BORIC ACID IN BUTTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20992, 1 October 1931, Page 9

BORIC ACID IN BUTTER.

DAIRY COMPANY PROSECUTED PRESERVATIVES FORBIDDEN, COMMENT ■ EY MAGISTRATE[I'ItOM OUR, OWN COnn.KPI'ONDKNT.] ■ HAMILTON". Wednesday. L'lnas of guilty were entered by • the Waikato Valley Dairy Company,' Limited, Frankton, in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court to-day, to four charges of selling butter containing boric, aoid and to ono charge of selling butter containing excessive moisture. For the prosecution, Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said samples of four different brands of but'er sold by the defendant company were bought by an officer of the Health Department in different Auckland shops in August and September. The four samples were found to contain a preservative forbidden by law, and one sample contained 16.6 per cent, of water, or .6 per cent, more than the law allowed. The labels stated that the butter was free from preservatives Mr. A. L; Tompkins, for the defendant company, said that up to three years ago preservatives were permitted in buster made for export. Their use was then prohibited. The company was not aware that the prohibition applied to butter made for local consumption. Mr. Tompkins pointed out that owing to the bad weather expeiienced in August great difficulty was met with in maintaining the keeping quality of butter made that month, and boric acid was ap| lied as a temporary expedient. The amount of preservative used was equal to onefifteenth of the maximum allowed before the prohibition tamo into force threo years agoj Counsel described the variations that occurred in the moisture content of one churn of butter, and said it was impossible to prevent these variations. There had been no previous complaint regarding the company's product. The magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson, said it was the duty of the company to adhere to the regulations, and ignorance of the law was no excuse. On one c-ount of using preservative the company was fined £2. Mr. Wilson said he was isatisfied the excessive moisture in the butter was accidental. Defendants were ordered to pay the costs on that charge.