Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 1934

Vol. 19 No. 9

Sale of Food and Drugs (Milk) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.

Question—"That the title of the Bill be postponed"—put and agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:—

Section 2, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "Provided that if any person sells as whole milk any article of food which contains less than the prescribed percentage (if any) of milk-fat but not less than the prescribed percentage (if any) of milk-solids other than milk-fat, it shall be a good defence in the case of a prosecution under this section for such person to prove that the article of food so sold was whole milk within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 1 of this Act."

My only object in moving this amendment is to protect the honest purveyor of milk from being convicted and fined for an offence for which he is in no way responsible. The average milk from the average cow has slightly over 87 per cent. of water content, about 3½ per cent. of butter fats, and slightly over 9 per cent. of other solids. From many causes, it occasionally happens that the butter fat content of milk, as it comes from the cow, is very much lessened and is not up to the prescribed standards from causes over which the producer of milk has no control whatever. It is on very rare occasions, however, that the other solids are reduced in any way. They are practically always up to the average standard at which milk is produced in normal times and there are no such variations as occur in the fat content of the whole milk.

For that reason I contend that it is a fairly sure proof that if the other solids, apart from fat solids, are depreciated below their prescribed percentage, water has been added and a prosecution and conviction and a severe fine for such an act would be justified. I know that Senator Johnson has said to me, previous to to-day, that this amendment of mine will make it easier for a dishonest trader to put separated or skimmed milk on to his new milk which he is selling. The Senator has stated correctly that skimmed milk or separated milk has not depreciated in the other solids apart from butter fats; but I think the Senator is stretching the point too much when he tries to come to the conclusion that purveyors of milk are so dishonest that they are going to try to procure separated milk to add to their whole milk to sell to their customers. The customers, as a rule, are not so simple as some people would make them out to be. They know good milk from bad milk. At least 99 per cent, of the people using milk would know whether it was good or bad.

I agree with the statement of Senator O'Sullivan on the former Stage of the Bill that it is very much more important to have clean and pure milk than milk which would not be clean and pure and that did contain a sufficiency of solids and fat. I hope that the Seanad will adopt this amendment. As I say, my only object is to protect the honest trader from disgrace, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, or any Senator here, does not want to have any milk vendor prosecuted and convicted for an offence for which he is in no way responsible.

I think that the House should not pass this amendment. I agree with Senator Counihan—and I have had a fairly considerable experience of dairy farmers—that the milk which the very great majority of them sell is pure and unadulterated milk, untampered with as it comes from the cow. We know, however, and the police records show clearly, that in the hands into which the milk gets subsequently, it is not as it comes from the cow. This amendment, if passed, would permit of the admixture of 40 per cent. of separated milk to the milk produced in Limerick at the present time. At the present time, milk in that area very often contains 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of fat, and that milk would stand the admixture of fully 40 per cent. of separated milk, which would comply with the conditions in this amendment, inasmuch as the percentage of fat would be 3 to 3½ and that of total solids would not be reduced at all, and the specific gravity of the milk would not give an indication because, by reason of the large percentage of milk, naturally the specific gravity would be low. That would be rectified, so to speak, by the admixture of separated milk which has a high specific gravity. That would pass as normal milk and no analyst could say that it was other than pure milk, whereas it was really not as it came from the cow. It happens that during the summer time the percentage of fat runs rather low. Therefore it is only fair that the consumer of milk should get the benefit of the corresponding natural increase during the lactation periods when the milk is rich in butter fat. This amendment would, I submit, open the door to all sorts of fraud, and I do not think the House should adopt it.

It is supposed that the way in which milk is adulterated is by the addition of water. I have understood for a long time that the way in which fraud is carried on in relation to the sale of milk is by allowing it to stand some time, skimming off the cream and selling the rest of it as whole milk. If this amendment were passed it would enable the person who adopts that age-long practice to escape unscathed. Therefore, it would be a very dangerous thing to pass this amendment. I am glad that Senator Dowdall, who knows so much about the subject, has opposed the amendment.

The age-long practice which my friend Senator Comyn speaks about, by which the dairyman is supposed to skim off the cream before he sells the milk, is one that exists only in the imagination of the Senator. The reason I say that is because there is very keen competition in the sale of milk now, particularly since the other activities of the farmer have ceased to be profitable. It was never more necessary than it is at present to have good milk for sale in order that those engaged in the trade may be able to keep in it. The object of the amendment is to prevent an honest man from being mulcted in damages for the commission of a crime which cannot be proved. Because the fat content in the milk may fall below a certain standard, it is assumed by the prosecuting authority that the fats have been abstracted. It is well known, notwithstanding all the care taken by the dairyman, that it may happen in the spring months of the year particularly as regard the morning's milk, where an equal division of the time of milking is not observed, that the fat content may fall below the specified standard which we are assuming will be 3 per cent. We cannot know what the specified standard will be until the Minister for Agriculture has fixed it. If, for instance, the Minister for Agriculture were to say that the standard was to be lower than 3 per cent. in the month of April, then we would not have very much to say against the Bill as it stands. It would be a very serious thing to brand an honest man with the crime of abstracting the fats from the milk he sells when you are not able to produce absolute proof of that. About two years ago Senator O'Farrell, when addressing his constituents, referred to the unfortunate purveyors of milk, whose supplies had fallen below the standard, as harpies, as people who were robbing the poor of the city of the fats that were intended to be in the milk. But in most of the cases which came into court it was shown that the fat content of the milk had fallen below the standard without the knowledge of these purveyors. All these cases, when reported in the Press, assume a gravity which, in fact, is not there at all. If the standard is 3 per cent. and the milk contains 2.9 of fats, that is reported in the Press as representing an abstraction of the fats to the extent of 3? per cent. If the milk contains 2.8 of fats that is reported to represent an abstraction of fats to the extent of 6 2/3rds per cent., and if the fat content is found to be 2.7, it is represented that the abstraction of fats there is 9 2/3rds. per cent. All that is represented as robbery so far as the poor people who are using the milk are concerned.

Senator Dowdall spoke about the people in the South of Ireland where they have the creameries. Despite all the knowledge that the Senator is supposed to have of the conditions in that area, I know something about the practice that has been in operation there. I know one case concerning a contract to a public institution in the City of Dublin. A man got the contract for the supply of milk to it at a price which no honest dairyman in the Dublin area could undertake to supply milk at, but this particular contractor was able to take the contract at a very low price, because, living as he was in a creamery area, he was able to get the skimmed milk at ½d. a gallon. A thing such as that could only occur in a creamery area where they have the facilities and instruments to carry out such a nefarious practice against the poor. According to the Bill, this man from County Limerick who got the contract would not be liable to any prosecution for supplying milk with this admixture of skimmed milk. With the addition of the skimmed milk he was still able to have his 3 per cent. of butter fat in the milk. Of course, if he put too much skimmed milk in and that the average fell below the 3 per cent., he could be mulcted in a fine of £50. We have no sympathy for that class of person at all. Our sympathy is with the man who has no creamery to get skimmed milk from, the man who has just the ordinary means of producing milk. Our sympathy is with the man who is honest in his efforts to supply a good article. If a man adds water to milk then we think he should be made liable for the penalties laid down in the Bill. If a man adds water and adulterates his milk he will be found out, and we do not want to afford him any kind of protection at all. We are absolutely against the adulteration of milk. What we are anxious to do is to protect the man whose milk supply in the month of April may, for the reasons I have stated, fall below the standard laid down. We are anxious to see that if his milk does fall below the standard that he will not lose his good name, a good name that it has cost him a lot of money to build up in the milk trade.

