London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Fulham 1959

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

68
The samplesb comprised 10 of filling material taken at registered premises, and 10
of articles exposed for sale in shops.
A sample of Rag Flock (No.2/59) was found to contain 32 parts per 100,000
chlorine, against a permitted maximum of 30 parts per 100,000. A letter was sent to
the supplier and the wholesaler.
A sample of feather and down mixture (No.9/59) was found to contain total
average impurities of 3.4% against a permitted maximum of 2.0%. Legal proceedings
were instituted against the supplier and the case was heard on the 18th March 1960.
The magistrates found there was no case to answer and dismissed the defendants,
awarding 20 guineas costs against the Council.
A further sample of feather and down mixture (No.16/59) contained in cushions on
sale by a kerbside trader was found to be composed of cut-up pieces of eiderdown, with
very little feather and down present. The Analyst reported contraventions in respect
of the chlorine content 82 parts per 100,000 (permitted maximum 30 parts per 100,000)
and soluble impurities 2.3% (permitted maximum 1.8%). It was found, on enquiry, that
this trader had given a wrong address and all efforts to trace his correct address had
not succeeded by the end of the year. There was growing reason to believe that he had
also supplied a fictitious name. Although he did not return to trade from the same
place again, the Council were unable to take further action against him.
A sample of millpuff found in a pillow (No.18/59) was found to be rag flock. The
retailer and wholesaler were notified and the pillows ceased to be so described.
A sample of wood wool contained in a pouffe (No.19/59) was examined by the Analyst
as an "other filling material" and contravened the standard in respect of the average
soluble impurities, the figure being 5.8% (permitted maximum 1.8%). Although the label
attached to the article stated that it was "guaranteed to conform with the Rag Flock
and Other Filling Materials Act", the Ministry subsequently informed that the filling
was not one covered by the Act. It was found that proposals were in hand for including
this type of filling in new legislation, no further action was taken.