British Food Journal Volume 26 Issue 2 1924

Dr. J. Johnstone Jervis, Medical Officer of Health for Leeds, referring to the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act, 1922, points out that whilst the new Act gives additional powers to local authorities for the registration of retail purveyors and producers, and to remove the name of milk purveyors who fail to comply with the regulations, the same power is not given with regard to the producer—“he is still at liberty to produce milk where and how he pleases so long as his cows are free from tuberculosis and his cowsheds conform to the requirements of the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milkshops Order, or any regulations made under that Order. This distinction between the purveyor and the produced is most unfortunate inasmuch as it creates an anomaly, because, whereas the purveyor will be compelled to maintain his premises and utensils in a condition of cleanliness satisfactory to the local authority and the quality of the milk of a satisfactory standard, there will be no obligation on the part of the producer to take any pains to keep his milk clean. The result will be the reception into clean vessels of milk of a dirty and low‐grade quality more suitable for the swill tub than for a clean churn. It is neither fair nor equitable to make one standard for the farmer and another for the purveyor; both should have to work to the same standard.” Dr. Jervis also expresses disapproval of “grading.” Certified milk at 1s. 3d. a quart is only possible for the well‐to‐do classes and altogether outside the purchasing power of poor people. Nor is he “so convinced as some are that pasteurisation is a solution to the milk problem.” Cleanliness and purity are the essential factors, and if these are secured the public will be well served.