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

View report page

Kensington 1956

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

This page requires JavaScript

- 47 -

DesignationNo. of samplesMethylene blue testPhosphatase testTurbidity test
PassedFailedPassedFailedPassedFailed
Tuberculin test
(Pasteurized)+ 333233---
Pasteurized4141-41---
Sterilized-------

+ One sample was not submitted to the methylene
blue test as the atmosphere shade temperature
exceeded 65ºF, which is the limit specified
in the Regulations.
Milk and Dairies Regulations. 1949
(a) Registrations

A summary of the alterations made in the register of dairymen and dairies during 1956, and the numbers of persons and dairies registered at the end of the year are shown in the following table:-

DairymenDairiesPurveyors of milk in sealed containers
Transfers9--
Additions to register--10
Removals from register-1
Dairymen with premises outside the borough added to register3--
On register 31st December, 195610887111

(b) Unclean milk containers
It is an offence under the Milk and Dairies Regulations for any
dairy farmer or distributor to use for holding milk any vessel that is not
in a state of thorough cleanliness immediately before use. In the case
of bottled milk, the time "immediately before use" is considered to mean
at the time the bottle is first filled and, therefore, any offence would
be committed at the time and place of bottling.
There are no processing or bottling plants in the borough and
particulars of any offence for using a dirty bottle are referred to the
local authority in whose area the bottling plant is situated.
During the year, five contraventions were reported, three of
which were referred to neighbouring authorities, where the milk had been
bottled. In one of these cases, the authority took legal proceedings
against the bottling firm, who pleaded guilty and were fined £4. 0s. 0d.
In the other two cases, the authorities decided not to take legal action.
Of the two cases remaining, investigations proved that in one
(which was not a serious contravention) the evidence available was not