PURE FOOD BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2226, 1 November 1907, Page 4

PURE FOOD BILL.

Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 31. In the House of Kepresentativos last, night the amendment to the Pure Food Bill was further considered. Mr. Massey contended that if they were to hate a law for ordinary bread they should also have a law for fancy bread. He also pointed out that the Bill when it left the House applied to all drugs, and now it only applied to drugs for the use of man. Mr. Tanner objected to the tremendous power placed in the Government’s hands by virtue of the clauses giving tho Govyrnor-in-Council power, to ma’ko regulations. Parliament could be flouted in various ways. He wanted to know what had become of tho Government’s promised Bill to deal with the price of flour. The Ministry appeared to move with leaden feet. tie complained ol the prico of bread and the failure and want of eon rage of the Ministry to take, action in the matter. Mr. Hornsby moved that the House disagree with clause 2Ga inserted by tlie Council, which provides that (.very person commits an offence who sells bread the weight of which at the time of sale is less than the seller re-, presents it to be, or is less than the weight which the buyer demands. It

also provides that any loaf less than •Hbs or more than 31bs shall he deemed as representing -fibs, and any loaf less than 21bs but more than lib shall he deemed as representing 21bs. The clause also makes it an offence for a baker to take back bread after being in the purchaser’s hands an hour. Mr. Hunan, in speaking to the. amendment, referred to tho case of a Wellington man who, he alleged, had poisoned milk with formalin, and was let off with a fine of ,£3. He characterised the fine as scandalous, and contended that the man’s license to sell milk slioulcl ho forfeited. Ho pointed out that there was no provision as to bread between 21bs and 31bs weight. Mr. Hogg contended that the only way. in which to deal with dishonest bakers was to compel bread to be sold by weight, and a substantial fine imposed. The loaf, he urged, should l)e placed in the scale before being handed to the customer. He also urged that steps should be taken to prevent fraud in tho sale of butter in packets, which he was informed in many instances were from one to two ounces deficient. He considered the Act-, instead of being too drastic, was too mild. Continuing, he urged that a more rigid inspection of dairies should he instituted. Air. Fowlds said tins Bill was a human Bill, and was never intended to deal with cattle drugs. Some members thought the clause dealing with bread was too drastic, and others that it was not drastic enough. He defended the clause as drafted, contending that a margin had -to be provided, otherwise a baker with a reputed 21b loaf to weigh 21b and. say, 3 ounces, would be liable as for a 41 ij loaf, whereas no one would be deceived'into thinking that a loaf between 2 and 31bs was a 41b loat. He hoped the House would allow the amendments made by the Council to Air. T. Alackenzio denied that the millers’ trust had increased the price of flour. Neither, he added, did butter leave the factories short weight, not even to the extent of the paper wrapping:. Ho agreed with Mr. Hanan that iVe passed over too lightly cases of milk and other poisoning. Afr Hogg, as a personal explanation, stated that he had received information from settlers that packet butter was in some instances an ounce and sometimes .nearly two ounces short. He did not raise any general charge, and only stated wliat he had been informed. Afr. Rornsbv’s amendment was negatived by 39 to 20, and the amendments agreed to on the voices.