View report page

92
This rule is applied in all cases whether the milk has
been sold under the designation "pasteurised" or not,
as all milk, other than T.T. milk, is subjected to the process
laid down for pasteurised milk under the Milk (Special
Designations) Order before leaving the depot.
Upon examination of a series of 216 samples it was found
that three failed to pass the test. The adverse reports
suggested that the milk had been heated and not properly
pasteurised or else re-contaminated with raw milk. A
careful check was made of the plant record charts for the
dates upon which the processing had been carried out and
details of routine tests were examined, but no explanation
could be found. Other samples of milk sold on the same
dates from the same plant were satisfactory.
The facts were reported to me and I had detailed inquiries
made. These showed that the first of the three unsatisfactory
samples was taken in South London from a. churn
of pasteurised milk supplied to a hospital. The sample
had been taken by dipping a jug into the churn. Immediately
prior to the taking of this sample the same jug
had been used for mixing and dividing a bottle of Tuberculin
Tested milk supplied to the same hospital. (The jug was
said to have been cleansed between the taking of the two
samples.)
The second adverse report referred to a sample taken in
another borough. This was from a bottle of pasteurised
milk which had been mixed in a jug. Particulars of the
sample taken before the one in question showed that it
was from milk supplied by a firm who do not sell pasteurised
milk and there are 99 chances out of 100 that it was raw
milk. The same jug was used for both samples. It was
stated that it is the practice in this particular borough to
invert the jug after use to drain out any milk left after
the division of the sample, but the jug is not wiped dry.
It was claimed that the amount of milk remaining is so
small that it would not be likely to affect the composition