Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

British Food Journal Volume 67 Issue 9 1965

British Food Journal Volume 67 Issue 9 1965 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 present0.06 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 antibioticresistant 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png British Food Journal Emerald Publishing

British Food Journal Volume 67 Issue 9 1965

British Food Journal , Volume 67 (9): 16 – Sep 1, 1965

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/british-food-journal-volume-67-issue-9-1965-FoY24ItVXK

References (1)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
0007-070X
DOI
10.1108/eb011641
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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 present0.06 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 antibioticresistant 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

Journal

British Food JournalEmerald Publishing

Published: Sep 1, 1965

There are no references for this article.