London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Kensington 1933
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kensington Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
Of 322 formal samples of milk taken under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act in 1933, 11 were certified by the public analyst as adulterated, i.e., containing less than 3 per cent, of fat or 8.5 per cent, of non.fatty solids. These particulars, however, do not give any indication of the general quality of the milk supplied in Kensington ; therefore, it will be interesting to note the average composition of the samples taken during the year. These figures are given in the following table :—
| Months. | Number of formal samples taken. | Average composition of all samples submitted, genuine and adulterated. | Average composition ofgenuine samples. | Ministry of Agriculture standard. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of milk fat. | Percentage of solids not fat. | Percentage of milk fat. | Percentage of solids not fat. | Percentage of milk fat. | Percentage of solids not fat. | ||
| January | 18 | 3.71 | 8.84 | 3.71 | 8.84 | 3.0 | 8.5 |
| February | 28 | 3.66 | 8.78 | 3.66 | 8.78 | ||
| March | 28 | 3.63 | 8.79 | 3.63 | 8.79 | ||
| April | 25 | 3.58 | 8.77 | 3.58 | 8.77 | ||
| May | 46 | 3.47 | 8.96 | 3.53 | 8.93 | ||
| June | 18 | 3.51 | 8.80 | 3.51 | 8.80 | ||
| July | 29 | 3.66 | 8.71 | 3.72 | 8.72 | ||
| August September | 14 36 | 3.84 3.89 | 8.57 8.74 | 3.84 3.89 | 8.57 8.74 | ||
| Average composition of normal cow's milk. | |||||||
| October November | 31 43 | 3.88 3.77 | 8.78 8.59 | 3.88 3.87 | 8.78 8.97 | ||
| Percentage of milk fat. | Percentage of solids not fat. | ||||||
| December | 6 | 3.77 | 8.83 | 3.77 | 8.83 | ||
| 322 | 3.71 | 8.77 | 3.73 | 8.79 | 3.7 | 8.9 | |
The table shows that the average fat and non.fatty solid content for each month of the year
is well above the legal standard, and makes it clear that suspicion should fall on every sample which
at any time of the year shows a fat content as low as 3 per cent.
| Purveyous ofmilk in sealedbottles. | Dairymen. | Dairies and milkshops. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfers | — | 17 | 17 |
| Added to register | 13 | 9 | 3 |
| Vacated and removed from register | — | 6 | 4 |
| Dairymen with premises outside the borough added to register | _ | 14 | — |
| On register January 1st, 1933 | 72 | 162 | 152 |
| On register December 31st, 1933 | 85 | 179 | 151 |
| (+) Increase. (—) Decrease | + 13 | + 17 | — 1 |
The total number of inspections of dairies and milkshops in the borough in 1933 was 403.
During the year two persons were convicted of carrying on the trade of a dairyman in the
borough without being registered. In one case the defendant was trading in Kensington from
premises situated in an adjoining borough, and a fine of £1 was imposed. The other case presented
considerable difficulty. In December, 1932, upon receipt of an application for registration in respect
of premises which were already registered, the council's food inspector visited the premises in
order to carry out an inspection. He was interviewed by a man whom he knew well and who was
the defendant in the proceedings which followed. This man appeared to have a considerable interest
in the business, but when questioned alleged that he was only an employee acting on behalf of the
person who had applied for registration. During the next few weeks a number of samples of milk
were taken, and on each occasion the inspector was served by the defendant, but the applicant's
name was given each time as that of the owner of the business. Shortly afterwards three men
commenced selling milk from the same premises and it was found that each had paid a sum of money
to the defendant for the purpose of purchasing a milk round. Proceedings were taken against the
defendant for (a) selling milk without being registered, (b) failure to supply to an officer of the
council information reasonably required by him, and (c) selling milk from a vehicle not having the
name and address of the vendor inscribed thereon. A conviction was recorded in each case, and
fines and costs amounting to £47 10s. Od. were imposed. The premises concerned were subsequently
removed from the register.