with food safety and the composition of foods as related tonutrient contents. The nutrition and diet question categorydeals largely with which foods are appropriate to certainnutritional needs. Most of the questions on specific diets andmore classical human nutrition are referred to a similarphone-in service staffed by professional dietitians.

There is considerable fluctuation in the distribution ofcalls received, mostly dependent on the time of year. Callsrelating to the processing of fruits and vegetables increasemarkedly during the summer and early autumn while reciperequests tend to centre around the availability of seasonalproducts or holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas.Concerns about food safety and food additives can often betraced to incidents or controversies reported by the media.

Frequent requests for articles or other reference materialon specific issues such as food additives prompted the serviceto compile informative pamphlets with a question andanswer format that could be mailed to interested callers anddistributed at exhibits. These pamphlets also serve as aneffective form of advertisement and their developmentshould continue.

Past response indicates that the service appeals not onlyto consumers, but also to professionals in public health andfood related fields throughout British Columbia. Othergovernment and public service agencies have been able toobtain information which they in turn incorporated intotheir own educational programs. Various segments of thefood industry have made increasing use of the service toobtain and interpret technical information that may other­wise be inaccessible to them. This assistance could beexpanded in the future to include some laboratory assistanceand more comprehensive literature reviews and reports, butthis would require additional manpower.

The Department of Food Science feels that the FoodInformation Service provides a useful and popular means ofextending itself into the community. More services of thiskind will be needed for food technologists to effectivelyeducate consumers about their important industry.

Ruddick, J. E. and Alpin, L. 1977. The University of BritishColumbia's Food Information Service - A Pilot Project.Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. J. 1O(2):A35.

J. Vanderstoep and S. YadaDepartment of Food Science

University of British Columbia

Canada-Wide Science Fair

The Canada-Wide Science Fair for 1981 was held fromMay 10-16 at the University of Waterloo. This annual fair issponsored by the Youth Science Foundation and selected

Table 2. Classification of calls received.

Category

Processing! PreservationFreezingCanningDrying! smokingPicklingOthers

SafetyMiscellaneousCompositionNutrition! dietsRecipesStorageCommoditiesAdditivesLabelling! packagingHealth foods

% of total calls

23.8(8.7)(7.6)(2.7)(2.6)(2.2)17.413.610.78.78.55.85.45.20.50.5

winners from school districts across Canada compete fornational honours. The overall exhibit prizes are awarded ineach of three categories: Life Sciences, Engineering andPhysical Sciences. Three divisions are recognized, Junior(grades 8 and 9), Intermediate (grades 10 and 11) and Senior(grades 12 and 13). Gold Medals are awarded to the winnersin each division in each category, a total of nine medals.Second place winners in each division in each category areawarded silver medals, with bronze medals for third placewinners. Thus a total of twenty-seven winners receivemedals. Five scholarships and three trips to the Inter­national Youth Science Fortnight, London, England, aresponsored by the Nova Corporation, Xerox, Gulf, Rockwelland Shell companies. Special awards are also offered byinterested donors. This year the CIFST offered a medal tothe exhibit that best represented a food technology theme.This is a single award crossing all categories.

There was a total of 210 exhibits with representationfrom coast to coast. Eight of these exhibits were consideredto be related to food technology. They \....:re judged on thebasis of display value, creative ability, scientific thought, andgeneral knowledge of the exhibitors in the area of foodtechnology that they had selected for their theme. All eightexhibits were very well presented. The exhibitors werebright, pleasant and very knowledgeable about theirsubjects.

The food technology related exhibits were displayedunder the following titles:

Reflected Heat OvenSaga of Red Dye No. 2Comparison of HamburgersPreparing a Gelatin DessertFood DyesDetermination of Vitamin CThe Browning of ApplesIs Gum All It's Chewed Up to Be?

Four of the exhibitors were juniors, one was an inter­mediate and three were seniors. This diversity of educationcomplicated the judging to some extent and it is suggestedthat some thought be given to establishing the special foodtechnology award as three awards, one for each level ofeducation.

This year's award was made to Ian Bird and Kevin Peters,two students in the junior category from Kingston, Ontario,who prepared an exhibit they entitled "Food Dyes." Theywere also the silver medal winners in the junior physical

,Andy Terauds presents CIFST Awards to lan Bird and Kevin Petersof Kingston, Ontario.

COn.In.H. Foud Sci. Tec/mul. J. Vol. 14. No. 4. October 19~1 Institute Affairs!253

science category. Their exhibit centred around the extractionand identification of food colouring from a number ofprocessed foods. These students used simple techniques inkeeping with their education level and were both veryfamiliar with the fundamental principles of the methods theyused. Their explanation of their project involved the scien­tific aspects of isolation and identification with no attempt topass judgement on the use of food colours.

The runner-up was Kathleen Leggett, a senior fromToronto, whose exhibit concerned the Saga of Red Dye No.2. Kathleen had a very sophisticated exhibit and wasoverwhelming in her knowledge of this dye substance. Hermajor emphasis was on proving the dye to be harmful tohumans but her conclusions were not supported by her data.

Support for this fair by the food industry should beencouraged. It is an excellent way to introduce youngscientists to the food area. An overall evaluation of all theexhibits in the fair would lead one to conclude that science iswell and thriving in the minds of the youth of Canada.

