View report page

281
[1910
Quality of the Milk.—The results of the analyses of the milks
purchased on Sundays, on week-days, and obtained in the course of transit
at railway stations have always been kept separate, so that it is possible to
ascertain the average quality of these several milks, which can then
be compared with the official minimum standard.
On Sundays.—This practice was as usual adopted last year, and from the
reports of the Public Analyst it appears that the 160 samples obtained on
Sundays show an average of 3.55 per cent. of fat, 8.57 per cent. of solids not
fat, and 12.12 per cent. of total solids. In other words, these 160 milks,
which also included 14 adulterated samples, showed a content of 24 per cent.
more fat than the official minimum standard required.
On week-days.—With respect to the milks taken on week-days, it was found
that .the average analyses of the 336 samples showed 3.44 per cent. of fat,
8.50 per cent. of solids not fat, and 11.94 per cent, of total solids. It,
therefore, comes to this, that although they included 44 adulterated
milks they contained nearly 15 per cent. more fat than the official minimum
standard required. Again, the 125 milks obtained at the railway stations on
arrival from the farms contained an average of 3.74 per cent. of fat, 8.70 per
cent. of solids not fat, and 12.44 per cent. of total solids ; in other words, the
fat content was 24.6 per cent. above the official minimum standard. It was,
therefore, possible for fraudulent dealers to reduce their milk by the addition
of separated milk to the extent of 20 per cent. without fearing a prosecution,
and that too although it could be proved without fear of contradiction in a
Court of Justice that the milk had been adulterated. This may seem to the
lay mind an extraordinary thing to say, but it is nevertheless a fact, which the
following instance will illustrate: At the close of the year a prosecution was
undertaken against a milk vendor in Islington, who on the service of the
summons immediately pleaded a warranty. When the case came before the
Court, the Council's solicitor produced the three persons at the farm through whose
hands the milk had passed to show that it had not been adulterated by them,
but that it had been forwarded just as it came from the cows. He also called
two railway guards who had charge of the trains in which the milk was conveyed
to London; and he also called the head porter at Finsbury Park Railway
Station who had the supervision of the milk on its arrival at the Great
Northern Railway Station. Every one of these witnesses swore that so far
as they were concerned the milk was untouched, and that while in their charge it
was impossible to tamper with it. At this stage the case was adjourned for