To read this content please select one of the options below:

British Food journal Volume 66 Issue 1 1964

British Food Journal

ISSN: 0007-070X

Article publication date: 1 January 1964

48

Abstract

The law relating to foreign bodies in food and drink continues to grow in volume, if not in clarity. It is generally accepted that their presence may constitute an infringement of Section 2, Food and Drugs Act, 1955; that dust (or cement or paint or any other extraneous matter) adhering to the interior of a bottle means that the bottle is not clean within the meaning of regulation 27 (1), Milk and Dairies Regulations, 1959 or regulation 6 (2), Food Hygiene Regulations, 1960. This has been held to be so even if the dust (or other adherent substance) has been shown to be sterile. In Jones v. Bryn Dairy, Ltd., (1954), Q.B.D., a case under the Milk and Dairies Regulations, 1949 where the offence concerned dust adhering to the interior of a bottle of milk, Lord Goddard made the robust statement of the obvious—“clean means clean”—and rejected the argument that the bottle which contained the very small quantity of dust was clean because the dust itself was sterile. It had yet to be decided that similar considerations applied to a foreign body lying loose in the bottle; that such a bottle of milk was not in a state of thorough cleanliness before use. The decision of the Divisional Court in South Coast Dairies Ltd. v. Halstead (1963), (reported in December, 1963 issue of B.F.J.,) has now done this.

Citation

(1964), "British Food journal Volume 66 Issue 1 1964", British Food Journal, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb011621

Publisher

:

MCB UP Ltd

Copyright © 1964, MCB UP Limited

Related articles