View report page

19
PUBLIC ANALYST'S REPORT.
The Worshipful the Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors of
the Metropolitan Borough of Islington.
Gentlemen,
During the Quarter ending on March 31st, I have analysed 289 samples
submitted to me for that purpose under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.
Of these samples I had to report against 46, showing 15-9 per cent, of
adulterated samples.
These samples came from three sources. 99 were submitted by your Special
Food and Drugs Inspector, but his time has been so much occupied by other duties
that he has only been able to purchase about two-thirds of his usual number. The
advisability of relieving your Food and Drugs Inspector from his other duties is a
matter I have commented on previously, and the figures of the present Quarter
strengthen my reasons.
Of the 99 samples from your Food and Drugs Inspector 25 samples (or 25-3
per cent.) were adulterated. The second source of supply was your other
Inspectors, who submitted 185 samples, of which 18 samples (or 9-7 per cent.) were
adulterated ; and the third source of supply was a private purchaser, who submitted
5 samples of butter, of which 3 samples (or 60 per cent.) were adulterated. Of the
284 samples purchased officially 43 samples (or i5'i per cent.) were adulterated.
Previous comments of mine on the prevalence of adulteration in Islington have
been the cause of placing me in a most unpleasant position, which is not
encouraging to anyone endeavouring to fearlessly and honestly perform his statutory
duties. My views have, however, so comparatively recently been placed before you
that I trust it is unnecessary on the present occasion to repeat them.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
FRANK L. TEED,
Public Analyst.