A fine is imposed for refusal to sell, but this usually involves the shopkeeper in considerably less expense than a fine for selling adulterated goods, while he retains his character as an upright citizen.
The question of preservatives in food is typical of the present chaotic state of the law with regard to the adulteration of food.
A Parliamentary Commission sat for a long period, and finally issued a report, the recommendations of which were allowed to remain recommendations, and every analyst and public authority must still put its own interpretation upon what is and what is not permissible.
Preservatives are undoubtedly used in an absolutely haphazard way. Milk is preserved with all kinds of substances, chiefly boric acid, and at one time, formalin; butter and hams with boric acid; and jams with salicylic acid and similar compounds. Thus, at the end of the day, an unsuspecting individual may have consumed a considerable quantity of various antiseptic agents.
Everyone will agree that preservatives of every kind ought to be prohibited in milk, the more so since it is the staple food of young children and invalids, and in the case of butter the presence of a preservative should be notified, as recommended by the Commission.
A little boric acid in ham probably interferes much less with the digestion than an excess of salt, but it is right that the consumer should be given his choice of spoiling his own digestion in the way that pleases him best.
An objection brought against such notifications of preservatives in food is that they would convey no meaning to the public, but the commercial travellers of rival firms would certainly not lose the chance of making capital out of the notices of their opponents.
Nearly all the non-alcoholic wines and lime juice cordials in the market are heavily preserved. But the fact that the public demands an article that shall not ferment after the bottle has been opened, and that prosecutions for the use of preservatives are spasmodic, makes it impossible for the manufacturer to discard them. If he did so under the present conditions, he would no longer be able to compete with other firms who continued to take the risk of prosecution.
Moreover, it is no uncommon thing for the defendants in these cases to call as witnesses on their behalf gentlemen holding positions as medical officers, and cases that are well defended are almost invariably dismissed.
The manufacturer of non-alcoholic wines stands in a very difficult position. If he employs preservatives in sufficient quantity effectively to stop fermentation he is liable to be prosecuted under the Food and Drugs Act. If, on the other hand, no preservative is used, the liquid is liable to ferment, and the manufacturer may then be prosecuted for selling a fermented liquid without a licence.