I intend to oppose this amendment. The statement Senator Wilson has made to-day is not in agreement with the statement he made last week when he tried to convince us that it was quite a usual thing for milk to fall below the 3 per cent. fat content. He told us about the cows on the Government farm at the Albert College and of cows on farms outside the city. He said that as a result of tests made the milk given by a number of these cows was below the 3 per cent. standard. Now we are told that cows in the County Limerick give milk with a 6 per cent. fat content.

I did not say that.

The Senator said that a contractor from the County Limerick was able to get such rich milk from the farmers around him that he could afford to add separated milk to it— separated milk which the Senator said he was able to get at ½d. per gallon— and sell this admixture, still maintaining a 3 per cent. fat content, to a public institution in the City of Dublin. As one representing the workers, I hope that the Minister for Agriculture will insist that milk containing at least 3 per cent. of butter fat will be made available for the poor. I think that standard is not an unreasonable one. Whether that is the standard of the milk that comes from the cow or not, I hope it will be insisted on. Everyone who has had experience of buying milk in the country knows that it is quite a usual thing for the purveyors of milk to sell the fore milk which is poor milk, and keep the rick milk for their own use, or churn it into butter. We all know that in the case of those who keep cows in the country it is the invariable practice with them to keep the strippings for table use. If a farmer wants to avoid breaking the law, and if he has cows which are very flush in milk—as a rule this is milk of poor quality—he can easily remedy that defect by using this fore milk for the feeding of calves and selling the rich milk to the people. I do not think that the purveyors of milk are entitled to any sympathy from the public or from this House. I am aware that at the present time in the County of Meath milk is sold in summer at 5d. a gallon, and in winter at 8d. a gallon, while the poor in the City of Dublin have to pay 2/- a gallon for that same milk. Surely there should not be such a discrepancy in these prices. It is only reasonable that those engaged in the trade should be made supply a good article in view of the price the public has to pay.

I agree with Senator Wilson and Senator Counihan that everything possible should be done to protect the honest purveyor of milk, particularly if the absence of fats in the milk is due not to any fault of his. On the other hand, there is a good deal to be said for the point of view of those who oppose the amendment. In view of the fact that milk forms such an important article of diet for infants and young children especially, it is essential in the interests of the public health that the standard of quality should be kept as high as possible. I was very much interested in the speech which Deputy Dr. O'Sullivan made on the Second Reading of the Bill. He dealt with the question of pasteurisation. I think I am correct in stating that he said, in effect, that pasteurisation results in diminishing the vitamin contents of the milk. These vitamins are contained principally in the butter fats. That being the case I would prefer, as a layman, pasteurised milk with a high butter fat content to milk which had not been pasteurised and that had a low butter fat content. The difficulty that I find myself in is that, while I believe the great majority of the purveyors of milk are honest, a minority, who may be potentially dishonest, would be enabled to pick loopholes in the Bill if this amendment were inserted in it. Therefore I am voting against the amendment.

I think the amendment, if inserted in the Bill, would mean that the Bill would have no effect at all. It would be a case of returning to the present position. The present position is that it is an offence to adulterate milk, and there is a presumption that adulteration has taken place if the percentage of butter fat is below a certain level. The Bill proposes to make it an offence to sell as whole milk, milk which has less than the prescribed percentage of butter fats even though it comes direct from the cow. Even if the seller proves that he handed out the milk direct from the pail to the purchaser and it is below the standard, it will be an offence under this Bill. The question of presumption will not henceforward arise. What would be the effect of the amendment? If the defendant proves to the justice that the article of food sold as whole milk was within the definition, that is to say, was milk from which none of the constituents had been abstracted, then no offence will have been committed; but how will he prove that? He will appeal to the analyst's report, showing so much per cent. of solids and so much per cent. of butter fats. The solids are up to the normal but the butter fats are below, and he will be in the same position with the magistrate as he is at present, that is, he will be able to prove that it was sold as it came from the cow. The practice that has been referred to of adding skim milk or separated milk to the original whole milk would be possible and profitable under the amendment, and it would be no offence because the positive act of adulteration would in very few cases be provable. The effect of the amendment would be practically to nullify the effects of the Bill.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view of Senators Wilson and Counihan, but I have more sympathy still with the difficulty they have found in drafting an amendment which will achieve the object they have in view, without doing more damage than they are trying to remedy. I think the amendment undoubtedly, would destroy the effect of the Bill and leave things just exactly as they are. I should say, and it is perhaps of importance to know, that according to judgments it is still an offence to sell milk which has been adulterated even though it is above the standard which has been prescribed—3 or 3½ per cent. of butter fat, or whatever the figure may be. It is not a sufficient defence to prove that the milk is above the prescribed standard of butter fats if it can otherwise be proved that it has been adulterated. That by the way, but there is a general assumption that because milk has more than 3 per cent. of butter fats it can be mixed and treated in any way. That, I understand, is not the law. There is a misunderstanding that merely a good butter fat content is a sufficient proof of genuineness.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the point made by Senators Wilson and Counihan, with regard to the possibility of an honest dairy farmer being stigmatised as dishonest by being fined in a police court for selling milk that is not up to standard. I would suggest, however, that instead of the amendment, which leaves the door open to very extensive fraud, some approach should be made to the Minister so that in fixing standards he might have regard to the conditions at certain periods of the year. That is to say, the prescribed percentage of butter fats would not be the same in April as in October. There is something to be said for that point of view, but I can see no justification for the amendment.

I oppose the amendment because I think it cuts right across the principle of the Bill. In fact, it defeats the principle underlying the Bill. There is no question that certain cows do give a better quality of milk than others, but every dairy man and producer can easily find out the character of the milk the cow should give. If he has a herd, the deficiency of butter fat caused by the fact that one cow may be giving a small quantity of butter fat, can be made up from the cows that are giving a larger quantity. I have great sympathy with the dairy trade, because they have to work under very difficult conditions, and they have to be constantly attending to their trade. That entails a good deal of anxiety, but, at the same time, the public must be safeguarded, and the present state of the law allows a person who has been prosecuted for supplying adulterated milk to appeal to the cow. That is practically what the amendment does.

Probably because a number of cases have been brought to my own notice in which prosecutions have taken place and people possessing the very highest standards of honour have been held up to public odium in the courts, I am very much inclined to support the amendment. Personally, I have nothing but contempt for the person who adulterates milk. I agree with the statement of Senator O'Farrell, which has been quoted, that they are harpies. They might even be called murderers, because young children might die as a result of their efforts to make illegal money in this way. I have nothing but contempt for them and, if I were a magistrate, I would send them to jail. At the same time, at least half-a-dozen instances have come under my notice where people of the very highest standards of honour have been subjected to humiliation. Some of these people could not now be induced to sell milk under any circumstances, even if they knew it contained 6 per cent. of butter fat. Of course, that is altogether an exceptional standard, but nothing would induce these people ever again to sell milk.

