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

View report page

Holborn 1933

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

This page requires JavaScript

31
Inspection of Restaurant Kitchens.
The large day population in the Borough calls for many eating houses ranging
from the " cook shop " where cheap meals are provided to the high-class
restaurant. The inspection of the kitchens of such places has become a routine
but important part of the work of the Public Health Department. Generally
the kitchens are found to be satisfactory and the food clean and wholesome.
Occasionally, however, some action is necessary to ensure compliance with a
reasonable standard of efficiency. In all 35 notices were served during the year
respecting unsatisfactory conditions at hotels, restaurants and eating houses.
Unsound Food.
The London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1932.
This Act extends the scope of Section 47 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, respecting unsound food exposed for sale so as to include articles of food
offered as prizes at any entertainment or given away for advertisement purposes.

The following unsound food was condemned during the year, 1933: —

Commodity.Quantity.Condition.Result of Action taken.
Fish:—Tons.Cwts..Qrs.lbs.
Haddock... ...114DecomposedSurrendered
Kippers......121do.do.
Pknte2_Unsounddo.
Whiting......121do.do.
Fruit :—
Apples40-Rottendo.
Bananas...23dodo.
Pears...416Unsounddo.
Meat :—
Bacon...3n26£Unsounddo.
Ham, Tinned...1_Blowndo.
Turkeys (3-1 birds)......3-4Unsounddo.
Other Food :—
Potatoes...2-Diseaseddo.
Turnips...6-Unsounddo.
Tomato Paste, tinned...13oBlowndo.
Sweets.....-6Maggots presentdo.
Total67113½

The Public Health (Preservatives, etc.-, in Food) Regulations.
In the year 1933 two samples of food were found on analysis to contain
preservatives contrary to the provisions of the above Regulations, viz., sausages
and jam {see page 35).
The breaches in these cases were the sale of the goods without disclosing the
presence of the preservative. The conditions under which the offences were
committed wero found to call for legal proceedings in one case, but in the other case
a letter of warning only was sent to the vendor concerned.