STANDARD OF PURITY FOR MILK.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4396, 29 June 1901, Page 5 (Supplement)

STANDARD OF PURITY FOR MILK.

The selection of a'standard of purity for milk and as to what shall be considered evidence of presumptive adulteration has given rise 'to considerable discussion, says a writer in thg "British Farmer.” It will be remembered that tho majority report of the Departmental Comi«ittea appointed by the 'Board of Agriculture into the subject recommended that the limit should be 12 per cent, total solids, or either 3.25 per cent, of fat. or 8.5 per cent, of solids not fat. The Central Chamber of Agriculture, through their Dairy Froduct Committee. have considered these recommendations. and in the light of the report and the evidence brought before the Departmental Committee they think that a limit should be fixed at twelve per cent, of total solids containing not less than 3 per-cent, of butter fat. In direct antagonism ‘to this Jfiew, the Council of the Gloucestershire and Somersetshire Society, with the concurrence of that body, appeared before the Departmental Committee, when it was stated that the Council favoured tbe adoption of a fixed standard of *3 per cent, of butter fat in milk. In tile light..however, of further discussion, the society have altered their minds, and now are “of the unanimous opinion that the adoption of a presumptive standard J of 3.25 per cent, but" ter fats in milk, instead of the "adoption of a fixed standard of only 3 per cent, butter fat is better, and the council are also of the unanimous opinion that dairy farmers whose milk may be found rather below the presumptive standard named, especially in the case of the morning milk, should in all cases be ‘given every reasonable opportunity of proving how such defi_ ciency occurred before legal proceedings are commenced against them. • ■possibly the whole crux of the question lies in these words "reasonable opportunity."

I have always been in favour of the‘suppression of adulteration and sophistication of foodstuffs and other articles in general use, hut TLjfail to see why a man who is nroducinlr?,"genuine article, although perhaps below the presumptive standard of what such should be, were it pure, should be met by n cast “iron and rigid standard below which he must not go. Neither does it seem fair that'he should he called upon to prove by a considerable expenditure of time and trouble that he is conducting his business in a fair and legitimate manner. No doubt in recommending the limit of 3.25 of butter fat a high standard le aim"-! at. but it should be remembered that there are several points of view of tho question, and that there is more than one interest involved. There is undoubtedly at present a great deal of unfair competition, more especially in the large towns, by certoin people who add to the ordinary milk some skimmed or separated, and the "standard. after all. is not so much directed against the farmer as against the unscrupulous milk seller, and has for its object the safeguarding and preserving the interests of the consumer. The great value of milk as a food is popular knowledge, but perhaps the difference between rich and poor milk is not so keenly appreciated and s o highly valued as it might be, or consumers would be perfectly willing to pay a higher price for the superior article. Tho “necessity of putting a stop to the possible addition of separated milk to the genuine article is obvious, and I no objection to the standard of 3.25. although it is a high one. provided that, facilities are given to producers, so that in cases where the milk falls below th e percentage every opportunity should be given for explanation, in order that convictions that take place may “be absolutely just. The man wliQ ought to be convicted is he who adulterates his produce, and not the one who has the misfortune “of finding that his cows are only yielding milk poor in quality. An indirect outcome of the adoption of this standard will -be that greater attention will have to be paid to the conditions under which milk is conveyed by rail, and it as satisfactory to bear in mind that the railway companies have assured the Board of Agriculture that they have no objection to the locking or sealing of railway cans. With the advent of the measure it will be increasingly important for the "farmer to be certain that the milk reaches the middleman in the same condition that it leaves th* farm.