View report page

Laboratory Facilities.
The Public Analyst for the Borough is Mr. Thomas McLachlan of Messrs. Thomas McLachlan
& Partners, 4, Hanway Place, London, W.l. His Report on Food and Drug Samples appears below:-
During the last 9 months of 1965, 900 samples of food and drugs were examined. Of
these 275 were taken formally, 600 informally, and 25 complaints.

Complaints were received about two unrinsed milk bottles, each of which contained
an aluminium foil cap. Microscopic examination of these showed the outer surfaces to be
badly pitted, consistent with their having been attacked by alkali. The caps were no
doubt in the bottles when they went through the bottle washing plant before being filled
with milk. Another milk bottle contained lumps of flour paste which, although mouldy on
receipt, were probably not so mouldy when the bottle was filled. The bottle had probably
been used in a kitchen for adding milk and water during cooking and the washing plant
and soda lye had failed to remove all the mouldy dried paste.
Two out of three cans of a brand of Jersey Cream examined were not sterile. Although
they contained fat 23.4% and 23.7% the solids not fat were only 5.9% and 7.9% respectively,
indicating that considerable decomposition had taken place. Some Dairy Ice Cream
contained total fat 4.80% and solids not fat 26.62%, and the fat itself contained not more
than 40% butter fat. Dairy Ice Cream must contain not less than 5% of fat and the fat must
be entirely milk fat unless introduced by the use of egg, flavouring, or emulsifying agent.
The analysis of two samples of cream cheese showed milk fat 33% and 37.5% respectively.
The report of the Food Standards Committee on Hard, Soft and Cream Cheeses
issued in 1962, proposed that only cheese containing not less than 45% of milk fat should
be described as "Cream cheese". These cheeses were therefore 26% and 16% respectively
deficient in milk fat. A cheese spread stated to be "70%" contained only 35.75% of
fat. Although the fat on the dry matter was 70% this was not stated on the label and the
label was therefore considered to be misleading.
A fruit topping showed an illustration of fruit which was not in the can and the words
"Serving Suggestion" should have been included on the label. A canned rice pudding
received as a complaint was found to contain general dirt, but it was difficult to believe
that this was present before the can was opened as dirt of this type in a product such as
canned rice would break up during the sterilising process and subsequent handling. A
sample submitted as Yoghourt consisted of a form of creme caramel. It was a skimmed
milk product and must not therefore be described as flavoured milk, nor were the ingredients
present stated on the label.
Two rye loaves both contained sand, the rye not having been properly screened before
use. A piece of metal stated to have been found in a fruit bun consisted of a piece of
zinc sheeting with cooked starch attached to it. Part of a brown loaf contained pieces of
hard brown material consisting of wholemeal dough which had not risen due to incomplete
mixing of the yeast in the dough. This was probably due to a little moisture being present
in the dough mixer when the flour was put into it so that some of the flour became wet
before the yeast was added. Two cut loaves showed blackish marks in various slices
consisting of particles of iron with oil from the shafting. Some pieces of toast submitted
as a complaint showed dark markings due to a nail. A portion of a nail was submitted at
the same time and another small piece of bright metal on one of the slices was consistent
with it having been removed by the cutter. The nail had therefore probably been
cooked in the loaf. The analysis of a starch reduced flour indicated that it contained 70%
of carbohydrate on the dry flour. Although the Bread and Flour Regulations, 1963, make
(20)