28 FOOD LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. 



of the departmental committee, appointed to inquire into the use of 

 preservatives and coloring matters in the preservation and coloring 

 of food" is of value. The report of this committee was published in 

 1901, and their recommendations are given on page 30. 



In 1896 the justices at South London sessions had before them the 

 question of sulphate of copper used in greening peas. They held that 

 it was in violation of section 3 to sell a 1 -pound bottle of peas with the 

 knowledge that it contained an amount of copper equivalent to 3 

 grains of this chemical. This is equivalent to 0.8 grain of metallic 

 copper per pound. (Sumners v. Grist, 60 J. P., 346.) There have 

 in fact been other successful prosecutions in the courts of Great 

 Britain because of the large amounts of copper found in peas and 

 spinach. Among recent cases, reference may be made to spinach con- 

 taining 10 grains of copper sulphate per pound (British Food Journal, 

 1910, p. 19), and peas containing 3.5 grains of copper sulphate per 

 pound (British Food Journal, 1910, p. 99) . 



Under section 3 of the act of 1875 it is not sufficient to prove that 

 the substance mixed with the food is injurious to health, but it is neces- 

 sary to show that the food so prepared is injurious. A person can not 

 be prosecuted for the sale of an injurious article not in itself a food, 

 although the vendor had knowledge that the injurious substance was 

 to be mixed with foodstuffs or used in their preparation. 



In the law of the United States there are two requirements: (1) 

 The added ingredient must be shown to be a poison or a deleterious 

 substance; (2) the article containing the added poison or deleterious 

 substance must be shown to be one that may be injurious to health. 



Section 4 of the act of 1875 deals with drugs, and its phraseology is 

 somewhat similar to that of section 3, which deals with foods. This 

 difference is to be noted: Section 4 says nothing about the drug being 

 injurious to health, but merely that the mixing, etc., shall " affect 

 injuriously the quality or potency" of the drug, and section 5 relieves 

 the vendor from responsibility if he can show the absence of knowledge 

 of the fact that the potency or quality of the drug had been injured 

 and "that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained that 

 knowledge." 



The most important section of all is section 6, for under it most of 

 the prosecutions are now brought. Under this section it is in viola- 

 tion of the sale of food and drugs act to "sell to the prejudice of the 

 purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, 

 substance, and quality of the article demanded." One important 

 feature, however, of the whole section which differentiates it from 

 sections 3 and 4 is that it is not incumbent to prove guilty knowledge; 

 that is, that the vendor knew that the purchaser was being prejudiced 

 by purchasing a product not of the nature, substance, and quality 

 demanded. This makes the provisions of these acts more readily 



