Search results

The findings of the Steering Group on Food Freshness in relation to the compulsory date marking of food contained in their Report, reviewed elsewhere in this issue, has brought within measurable distance the Regulations which were, in any case, promised for1975. The Group consider that the extension of voluntary open date marking systems will not be sufficiently rapid (or sufficiently comprehensive) to avoid the need or justify the delay in introducing legislation.

As far as most people are concerned, customs clearance is not a term that is likely to excite enthusiasm. For some, customs clearance represents tedious border checks, irritating delays and complicated form‐filling. For others, it is one of the oldest examples of government interference and bureaucracy. Something that does little to improve its tarnished image in an era supposedly dominated by free markets and private initiative. But regardless of the ambivalence in which it is held, the fact remains that when goods are moved across borders, customs clearance is usually involved. In this paper we will argue that the low status and poor image of customs clearance has actually become outdated. Now, fundamental changes taking place in the area have worked to raise the importance of customs clearance in general. These changes have linked customs clearance to innovative technological developments, and propelled it into becoming a key area for management in cross‐border, time‐sensitive industries. We will examine the specific drivers of these changes and assess the ways in which these drivers might impact businesses involved in moving goods across borders. Finally, we will focus on what such businesses might do to respond.

The status of employee which draws the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services, and the practical aspects of the two relationships have been discussed. The transfer of the employee by the permanent to the temporary employer has also been considered. It is now proposed to treat a variety of employment relationships which will include short term and casual labour, temporary workers supplied by an agency, labour only sub contracting, outworkers, apprentices, students and cadets, part time labour, crown employment, office holders; probationary employees and finally merchant seamen. The criterias discussed and analysed in relation to the status of employee apply to some, but not to all, of these employment relationships.

The case, briefly reported in the last issue of BFJ, an appeal to a Milk and Dairies Tribunal arising out of a local authority's refusal to grant a licence to a milk distributor because he failed to comply with a requirement that he should provide protective curtains to his milk floats, was a rare and in many ways, an interesting event. The Tribunal in this case was set up under reg. 16(2) (f), Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, 1963, constituted in accordance with Part I, clause 2 (2), Schedule 4 of the Regulations. Part II outlines procedure for such tribunals. The Tribunal is similar to that authorized by S.30, Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which deals with the registration of dairymen, dairy farms and farmers, and the Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations, 1959. Part II, Schedule 2 of the Act provided for reference to a tribunal of appeals against refusal or cancellation of registration by the Ministry, but of producers only. A local authority's power to refuse to register or cancellation contained in Part I, Schedule 2 provided for no such reference and related to instances where “public health is or is likely to be endangered by any act or default” of such a person, who was given the right of appeal against refusal to register, etc., to a magistrates' court. No such limitation exists in respect of the revoking, suspending, refusal to renew a licence under the Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, 1963; an appeal against same lies to the Minister, who must refer the matter to a tribunal, if the person so requests. This occurred in the case under discussion.

A study of the price discounts granted by Morton Salt Company and other producers of table salt in the U.S. on their sales of table salt to grocery wholesalers and retailers. The discounts were found to be illegal under the Robinson-Patman Act by the Federal Trade Commission and the Supreme Court. The Commission and the Court believed that the discounts were unjustified price concessions granted to “large” buyers, consistent with the concerns of the Robinson-Patman Act. However, the evidence indicates that the most common discount – the “carload discount” – was received by virtually all buyers, regardless of the buyer’s size; the other discounts – “annual volume” discounts – though received primarily by “large” buyers, were likely cost based. The history of the discounts and likely reasons why they were granted are explored in detail.

April 24, 1967 Master and Servant — Vicarious liability — Scope of employment — Customer's five ton vehicle blocking access to warehouse — Driver of fork lift truck's inability to gain access — Attempted removal of five ton lorry by driver of truck — Accident to fellow employee — Whether in course of employment — Liability of employers.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