I agree that in towns the temptation to adulterate milk may be greater than in the country. I do not agree with Senator Duffy that the average farmer who produces milk sells the poorest of it. That has not been my experience, and I have some experience in the matter. I do not believe that the average farmer would stoop to that. I do not know anything about the person into whose hands the milk may come after it leaves the farmer's hands. I do not speak for those people. I speak for the farmer. He is not the type of man who would do that kind of thing, and I think some protection, whether by way of this amendment or otherwise, should be given to the honest person. Many cases have happened in which people who would not stoop to do anything dishonest, have been held up to odium and have suffered in their characters as a result of these prosecutions. Some protection should be given to them, and for that reason I support the amendment.

I would be much happier about my vote on this amendment if I knew whether the honest producer of milk has any way of knowing whether the milk that he is sending out and which may have been all right the day before is then up to the prescribed standard. Can that be ascertained otherwise than by chemical analysis?

Senators

No.

Because that is a very important element in the matter. Otherwise I am entirely against the amendment, because I think it a great deal better that one honest man should suffer occasionally than that dozens of dishonest men should, under this amendment, be allowed to pursue their fraudulent practices. I am very anxious to know whether there is any definite way by which an honest man who is not a chemist, and who has not got an analysis, may know whether the milk he is sending out is right or not.

There is a good deal of difference of opinion on the aspect of the question with which the amendments deal. It is not expressed along the ordinary lines of cleavage, and I think there is something here that requires to be examined. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is replying, would tell us how these standards are fixed. I am quite certain that it is not known to Senators who are going to vote, how these standards are fixed, whether they are different at various seasons of the year, whether they are fixed as a result of practical experience or on a scientific basis.

And do they vary from month to month?

Yes. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there are a great variety of conditions at different times of the year. I think that it is rather going too far to say that the amendment nullifies the Bill. That entirely depends upon how, if the amendment was inserted in the Bill, these prosecutions would be carried out. A man who is prosecuted can, under the amendment, prove that he supplied the milk as it came from the cow. He would have to milk that cow again to show it yielded exactly that quality of milk and to show that there has been no subsequent adulteration. The answer to that may be that he should not keep such cows or feed them on such land. That is another question, but, at any rate, it is perfectly possible to find out whether the man has a genuine defence or not in saying that it came from the cow. If we had the Parliamentary Secretary's view, I think we would find it much easier to vote on the amendment. I am doubtful about it, and I think a great injustice might be done in certain cases if the Bill is left as it is. Although it appears to cut across the whole principle of the Bill, I do not know that it would in practice, because, after all, supposing a man proves that his cows are giving milk that is not quite up to standard, that it is supplied exactly as it comes from the cows, what exactly is going to be done about it? Is he going to be told "that is all right, but you must not do it again", or what is going to happen?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the object which this amendment seeks to achieve, but I do not consider that it will succeed in its purpose. I think it would rather open the door to the abuses which Senator Wilson has so strongly and justly condemned. The periods where there are fluctuations in the butter fat content of milk are known to all experienced dairymen. They generally occur when there is a very rainy season time and when grass is very plentiful. That may affect the whole herd, and an honest man may be easily penalised unjustly. I think some provision should be made to prevent this. I would suggest, after hearing the debate, that the provision should take the form of providing an easy means for the experienced salesman, who, if he is an honest milkman, will know the period—and, in fact, the ordinary person's palate will tell him the difference when he drinks the milk—involving no cost to him, of ascertaining whether that milk is up to standard. If he wants to prove his honesty he should either send a sample immediately to the Department or ask that the Department's inspector should, without any cost to himself, inspect the quality of the milk he proposes to supply to the market.

If an amendment of that nature were introduced it would help considerably to meet the case. It may be said that the inspector goes around to-day and finds the milk all right, and on the next day or in a few days' time the producer is taken up; but if it is found that the man is honestly disposed to leave his herd, and the milk produced by his herd, open to inspection—I know that it is always open to inspection and should be open to inspection—or if he calls attention to the fact that he believes that the milk he intends to supply is below the necessary fat content, the responsibility rests with the Department and not with him. If he is summoned he has the very just defence that he has reported the matter to the Department. I think it would be hard for an honest man to be convicted under those circumstances and if the amendment took that form I would certainly support it, but the form in which it is at present would leave the door open to the mixing of the buttermilk or skim milk with fats, to a very great extent, and I think it would be very dangerous even for an honest milkman.

A couple of statements have been made in the course of this debate which, I think, require some explanation and which, to my mind, are very misleading, especially the statement made by a man who would be calculated to know a good deal of these matters. He said that milk in County Limerick contains 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of butter fat.

At this time of the year.

I question whether any milk, at any time of the year or in any county, would contain anything like an average of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. butter fat. I have experience of a dairy county myself and I believe I would be nearer the mark in saying that the average butter fat content would be under 4 per cent. I think that the statement that 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of butter fat is contained in any milk produced in any county and the suggestion that such milk could be, and is, easily adulterated is a wild and extravagant statement for any responsible man to make in this House.

Another statement made by a member of the Opposition is that the strippings are very often retained by men who sell milk and especially in creamery districts. That is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous statement and, I may say, absolutely misleading also. Milk in the creamery districts is sold for its butter content and no farmer in his senses would retain the very article for which he is paid and send the rest to the creamery.

He sends it to the creamery and sells the other.

If the Bill is based on such statements, I think it is a matter that requires some investigation. I think that men are very often victimised in regard to the low butter fat content of their milk. I have known of milk being sent to a creamery and it contained less than 3 per cent. of butter fat, and I know myself, when I sent milk to a creamery, that it would be a very exceptional occasion when I would reach 4 per cent. of butter fat in any month of the year. Take even the months in which milk is scarce— December and January——

You must be starving the cows.

The feeding does not really matter.

The Senator is absolutely wrong in that. Even the feeding of cows has very little influence on the butter fat content and I think it is true to say that men are very often victimised—honest straightforward men— and I think the amendment is to be supported if it prevents such men from being victimised. I support the amendment.

I am also considerably interested in this question of testing milk and I would suggest that there is one way in which the milk vendor can protect himself, and I would put it to the Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, most of them do belong to cow-testing associations, but I suggest that it should be made obligatory. If a milk producer belongs to a cow-testing association, he can always, at any time of the year or day, call on his supervisor to take a test of the milk which he is going to supply to the public. He then gets a general idea of what the butter fat content is. I think that the butter fats vary immensely, not only from the point of view of the time of the year, but also—and I do not think the point has been brought out—from the point of view of the period of lactation of a particular cow. At this time of the year, when cows are low in milk, the butter fat content will rise to 4.5 per cent. and that same cow, in a flush of milk in May, will produce 3.2 per cent. or even just the bare minimum. This is the time when I think the cow-testing associations could come in and I think that would sufficiently protect the vendor. It would be a much better plan than having this amendment which definitely cuts across the idea of the Bill.

