View report page

175
protecting the public against fraud is, from the public health
standpoint, most pressing. There is evidence, therefore, in my
opinion, that the activity displayed in regard to milk sampling
has been very effective in putting a stop to much of the fraud
which, owing to the inadequate powers which sanitary authorities
in the Metropolis possess, and to the leniency which
magistrates at times exhibit in dealing with milk vendors who
have even been convicted for adulteration, has been carried on
in the Borough. In my report for 1906 I drew attention
to the case of a milk vendor in the Borough, who, by
registering his men as milk vendors in their own
names (although he was the employer, and reaped
the profits), was for a long time able to evade the
consequences of his fraud. Altogether this individual employed
a dozen men, who, when convicted, as nearly all of them were
at different times, were fined small penalties. The amount of
attention devoted to this gang, however, has at length been
successful in driving them, including the principal, from the
Borough.
Of the total number of samples taken during the year under
review, 862 were taken on week days and 138 on Sundays.
Samples were taken on 23 Sundays in the year, all of which
were milk. Of the 862 week day samples 82, or 9*51 per
cent., were adulterated, while out of the 138 samples taken on
Sundays, 21, or 15*2 per cent., were adulterated. The need
for continuing the practice of sampling on Sundays is still
evident from these figures, though the adulteration of Sunday
samples shows a decrease as compared with former years.
The Health Committee, in July, 1906, gave instructions
that samples which it had not been the practice to take heretofore
during August should be taken during that month.
Ninety samples were taken—79 of milk and 11 of butter. Of
these 90 samples, 36 were taken by Inspector Chuter, and 54
by Inspector Lawrence, who acted as Food Inspector during
the absence of the former on his annual leave.