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

View report page

Hackney 1940

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hackney]

This page requires JavaScript

22
INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION OF FOOD AND
FOOD PREMISES.
Routine work of food inspection modified to meet war-time
conditions and legislation was maintained as far as possible. To
do this it was found necessary to secure the release of the Food
Inspectors who had been seconded as part-time enforcement officers
under the Food Control Committee.
Inspection of food salvaged from war-damaged premises made
increased demands upon the Department. The necessity for salvaging
the maximum amount of food on the one hand and
safeguarding public health on the other made detailed examination
of every salvaged article essential. Food examined in this way at
the Salvage Depot in the Borough is estimated at 25 tons. To this
must be added suspected food remaining on damaged premises and
salvaged stock sent into the district from other boroughs. No complaint
was received concerning sales of food salvaged in the Borough,
a fact which must be regarded as very satisfactory.
The area being supplied from the Ministry of Food Meat
Distributing Depot, situated in Hackney, has been increased to
include four boroughs, and the daily attendance of an Inspector at
the Depot has been found necessary.
There was an increase in the number of food complaints, but
these complaints were mainly expressions of dissatisfaction with the
kind or quality of the food available and not with its condition as to
soundness. In the majority of cases the complaints were found to be
outside the scope of the Department.
Only one formal seizure of food was necessary, proceedings in
respect of which resulted in the maximum fine of £50 0s. 0d. being
imposed and 20 guineas costs.
With reference to the milk supply, at the end of the year
1 cowkeeper, 131 dairies and milk shops, 195 dairymen
(including those whose premises are situated outside the Borough)
and 387 purveyors of milk in sealed receptacles remained on the
register, although in several instances the premises were closed
owing to prevailing conditions. Alterations in the register
respecting the closed premises were left pending ascertainment of
the intentions of the owners as to resuming business. In no case
was it found necessary to refuse registration or to remove a retailer
from the register under Section 22 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.
The registered premises were visited and in nine instances notices
were served for contraventions of the Milk and Dairies Order.