The principle involved in this amendment was very fully discussed here just a week ago, and all the arguments in favour of the amendment that have been emphasised and put before the House to-day were, with equal emphasis, trotted out to us on Second Reading. All the points in favour of this particular amendment were put very clearly before the House, and it becomes a bit tedious to have to repeat the same arguments again and to have to meet the same line of argument which was already met and which appeared to satisfy the House, when this matter was under discussion before. Senator Counihan, in the course of his remarks to-day, tells us that the average milk from an average cow will contain 3.5 per cent. of milk fat. If that is so, is it unreasonable to ask this House to ensure that milk which is to be the staple food of the children of this country should reach an average standard of quality? That is all we are asking in this Bill.

I pointed out on the last day on which we were discussing this matter that practically all the causes that go to contribute to a fall in the butter fat content below 3 per cent., at any rate, can be removed without any additional expense and at very little inconvenience to the producer of milk, that is, provided he sets himself out and takes sufficient interest in the production of milk of a reasonable standard of quality, to take the necessary steps to ensure that it will reach that standard. I contend, as I contended here the last time we were discussing this, that if a farmer sets out to make a living in this particular branch of agricultural industry, and if the community is guaranteed by statute that the milk produced and sold by any particular farmer or group of farmers will reach a certain standard of nutritive value, it is up to that farmer to produce milk of that standard of purity or nutritive value. If he finds that it is too troublesome, if he is not prepared to do that, he ought not be allowed to sell an article which purports to reach a certain standard of quality, but which does not, in fact, reach that standard.

I do not know whether Senator Wilson would agree with me in this House, but I do know that, outside this House, when discussing this subject with him, he does agree that the big contributing factor towards a fall in butter fat content below the 3 per cent. standard in morning milk is the irregularity of the milking, and I think that most Senators who are well informed on the subject, either by reason of having made a special study of it or by reason of practical experience, will agree that that is so. As I said when we were discussing this matter previously, there is the individual peculiarity of individual cattle. For no reason that I can explain, at any rate, a healthy and well-bred cow will sometimes give a low-grade milk, but if the producer of milk for sale to the public for the feeding of the children of the rising generation wishes to continue in that particular line of business, he has got to eliminate from his herd the cows that give milk of a low standard of butter content. To my mind, the acceptance of this amendment would leave us in a worse position than if we had not touched this Bill at all. The Senators who have argued that it cuts across the whole principle of the Bill have made that point as clearly and as emphatically as I can possibly make it.

All this thing about "straight from the cow" is all right up to a point. There is no question that the vast majority of milk producers are honest men and nobody wants to get the honest milk producers into any conflict with the law, but I think every Senator will agree with me that there are dishonest purveyors of milk, and it is these dishonest purveyors of milk we want to get at. Nobody for a moment suggests that it is anything like a universal practice to skim the milk and sell that skim milk for human consumption, while selling the strippings to the creamery or turning them into butter at home; but it does happen and it should not be allowed to happen, and it is in order that it will not happen in future that I want this amendment rejected. On the question of the fixing of standards, as Senators, I have no doubt, are aware, the standards of butter fat content and of solids other than fats are fixed by regulations made under the Principal Act by the Minister for Agriculture.

When discussing this question last week, Senator Wilson was particularly disturbed about that possibility if the Bill went through in its present form. I undertook to adopt a friendly attitude towards an amendment, to the effect that the Minister for Agriculture would lay the regulations setting out the standards before the House. I felt that Senator Wilson, Senator Counihan and other Senators, who were disturbed about this amendment of the Food and Drugs Acts, were satisfied with that undertaking. We are not setting out standards under this Bill. We are providing against fraud by abolishing the defence "straight-from-the-cow" and laying it down that whatever the standard of fats may be, whether 2.5, 3 or 3.5 per cent., which the wisdom of this and the other House decides upon, that this standard should obtain, and that for no reason the defence "straight-from-the-cow" should be given in future under any circumstances as an impressive defence. If a cow does not give milk of approved standard of quality the milk should not be sold for human consumption. Senators should remember that it is not one cow's milk is tested but mixed milk from a herd. You would have to have the majority of the herd giving milk below the standard prescribed in order that a conviction could succeed. There are seasonal variations. I believe they are governed, not so much by seasonal changes as by the period of lactation. As Senator Wilson knows, the period of lactation has more effect at certain seasons than at others. The question of feeding is not an important one at all. No matter how certain cows are fed they will give a low standard of milk. Feeding will not get over the difficulty, but care in milking, regularity in milking, to ensure that the cow is milked dry, and stripped properly so that no butter fat contents are left in the cow's udder when milking is completed will. These things will have to be attended to in future by producers of milk who do not wish to become entangled in the law. I do not wish to labour the matter further. Although the other amendment is not before the House, it is really related to this one. I am quite prepared favourably to consider that amendment and to recommend it to the Dáil. Senators will have an opportunity then of discussing these regulations and the percentages set out. If they can persuade the House that the standards set up by the Minister are too high, they can reject them for new regulations with lower standards. I think the standards should be set definitely and that any purveyor who sells milk not up to these standards should be liable to the penalties the law prescribes.

I should like to say that the difficulty I had about this amendment has practically disappeared, largely because of what I heard from Senator The McGillycuddy, and partly from what I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say. It appears to me now that as an honest milk producer, who knows how to conduct his business, can get milk tested from time to time, and within a very short time, practically no case has been made for the amendment.

I have no direct interest in this matter as a milk purveyor. My only interest is—as it should be that of every representative of the farmers in this House—to protect honest farmers. It was painful to hear Senator Cummins talk about the practice of skimming the milk. The Senator, who poses as representative of the farmers, made a statement in which there is very little truth. I will say no more about that. I do not mind what Senator Duffy said. It was only what I would expect occasionally from him. But to hear Senator Cummins vilifying the farmers and their class was painful. Some Senators seem to be under the impression that if cows are well fed the milk will be all right in its contents of butter fats and solids.

The Parliamentary Secretary does not think so.

Some Senators believe that. Feeding has very little to say to the quality or to the content of the milk. Senator Dowdall in a second speech qualified a statement he made. He spoke about the records of the courts and how people were able to get off, as showing that there was a good deal of such practices going on. There have been prosecutions, particularly in the county from which the Senator comes, but in the majority of cases the farmers were able to prove that the milk was sold as it came from the cows and there were no convictions. Does the Parliamentary Secretary want a farmer to be prosecuted and convicted, who sells milk that has been honestly produced, and that comes from well fed cattle? Does the House, and particularly farmers' representatives in it, want honest farmers convicted of offences for which they are in no way responsible? That is the question I want answered. I am not saying that the milk is always up to standard, but it happens occasionally, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that milk that may contain 3.5 per cent. most of the time, owing to causes which farmers cannot control, such as a wet or a frosty night, may, when tested, be below the prescribed standard. I want to protect farmers from being disgraced on such occasions. I appeal to the House to pass the amendment. If a better amendment can be produced on the Report Stage which would meet the objections, I will withdraw this amendment.

