TAPIOCA ROOT NOT CEREAL

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 100, 22 January 1927, Page 13

TAPIOCA ROOT NOT CEREAL

VINEGAR MAKERS CONVICTED ORDERED TO PAY COSTS Dominion Special. Christchurch, January 21. That tapioca root is not a cereal was the decision of Mr. 11. D. Mosley, S.M., this morning, 'in giving judgment against the Dominion Compressed Yeast Company in the action brought against the company by the Department of Health. z H le defendant company had been charged witli unlawfully selling food (vinegar) made, bv the alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentations of infusions of tapioca root, whose starch had been converted by malt, and that it was in a package which had attached a false or misleading label. When heard in November the case attracted much interest, and several of the leading scientists of New Zealand were called to give evidence for the defence. In his judgment Mr. Mosley said that few problems that had arisen 111 the administration of the Food and Drugs Act had presented more difficulties than the question of what was, or was not, malt vinegar, for there was no legal definition of the product, ami all attempts to obtain a binding decision had hitherto proved fruitless. In England it was quite evident that there was a divergence in the views held by leading public analysts. Hie want of some authoritative statement was so keenly felt that,, in 1911, the Association of Vinegar Brewers asked for a definition of “malt vinegar.” Ihe suggested definition of malt vinegar d-as: "Malt vinegar is derived wholly from malted barley, or wholly from cereals, the starch' of which has been saccharified by the diastase of malt. In the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act of New Zealand, malt vinegar was defined as follows: "Malt vinegar shall be a product made by the alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentations of infusions of barley malt, and (oi) of cereals whose starch has been converted bv malt, and ‘shall conform to the general standard of vinegar.” In reviewing the expert evidence, the Magistrate said that it left no doubt in his mind that the use of the tapioca root was not in any way injurious to health, but he was forced to the conclusion, from the definitions, that neither scientifically nor in its popular sense could tapioca root or floui be deemed to be cereal. "If, as has been stated by the expert witnesses,” concluded Mr. _ Mosley, “vinegar prepared from a mixture of malt and tapioca is likely to be of as great a dietetic value as vinegar prepared by anv other process, then I can see no objection to the regulation being extended so as to free bonafide manufacturers from the risk of prosecution. In my opinion, the defendant has offended against clause. D of regulation 51, and must be convicted.” Mr. Moslev also expressed the opinion that the industry ought to be encouraged. Having heard the evidence of extremely capable scientific witnesses, he did not desire to do anything which might hinder the Yeast Companv from carrying on. It was not a case for a heavy penalty. Defendant would be convicted and ordered to pay the costs on the information of selling. The information relating to labelling was withdrawn.