FACTORY BUTTER

Southland Times, Issue 20524, 28 June 1928, Page 8

FACTORY BUTTER

COMPANIES PROSECUTED

BORIC ACID AND WATER CONTENT MAGISTRATE’S LENIENT VIEW For some time the attitude of the Department of Health towards the presence of boric acid and excess of water in butter has been before the public eye and yesterday morning two interesting cases dealing with this came before the Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr G. Cruickshank. Both the defendants were well-known Southland dairy companies. In the first case, a fine of £1 with costs was inflicted and the second charge was dismissed as trifling. The first charge was against the Lochiel Co-operative Dairy Company Ltd. for having on two different dates butter for sale containing boric acid, the presence of which is forbidden under the new regulations of the Act.

Mr H. J. Macalister, prosecuting for the Department, said that analyses made by the Government analyst showed that 30.2 grains per lb. of the acid were present in the one sample; in the other much smaller amounts were to be found, one test showing none. For that reason, the second complaint would be withdrawn. Although it was only since last November that no boric acid could be used, before that time only 20 grains could be used per lb. One of the samples showed 34.65 grains to the pound so that really in any case it was almost twice as much as would have been allowed in the old times.

Mr Reed, appearing for the company, explained that the alteration to the regulations appeared only in November and took effect in January. Although it was not a tenable plea, the manager had stated to him that the first notice he had got of the regulations was when the inspector visited the place to make the samples. Since then he had used no preservatives of any kind, but he would be prepared to swear on oath that many of those he supplied had asked him to revert to the old style. In any case the butter was not publicly sold, but 1 was distributed under the system that it would be given to the suppliers of the factory, the value of the butter to be taken from the monthly bonus. The manager of the factory informed him that only the cost of manufacture was covered. The second sample showed no traces.

Mr Cruickshank commented on the manner in which notice of change of regulations was circulated. Usually nothing was done except to publish the notice in the New Zealand Gazette which it was doubtful if many dairy factory managers read. All the same, the amount in one of the cases would be an offence even under the old regulations. Taking into consideration, however, the fact that the distribution of the butter was really a family arrangement between the suppliers of the factory (which was really a cheese factory) and that the general public was in no way being taken down, he would fine the company £l, court costs 10/-, analyst’s fee 13/9 and solicitor’s fee £3 3/-. CASE DISMISSED. The second case one m wliich the Inspector of Health prosecuted the Invercargill Milk Supply Company on two charges that the regulation water content was exceeded, in the one case 16.09 per cent, being present and in the second 16.16, the maximum legal percentage being 16. Ernest Sinclair, inspector of health at Invercargill in his evidence said that on February 8 he visited the offices of the Invercargill Milk Supply Company and purchased two pounds of butter. He divided each pound of the butter into three parts, one part being sent to the Government analyst, one left with the company and one kept by himself. The results of the Government analyst showed that 16.16 and 16.09 per cent, of water was present in their two samples. The company had apparently written to the Department explaining that they had had trouble with their freezer which would account partly for the increased moisture, but since then they had installed a much larger and more efficient machine.

W. Dey, the manager of company, produced the written analysis of the borough analyst, who was at present ill, which showed a much smaller percentage of water than the Government analyst had done. Both analyses were from the same pound. He contended that every different section of a pound of butter had a different water content. Analyses should not be made from small sections, but from the whole pound. The company had done its best to comply with the Act. The difference was very small, less than one-third of one per cent.

Mr Cruickshank: I think I will dismiss the case; it is so trifling. Mr Horace Macalister, the Crown Prosecutor, strongly objected to the Magistrate calling the case trifling. A company that manufactured large quantities of butter for the public should be able to adjust the amount of water in its product. If it could not it should not be allowed to keep in business. The standard set by the Act was for the lowest type of butter and if one set a standard as the lowest, nothing should be allowed to go lower than that by no matter how small a fraction. If a manufacturer aimed at keeping close to the 16 per cent, limit, he must be prepared to accept any consequences that might arise. If they kept close to the 13 or 14 per cent, limit there was not much danger of them breaking the regulation. Mr Cruickshank said he admitted the public had to be safeguarded, but. he thought the margin in this case was too small for punishment and the case would be dismissed as trifling.