On the question of fraud raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, I would point out that people commit fraud generally for profit. In a case in which this fraud is alleged to be committed, a man would be a fool to perform the operation that the Parliamentary Secretary says he would, to sell the fore milk at a good price and to retain the strippings and send them to the creamery. He would only get 3½d. or 4d. a gallon from the creameries, while it would be very poor fore milk for which he would not get 6d. a gallon. He would be a fool in his own interests to commit the fraud that has been alleged. Why should he commit fraud, when he would be losing by doing so?

1/4 per lb. for butter.

He could sell the fore milk for 6d.

What is the price of cream in the city?

Such manipulation of milk could only be done at the creameries. It could not be done by people who have to milk their cows at 4 a.m. in order to have it in Dublin at 7 a.m. They have to milk again in the afternoon. That entails employing a double set of men. Throughout the country the working day is one of nine hours, so that the cows must be milked at regular hours. There is no use in the Parliamentary Secretary saying that farmers should not produce milk unless the milking is done at regular periods. The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that farmers are not in the position to have two sets of workmen. I have two sets of workmen. That is not the case generally, as the price obtained for milk would not permit it. Even if there were two sets of workmen, the content would be upset by one wet night and a man's character would be ruined. There is only assumption in such cases on the part of the prosecuting authority. Science cannot prove that a particular sample of milk was interfered with. I saw a case where a cow was milked in the byre, a sample taken and the milk was not up to the average. If cows were milked at 4 o'clock in the morning and at 4 o'clock in the evening, after a heavy night's frost, the milk would be short in butter fats. All the lactometers invented would not save a man in such cases. The law should be just and an honest man should not be penalised if he carries on his business properly. They have milk regulations in Northern Ireland and in England that are in advance of the standards required here. Why do they not bring in Bills of this character there? They know better. When a man brings his workmen to court in cases of this kind, to prove that the milk was not interfered with, do you think these men would perjure themselves in order to retain their job? I know that this amendment will not be carried, but I had hoped that the House would appreciate the difficulties of the farming community, so that they should have the justice which their case demands. On the question of eliminating certain cows, the Parliamentary Secretary must remember that a cow that gave a minimum of fats in May might be giving milk up to 4 per cent. standard in June. If such a cow was eliminated from the herd the owner would be no better off, and he would have to keep up supplies. I hope the House will meet the case in some other way. I am against lowering the standard of milk to be supplied, but the law that permits an honest man to be summoned, and his character taken, is unjust and should not be passed by this House.

I desire to corroborate Senator Wilson. On the Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary stressed the importance of regular milking time. If he was a practical farmer, or if he lived in the country, he would know that that is an impossibility under present conditions. Farmers find it very hard to keep one set of men. The rule is laid down by the Labour Leader that workmen are to start at 8 o'clock in the morning and no sooner. Any farmer who asked them to come in earlier would be described from some public platform as a tyrant or a slave driver. The cows will be milked at 8 o'clock in the morning and again in the evening. That will not be changed, even if the Minister made a law to do so. Accordingly, I wish to say that as that cannot be changed the question of having cows milked at 4 o'clock in the morning and at 4 o'clock in the evening cannot be carried out in the country districts.

Senator Wilson repudiated with emphasis even the possibility that farmers and dairymen would divide their milk—take the cream and sell it separately from the remainder of the milk. Under my own direct observation, I have seen that done. I have seen the cream abstracted from rich milk for sale as cream and the remainder sold as milk. Senator Wilson, however, I think, gave away the bulk of his case when he instanced the possibility, which I think is generally admitted, that after a wet night or a frosty night the morning's milk might be deficient in fats. It is those very exceptional circumstances that will cause the deficiency to the extent that is contemplated, but it must be remembered that wet nights and frosty nights are not continuous. Wet nights may be, but the effect of a wet night on the butter fat content of milk is not going to be continuous. I think that Senator Wilson will agree that, as a matter of practice, in the administration of the law, it is continuous deficiencies that result in prosecutions.

It is not for continuous deficiencies. A prosecution can take place for any offence.

I am not denying that it is an offence. It would be an offence if the man is detected, but as a matter of practice, in the case of a dairyman who is selling milk which is deficient in butter fat after a wet or frosty night, the chance that he will be detected in selling that milk on that morning and that a prosecution will result is very slim indeed. As a matter of practice, it is the succession of samples that have been taken and that are found to be deficient that results in a prosecution.

Has Senator Johnson any proof for that statement?

My knowledge of the way the law is administered and of the way inspectors act is sufficient to confirm that, and anybody with a knowledge of the administration of local authorities, and who is in the habit of receiving reports from inspectors, will confirm it.

In reply to that, I should like to say that I have a knowledge of local authorities and I can state what Senator Johnson says is not true. If a man commits an offence on one occasion he is liable to prosecution and conviction.

I am not denying that he is liable to prosecution, but I say that, as a matter of practice in the cities it does not result in a prosecution. As a matter of practice, it is the succession of defective samples that are found that results in prosecutions. I think it is important, however, to draw attention to the effect of Section 2. Its effect is to make it an offence to sell an article, called milk, which is below a certain standard of quality. So far as that particular section is concerned, it is not an allegation of fraud; it is an allegation of selling an article below a certain standard. That is to say, milk, in the future, will be an article with a certain percentage of butter fat and of solids, and it will be the offence of selling something of deficient quality that will be the subject of prosecution. Henceforward, as I see it, there will be no indication of fraud or of definite and positive adulteration. It will be rather a minimisation of that ignominy that fraud is an immediate assumption when milk is deficient in butter fat. The offence will be that of selling an article of a different quality from that which is demanded and it will be clearer after this Bill is passed than ever it has been before. Hitherto, the implication has always been that there has been a deliberate fraud. After this passes, I do not think that implication will be there to anything like the same extent. It will be an implication of selling something of inferior quality to that prescribed.

There is one point to which I should like to allude. I do not wish to prolong the debate. I do not know how seriously the contribution from Senator Miss Browne is to be taken, but when she suggested that I had taken the stand in this debate that absolute equality of intervals in milkings was essential to safeguard against a fall below the required percentage, I do not think she was altogether fair to me in that interpretation of my remarks. However, if I did convey that impression, let me correct it now. Absolute equality of intervals is not necessary, but the nearer you can get to it the less likelihood there is of deficiencies. It has been said by competent authorities that when the interval exceeds 13 hours the likelihood of the milk, after that interval, falling below the standard, begins to appear, and, according as the interval is prolonged beyond that, the likelihood of its falling below the standard increases. I was glad to hear from Senator Miss Browne that she knows what she is talking about. I presume that she does, but I should be more impressed, I must confess, if somebody else told me that she knew what she was talking about.

I do know what I am talking about.

That is rather a personal accusation against Senator Miss Browne's capacity, and I think such a remark should not be made.

The Parliamentary Secretary should not make such an accusation as that. I do know what I am talking about.

Senator Miss Browne has been sent here to do her duty, and the Parliamentary Secretary ought not to compare her capacity with that of other members of the House. If that is done, I shall probably discontinue allowing the Parliamentary Secretary to appear here.

I should like to ask the Cathaoirleach did he take note of the fact that Senator Miss Browne said in the House that I did not know what I was talking about.

