"MALT VINEGAR."

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18906, 22 January 1927, Page 12

"MALT VINEGAR."

TAPIOCA NOT A CEREAL MAGISTERIAL DECISION.

Reserved decision was given yesterday by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., at the Lower Court, in the ease in which the Dominion Compressed Yeast Company was charged with unlawfully selling food made by the alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentations of infusions of tapioca root, whose starch had been converted by malt, and that it was in a package which had attached a false or misleading label. The Health Department was the informant, and S. R. Cowley, as manager of the company, was cited as defendant.

Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for the Department, and Mr A. F. Wright for the defendant.

In delivering judgment Mr Mosley stated that the defendant admitted the use of tapioca in the vinegar, the sale itself, and that a barrel containing it was labelled "malt vinegar." H« had listened with great interest to the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence, most 'of which was given by men of undoubted scientific authority. Few problems that had arisen in the administration of the Food and Drugs Act had presented more difficulties than the question of what was or was not malt vinegar, for there was no legal definition of the product and all attempts to obtain a binding decision had hitherto proved fruitless. In England it was quite evident that there was a divergence in the views held by leading public analysis. The want of some authoritative statement was so keenly felt that in 1911 the Association of Vinegar Brewers asked for a definition of malt vinegar. The suggested definition of malt vinegar was: "Malt vinegar is derived wholly from malted barley or wholly from cereals, the starch of which" has been saccharified by the diastase of malt." In the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act of New Zealand, malt vinegar was defined as follows: "Malt vinegar shall be a product made by the alcoholic and subsequent acetous fermentations of infusions of barley malt and (or) of cereals whose starch has been converted by malt and shall conform to the general standard of vinegar." For the defence, continued Mr Mosley, it was submitted that the defendant had complied with the regulations; that if he had not they were void, as they were made without statutory authority, and also that they were void as being unequal, uncertain, and harsh in operation. He was forced to the conclusion from definitions that neither scientifically nor in its popular sense could tapioca root or flour bo deemed to bo a cereal. Thus vinegar mado from tapioca was not a malt vinegar within the meaning of the regulations, and in his opinion the defendant had not complied with the regulations as far as the details of the manufacture of malt vinegar are concerned. Mr Mosley said that he was satisfied that the vinegar sold by the defendant was of high quality and seemingly equal in everv way to the malt vinegar described'in the regulation, but he gathered that the process of manufacture was rendered slightly cheaper by the use of tapioca in place of .ereals. If as had been stated by the expert witnesses, vinegar prepared from a mixture of malt and tapioca was likely to Be of as great a dietetic value as vinegar prepared by any other process, then he could see no objection to the regulation being extended so as to free bona fide manufacturers from the risk of prosecution. In his opinion the defendant had offended against clause 1> of regulation 54 and must be convicted, but on the matter of penalty, he would hear what counsel had to say. Mr Brown, Assistant Crown Prosecutor said he had nothing to say. Mr Wright submitted that tho article in respect of which they had been prosecuted had been shown, on tho opinion of the scientific witnesses to be of tho very highest quality, and the most that could be said was that they had committed just a technical breach of the letter of the regulations, which' as his Worship had held, in no way affected* the vinegar as regards the public health, nor in no way affected the vinegar from a dietetic point of view. It had been shown that the manner in which the industry had been carried on was such as to call forth the highest encomiums of praise by scientific witnesses, not only the scientists who had 'appeared in the case, but by bir Frank Heath, Secretary of the British Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, London, and many other eminent men in the country _lt was felt that as the object for which the Department had brought the case forward, and very properlv so brought, had now been served and satisfied by the publicity given the infliction of a penalty might be regarded _as a stigma, which might easily inflict financial loss and strain upon a very important secondary industry. He, therefore, respectfully submitted that to record a conviction in the circumstances would be an altogether undue hardship and too severe for a company which had, since its inception, not only received the recognition of Government Departments, but had set such a high standard in all its practices: Mr Brown, in reply, said it had to !k pointed out that defendant company had done what had been done with its eyes open; that defendant must have known what'was being done, and that, therefore, there should be a conviction but that as regards the penalty, lie I-would leave that to the Magistrate. He said that there were other companies manufacturing vinegar besides the defendant company, and that their products, so far as was known' to the Department of Health, had complied with the regulations. Mr Wright said that while it was true that there were some three or four vinegar makers besides the defendant company, it had to be borne in mind that they were producing their vinegar from sugar and not from malt or cereals. Mr Wright added that in the matter of an amending regulation, Professors Easterfield and Denham had already formulated a definition which, in their view, would be fair and enual for the Department to adopt, and which would be available for any and all manufacturers. That definition had been sent on to the Department of Health. The Magistrate said that in his judgment there was no question upon the scientific evidence produced that the ■ vinegar was of a very high quality, and probablv better in certain respects than ' the vinegar required to be made in strict accordance with the regulations. He would record a conviction and order • the defendant companv to pay the costs ■ of the case. > The information relating to the la- ; belling was withdrawn.

TO HELP PRODUCERS. AIM OP DAIRY BOARD. [THE PRESS Spocial Service.] WELLINGTON, January 21. At a conference to-day of directors and managers of dairy factories. Mr T. C. Brash, secretary of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board, said the supreme object of the Board was to seo that the man on the land pot the hest possible return for his labour. One of the aims of the Board was to co-operate with and assist the officers of the dairy division of the Department of Agriculture, who had done so much to improve tho methods of the dairy industry. In his opinion a great improvement in quality had been brought about by the premium system.