View report page

36
INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION OF FOOD
Food and Drugs Act, 1955
Food Hygiene Regulations, 1955 and 1960
Modern conditions produce difficult and more complex forms of adulteration
as compared with the more crude and fraudulent adulterations of the past. It is
with apprehension that I view the use of potentially toxic substances on foodstuffs
whilst the detection and identification of their presence remains difficult to achieve.
Over a period of about three years, some 80 circulars have been received from
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, giving particulars of different
chemical compounds and the recommendations for their safe use.
These chemicals, which are applied in the form of sprays to fruit, vegetables
and crops, and are used as insecticides, fungicides, etc., may be safe if used strictly
in accordance with the instructions provided, but it is disturbing to consider the
possible ill effects the consumer may suffer should these instructions be not properly
observed over a period of time. The danger in the use of these materials is
related to the human factor and apparent impossibility of ensuring that they would
be applied properly and in the correct strengths.
A number of these chemicals are harmful to animals, bees, birds, fish and
water supplies, and in many instances there is insufficient information available
for their safe use on fruit and edible crops. Some of these substances should not
be used at all on edible produce as they are acknowledged by the Ministry of
Agriculture to be definitely poisonous, whilst others permitted for such purpose
must be used only at certain periods before harvesting.
In the past, a non-volatile insecticidal spray applied to fruit, tomatoes, etc.,
could be relied upon to leave a visible residue when it dried. If the spray happened
to be too strong or applied too near harvesting time the residue would be sufficiently
noticeable to give warning of its presence. Many of the newer insecticides, however,
might leave little or no visible deposit.
It is a fact that small, but possibly toxic, proportions of many of the new
pesticides would escape detection in a general analysis made by the Public Analyst,
and although the manufacturers of some of the new pesticides have published
methods of analysis, these are usually difficult, lengthy and unsuitable for routine
control in a general food laboratory.
Moreover it is impracticable for the Public Analyst to examine for example,
a sample of fruit for the presence of all the possible harmful adulterants as there
are literally dozens of different chemical substances involved.
During the year 3,054 visits were made at food premises, stalls and markets
and at 80 of these, conditions constituting contraventions under the Food Hygiene
Regulations, 1955-1960, were found. Legal proceedings were taken in two cases,
resulting in fines totalling £27 with £5 5s. costs being imposed.
No exemption certificates were granted by the Council in connection with the
Regulations during the year.