to define every article, to lay down limits of composition within which it might vary, to specify the substances or ingredients that might enter into it, to limit the proportions of the unavoidable impurities that might be contained in it, the duty to do all this was left to the individual analysts. An enormous number of substances had to be analysed until sufficient evidence had been accumulated for the giving of correct opinions or certificates. Endless disputes unavoidably arose, friction with manufacturers and traders, unfortunately also with the referees at the inland revenue, who for many years were altogether out of touch with the analysts. Conflicting decisions come to by various benches of magistrates upon similar cases, allowing of the legal sale of an article in one district which in another had been declared illegal, rendered the position of merchants often unsatisfactory. It was not recognized by parliament until almost a quarter of a century had elapsed that it was not enough to compel local authorities to get samples analysed, but that it was also the duty of parliament to lay down specific and clear instructions that might enable the officers to do their work. This has only been very partially done even at the present time.
A curious condition of things arose out of the definition of “food” given in the act of 1875: “The term food shall include every article used for food or drink by man, other than drugs or water.” It had been the practice of bakers to add alum to the flour from which bread was Difficulties of administration.manufactured, in order to whiten the bread, and to permit the use of damaged and discoloured flour. This practice had been strongly condemned by chemists and physicians, because it rendered the bread indigestible and injurious to health. Shortly after the passing of the Food Act this objectionable practice was stamped out by numerous prosecutions, and alumed bread now no longer occurs. A large trade, however, continued to be carried on in baking powders consisting of alum and sodium bicarbonate. It was naturally thought that, as baking powder is sold with the obvious intention that it may enter into food, the vendors could also be proceeded against. The high court, however, held that, baking powder in itself not being an article of food, its sale could not be an offence under the Food Act. This anomaly was removed by a later act. Under section 6 of the act of 1875 a defendant could be convicted, even if he had no guilty knowledge of the fact that the article he had sold was adulterated. In the repealed Adulteration Act of 1872 the words “to the knowledge of” were inserted, and they were found fatal to obtaining convictions. The general rule of the law is that the master is not criminally responsible for the acts of his servants if they are done without his knowledge or authority, but under the Food Act it was held (Brown v. Foot, 1892, 66 L.T. 649) that a master was liable for the watering of milk by one of his servants, although he had published a warning to them that they would be dismissed if found doing so. Milk might be adulterated during transit on the railway without the knowledge of the owner or receiver, and yet the vendor was liable to conviction.
When it is brought to the knowledge of a purchaser that the article sold to him is not of the nature, substance or quality he demanded, the sale is not to the prejudice of the purchaser. The notice may be given verbally or by a label supplied with the article. A common law notice may also be given. In Sandys v. Small, 1878, 3 Q.B.D. 449, a publican had displayed a placard within the inn to the effect that the spirits sold in his establishment were watered. This was held, as it were, to contract him out of the Food Act. Similarly, in the case of butters that had been adulterated with milk, the vendors, by giving a general notice in the shop, evaded punishment under the act. A notice, is, however, of no avail if given under section 8 of the act, if the admixture has been made for fraudulent purposes. In Liddiart v. Reece, 44 J.P. 233, 1880, an inspector asked for coffee and received a packet with a label describing it as a mixture of coffee and chicory. It was sold at the price of coffee. It turned out to be a mixture containing 40% of chicory. The high court held that this was an excessive quantity, and was added for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the bulk or weight. In another case, however (Otter v. Edgley, 1893, 57 J.P. 457), where an inspector had asked for French coffee and had been supplied with a mixture containing 60% of chicory, the article being labelled as a mixture, the high court held that there was no evidence of fraud, and, in the case of cocoa, a mixture containing as little as 30% of cocoa and 70% of starch and sugar, the label stating it to be a mixture, was held to have been legally sold (Jones v. Jones, 1894, 58 J.P. 653). In this case the label notifying the admixture was hidden by a sheet of opaque white paper, nor had the purchaser's attention been called to it, but the price of the article was much lower than that of pure cocoa.
It is seen from these few instances, taken at random out of scores, that this clause of the act was far from clear and was very variously interpreted at the courts. The warranty clause (clause 25) also gave rise to an immense amount of litigation. In the earlier high court decisions a very narrow interpretation was given to the term “written warranty,” but in later years a wider view prevailed. A general contract to supply a pure article is not a sufficient warranty unless with every delivery there is something to identify the delivery as part of the contract. An invoice containing merely a description of an article as “lard” or “pepper” is not a warranty; but if there be added the words “guaranteed pure” it is a sufficient warranty. A label upon an article is not in itself a warranty, but a label bearing the words “pure” or “unadulterated,” coupled with an invoice which could be identified with the label, together were held to form an effective warranty.
As many thousands of samples were annually submitted by inspectors under the act to the analysts who had been appointed in 237 boroughs and districts, a very large number of cases led to disputes of law or fact, about seventy high court cases being decided within eighteen years of the passing of the act. While these cases related to a variety of different articles and conditions, dairy produce, namely milk and butter, led to the greatest amount of litigation. It may seem to be a simple matter to ascertain whether a vendor of milk supplies his customer with milk of the “nature, substance and quality demanded,” but milk is subject to great variations in composition owing to a large number of circumstances which will be considered below.
Not many years after the passing of the Food Act of 1875 the sale of butter substitutes assumed very large proportions, and so seriously prejudiced dairy-farmers that, as regards these, an act was passed which was not exactly an amendment of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, although it embodied a good many provisions of that act. It was called the Margarine Act 1887. Margarine Act.It provided that every package of articles made in imitation of butter should be labelled “margarine” in letters 112 inches square. The vendor, however, was protected if he could show a warranty or invoice, whereas in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act he was not protected by invoice merely. Inspectors might take samples of “any butter or substitute purporting to be butter” without going through the form of purchase. The maximum penalty was raised from £20 as provided by the Food Act, to £50 in the case of a first and to £100 in the case of repeated conviction. The Margarine Act is the first statute that makes reference to and sanctions the use of preservatives, concerning which a good deal will have to be said farther on.
In the course of twenty years of administration of the Food Acts so many difficulties had arisen in reference to the various points referred to, that in 1894 a select committee was appointed to inquire into the working of the various acts and to report whether any, and if so what, amendments were desirable. During three sessions the Select committee, 1894.committee sat and took voluminous evidence. They reported that where the acts had been well administered they had been most beneficial in diminishing adulteration offences. Forms of adulteration which were common prior to the passing of the 1875 act, such as the introduction of alum into bread and the colouring of confectionery with poisonous material, had almost
