[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Sutton and Cheam] page 16

Sutton and Cheam 1955

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Sutton and Cheam]

This page requires JavaScript

Table: The following details classify the type of irregularity or infringement, and the action taken in connection with thirteen unsatisfactory samples.

Download table as:

The following details classify the type of irregularity or infringement, and the action taken in connection with thirteen unsatisfactory samples.

Sample no.	Article Sampled	Infringement	Action Taken
a909 (Formal)	Pork Sausage.	This sample was purchased as pork sausage, but analysis revealed it to be a sample of preserved pork sausage.	It would appear that the butcher had used a proprietary seasoning as a constituent ingredient in the manufacture of the sausages, but had unwittingly failed to observe a printed slip on the container stating that the seasoning contained preservative. This would account for the verbal declaration made at the time of purchase that the sausages did not contain preservative. The seasoning contained Sulphur Dioxide. (For further particulars see under Sample no. 2101).
1967 (Informal)	Flaked Beef Suet.	This article contained 81.6% by weight of beef suet, whereas the Food Standards (Suet) Order 1952 requires that shredded or flaked suet shall contain not less than 83% by weight of beef fat.	The manufacturers assert that although a quantity of flour is added to give not less than 85% fat, it is always possible for some slight segregation to occur during packing, and every known precaution is being taken by them to minimise the segregation.
1975 (informal)	Cheese and Macaroni	Labelling Infringement This article was described on the container as cheese and macaroni, whereas the actual ingredients weremacaronl and a compound preparation of cheese containing only 50% of cheese.	Upon representation the manufacturers issued instructions for the immediate withdrawal from sale of all the remaining stocks in this area. This desirable action was no doubt influenced by the fact that the firm had recently been involved in a prosecution at a West Country Court for a similar type of offence.
1977 (informal)	Shredded Beef Suet	This sample contained 81.9% of beef fat instead of not less than 83% as required by the Food Standards (Suet) order 1952	Hie manufacturers explained that the slight deficiency of fat would be due to the difficulty of securing the uniform distribution of the flour among and upon the shreds and further that they increased the fat standard by 2% to allow for this.