Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Greenwich Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
As a result of 502 visits of inspection to the catering establishments insanitary conditions were remedied and improvements effected at 32 premises. The following is a summary of the improvements carried out:—
Type of Improvement Effected | Total No. |
---|---|
Cleaned and painted | 30 |
New Counter installed | 1 |
New Floor | 2 |
New Sink fitted | 1 |
Refrigerator installed | 2 |
Refrigerator overhauled | 1 |
Dust extractor fan installed | 3 |
Hygienic show case installed | 1 |
Rooms tiled | 2 |
Sink surround tiled | 1 |
Rooms ventilated | 2 |
Light improved | 1 |
Floor repainted | 1 |
Ceiling repaired | 1 |
Premises overhauled | 1 |
Total Improvements Effected | 50 |
Many licenced victuallers have instituted a catering service
during the last few years, some providing prepared food to be
consumed at the bar counter and others supplying a cookcd lunch
in a separate dining room. Improvements were carried out at 7
public houses as a result of informal action.
Food and Drugs Act, 1938.—In accordance with the Council's
contract with the Public Analyst to submit between four and five
hundred samples per year, 423 were obtained under the provisions of
the above Act and presented for examination. Of this total, 31
samples were formal and 392 informal of which 17(1 formal and 16
informal) were reported to be non-genuine. The unsatisfactory
formal sample was taken not in the normal course of sampling but
as the result of information received fro m the Medical Officer of
Health of Dudley (a full report on which is given under the heading
' Food Rejected ') and consequently for the purpose of calculating
the adulteration figure this sample has been disregarded. A further
three informal samples reported upon as being unsatisfactory were
disregarded when computing the adulteration figure ; these were all
samples of canned soup which although genuine as regards the Act,
failed to comply with the agreed Code of Practice set up between the
Ministry of Food and manufacturers. As the soups had been imported
prior to the setting up of this code they h ave been regarded
as genuine and have been included in a separate list together with
other samples contravening the Labelling of Food Order, 1953.