MILK STANDARD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23970, 21 May 1941, Page 10

MILK STANDARD

PBOSECUTION OF FIEM FINE ON THREE CHARGES METHODS OF TESTING The hearing of three charges against the Auckland .Milk Company of selling milk which .did not comply with prescribed standards, adjourned from Friday, was concluded in the Police Court, yesterday before .Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. The charges, which were denied by the defendant company, arose from alleged offences at Auckland and at Devonport in February- Mr. G. S. R. Meredith represented the Health Department and Mr. B. Elliot the company. Dr. Iv. M. Griffin, Government analyst at Auckland, who had stated on the first day of the hearing that milk should be tested before delivery to the consumers, was recalled by the magistrate. In answer to questions by the Court lie said it would be simple to test milk on arrival. It was essential to public health that the test should be carried out. Case for Defence "This matter affects the whole business of Auckland companies, who are. doing everything they can to make the milk pure," said Mr. Elliot. Die defence was that all reasonable steps were being taken. He submitted that it was the universal experience that milkshould be sent quickly to the consumer to ensure freshness and it was impracticable to carry out a reductase tost and know the result in time to withdiaw any milk found detective. II they waited, delivery might be delayed 12 hours and during the test milk would in- deteriorating. Extensive tests taken daily in the summer by the company and by a consulting chemist and analyst were doscribed by Mr. Elliot, who said a close check was kept on the supply Factory Manager's Evidence C. Petersen, the company's factory manager, said ho was a graduate of a Danish dairy college and had experience in Denmark and Canada. He maintained that Dr. Griffin's suggestion was impracticable, as keeping the milk would lower the standard. He would prefer to pasteurise all milk, thus destroying all bacteria, but this was not allowed in the company's licorice from the Milk Council. Asked by Mr. Meredith if he carried out the full requirements for a reductase test as laid down in 1910 regulations, witness .said he did not, but that the consulting chemist did. The company worked to its own standards. He admitted that tests had shown the milk which was subject to charges at Devonport to be inferior but no steps had been taken to stop its delivery. "Scheme Impracticable" L. S Spackman, 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 19-10 regulations. He said Dr. Griffin's scheme was impracticable. The Magistrate: Then it must be quite impracticable to stop the public getting bad milk? Witness: If you put it that way, yes The milk is not bad, of course, and would not he noticed in drinking, although it might not be desirable to be sold. Witness continued that the main reason was the difficulty of knowing what standard of test to adopt. The scheme would mean that the whole Auckland milk supply would be affected and the milk would deteriorate until it won Id _ not be suitable. At present the quality was quite good with only occasional lapses The 1040 tests could not be carried out before the milk was delivered. Dr. Griffin Again Recalled C. R. Dee, New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company factory 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 Mr. Elliot if he knew of any company which carried out the test he advocated. Dr. Griffin: The wretched supply in Auckland shows that it is not carried out. The companies must carry it out or go out of business. "Milk is essential to the public and regulations have been made for its sale." said the magistrate "The small shopkeepers have been fined for selling inferior milk but now a company is before the Court it is said it is impracticable for sufficient check to he made." Mr Klliot : We say we have taken all reasonable steps. The Magistrate: According to Dr. Griffin all reasonable steps have not been taken. A fine of £'o will be imposed on each charge. At Mr. Elliot's request the fine was increased to £5 Is. which will give the defendant company right of appeal