FARM BUTTER

Southland Times, Issue 20539, 16 July 1928, Page 4

FARM BUTTER

EXCESS OF MOISTURE. PROSECUTIONS IN SOUTHLAND. FARMERS’ UNION REAFFIRMS PROTEST. Further correspondence in reference to the recent prosecution of several Southland farmers for excess of moisture in farm butter was before the monthly meeting on Saturday of the Southland Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union, communications being received from both the Minister of Health (the Hon. J. A. Young), and Mr J. C. Simpson, of Otautau, who subsequent to being prosecuted and convicted on such a charge placed the matter under the notice of the executive. After careful consideration of the facts of the case, the executive decided to reaffirm its protest against such prosecutions. The Minister’s letter, which was dated July 5, was as follows: “It would be impossible to administer a law that would make any distinction in the manner you suggest between a farmer engaged in independent manufacture of butter in a small way and those manufacturing in a large way such as a number of farmers combined in operating a dairy factory. The Sale of Food and Drugs Act under which a recent prosecution was taken, was framed to govern the sale of butter in New Zealand, and does not apply to butter for export, which is controlled quite independently under the Dairy Industry Act. Again, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act there are many other foodstuffs dealt with and under your suggestion it would be reasonable to claim that a man starting to manufacture them in a small way should not be expected to ensure the same degree of food purity as a fully equipped manufacture. Furthermore, it would be impossible to define a position or draw a line showing when a manufacturer of butter or any other foodstuffs is in “just a small way” or is in a way to be more fully controlled. Returning to the point you infer that there is a difficulty in complying with the regulation for butter without special apparatus, I should not think that the process is cut as fine as suggested. I am advised that butter can be quite well made with only 11 or 12 per cent, of moisture if the buttermilk is worked out properly after the churning, so that with ordinary care a maker should be able to keep well within the 16 per cent, limit. This limit I may say is the same as has held in Australia and Great Britain for many years past. PROSECUTED ON SECOND SAMPLE. “With regard to Mr J. C. Simpson’s butter, when this first came under review by ' means of an official sample purchased from I Messrs Helm and Dickson, storekeepers, 1 Riverton, on February 9 that sample on analysis was found to contain: Water, 17.01 per cent. Boric acid, 3.6 grs. per lb. The storekeeper, being innocent of the circumstance and not responsible for the manufacture was not prosecuted, but was warned. A second sample taken direct from Mr J. C. Simpson on March 21 still contained moisture slightly in excess of the legal standard of 16 per cent. The former circumstance was taken into consideration by the Medical Officer of Health in his decision to prosecute Simpson. Under all the circumstances I am afraid no departure from the established practice could be justified.” Two letters addressed to the secretary were received from Mr Simpson. The first, dated June 24, stated: “Before allowing the Minister’s reply to become public will you give me a chance to place full particulars before you. If necessary I would come into town. The chances are that they will try to put it across me that I had a previous warning and that boric acid had been found in a sample. I have an answer to this in letters as well as an analyst’s certificate. UNEXPECTED PUBLICITY. “I made a mistake in referring to costs in my letter to you, but I did not expect that you would hand it over to the Press or that there was going to be such a noise made over it, otherwise I would have been more careful of the wording of the letter. I think when speaking to you I made it plain that no costs were allowed as this is where I considered we beat the Department, and if you think I am right and there is a chance of correcting the error with the Press do so. I was advised to point out to the union that if the Health Department were going to continue this raid amongst farmers what a good thing the Crown Solicitor would be on at £3 3/- a case, and that if their own inspectors had to take the cases they might not be so keen on the job. It is unfortunate that it has read as if I had been let in for costs. Anyway it has had a pretty good run through nearly every paper in New Zealand.” In a later letter (dated July 12), after Mr Simpson had received a copy of the Minister’s letter, he stated: “The Minister has made out that I was previously warned and our butter contained boric acid. Such was not the case. The first we knew of a sample being taken on February 9 was on the visit of the inspector on March 16 when he came after the second sample. I received the report of the second sample on April 4 and the report of the first sample per Helm and Dickson on April 6. As we have never used boric acid, I instructed Helm and Dickson to send the sample held by them to the late Mr G. Macindoe (Invercargill Borough Analyst), whose report showed boric acid nil. I think I have made it plain enough that I was neither warned nor given the chance to defend myself regarding boric acid. I will produce all correspondence regarding dates and analyses it required as I do not want your union to think I have been misleading them with any information I have sent forward.” A SERIOUS STATEMENT. Mr D. Dickie: It seems that this last letter contains a serious statement regarding the use of boric acid. It is illegal is it not? Mr G. Calder: It is illegal in butter for export. Mr Dickie: Mr Simpson says he does not use acid and yet the Department states it found a quantity in the sample. What do you suggest we should do in the matter? Mr A. S. McNaught: I think the Department’s letter should be handed to the Press to show the public how the Department carries out its business. A man doesn’t use acid and yet the Department states it found a quantity of it in his butter. Mr W. H. Ward considered that the matter should not be allowed to drop. There were a number of farmers who made butter on a small scale and it was sold at several pence a pound less than factory butter. Even if this butter contained 20 per cent, of moisture, he contended that the consumer was still getting better value. If there was a possibility that farmers would be prosecuted for excess of moisture in their butter without warning they would be inclined to give the butter to the pigs rather than bring it to the stores. Mr Peter Arnott said it should be urged upon the Department that no prosecution should be made against makers of farm butter. He moved that the Department be asked not to prosecute farmers for this offence without having given a previous warning. Mr Ward seconded. Mr E. K. Sim moved as an amendment that the executive reaffirm its protest to the Department against the prosecution of makers of farm butter containing water in excess of the quantity allowed by the present regulation. This was seconded by Mr T. Major. Mr T. McCann contended that no further action should be taken in the matter. The farmers in Southland had a good reputation for their butter and he felt that nothing should be done that would tend to alter this. The amendment was carried by 13 votes to 11. Subsequent to the meeting, Mr Simpson showed a Times reporter the reports on the samples sent to the late Mr Macindoe. Both bore the statement, “Boric acid, nil.”