TY  - JOUR
AB  - Since the widespread finding by public analysts of penicillin in milk as the result of the treatment of bovine mastitis, it could only be a matter of time before there were prosecutions under Sect. 2, Food and Drugs Act, 1955. In this issue we report a successful case at Leeds, in which the defendant was convicted and fined. In our July issue (p. 98) we also reported a case brought by the Milk Marketing Board, where the defendant was given an absolute discharge, but although this was the first reported case in England and Wales, the complaint was laid earlier at Leeds, so the distinction of being the first food and drugs authority in the country to test the decision of whether or not penicillin traces in milk constitutes an offence rests with Leeds. The amount present—0.06 I.U. per ml.—was much lower than analysts have often reported, but on medical grounds, the possibility of hypersensitivity reactions and the development of antibiotic‐resistant types of organisms, comparison of amounts present in samples is a refinement not particularly relevant. Another important point about the prosecution at Leeds is that the authority was prepared to prove toxicity and to fight the case on these grounds, with expert witnesses lined up for the purpose. A plea of not guilty obviated the necessity of this. The defence naively suggested that the choice was either penicillin traces or the pathological products of mastitis in the milk, but in truth, it is neither. A purchaser expects genuine milk, pure and of the quality demanded
VL  - 67
IS  - 9
SN  - 0007-070X
DO  - 10.1108/eb011641
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1108/eb011641
PY  - 1965
Y1  - 1965/01/01
TI  - British Food Journal Volume 67 Issue 9 1965
T2  - British Food Journal
PB  - MCB UP Ltd
SP  - 111
EP  - 126
Y2  - 2024/04/20
ER  -