I did not notice her saying so, and if I had noticed it I would ask her to withdraw it.

She used the remark.

I did not intend any such meaning, and I do not think I used any such expression.

I quite accept that.

From such practical experience as I have, when the Parliamentary Secretary makes the suggestion that this prosecution can be avoided by having the cows milked at certain times, I say that he is suggesting something which has been made impossible for the farmers of the country. I am quite well aware that the milk will be of a poorer quality if a very long time elapses, but I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say how that can be avoided. Let him tell us how it can be avoided by the farmers of the country in present conditions.

The Parliamentary Secretary made that plain by saying that the people must endeavour to help.

Mr. O'Hanlon rose.

On a point of order, Sir, I understood that Senators Counihan and Wilson were to close the debate.

I do not think that is quite a point of order, Senator. Every Senator is entitled to speak three times.

And I suggest that some of us ought to be entitled to speak once. There is only one matter that I wanted to advert to, and that was the statement made by Senator Brown. He said that in the beginning he had an open mind in regard to this amendment, and that later he had not such an open mind. He said that his mind had been rather closed in regard to the amendment, and he was mainly influenced by the remark of the Parliamentary Secretary and of Senator. The McGillycuddy, and influenced by the circumstances represented to him that it was very easy for the farmers to have frequent tests made, and that inspectors were constantly going round whose services could be easily secured. As a farmer producing milk, and as a member of a cow-testing association, and one who has worked practically in it, I want to assure the Senator that if he bases his last decisions on any such assumption his decisions will be entirely erroneous. It is exceedingly difficult for the ordinary farmers to get tests, and it is difficult even for members of cow testing associations. Even in the case of the latter, in most cases, a test takes place once in every six weeks; and for the ordinary farmer in out of the way places, where there are no cow testing associations, it is a very difficult and costly matter to get frequent testings of his milk.

An attempt has been made to suggest that those, including myself, who are in favour of securing that the milk supply of children in the cities shall be good milk, are hostile to the interests of the farmers. We are not hostile to the interests of the farmers, but we are hostile to people who destroy the credit of farmers by either putting water in the milk or by keeping an old cow that would give five gallons of milk with scarcely any cream in it. People have been talking here as though they thought we knew nothing about cows. I would ask the Seanad to bear this in mind: that the person who is being protected here by the Parliamentary Secretary is the little child that gets a half pint of milk. If that milk is bad, if it is deficient in fat or vitamins, that little child will suffer and will suffer much more seriously than a farmer would suffer by being brought up for selling milk which is deficient in either the fats or the solids that will be required by regulations. There is no use in wasting all your tears here and all your sympathy on the farmer with, perhaps, five gallons short, who has attempted to make it up. We know that that sometimes happens.

What we are doing is protecting the honest man.

What are my friends doing but suggesting that every farmer in the country is in the same position as the farmer who gets prosecuted for selling to the little children milk that is not real milk? That is a consideration that ought to be borne in mind by Senators when they come to vote on this amendment. I say this with some experience: that a farmer knows, almost to one-tenth per cent., the percentage of fat that each cow in his bawn yields. One of the first instruments I ever saw was the lactometer. I do not know whether the lactometer is used now for determining the percentage of milk fats, but this I do know, and my friends on the other side know it, that the quality of the milk, coming from each cow in the bawn, is or ought to be known by every farmer who supplies milk in this country, particularly by the farmer who supplies it to be sold to the little children.

Does Senator Counihan wish this amendment to be put to the House?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 28.

  • Baxter, Patrick F.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Duggan, E.J.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Garahan. Hugh.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M.F.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Wilson, Richard.

Níl

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Boyle, James J.
  • Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, Michael, K.C.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dowdall, J.C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Fitzgerald, Séamus.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Healy, Denis D.
  • Honan, Thomas V.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Raphael P.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
  • MacEllin, Seán E.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • O Máille, Pádraic.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Robinson, Séumas.
  • Ruane, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Counihan and Wilson; Níl: Senators D.L. Robinson and Seamus Robinson.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Section 2. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(6) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after such regulation is made, and if a resolution annulling such regulation is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after such regulation is so laid before it such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.

I move amendment No. 3:—

New section. Before Section 10 to insert a new section as follows:—

Where under any provision of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts a person is guilty of having sold to the prejudice of the purchaser as whole milk any article of food which is not whole milk as defined by this Act and the Court is satisfied that the said article has been adulterated or impoverished by the admixture with it of any other substance, he shall be liable in case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding £20 or imprisonment with or without hard labour for one month; or for a second or subsequent offence to a fine of not exceeding £100 or imprisonment with or without hard labour for six months or both such fine and such imprisonment.

The present law provides that for a first offence a maximum fine of £20 may be imposed; that for a second offence a maximum fine of £50 may be imposed, and for subsequent offences a fine not exceeding £100 may be imposed. Imprisonment may not be imposed unless the offence is punishable by a fine over £50. That is to say, there must be two fines before a man is liable to imprisonment. I am not at all satisfied that the wording of this amendment does wholly what I would like to do and does only what I would like to have done, but my aim has been to make it possible to punish by imprisonment a person who has deliberately, maliciously, and fraudulently adulterated his milk whether for the first or second time, but certainly for the second time. I want to differentiate between the person for whom Senator Wilson has been speaking, the person who has committed an offence of selling an article below standard quality, and that other person who, in order to make more money out of his trade, deliberately adulterates milk. If a magistrate has evidence that a person has deliberately adulterated his milk, or has deliberately abstracted the fats from milk to bring it to the standard that is the minimum, then I think if the magistrate is satisfied as to the heniousness of that offence he should be empowered not merely to fine but to imprison. I think it is not enough to say that a person may commit the offence of deliberate adulteration of milk a first and a second time without the risk even of imprisonment.

It was with the object of getting some alteration in the scale of penalties that I put down this amendment. I think it is important that the public should realise that the legislature feels that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment to deliberately defraud the public by adulterating milk. That is the object of the amendment. If the amendment is defective in drafting—I think it is, but if the House is agreeable that there should be some greater punishment than a mere fine for such offence—then any defect in drafting can be remedied. I would trust the Minister to produce in form and drafting an amendment to carry out the object I have in view.

I support the amendment. I think that the purity of milk would be secured very effectually by letting it be known that if a man is caught watering milk he should go to jail and, as I understand it, that is the object of this amendment. If it is carried, I think it will have more effect in securing the purity and quality of milk than any other piece of legislation that has been produced for many a day.

I oppose the amendment. All the objections put up against the amendment which I tabled could equally be urged against this amendment. If we could have a definition by which we could be certain that water had been added to milk, nobody would have the smallest objection if the fine and imprisonment, which the Senator has set out in his amendment, were imposed on an offender, but he has not given any indication of how that could be ascertained. I think it was clearly proved in the discussion on my amendment, and also on Second Reading, that milk may fall below the standard fixed by the Minister. The only conclusion that a court can come to in that case is that water has been added, otherwise there would be no reason for the prosecution. In that case, according to Senator Johnson, the man should be put into jail and fined a considerable amount for a thing for which he might be in no way responsible and which he possibly could not avoid. If Senator Johnson would insert some drastic definition or something approaching a definition by which the court can be sure that the man prosecuted is guilty of the offence then I would agree with the amendment but, in present circumstances, I oppose it because it is not clearly set out how the man can be found to have added water or adulterated the milk.

