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

View report page

Kensington 1948

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

This page requires JavaScript

17
Heat Treated Milk (Prescribed Tests) Order, 1944.
Under Defence Regulation 55G, (restrictions on the sale of
raw milk), the Minister of Pood may specify areas in which it
will be illegal to sell milk unless it is either -
(a) Tuberculin tested milk
fb) Accredited milk
(c) Processed milk (heat-treated.
pasteurised or sterilised)
When an area has been specified all processed milk sold in
that area must conform to the methylene blue and phosphatase
tests as prescribed in the Heat Treated Milk (Prescribed Tests)
Order, 1944, made by the Minister of Health-
No area in London has yet been specified, but the Minister
of Pood has, however, requested the Council to apply the two
tests to all processed milks, and to report the results to him
monthly.

The following table shows the number of samples of processed milk taken during the year, together with the results of the examinations.

GradeNo. of samples.Methylene blue test.Phosphatase test.
Passed.Failed.Passed.Failed.
Tuberculin tested (pasteurised).2727Nil252
Pasteurised5959Nil59Nil
Heat treated1010Nil10Nil
Sterilised5413Nil
TOTALS1011001992

Warning letters were sent to the vendors of the unsatisfactory
samples.
Adulteration of Food
Pour hundred and sixty-five formal samples of food and drugs
were taken, of which 6 (1.29%) were adulterated. Five hundred and
thirty-five informal samples were taken, of which 5 (0.93%) were
adulterated.
Unsound Food
Seizure
Under Section 10 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, food sold,
exposed for sale, or in preparation for sale, and found in an
unfit condition, can be seized and taken before a justice, who
can condemn it and order it to be destroyed or disposed of for
purposes other than human consumption.
There were 2 instances during the year of food being seized
and condemned. In both cases the Public Health Committee decided
to take proceedings against the vendors. One was fined £10. and
ordered to pay £1. 18s. 0d„ costs and the second was convicted
(in March, 1949) and fined £25. and ordered to pay £5° 5s. 0d. costs.