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

View report page

Hammersmith 1967

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

This page requires JavaScript

consideration of the whole question of street trading was continued with the other interested
Departments of the Council.
Frequent inspections of the food stalls were made in all these markets, and particular
attention given to storage accommodation.
Pesticides & Other Toxic Chemicals - Residues in Foodstuffs
i
In order to provide evidence for the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and Other Toxic
Chemicals, the Council takes part in a scheme proposed by the Association of Public Analysts,
and supported by the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations,
for the analysis of an agreed range of foodstuffs with a view to ascertaining the presence of
certain toxic substances.
The scheme in London started in the latter part of 1966 and by the end of 1967 a total of
18 samples had been submitted by this Authority. The scheme continues and, in due course, the
evidence adduced will be submitted to the Advisory Committee.
Public Analyst's Report on Food & Drug Samples
I am indebted to the Public Analyst, Mr. Thomas McLachlan, for his Report on Food and
Drug Samples:-
"During the year 1967, 1251 items of food and drugs were examined. Of these 43 samples
were taken formally and 1165 informally, the remaining 43 articles were submitted as the result
of complaints.

The number adulterated or about which some comment was made was 114 or 9.1 per cent. The incidence of these criticisms may be classified as follows:-

Number of samples examinedNumber of samples adulterated
Milk982
Milk Bottles98
Other food110496
Drugs408

Complaints were made about 8 milk bottles of which 2 contained vegetable tissue indicating
that the milk had not been properly filtered before pasteurisation, 3 contained general dirt, 1
a milk bottle cap, 1 some dried wallpaper adhesive,and 1 a triangular pieceot glass and numerous
splinters. A bottle of milk was submitted and it was evident that some of the detergent had been
left in the bottle after washing. Analysis showed fat 3.65 per cent and solids-not-fat 8.25per
cent, indicating not less than 3 per cent of added water. A follow-up sample was satisfactory.
Another milk contained only 2.79 per cent of fat and was, therefore, 7 per cent deficient in fat
but it was farm cartoned, not a blended milk, and was probably an afternoon milk which might
account for the fat deficiency. A follow-up sample contained 3.40 per cent of fat Out only 8.57
per cent of solids-not-fat and was, therefore, rather poor quality milk probably derived from a
Friesian herd.
Some butter contained 16.25 per cent of water i.e. 1.5 per cent excess, since butter must
not contain more than 16 per cent water.
A soft cheese was labelled "50%" on the wrapper but only in small print "Matiere grasse".
Another described as "Double Cream Cheese* contained 77 per cent of fat on the dry matter,
but the Cheese Regulations require double cream cheese to contain not less than 65 per cent of
milk fat on the cheese, as sold and so, far from being a double cream cheese, it was 43 per cent
deficient in milk fat. Two other soft cheeses were mouldy one of them being deficient in milk
fat of which only 36.3 per cent was present. A complaint was received regarding foreign matter
in yet another cheese and examination showed this to be a piece of enamel approximately 3/32nd
of an inch square, which had broken away from an enamelled metal pan.
A yoghurt appeared to contain more yeasts than bacteria whereas yoghurt should be soured
by bacteria and not by yeast. Two other samples of yoghurt were too acid and separating on
receipt; one of these contained only 1.42 per cent of fat, whereas it must contain at least 3 per
cfent unless it is sold as a fat-reduced product.
27