NO HARM DONE

Evening Star, Issue 19550, 7 May 1927, Page 2

NO HARM DONE

All IKKOCUGUS ADVERTISEMENT [Peu United Pbebs Association.] AUCKLAND, May ,6. The question whether a ( newspaper advertisement for skim milk powder violated the regulations _ under the Food and Drug Act when it was headed in large type “ milk,” formed the subject of a decision by Mr Hunt, S.M., in ' the Police Court.

The New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, Ltd. (Mr Northcroft) was charged that, being the seller of Anchor brand skim milk powder it caused to be published in a newspaper an advertisement contrary to the particulars required by the regulations to be marked on the package iu which the article was sold.

Mr Hubble, for the Health Department, said the charge referred to a large display advertisement _ which commenced with the wording in large type “milk Sid a quart, by Using Anchor skim milk powder.” Section 9 of the Food and Drugs Act made it an offence to publish an advertisement which was contrary to, or in any way qualified any of the particulars required by the Act to be marked on a package in which an article referred to was sold.

The regulations under the Act made it necessary for skim milk packages to be marked “unfit for infants.” but these words did not appear in the advertisement. It was headed “ milk,” whereas it actually referred to skim milk. By featuring milk at 3jd a quart, when actually referring to skim milk, the advertisement tended to mislead the public. The department would ask that the words “ unfit for infants ” should be included in the _ advertisement, but it was doubtful if it could insist on their inclusion.

Mr Northcroft said no on© but a lunatic would misunderstand the advertisement, and think whole milk was referred to. The'Health Department had been querulous for a long time, and had been claiming to exercise censorship of advertising. The Magistrate: 1 have to see on behalf of the public that when someone’s attention has been caught, so that he buys the powder, he does not feed children on it. I see the packet is clearly marked “ unfit for infants,” and I am satisfied. I am not going to convict. The case is dismissed, and you take it to the Supreme Court if you like.