BRITISH LAWS IN RELATION TO THE ADULTERATION OF SEED.

Otago Witness, Issue 1920, 4 December 1890, Page 6

BRITISH LAWS IN RELATION TO THE ADULTERATION OF SEED.

Notwithstanding the enactment in force in the United Kingdom prohibiting the adulteration of seeds, and the reforms in the trade effected within the past eight years, largely through the instrumentality of the Royal Agricultural Society of England whose members are privileged to have seeds examined and reported on at a merely nominal charge by the society's botanist, it appears that fraudulent practices continue to prevail to a considerable extent, unprincipled dealers being still willing to incur the risk and penalties of conviction because of the large profits derivable from the business where operations escape detection. In an article on the subject the Mark Lane Express, September 8, says : — " If a man wishes to make a common seed look like a superior one, and cares to take the risk of a prosecution — which, it must be admitted, is only a small one— there are several ways in which he may do it. A coloured seed may be bleached by tho deadly fumes of sulphur until it has the outward appearance of a white seed, or a white seed may be dyed bo as to resemble seed of quite another class. Another course might also ba taken. The seed might be killed, and so prevent the possibility of their showing what they really were." That these malpractices obtain extensively is established by the fact that respectable firms of seed morchants found it necessary for their protection in a legitimate trade to form themßelvea into associations with the view to detect and punish parties engaged in the fraudulent treatment and Bale of seeds in Great Britain, and not long ago a conviction of the guilty parties for a gro9B casa of sulphuring clover seed, detected fay the Eugli?h apa ciation, was noticed in the columuH of ihia journal. TLn i übjacfc of adulteration of seeds noaily concoiuß colonial farmers, and to whom it ihoul'l suggest the nece?Ri'y of much precaution in the purchase of their requirements. . When it ia admitted that detection of frauds) of the kind is exceedingly difficult in tha Home Country, bocause of the aecrecy observed by the operator?, it will readily bo understood that it does not require much ingenuity on their part to place their doctored staffs on colonial markets without let or hindrance. It will be generally conceded that established firmn engaged in the seed trade in the colonies, being well informed of the nature and prevalonce of the fraud take Bpecial care net to be victimised, by transmitting orders tj Home or foreign houses of wellknown repute ; but tbe question is suggested, Do the many speculative importers to whom the mysteries of tbe trade are unknown, Bafeguard themselves and retailers who deal with them by the exeroiae of even ordinary precautions, and so save the farmer ultimately from imposition and heavy lobb ? Tbat farmers bow

suoh lobbbb frequently and with unavailing remonstranoa ia notorious, but it is equally certain tbe remedy is in their own bands. It will be remembered that some years ago a general storekeeper sold turnip seed, represented to be of a named variety, to a number of his customers. It turned out to be another kind altogether, and the retailor compensated the growers according to the estimated difference in the value of the crop. Hs then sued the importers for damages, and obtained a verdiot in his favour. Ordinarily, however, farmers take no aotion in such matters, and in a case like the above, where no imposition waa attempted, but only an unwitting mistake made, probably they are prudent in avoiding proceedings at law; but where fraudulently prepared seeds are foisted upon them, the transaction should be properly resented and exposed. This view of the question is thus presented by the Express, after giving a synopsis of the law as it applies, for the consideration of British agriculturists': —

Although, as we have stated, there are at times convictiuua under these acts, they are few and far between, and it is doubtful if there are as many as there ought to be. Perhaps the reason for this is not far to seek ; farmers as a rule are not of a litigious nature, and are often prepared to run considerable loss rather than take the steps necessary to punish those who have dealt fraudulently with them. But in a question of this sort it is not only a matter of personal loss but also of mutual protection ; if it were only the purchaser who had lost so much money he would have a moral right to say '• Well, I am content to lose it, and what does it matter to anyone elte ? " But here the further mischief is that the seller is encouraged to continue his fraudulent practices and to victimise others. It is therefore a duty whioh farmers owe to one another to prosecute in such cases.

An abstract of the explanation in the Express of the British laws referred to will show bow unauff arable are the unlawful operations sought to be repressed, and how very likely it ia that colonia' markets receive a considerable proportion of "killed" and "dyed," mixed with genuine seeds.

Some years ago a consummate scoundrel waa exposed, who had for years dealt in eggs ia a most fraudulent manner. He had taken common eggs and, by the simple process of immersion for a few seconds in boiling water, he had effectively destroyed their germinating power. Then he sold them as eggs of prize birds, and when his customers grumbled hi s ready answer was, "_Ohl if your hens do not sit properly, blame my eggs." The idea struck some enterprising seedsman, and the market was filled with killed seeds to such an extent tbat aa aot of Parliament was necessary to protect the buyers. Consequently, in 1869, the Adulteration of Seeds Aot was passed, ' and it oame -into force in 1870. This aot was amended by the Aot of 1878 ; and these two acts, which are to bs read together, now contain the law on the subject. They provide that every person who, with intent to defraud, or to enable another person to defraud, hills er dyes any seeds, or sells any such, becomes liable for a fitst offence to a penalty of £5. and for a second or subsequent offence there is a further penalty of a very serious but proper nature, for the court can order the offender's name, occupation, place of business, and particulars of his conviction and punishment to be published, at his expense, in such newspapers as may seem fit. This of course is intended not only as & punishment for the offence, but also as a warning to protect the public from the unscrupulous dealings of such a penon. The act defines the killing of seeds as the destruction, by artificial means, of the vitality or germinating; power of the seeds. The term "to dyeieeds" means, according to the Act of 1869, "to give to seeds by any proceis of colouring, dyeing, sulphur smoking, or other artificial means the appearance of .seeds of another kind."

This definition was thought to be sufficient, but it was not. In 1878 a case came before the High Court in whioh fa magistrate refußed to conviot in a case where old and inferior aeeda had been (subjected to the process of sulphur smoking for the purpose of improving their appearance, and of making them look like new and superior seeds, The ground upon which this decision was given was, that they had not had given to them, " the appearance of seeds of another kind." The learned judges who tried the case came to the conclusion that the magistrate was right, and in doing ao both of them felt it necessary to express their regret at the decision they felt bound to give. For once the Government had its eyes open, and an amending act was promptly passed and at once became law. This aot dafined "to dye seeds " as "to apply to seeds any process of colouring, dyeing, or sulphur smoking" — a definition which will make it extremely difficult to fraudulently alter the appearance of seeds. The penalties ' under the acts may be recovered before tbe magistrates by taking out a summona. It is required that any information under the aot must be laid within 21 days from the commission of the offences -i.e., the dyeing, killing, or selling of the seeds.

Where a defendant is convicted under these note, he is not by any means relieved from any other liability. Thus, if a farmer purchased seed which he afterwards found to be unlawfully dealt with, he could cob only prooure the conviction of the offender within 21 days of the sale (or delivery, presumably) and subject him to the penalties provided, but he might also bring a civil action against him for the damage he had suffered, and perhaps— if the particular facts warranted— for breach of warranty or for deceit.