London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Kensington 1933

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kensington Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

The following is a summary of the results of analysis of the 21 adulterated formal and informal samples, together with a record of the action taken by the council :—

Article analysed.Nature and amount of adulteration.Action taken.
Milk13 per cent. of the required fatInformal sample.
deficient.
,,12
,,10No action.
,,8 ,, ,, ,,Proceedings. Summons dismissed.
,,7No action.
,,7 ,, ,, ,,Proceedings. Summons dismissed.
,,6Informal sample.
,,6Vendor cautioned.
Milk (hot)5
Milk5Informal sample.
29 ,, of extraneous water 27Proceedings. Fined £20.
* ,,23Proceedings. Summons dismissed on pay
* ,,18ment of £2 2s. costs.
Proceedings. Fined £20.
,,2 ,,Proceedings. Summons dismissed.
Mustard (mixed),, ,, 10 „ wheat starch; 65.3Informal sample.
per cent, water.
Nitre, sweet spirit100 ,, of required ethyl ni-
oftrite deficient.
30 ,, ,,... . .
Rice25 grains of extraneous mineralVendor cautioned.
matter per lb.
**Sausages41 parts of sulphur dioxide perInformal sample.
million.

* These samples were obtained from the same vendor.
** This sample of sausages was reported adulterated owing to the presence of the preservative not being
disclosed at the time of sale.
The total number of prosecutions under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act was 8, the
fines and costs amounting to £62 2s. Od.
The Public Health (Condensed Milk) Regulations, 1923.1927, and the Public Health (Dried Milk)
Regulations, 1923.1927.—During the year, seven samples of condensed milk were taken and each
was found to comply with the regulations in every respect. No samples of dried milk were taken.
Food Poisoning.—Section 7 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1932, requires
every medical practitioner in London to notify the medical officer of health of any person whom he
suspects or finds to be suffering from food poisoning. During the year, 434 cases were notified in
London. The number notified in Kensington was 28 ; there were 18 in the Golborne ward, four
in the Norland ward, five in the St. Charles ward and one in the Pembridge ward. It will be
observed that all the Kensington cases occurred in the four northern wards where the majority of
the poor live. It is significant that not a single case was reported from South Kensington.

In the cases notified an analysis of the foods suspected of causing the illness was made and resulted as follows :—

Food causing illness.No. of cases.Food causing illness.No. of cases.
Fish7Meat pie1
Fish, fried3Pork chops1
Ice.cream3Bacon1
Tinned foods3Roast beef1
Sausages1Cockles and ice.cream1
Saveloys and stewed eels1Rabbit1
Black pudding1Unknown2
Steak1

Several articles of food were submitted to the bacteriologist for examination, but in no case
was a report received from him regarding the presence of any of the salmonella group of organisms.
It is also worthy of mention that in every case the illness was only a mild one, and the patient
recovered in a day or two.
Careful enquiries were made in all the cases notified, and it is clear that there was no outbreak
of food poisoning in the borough. Many of the cases notified must be regarded as suspicious rather
than as actual cases of food poisoning.