View report page

65 1927]
either submitted to the Public Analyst or examined by the Food and Drugs
Inspector. These informal samples comprised about 40 varied articles.
The Public Health Committee had under consideration the necessity for a
room to be used by the Meat and Food Inspector for the retention of articles of
food and by the Food and Drugs Inspector when informal samples were taken,
and in the latter case the necessity of being able to perform a few simple tests. As
mentioned in the report of last year, when informal samples are taken, the usual
procedure of dividing the sample and leaving a portion with the vendor is not
gone through, and therefore the possible delinquent is not aware that he is being
tested. From the knowledge thus gained by the taking of informal samples, a
concentration of the machinery, as it were, of the official sampling can be made
where it is more likely to be protective and a deterrent, inasmuch as the person
who is found to be breaking the law can be afterwards caught with official
sampling, having revealed himself through the informal samples taken. The
Committee, in view of this, sanctioned the gradual equipment of the laboratory
room with a few simple reagents, etc.

Prosecutions—37 summonses were issued under the "Sale of Food and
Drugs Acts," of which 32 were successfully prosecuted. Altogether penalties
and costs to the amount of £136 12s. 6d. were obtained. Nine prosecutions were
also taken under the "Milk and Dairies Order, 1926," resulting in convictions
in each case with oenalties and costs amounting to £27 6s.