Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Report for the year 1918 of the Medical Officer of Health
This page requires JavaScript
The following table shows the articles adulterated, nature of adulteration, and the results of proceedings taken:—
No. of Sample. | Article. | How adulterated. | Result of proceedings. |
---|---|---|---|
27 | Milk | 6 per cent. deficient in fat | Costs £3 3s. |
31 | „ | 8 per cent. deficient in fat | Dismissed. Warranty proved. |
39 | „ | 30 per cent. deficient in fat | |
43 | „ | 4 per cent. added water | Fined £2. Costs £2 2s |
134 | „ | 38 per cent. deficient in fat | Dismissed. Warranty proved. |
161 | „ | 12 per cent. deficient in fat | |
254 | „ | 7½ per cent. added water | |
270 | „ | 47 per cent. deficient in fat | |
386 | „ | 10 per cent. deficient in fat | |
409 | Mustard | 20 per cent. wheaten flour | Informal sample. |
432 | Milk | 6 per cent. added water | Dismissed. Warranty proved. |
451 | „ | 10 „ „ | Fined £10. Costs |
477 | „ | 9 „ „ | Informal sample. |
In the case of the last sample (No. 477), the vendor refused to
supply a sample for analysis, pouring the contents of the can into the
drain. An informal sample, which was found to be adulterated, was
obtained from his previous customer. He was prosecuted under the
Food Orders for destroying milk, and was fined £20 and one guinea
costs.
Milk and Cream Regulations, 1912.
The object of these regulations is to secure that cream containing
preservative shall be distinguished at all stages of sale from cream to
which no preservative has been added.