London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
City of Westminster 1902
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Westminster, City of]
This page requires JavaScript
Prosecutions were ordered in the following cases, but in addition in 109 instances cautionary letters were sent to the vendors:—
| Articles of Food. | No. of Samples. | Adulterated. | Prosecutions. | Convictions. | Warranty or Disclosure. | Fines. | Costs. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| £ | s. | £ | s. | ||||||||
| Milk | 491 | 58 | 24 | 18 | 6 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 0 | ||
| Separated milk | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6 |
| Cream | 26 | 17 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 |
| Butter | 227 | 8 | 6 | 0 | — | 27 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
| Margarine | 23 | 5 | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6 |
| Rum | 30 | 4 | 4 | — | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 18 | 0 | |
| Whisky | 81 | 10 | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 |
| Gin | 60 | 5 | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6 |
| Coffee | 144 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 14 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 6 |
| Sugar* | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6 |
| Raspberry jam* Golden syrup | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | 0 | 14 | 6 | ||
| 26 | 2 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6 | |
| Mustard | 26 | 2 | 2 | 2 | — | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| Cinnamon | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6 |
| Milk of sulphur* | — | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6 | |
* Samples taken in the year 1901.
Milk.—19.9 per cent. of the milks were of such a quality as to
justify the Analyst in returning them as adulterated, but in only 24 was
the defect above the limit fixed by the Council for prosecution. That is
to. say, there was added water of at least 5 per cent. or fat abstracted of
more than 5 per cent. In 12 instances boracic acid was present; this
varied in amount from a few grains to 70 grains per gallon ; proceedings
were taken in 5 cases. It is now generally understood that the presence
of preservatives in milk implies that the milk has not been obtained or
kept under cleanly conditions, and as a rule the greater the amount
of preservatives the dirtier is the milk, and the more unfit it is for
human consumption. It is sometimes argued that it is better to have
milk containing a preservative than one which has gone sour, but the
fallacy of this is readily understood when it is recognised that the cause
of the sourness or badness of the milk is due to the impurities it contains,
and that these are temporarily masked by the presence of a
preservative. It is better that the public should be able to recognise
such impure milk than that its qualities should be concealed by a preservative.
In the latter case not only does the consumer swallow
manure and other filth, but at the same time gets a dose of a drug
which is deleterious to him. The large dairy companies now forbid the
addition of preservatives to milk supplied to them, preferring to insist
on cleanliness and prompt cooling of the milk after it has been drawn.