“WRETCHED”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIX, Issue 21969, 22 May 1941, Page 9

“WRETCHED”

Auckland’s Milk Supply Analyst’s Opinion (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 standard, adjourned from Friday, was concluded to-day before Mr F. K. Hunt, B.M. The charges, 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. A Health Department inspector said he purchased baby milk from an employer of the company at 6.15 a.m. on February 11. It was found to be becoming stale. Some days previously two other samples taken at Devonport had been found to be in a stale condition and a warning had been given. Dr. K. M. 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 ouestlons by the Court, he said It was simple to test milk on arrival. It was essential to 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 busl- I ness of the Auckland companies who are doing everything they can to make milk pure,” said Mr Elliot. The de- ; fence was that all reasonable steps were being taken. He held It was the universal experience that milk should be sent quickly to the consumer to | ensure freshness, and It was impracticable to carry out the reductase test and know the result in time to withdraw any milk found to be defective “If they waited, delivery might be delayed 12 hours and during the test the milk would be deteriorating. The extensive tests taken daily in the summer by the company and by the 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 standard up. I “Impracticable” | C. Petersen, the company’s factory manager, said he was a graduate of the Danish Dairy College and had experience In Denmark and Canada. He maintained that Dr Griffin's suggestion was Impracticable as keeping milk wouhr lower the standard. He would prefer to pasteurise all milk, -hus destroying all bacteria, but this was not allowed In the company’s icence from the Milk Council. L. 8. Spackman, a qualified analyst md consulting chemist, said the company’s plant was very satisfactory. He lad told the company It would gain no idvantage In using tests precribed In the 1940 regulations. He aid Dr Griffins’ scheme was Impracicable. The scheme would mean that he whole of the Auckland milk supnly ■vould be affected and the milk would ieteriorate until It would not be suitible. At the present time the quality was good with only occasional lapses. The 1940 tests could not be carried out before the milk was deMr ’ Meredith: What protection would the public have?—The public’s protection should come from the sale of pasteurised milk. Mr Hunt: But some care shoud be taken with raw milk. Witness: It should start at the farm. C. R. Dee, factory manager for the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company at East TamaKl. agreed th»t the suggested 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 a company Is before the Court It Is said it is Impracticable for a 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.