I have not been convinced by the arguments advanced in favour of the amendment. It proposes to alter the fines set up under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts of 1875 and 1899. Those penalties are fairly drastic. Of course they are not so drastic as to provide imprisonment on conviction for a first offence of adulteration.

Or second offence.

The acceptance of the amendment would, I think, involve considerable difficulty in administration. You might pass the amendment, but I doubt if you would be very much further on after you had passed it. Take the difficulty you would be up against in a prosecution in having to prove adulteration. From another angle that difficulty has been emphasised by Senator Counihan. Under this amendment the producer of the milk would be held liable for an offence that might not have been committed by his personal act. The adulteration might take place subsequent to the milk leaving the producer's premises, perhaps by some person who was an intermediary, and the producer would be held liable for imprisonment under this amendment.

The seller. The retailer is more likely to be the culprit.

Whoever has added the water.

My trouble is how you are going to prove the adulteration unless you saw the adulteration in process of being carried out? Is it likely that you would have evidence of that, or that anybody who had been a witness to the adulteration, would be likely to come forward in court to prove the case? I think the amendment is rather drastic and that the penalties already provided are a sufficient safeguard for the public. Adulteration is rather difficult to define to my mind. It is conceivable, at any rate, that there can be additions to milk, which under this proposed amendment would be technical adulteration. Such addition might mean an improvement in the nutritive value of the milk. For instance, if sugar were added to the milk it would be "another substance," and under this amendment it would come, I am afraid, under the category of adulteration. I do not suppose it is likely that sugar would be added to milk for the purpose of improving its nutritive qualities, but at the same time there is the possibility. We have had so much discussion on the possibility of honest producers getting into trouble under the law that I do not think we should offer any further enticement in the law to catch these honest purveyors.

I am opposed to the proposed amendment, for the reason that I think the placing of severe penalties in a section has rather a deterrent effect on those who are engaged in the prosecution and a deterrent effect on the presiding justice to make an order for conviction. The disgrace of the consequences of a conviction for anything in the nature of food adulteration has been stressed earlier in the debate. It was pointed out that that was likely to be followed by grave injury to a man's remaining in the trade or business. There is no necessity in my opinion, to impose upon him a penalty of so large a sum as £20 or £100 for a second conviction. The mere fact that he was liable to such heavy penalties would probably have the result that he would not be convicted if there was any possibility of his escape. Besides, this kind of legislation which suggests the imposition of penalties of a very severe character, should not, I think, meet with the approval of the House if the result aimed at can be brought about by other means. I therefore oppose the amendment.

We are dealing with a fundamental food of the people. In most working class areas it is not an unusual thing to get a fairly low grade of milk. Because of this low grade of milk great numbers of working-class children die in their early years. If the Seanad feels that the penalties suggested in this amendment are too drastic for the purveyors of this milk, I would ask Senators to put the lives of the children against the penalties, and say on what side the balance lies. Remember we are legislating for the lives of the children of this State. In my opinion, no penalty could be too drastic to prevent the starvation or malnutrition of babies or children of the working class. It has been argued by Senator Lynch that because you have high penalties it has an effect on those whose duty it is to administer the law. I think that is an extraordinary statement. I believe if we are to safeguard the lives of the children the penalties could not be too drastic to deter people who are prepared to sell low-grade milk to the children—the principal food of young children in this State.

The infant mortality in the City of Dublin is attributable as to 100 per cent. to housing conditions, and the suggestion that the loss of life is due to bad milk is a fairy tale. Senator Foran speaks of low-grade milk in the poorer districts. It is high-grade milk at a low price. Because it is sold at such a low price it is not appreciated. The Senator knows nothing whatever about the milk which is sold in these districts, because he gets his milk delivered at the door. There is a very considerable number of officers supervising the milk supplied in these districts. I say, without hesitation, that the value received in the case of this particular article of food is out of all proportion to the value received in nearly every other article of food. I should not like it to go out that low-grade milk is being supplied in these areas. The conditions under which the milk is produced and sold are subject to the keenest inspection by the sanitary authorities, and it is, as a matter of fact, in the poorer districts sometimes that the surplus of highest grade milk is sold—Grade A milk or milk coming from tuberculin tested cows.

Still the mortality is highest in these districts.

I have great sympathy with the amendment, but the trouble is that it is too drastic. We have heard Senator Foran and Senator Wilson talk about milk. I am supposed to know nothing whatever about it, but I have seen milk produced and sold. I am glad to say that I drink it and I am very fond of it. As far as I am concerned, I do not need any test for milk. I can pour out milk into a glass jug and I can know whether the proportion of cream on it is right or wrong. If one goes up to Kingsbridge and examines the cans of milk that arrive there one will find dirt in the bottom of the same can every evening. Probably the milk in 99 cans out of 100 is clean, but you will get the same dirty can from the same farmer every evening. That is the reason that I should like to see measures taken to remedy that state of affairs. On the other hand, the punishment suggested is too drastic. I should like to make it as drastic as possible, but I do not think that we shall achieve what we desire by making it too drastic. Senator Wilson does not agree that there is a cheap grade of milk sold in Dublin. I know there is. I know that the best milk in Dublin is bought at about 1/8 or 1/9 per gallon—tubercle-free milk. A lot of that is given out free, and justly so, because it is intended for children, and they should get only the best. However, I can bring the Senator into back streets in Dublin where milk is sold at 1d. per pint. Is that milk?

The best milk.

I do not know how it is done. There are only eight pints in a gallon.

They buy it from the wholesaler at 4d. and 5d. per gallon.

That is not tubercle-free milk and it is not milk that should be sold to children. I do not see how it can be sold at 1d. per pint if it is pure milk. I certainly agree with the principle of the amendment but I think that Senator Johnson should redraft it and bring it forward again on the Report Stage.

I agree with the principle of this amendment but I think that it is too drastic for a first offender. There is one thing which I should like Senator Johnson to bring out more clearly in the amendment. The amendment speaks of milk that has been adulterated by the admixture with it of any other substance. If we take the analogy of cream, I believe that the producers are allowed to preserve the cream with a certain proportion of boric acid. It is very hard to judge the amount of preservative which has been added to cream. Sometimes they turn the cream into a kind of fluid carrion. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about the incidence of tuberculosis as coming directly from milk, but I think that bovine tuberculosis accounts for only about 3 per cent. of tuberculosis in children. What does cause mortality amongst children, arising directly from housing, is summer diarrhoea. In summer, there used to be 250 per thousand children under one year lost on account of the fermentation of milk. With regard to the methods of pasteurising milk, I suppose the deadliest method of adding to the poisonous effect of milk is pasteurising it. Pasteurising does not boil it, but it promotes the growth of bacteria and particularly the colon bacteria, the intestinal microbe from the cow. That, getting into the child's intestine, causes this disease, which is very like dysentery, and kills the child. Housing helps the milk to sour.

