View report page

54
be taken against the vendor. The magistrate dismissed the
summons on the ground that the fault was due to the carelessness
of an assistant who had disobeyed the firm's instruction
as to labelling receptacles. The second sample was found, on
analysis, to contain a mere trace of Boric Acid. No action
was taken.
2.—Cream sold as Preserrred Cream.
(a) Instances in which samples have been submitted for
analysis to ascertain if the statements on the labels as to
preservatives were correct:—
(i) Correct statements made 2
(ii) Statements incorrect —
Total 2
One sample was also sold unlabelled (but with a verbal
notice), but did not contain an excess of Boric Acid; see
(c).
(b) Determinations made of milk fat in cream sold as preserved
cream:—
(i) Above 35 per cent. 3
(ii) Below 35 per cent. —
Total 3
(c) Instances where (apart from analysis) the requirements as
to labelling or declaration of preserved cream in Article
V (1) and the proviso in Article V (2) of the regulations
have not been observed -
One sample of unlabelled cream was delivered to the
inspector with a verbal notice that it was
preserved. Upon analysis it was found to contain
0·37 per cent. of Boric Acid.
(d) Particulars of each case in which the regulations have
not been complied with, and action taken:—
In the case above quoted the vendor was written to
(Article VII of Milk and Cream Regulations),
and his explanation was received. No further
action was taken.