View report page

87
There are two points in this meat report which call for mention.
First, there is the decline in the number of prosecutions, and second,
there is the disadvantage of the lack of uniform methods of meat
inspection in London.
The number of prosecutions in 1905 is less than half the number
in 1901. What does this indicate? It can indicate' only one of two
things. Either there is less bad meat being sold or the inspectors
are less vigilant. I have not the least hesitation in saying that the
former answer is the correct one. The high penalties of 1901,
amounting to upwards of £600, had a most salutary effect upon the
whole meat trade in Finsbury, and it was recognized that this
Sanitary Authority intended to enforce the law respecting the sale
of diseased and unsound meat. The police court proceedings of
1902 and 1903 served to confirm that understanding. My observation
leads me to believe that there has been a very great and
steady improvement in the quality of meat placed on the Finsbury
market. Inspector Billing has certainly not been less vigilant
in 1905 than in previous years, and yet we have come across much
less bad meat. That is a good sign, and the best and most natural
result of efficient inspection. I need scarcely add that this
satisfactory position can only be maintained by a continuance of
vigilant and efficient inspection.
During the last 5 years, in a number of meat cases, we have had
evidence of absence of uniformity in meat inspection in London.
The recent case against Messrs. Lipton affords further illustration
of the same thing. This firm was detected in the act of preparing
tuberculous pork meat for sausages. The defence instituted in
court was that the meat had already been passed by the inspectors
at the Islington Cattle Market. At the time of the action this firm,
as will be seen from the report (p. 84), was receiving large
quantities of pork meat from Gosport, East Ham and Walthamstow,
which had not passed any inspection, so it is idle to suppose that
all their meat had been properly inspected. But, however that may
be, it most be admitted that the case raises the question of uniform
inspection as a somewhat urgent requirement. To secure an
effectual and uniform inspection of meat in this country, the
following arrangements are necessary:—