When milk is preserved with boric acid, it means that the child merely waits for a double dose of that, plus the effect of the chemical preservation, which interferes with the child's resistance, because the preserved milk lodges in such a part of the child's intestine that the child is unable to resist it. It is very important to bring out clearly that there will be no excuse for a dairyman to say: "We are allowed to use it in cream and it is not adulteration of milk." It is the very opposite of adulteration, but it can be more deadly and, I think, the only thing is a just punishment for the crime. It must also be remembered that, taking all the different breeds of cows, each of them, without anything being put in the milk, may give milk which will come almost under the law in cases in which the milk is so low in solids as to be considered adulterated. The cows which give 1,800 gallons a year, or whatever the figure is, can hardly be expected to have sufficiently rich milk to escape stringent inspectorship. Water is not any harm in milk at all. It does not kill the nutritive value of milk, provided it is clean.

I had a dairyman once, and when one of my children was young, the milk he supplied turned yellow on the child's bib, so I went to the chemical department at the Dublin Corporation. They were out, and it was difficult to get an analysis, but, finally, when the analysis was got, they lost the specimen or the report. There is not enough provision for immediate pathological reports in Dublin. It should be an immediate thing. The roughest test one can make is to put the milk into a long tube and see how quickly it foams. That indicates the presence of something from the intestine of the cow and it is a deadly thing. It is not so much a question of tuberculosis but pasteurisation which forms and attracts all the nocuous bacteria. If the inspectorship is stringent enough, very few dairymen will be anxious to adulterate milk. The danger lies in the transmission of the milk. If the fellow who drives the milk car is generous, he may make up a deficiency by adding a little water, but water is not as deadly as boric acid, and boric acid is not as deadly as these conditions whereby milk is exposed to contamination, such as housing. Bad housing means that every form of food in these houses is exposed to contamination.

In supporting this amendment, I think it is only a matter of knowing what really does cover the addition of other substances, but I would suggest that it be made to read "other substances, whether for preservation or not." It is then a matter for humanity to arrange about the first offence, because heavy punishment will only drive a man completely out of business and the offence may not altogether be directly attributable to the milk farmer. I know myself of instances in which a milk farmer was mulcted when the offence was usually committed by the milkman, who thus got his master into trouble. There is another aspect of the matter. If everything is to be so completely chemically pure, where is human resistance to come in? If you live in a healthy country and come in to such conditions as are provided by a city like Dublin, you will succumb at once. When Guinness's labourers came from the country, they very quickly fell a prey to tuberculosis, and that was one of the reasons why the great brewery made special housing provisions for its staff. In the same way, short of murderous conditions in milk, a little freedom from too much preservation and sterilisation is not any harm. I have great pleasure in supporting anything that prevents chemical adulteration, as we will call it, in milk.

We are dealing with whole milk, and not adulterated milk, Senator. I allowed you to go on because you are always interesting, but you were not completely relevant.

This amendment deals with penalties and not with qualities of milk or the other properties of milk. It deals with penalties for fraud. The Minister has reminded us that the principal Act was passed in 1875. We are a long way from 1875. There have been 60 years of development of social consciousness, and, in 1875, we were just about the period when Mr. John Bright spoke of adulteration as merely another form of competition. There was no very strong public opinion against adulteration—it was only just beginning to develop—and that was the period when they imposed fines for the adulteration of food and drugs. I submit that we have advanced somewhat since 1875 in regard to our views as to the necessity for the protection of the public against fraud, particularly in regard to food and drugs. But even in regard to the whole range of food and drugs, milk stands out as of special importance because it is of primary value to young people and because adulteration or impoverishment by artificial means cannot so easily be detected.

We are legislating specifically in regard to that portion of the food which is referred to in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, known as milk, and because we are specially legislating in respect to milk, I want to make it clear that the Legislature is specially interested in preserving the quality of the milk and in punishing people who are guilty of deliberate impoverishment and deliberate adulteration of milk even more than other cases covered by the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. A man may deliberately, and even before witnesses, water milk and he is only subject, on the first occasion, to a fine of £20, with no possibility of being sent to jail. He may commit the same offence a second time, it being absolutely proved that he has watered the milk, and again, he can only be fined. He cannot be imprisoned, and not until the Justice has found him guilty a third time, with the possibility of a fine exceeding £50, may he be sent to prison. I submit that we ought to differentiate between the penalty that is attributable to deliberate adulteration of milk as distinguished from any ordinary offence, in regard, say, to the regulation of street traffic.

We fine people for a minor offence. Are we prepared to say that this is still a minor offence? I think we ought at least to provide that where there is deliberate adulteration—proved to the Justice to be deliberate—it ought to be possible for him to send the person responsible to prison and, however it may be done, whatever form the amendment of law may take, it seems to me to be very desirable so that the law may be strengthened in that respect and that the fraudulent adulterator of milk should not be let pass as being merely in the category of a minor offender which is signified by the fine.

I agree with Senator Johnson. I think the matter is too serious to be passed over merely with a fine There ought to be provision for something which will intimidate people of that sort.

There are just two points on which I want to say a word and I will deal with Senator Gogarty's point first, as to the desirability of adding "preservatives" to this amendment. It is a statutory offence under the Public Health Acts at the present time to add preservatives to milk. That is already covered by the Public Health (Saorstát Eireann) (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations of 1928 and it is a statutory offence under these regulations to add preservatives of any kind to milk or cream. I mention that for Senator Gogarty's information, and to put his mind at ease on that particular point. It is an important point, if it had not already been covered.

With regard to Senator Johnson's amendment, there is danger, I think, of grave injustice to a seller of milk under that amendment. Where a person is guilty of having sold milk to the prejudice of the purchaser, the seller of the milk is going to be held responsible and liable to imprisonment if it is proved in court that certain things have happened regarding that milk—if it does not reach a certain standard of purity or if it has been adulterated. The seller of the milk, however, may have no knowledge of it whatever. The dairyman or milkman who distributes the milk to the consumers may have adulterated the milk without the knowledge or consent of the man who produced the milk or the man who is technically the seller of the milk. There is a real possibility of the honest man being caught under this amendment, and I have far more sympathy for the honest purveyor in this instance than I had in relation to the other amendment.

On a point of order. Will the Parliamentary Secretary point out to us the difference between the amendment and the original paragraph in the Bill? It is only a difference in penalty.

That is hardly a point of order for me.

The same injustice would follow in the matter of a fine as well as in the matter of imprisonment. If a man was innocent of any grievous crime, it would be just as unjust to fine him as to imprison him.

It would be worse to send him to jail.

It is merely a penalty on the seller for not taking reasonable precautions.

It is a penalty just the same.

But you are not going to send him to jail.

Amendment put and declared lost on a show of hands.

Section 10 agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.

If the Report Stage of this Bill is taken to-morrow there will be no chance of inserting amendments, and if we defer it until next session it will probably be the middle of January before it is reached.

Unless the Parliamentary Secretary gives some hope that he would back a proposition embodying what I have tried to express in the amendment, I do not see any use in pressing the matter.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, December 20th.
Top
Share