Lester James King, a milk vendor, of Darfield, for whom Mr D. J. Clark appeared and entered a plea of guilty, was fined £2 on a charge of selling milk deficient in milk fat.

Mr Mahon said that the sample of the milk was taken on December 16 and when it was analysed it was found to contain 2.95 per cent, milk fat, the minimum standard being 3.25 per cent. Mr Clark said that a report showed that the milk supplied in Christchurch in December and January was deficient in fat and this was attributed to the dry conditions. Vendors accepted milk from suppliers at its face value. There was no suggestion of the milk being watered. Mr Clark said that the department’s inspectors did not check milk before it left the farms. This placed vendors in a most invidious position.

Mr Mahon said that all sources of milk were checked, whether it was from the farmer or the treating house. The difficulty was that, when a test was made of milk being sold by a vendor, there was no guarantee that it was m the same condition that it was when sold to him by the farmer. Prosecutions hac. frequently been taken against direct suppliers. After making the comment quoted above, the Magistrate said that the Court looked with extreme disfavour on any adulteration of food. If any fanners were convicted of adulterating milk they could look for heavy fines. But the Court could not impose heavy fines when nature took a hand as she occasionally did in summer when milk became deficient in fat.