JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS they may mislead an ordinary person, and then an offence will have been committed. I must mention that if an advertisement "guarantees" a pro- duct, it will be taken to mean what it says. A judge has described the word "guarantee" as "about as emphatic a word as one could imagine," so it is best to avoid using it in advertisements. It is impossible to say, until the Courts have given some rulings, where a legitimate trade puff ends and a misleading representation begins. Someone has questioned the term "skin food," in view of the fact that the skin cannot feed, and the same question arises about creams which claim to help the skin by applying vitamins to it. What about advertisements like-- "Be popular with men to-night or your money refunded." "This powder has been thoroughly tested by scientists and guaranteed to be definitely lectro-static (sic)." "You can't tell it from butter." You will have noticed that I have not given much attention to the aspect which most concerns this Society, the effect of the Acts on cosmetics. This is a very difficult question to deal with and it may be helpful if I refer again to conditions in Canada. In that country the Food and Drugs Act of 1953 has stringent regulations about the labelling and advertising of cosmetics, but the same standards are not applied to them as to food and drugs. As an eminent Canadian Queen's Counsel has remarked--"It is not felt that the public is actually deceived by the glamorous and exaggerated advertising which is ordinarily associated with cosmetics, and a cosmetic which does not at least promise to restore the appearance of youth, or perhaps to improve on nature, is the exception rather than the rule." It remains to be seen whether British Courts will come to share this realistic view. I have spoken at some length about offences under the Acts, and I cannot conclude without mentioning the actual penalities imposed on those found guilty. A prosecution in the first place is taken to the Police Court, but before trial the defendant can elect to be tried by jury. If the case is tried before a magistrate, the penalty can be imprisonment up to 4 months, or a fine up to t100, for a first offence, and for a subsequent offence the maximum penalty is f250 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. If the case is tried before a jury, the penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both imprisonment and a fine may be imposed. Wherever the trial takes place, an appeal is always allowable to a higher Court. Well, that concludes my discussion of this Act, and I have necessarily had to omit a large number of subjects covered by it. But I think that I have dealt with the important ones which are likely to be of concern to members of this Society. It would seem that the latest Act of 1953 has put the final nail in the coffin of the old legal maxim "caveat emptor," let the buyer watch out for himself, and has substituted "caveat vendor," or the seller 226

THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT cannot be too careful. I do not think that the effect of this Act will be as drastic as some people think I do not see that it will make much change, and the only people to be caught by it will be deliberately dishonest traders, on whom no sympathy need be wasted. SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS OF GREAT BRITAIN ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD AT ST. ERMIN'S HOTEL, ON FRIDAY, MAY 21ST, 1954 AT A well-attended meeting, the President read the Council's report for 1953-54. He drew attention to the gratifying yearly increase in member- ship: 88 in 1952, 136 in 1953, 174 in 1954, to the four successful lectures given to the Society and to the lively Discussion Meeting. Six lectures had been arranged for the coming session. The Annual Dinner and Dance would be held at the Caf6 Royal, Regent St., London, on January 28th, 1955. Dr. H. W. Hibbott had agreed to represent the Society as a member of the British Standards Institution Committee on Powder Technology, which had requested the Society to nominate a member to present the views of the cosmetic industry. The Firmenich Cup for the golf competition had been won by Mr. A. W. E. Chisman of County Perfumery Co., Ltd., and the runner-up was Mr. D. M. Davies of Antoine Chiris, Ltd. Other prizes presented by Evans Chemicals, Ltd., and by Marchon Products, Ltd., had been won in the afternoon foursomes match by Mr. K. E. Woodward of Sandoz-Products, Ltd., and the President. Alterations to the Rules (all members have since been advised of these) and the Hon. Treasurer's Report were agreed at the meeting. Officers and Members of Council were elected as shown elsewhere in this issue of the JOURNAL and the laudable interest that members of the Society took in its affairs was shown by the seven nominations for the five vacancies for Council Members. Mr. E. Polan, who has "treasured" the Society since it was founded, was elected Honorary Auditor. Mr. F. V. Wells, who had edited all previous British issues of the JOURNAL, wished to retire, and the Council had asked Dr. A. W. Middleton to accept this office: this he had agreed to do. Dr. Hibbott proposed, and Dr. Middleton seconded, the voicing of the Society's thanks to Mr. Wells for his part in founding it, in providing facilities for its growth and for his very active support. This was carried with acclama- tion, as was the vote of thanks to Dr. Marriott for his conduct of the meeting. A large gathering subsequently heard the president, Dr. R. H. Marriott, deliver an interesting and stimulating address: this is reproduced on page 151 et seq. of this issue of the JOURNAL. 227