The report recently issued by the joint committee, appointed by various Administrative Counties and County Boroughs in the North of England, to inquire into the subject of milk contamination, is an important document to which reference was made in the last number of this journal. Unfortunately little permanent good is likely to result from such reports unless the circumstances which have given rise to the grave faults to which attention is called be dealt with by authority. Such reports are admittedly of great interest. They contain much valuable and important matter, and are full of first‐hand and reliable evidence collected by experts at the expenditure of much time and trouble. As a general rule, however, they are too technical in their wording to appeal directly either to the general public or to the ordinary milk dealer. Still, the bearing of the matters they refer to on the every‐day life and health of the nation is so great that they should not be allowed to sink into oblivion by failure to bring their essential features before the wider public to which they are in tended to appeal. On these grounds the suggestion contained in the report that a pamphlet, should he issued containing the results of the committee's investigations is an excellent one. The means that are taken from time to time to rouse public interest in the important and allied questions of meat and milk are unfortunately characterised by their spasmodic, if vigorous, nature. The agitation dies down after a time and is not renewed until perhaps the original question again rises in a sufficiently acute form. The work has then to be done over again. It is necessary to bring home to the public the importance of, say, a pure milk supply, but to produce a permanent impression it is needful to proceed by an educational process and not by one that is based on unorganised agitation. The methods pursued in the United States in relation to food questions are not always to be commended, but in relation to the educational methods to which reference has just been made we may usefully consider the means adopted by the State authorities of the Republic. They are in the first place nothing if not practical. There, as here, the greatest hope of a would‐be reformer lies in his being able to rouse up public opinion. Hence we find questions such as these are kept steadily to the front by the authorities, by means of official publications and the public press, with the avowed object of enlisting the trade on the side of the law to aid in keeping food products up to reasonable standards of quality. In a report recently issued by the State Agricultural Station of Kentucky dealing with the question of the milk supplied to the town of Louisville it is said that the result of inquiries instituted by the station showed “the large majority of dairymen to be anxious to co‐operate with the officials in the enforcement of all fair regulations; that they need help in an educational way and are eager for any practical information which will help them to better their plants; that to accomplish this both the State and the city should maintain, not at the dairyman's expense, sufficient experts in dairying science, and veterinarians to constantly inspect the districts, helping wherever possible, not only pointing out deficiencies, but suggesting remedies, and, finally, reporting for prosecution or withdrawing the permit of the dairyman not complying with the regulations necessary to produce wholesome milk.” What is said in this report might equally well apply to affairs on this side of the water as regards the milk supply. The authorities in Kentucky have had exactly the same problems to face and deal with as those referred to in the report of the Joint Committee. The same want of attention to cleanliness, to light, ventilation, and drainage in the cowshed; the same unpleasant methods of dealing with the milk during the process of transport; and the same want of cleanliness in the shop characterised many of the small and large dealers in Kentucky as in this country. For all that we cannot assume the milk dealer or cowkeeper to be invariably in the wrong through malice aforethought. The Kentucky report just quoted states that the time and money spent in telling the cowkeeper and dairyman not to do this or that would be in many cases better spent by showing him how to do things. “Most dairymen would be willing to make improvements if they knew exactly how to go about it.” It appears that three‐fourths of the dairymen who supply Louisville with milk are co‐operating with the health authorities in the task of “cleaning up.” We must not assume that the British cowkeeper or dairyman is less willing to do the right thing than is his American confrére. The position of such an institution as a State Experiment Station is probably peculiar to the United States. It is in intimate touch with the requirements of every farmer in the State. It deals with all problems relating to the rearing and diseases of cattle, their housing, food and treatment; with the products of the dairy, farm, and stockyard. It is consulted by farmers on all conceivable subjects affecting their business at all times. The interests of the station do not end here. Not only is it concerned with the cattle and their products as such, but the Experiment Station is authorised by the legislature to concern itself with the distribution and sale of all dairy produce including, of course, milk and allied substances, with the hygienic and veterinary inspection of buildings and cattle, as well as with the conditions prevailing in dairies and milkshops. Moreover, the inspection of food products of all kinds and their analysis under the Pure Food Law of the State is frequently placed by the State in the hands of the experts attached to the Experiment Station. Under these circumstances such an institution is exceptionally well qualified to judge the requirements or faults of any process or institution affecting the food supply. In the case under review the Experiment Station sent round a circular letter to all cowkeepers and dairymen concerned, pointing out what it proposed to do, and asking for comments and suggestions. The object, in fact, was to make all farmers and dairymen feel that in the authorities of the Experiment Station they had to deal with a friendly body and not one whose desire was merely to catch them tripping. This they have apparently succeeded in doing, and with good results. The position of affairs in this country seems rather to suggest that public authorities and the milk trade occupy two hostile camps, and if this be so the fact is regrettable.

The Report of the Royal College of Physicians (London) and the British Cardiac Society issued in April last was the product of a joint working party, whose aim was to formulate the best possible advice which can at present be given to medical practitioners towards the prevention of coronary heart disease. It caused quite a stir, particularly its dietary recommendations, and the mass media made the most of it, more from inferences drawn from the measures recommended than from the report itself. Now that the sensation of it has gone and the dust has begun to settle, we can see the Report contains nothing that is new; it tells us what we have long known. Like the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, except that there are three of them, at least for the moment, the causative factors of the rising incidence of coronary heart disease, built into our affluent society, have been working their way at the heart of man for a good many years now.

The High Court judgments in the two appeal cases relating to the sale of cream containing boric acid will be read with considerable satisfaction by those who consider that the protection of the health of the people is a matter of greater importance than the protection of the interests of a trade. In one case the Westminster City Council appealed against the decision of a Metropolitan Police magistrate who had dismissed a summons taken out by the Council under the third Section of the Act of 1875 for the sale of “preserved cream” containing 23·8 grains of boric acid per pound, and in the other the vendors of a sample of “preserved cream” containing 19·7 grains of boric acid per pound, appealed against their conviction under the same Section of the Act by the Kensington justices. In the first case the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the magistrate with a direction to convict; and in the second the appeal was dismissed, the Divisional Court, consisting of Justices Ridley, Bray and Avory being unanimous in both cases.