The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1928. MOISTURE IN BUTTER

Southland Times, Issue 20525, 29 June 1928, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1928. MOISTURE IN BUTTER

Further prosecutions for undue moisture in butter have disclosed in the Stipendiary Magistrate an attitude to the regulations difficult to understand. A company manufacturing butter on a large scale was before the Court on a charge of disposing of butter with more than 16 per cent, of moisture and the Magistrate dismissed the charge as trivial because the limit had been exceeded by a very small amount. A little while ago a farmer was convicted and discharged for a similar breach of the regulations and in his case the excess was greater by only a very small amount. Farmers are faced with serious difficulties if they attempt to ascertain the moisture content of butter, but the excuse advanced on their behalf cannot be used for a factory turning out large quantities of butter. Wherever the limits of moisture is placed the error, if any, will be small, but, as the Crown Prosecutor said, if manufacturers persist in making butter close to the limit allowed by the law the responsibility is on them to see they do not make any mistakes. A similar situation prises in connection with the manufacture of table ales, which under certain conditions may develop an alcoholic content which by exceeding the limit set by the law become legally intoxicating,though the margin is infinitesimal. The plea of triviality would not carry much weight in such a case. On the other hand the element of doubt introduced by the defendant in this instance might be taken into account. It raised a point to which attention should be given. Arguing that the quality of butter was not uniform throughout a pound lot, the defendant set up the defence that the analysis of one sample would show less than 16 per cent, of moisture while another disclosed more. If this is so the system under which the law is enforced is dangerous and should be corrected at once. In view of the small excess that might have constituted a solid ground for dismissing the charge, but from the Magistrate’s remarks it would appear that this was not the reason of his action. This point about the variation in samples, however, is of supreme importance and as it discloses a loophole for error it should be dealt with promptly. The case under review did not reveal a serious breach, it did not suggest, more than accident having no material effect on the consumer, but considered in the light of the previous case the circumstances are interesting and the decision should not be taken as an indication of the law’s view of the question. The responsibility is on the manufacturer: factories devoted to the making of butter for commercial purposes should understand that the limit set out in the regulations is the extremity of moisture allowed and on them is cast the burden of ensuring that the limit is not passed—their case differs markedly from that of the individual farmer.