mainly owing to the ``want of a clear understanding of what
does and does not constitute adulteration,'' and in some cases
to conflicting decisions and the inexperience of analysts.
Again a parliamentary committee was appointed which took a
mass of evidence, the outcome of its inquiries being the Sale
Of Food and Drugs Act 1875, which is in force at the present
day, subject to amendments and additions made at later
dates. This act avoided the term ``adulteration'' altogether
and endeavoured to give a clearer description of punishable
offences:--Section 6. ``No person shall sell to the purchaser
any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature,
substance and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser
under a penalty not exceeding L. 20; provided that an offence
shall not be deemed to be committed under this section in
the following cases: (1) where any matter or ingredient not
injurious to health has been added to the food or drug because
the same is required for the production or preparation thereof
as an article of commerce, in a state fit for carriage or
consumption, and not fraudulently to increase the bulk, weight
or measure of the food or drug, or conceal the inferior quality
thereof; (2) where the food or drug is a proprietary medicine,
or is the subject of a patent in force and is supplied in
the state required by the specification of the patent; (3)
where the food or drug is compounded as in the act mentioned;
(4) where the food or drug is unavoidably mixed with some
extraneous matter in the process of collection or preparation.''
Section 8. ``No person shall be guilty of any such offence
as aforesaid in respect to the sale of an article of food
or a drug mixed with any matter or ingredient not injurious
to health, and not intended fraudulently to increase its
bulk, weight or measure, or conceal its inferior quality,
if at the time of delivering such article or drug he shall
supply to the person receiving the same a notice, by a label
distinctly and legibly written or printed on or with the
article or drug, to the effect that the same is mixed.''
The act made the appointment of analysts compulsory upon
the city of London, the vestries, county quarter sessions
and town councils or boroughs having a separate police
establishment. For the protection of the vendor, samples that
had been purchased by the inspectors for analysis were to be
offered to be divided into three parts, one to be submitted
to the analyst, the second to be given to the vendor to be
dealt with by him as he might deem fit, and the third to
be retained by the inspector: and, at the discretion of the
magistrate hearing any summons, to be submitted, in case of
dispute, to the commissioners of inland revenue for analysis
by the chemical laboratory at Somerset House. The public
analyst had to give a certificate, couched in a prescribed
form, to the person submitting any sample for analysis, which
certificate was to be taken as evidence of the facts therein
stated, in order to render the proceedings as inexpensive as
practicable. If the defendant in any prosecution could prove
to the satisfaction of the court that he had purchased the
article under a warranty of genuineness, and that he sold it in
the same state as when he purchased it, he was to be discharged
from the prosecution, but no provision was made that in that
event the giver of the warranty should be proceeded against.
1879.
Section 6, quoted above, gave rise to an immense amount of
litigation, and already in 1879 it was found necessary to
pass an amending act, making it clear that if a purchase was
effected by an inspector with the intent to get the' purchased
article analysed, he was as much ``prejudiced'' if obtaining
a sophisticated article as a private purchaser who purchased
for his own use and consumption. The amending act also dealt
in some small measure with a difficulty which immediately
after passing the act was found to arise in ascertaining
whether any article was ``of the nature, substance and quality
demanded by the purchaser''---``in determining whether an
offence has been committed under section 6 by selling spirits
not adulterated otherwise than by the admixture of water,
it shall be a good defence to prove that such admixture has
not reduced the spirit more than twenty-five degrees under
proof for brandy, whisky or rum, or thirty-five under proof
for gin.'' Almost insuperable difficulties as to the meaning
of ``nature, substance and quality'' subsequently arose as
regards every conceivable food material. its it was obviously
impossible for parliament 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.
Difficulties of administration.
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 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.
Margerine Act.
Not many years after the passing of the Food Act of 1875 the
