Search results

In recent years there has been a growing debate, in the academic, professional and popular literature, on the audit ‘expectation gap’ and the role and independence of the auditor. As noted by Waller (1991): ‘Much of the criticism of auditors concerns an apparent lack of impartiality. Outsiders feel that independence is compromised… who knows what short cuts are taken by auditors keen to keep “well in” with management for the sake of winning profitable consultancy work to supplement the audit fee?’

1. The Committee was informed that the manufacture of shredded suet from imported premier jus is subject to control by licence and that it is a condition of the licences that the product shall contain not less than 83 per cent. of fat. This figure was adopted in 1931 by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists pending the establishment of a legal standard. 2. In the manufacture of shredded suet premier jus the fat is forced into shreds or granules and a cereal or amylaceous filler is added so as to form a coating over the particles of fat, thus preventing them from adhering together and at the same time retarding the development of rancidity. 3. The amount of filler taken up by the shredded fat depends primarily on its stickiness, which in turn depends on the temperature at which the manufacturing process is conducted. Manufacturers must give special attention to the problem of securing uniformity of distribution, otherwise part of a batch will take up more than its share of the amount of filler allowed by the manufacturing formula. In spite of all practicable care, complete uniformity cannot be ensured and some tolerance is therefore necessary to allow for unavoidable variations. 4. The proportion of filler used in the past by different manufacturers has varied considerably. A purchaser of shredded suet is primarily purchasing fat and it is desirable that the fat content shall be the maximum that can be included whilst still retaining good keeping properties. The Committee is of the opinion that shredded suet, to be of satisfactory quality, should not contain substantially less than 85 percent. of fat, and that a product approximating to this standard will have the necessary keeping properties. The Committee is satisfied that the allowance of 2 per cent. for uneven distribution on and among the shreds, which was adopted by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts in 1931, is reasonable, and understands that it is considered adequate by the manufacturers of shredded suet. 5. A small amount of suet (i.e., natural unrendered fat), received by butchers as part of their meat allocation, is chopped or minced, and in the latter case mixed with cereal filler and sold under the description “shredded suet.” By whichever method it is prepared it differs from the shredded suet made from premier jus by reason of the presence of membrane and moisture. If made by chopping it will contain more fat than the product made from premier jus, but if made by mincing and admixture with a filler it is likely to contain less owing to the membrane and moisture in the raw material and the impracticability of analytical control. 6. It was suggested to the Committee that the use of the description shredded suet for the products made by butchers was misleading and that the name should be restricted to the product made from premier jus. The Committee is, however, of the opinion that the general public would be equally satisfied whether the product supplied in response to a demand for shredded suet had been prepared with premier jus or suet. Further, it is considered that a purchaser of shredded suet is not prejudiced if he receives a product containing membrane and moisture provided he also receives the appropriate amount of fat. It therefore does not appear to the Committee that there is any necessity, from the viewpoint of protecting the public in regard to quality, for recommending the imposition of this restriction. 7. The Committee noted that the statement issued by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts included an expression of opinion that “the nature of any admixture to suet should be declared.” This recommendation is, however, outside the terms of reference of the Committee and no comment is therefore made thereon. 8. The Committee accordingly recommends that shredded suet should be required to contain not less than 83 per cent. of fat.

It is now forty years since there appeared H. R. Plomer's first volume Dictionary of the booksellers and printers who were at work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1641 to 1667. This has been followed by additional Bibliographical Society publications covering similarly the years up to 1775. From the short sketches given in this series, indicating changes of imprint and type of work undertaken, scholars working with English books issued before the closing years of the eighteenth century have had great assistance in dating the undated and in determining the colour and calibre of any work before it is consulted.

In the Court of Appeal last summer, when Van Den Berghs and Jurgens Limited (belonging to the Unilever giant organization) sought a reversal of the decision of the trial judge that their television advertisements of Stork margarine did not contravene Reg. 9, Margarine Regulations, 1967—an action which their Lordships described as fierce but friendly—there were some piercing criticisms by the Court on the phrasing of the Regulations, which was described as “ridiculous”, “illogical” and as “absurdities”. They also remarked upon the fact that from 1971 to 1975, after the Regulations became operative, and seven years from the date they were made, no complaint from enforcement authorities and officers or the organizations normally consulted during the making of such regulations were made, until the Butter Information Council, protecting the interests of the dairy trade and dairy producers, suggested the long‐standing advertisements of Reg. 9. An example of how the interests of descriptions and uses of the word “butter” infringements of Reg. 9. An example af how the interests of enforcement, consumer protection, &c, are not identical with trade interests, who see in legislation, accepted by the first, as injuring sections of the trade. (There is no evidence that the Butter Information Council was one of the organizations consulted by the MAFF before making the Regulations.) The Independant Broadcasting Authority on receiving the Council's complaint and obtaining legal advice, banned plaintiffs' advertisements and suggested they seek a declaration that the said advertisements did not infringe the Regulations. This they did and were refused such a declaration by the trial judge in the Chancery Division, whereupon they went to the Court of Appeal, and it was here, in the course of a very thorough and searching examination of the question and, in particular, the Margarine Regulations, that His Appellate Lordship made use of the critical phrases we have quoted.

Smedleys Ltd v. Breed effectively disposes of Section 3 (3), Food and Drugs Act, 1955 as a defence in law in what nowadays constitutes the commonest source of all food prosecutions, viz., foreign matter in food. Their Lord‐ships' judgment is indeed a brilliant exposition of the law on the subject, but the result of their dismissal of the appeal can only be seen, as one of their number stated, that local authorities and magistrates for all practical purposes can ignore the subsection, and from the numerous reports of legal proceedings, this is what they have been doing for many years. It was resurrected in a case, similar in circumstance to that in Smedleys, a couple of years ago, in respect of a snail in black currant jam, in which the snail and black currants were identical in size and appearance.