New Developments in Products Liability Law

In the area of products liability law the main problemCanadian courts have faced in allowing consumers to pursueactions against negligent manufacturers is the lack of directrelationship between the parties. Until Donoghue vs. Sleven­son in 1932, injured consumers were forced to sue retailers onthe contract of sale or under an implied warranty in the Saleof Goods Act. In turn the retailer sued its supplier, whoultimately sued the manufacturer. This circuitous, wastefulroute became especially burdensome if one party in the chainwas insolvent or uninsured. Perhaps believing that con­sumers were commercially unsophisticated, rather unor­ganized, and certainly unable to bear the brunt of costs ofextended litigation, courts have evolved legal justification inboth the area of negligence as established by Donoghue vs.Slevenson and in contracts law, for allowing the ultimateconsumer to initiate legal proceedings not only against theretailer but also against the original manufacturers regard­less of direct relationships with each other.

Some limited liability does, however, exist in the area ofsale of goods law. The Sale of Goods Act found in mostprovinces contains certain implied terms covering purchaseand sale contracts. Specifically there is an implied condilionor term that the goods are reasonably fit for the purpose forwhich they are sold; and an implied condilion or term thatthe goods are of merchantable quality if bought by descrip­tion. Although such conditions are useful in certain situa­tions they are based upon contractual theories and applyprimarily between sellers and buyers of specific products. Inother words unless one was a party to a contract he would notbe able to sue for damages resulting from defects in themerchandise. This is the foundation of the doctrine ofprivilyin contract law - one must be a party or signatory to acontract to sue upon it. The sale of goods legislationtherefore cannot help a consumer who is claiming against amanufacturer as the consumer would not have Ilurchased thearticle directly from the manufacturer. It would still bepossible for the buyer to recover from the seller and the sellerin turn to recover from the manufacturer, both under theSale of Goods Act, however, this is the same circuitous routepreviously mentioned.

As a result of the restrictions inherent in the Sale of Goodslegislation, and in the law of negligence as originally estab­lished, the courts have extended liability to further assist theconsumer.

The courts in several recent decisions have also drawnmanufacturers within the bounds of privity, or in otherwords, have by implication made them a party to the

254/ Affaires de I'lnstitut

contract, by finding the existence of warranties madecollateral to but adopted under the agreement between thedealer and consumer. The most recent Canadian statementof such a judicial attitude is contained in Murray vs. SperryRand, ajudgement of the High Court of Ontario in 1979. Thedecision involved the sale of a forage harvester which failedto live up to performance standards set out in a brochureprepared by the manufacturer. The judge in that decisionheld the manufacturer, distributor and retailer all directlyliable to the consumer even though there was no writtencontract of sale or direct contractual relationship betweenthe consumer and the manufacturer and distributor. Thebrochure was designed to induce sales and accordingly thedealer was held to have adopted the representations in thebrochure and to have incorporated them into the saleagreement as if they were his own. In other words, the termsof the brochure were treated as collateral warranties or termsof the sale contract itself. The judge said specifically thatmanufacturers who published the brochure could not escapeliability merely because of a lack of a direct contract with thecomplaining consumer. The manufacturer and the distribu­tor were directly liable to the farmer through the formationof the collateral agreement implied by the court. Liability ofthe retailer did not, of course, need such an extension of theterms of the contract into which the vendor and purchaserhad entered.

A further aspect to the seller's liability in this case which isof particular interest is the fact that the seller did have anexemption or exculpatory clause in his particular salescontract but was still found liable. This was based upon thecommon law principle that a party cannot exempt himselffrom fundamental breach of a contract. Having decided thatthat was the specific effect of the clause in the contract, thecourt decided that the clause- was of no effect.

In other words, speaking now in general terms, there is nodoubt that under early common law concepts of contractualliability only those persons who were parties to the bargaincould sue for a breach of it. In more recent times a noticeabletrend has appeared in a number of jurisdictions to breakthrough the narrow barrier of contractual relationships ofprivity when dealing with sales of goods in order to giverealistic recognition to a universally accepted fact. The fact isthat the dealer and the ordinary buyer do not, and are notexpected to, buy goods, whether they be foodstuffs orautomobiles, exclusively for their own consumption or use.Makers and manufacturers know this and advertise andmarket their products on that assumption; for example, the"family" car, the "baby" foods. The limitations of privity incontracts for the sale of goods developed their place in thelaw when marketing conditions were simple, when makerand buyer frequently met face to face on an equal basis andwhen many of the products were relatively uncomplicatedand conducive to inspection by a buyer competent toevaluate their quality. With the advent of mass marketing,the manufacturer became remote from the purchaser, saleswere accomplished through intermediaries, and the demandfor the product was created by advertising media. In such aneconomy it became obvious that the consumer was theperson being cultivated. The connotation of "consumer" wasbroader than that of "buyer." He signified such a personwho, in the reasonable contemplation of the parties to thesale, might be expected to use the product. Thus, where thecommodities sold are such that if defectively manufacturedthey will be dangerous to life or limb, then society's interestscan only be protected by eliminating the requirement ofprivity between the maker and his dealers and the reasonablyexpected ultimate consumer. In that way the burden ofabsorbing losses stemming from the use of defective articlesis borne by those who are in a position to either control the

J.lns!. Can. Sci. Technul. AIi",eflf. Vol. 14. No. 4. Octobre 1981