MILK NOT UP TO STANDARD

Southland Times, Issue 24440, 21 May 1941, Page 9

MILK NOT UP TO STANDARD

Auckland Company

Fined

(P-A.) AUCKLAND, May 20. The hearing of three charges against the Auckland Milk Company Ltd. of selling milk which did not comply with the prescribed standards, adjourned from Friday, was concluded today before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M. The offences, which were denied by the defendant company, were alleged to have occurred at Auckland and at Devonport in February. Mr G. S. R. Meredith represented the Health Department and Mr B. Elliot the defendant company.

Dr C. J. A. Griffin, Government analyst at Auckland, who had stated on the first day of the hearing that milk should be tested before delivery to consumers, was recalled by the Magistrate. In answer to questions by the Court he said it was simple to test milk on arrival. It was essential to the public health that it should be carried out.

Questioned by Mr Elliot, who asked if it was not essential for milk to go from the farm to the consumer as quickly as possible, he said that purity was far more essential. “This matter affects the whole business of Auckland companies, who are doing everything they can to make the milk pure,” said Mr Elliot. The defence was that all reasonable steps were being taken. He held that it was a universal experience that milk should be sent quickly to the consumer to ensure freshness, and it was impracticable to carry out a reductase test and know the result in time to withdraw any milk found defective. DELAY OF DELIVERY

If they waited delivery might be delayed 12 hours, and during the test the milk would be deteriorating, said Mr Elliot. Extensive tests taken daily in the summer by the company and by a consulting chemist and analyst were described by Mr Elliot, who said a close check was kept on the supply. In February, when the offences allegedly occurred, the weather was hot and suppliers were experiencing difficulty with labour. Other companies were also in the same predicament and all were anxious to keep the standards up. C. Petersen, the company’s factory manager, said he was a graduate of a Danish dairy college and had experience in Denmark and Canada. He maintained that Dr Griffin’s suggestion was impracticable, as keeping milk would lower the standard. He would prefer to pasteurize all milk, thus destroying all bacteria, but this was not allowed in the company’s licence from the Milk Council.

L. S. Spackman, a qualified analyst and consulting chemist, said the company’s plant was very satisfactory. He had told the company it would gain no advantage in using the tests prescribed in the 1940 regulations. He said Dr Griffin’s scheme was impracticable; the scheme would mean that the whole of the Auckland milk supply would be affected and milk would deteriorate until it would not be suitable. At the present time the quality was quite good with only occasional lapses. Tests could not be carried out before the milk was delivered.

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC Mr Meredith: What protection would the public have? The witness: The public’s protection should come from the sale of pasteurized milk. Mr Hunt: But some care should be taken with raw milk. The witness: It should start at the farm.

C. R. Dee, factory manager for the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company at East Tamaki, agreed and suggested that a test was impracticable under normal factory conditions. Dr Griffin, who was again recalled by Mr Hunt, was asked by Mr Elliot if he knew of any company which carried out the test he advocated.

Dr Griffin: The wretched supply in Auckland shows that it is not carried out. The companies must carry it out or go out of business. \ “Milk is essential to the public and regulations have been made for its sale,” said Mr Hunt. “Small shopkeepers have been fined for selling inferior milk, but now the company is before the Court. It is said it is impracticable for sufficient check to be made.”

Mr Elliot: We say we have taken all reasonable steps. Mr Hunt: According to Dr Griffin all reasonable steps have not been taken. A fine of £5 will be imposed on each charge. At the request of Mr Elliot the fine was increased to £5/1/-, which will give the defendant company the right of appeal.