Prosecutions were undertaken as regards five samples, which were reported as being
adulterated. The results of the proceedings are stated in the following tables:—
Table: Summonses.(a) Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928.
Summonses.(a) Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928.
No. of Sample.
Article.
Result of Analysis.
Date of Hearing of Summons.
Result of Proceedings.
Penalty.
Costs.
1931.
£
8.
d.
£
s.
d.
A. 33
Milk
Deficient in milk fat, 8 0 per cent.
April 9th
1
0
0
2
2
0
A. 34
,,
60 „
,, ,,
"Not dealt with "
A. 44
,,
15-3 „
,, 16th .
—
2
2
0
c. 139
Jam
Adulterated by the admixture of sulphur dioxide, 0 008 per cent.
Sept. 15th
Withdrawn, evidence incon elusive
C. 216
Milk
Deficient in milk fat, 37 3 per cent.
Oct. 29th
2
0
0
—
Table: (b) Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations, 1925.
(b) Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations, 1925.
Address where offence committed.
Offence.
Date of Hearing of Summons.
Result of Proceedings.
58, Churchway
Selling jam containing an added preservative exceeding the proportion specified