View report page

25
A sample of hot pepper sauce was stated to be incorrectly labelled and to contain one ingredient
which did not appear on the label. The bottlers were informed of the requirement of the Labelling of
Food Order, 1953, that all the ingredients should be listed in descending order of magnitude in
which they were used, and an assurance was received that on future labels this would be done.
An imported sugarless sweetener in liquid form was reported to the Public Analyst as being based
on cyclamates and should not be offered for sale on the English market. Cyclamates as an artificial
sweetener include the calcium and sodium salts of cyclamic acid. The Artificial Sweeteners in
Food Order, 1953 prohibits the use in food of artificial sweeteners which are defined as any chemical
compound which is sweet to the taste, but does not include saccharin or sugar. In a recent Report
on 'Cyclamates' the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food recommended that since cyclamates do not appear to produce any toxic
effects and the amounts likely to be ingested would not be of an order likely to produce a significant
laxative effect, and since they would be to a great extent self-limiting, there woulf be no risk to
health in allowing the use of cyclamates in food without statutory limitation other than that already
laid down in the Soft Drinks Regulations, 1964. It is understood that draft Regulations to this effect
are to be issued. In addition to the prohibited sweetener, the preservatives declared to be present
in the sweetener under examination were not permitted under the Preservatives in Food Regulations.
Stocks remaining at the retail premises were taken off sale and the Embassy of the Country of
origin was requested to make representations to the exporters regarding their product.
A pork pie was described on the label as being processed "under official supervision". The matter
was referred to the Medical Officer of Health for the area where the manufacturing premises were
situated, who replied that this particular phrase was insisted upon by the authorities of a country
with whom the manufacturer did a large export trade. A system of inspection which was satisfactory
to that particular Government had been established at the factory in order to help overseas business
and the same wording as to "official supervision" was used for the Company's product sold in the
United Kingdom. The manufacturers contended after taking legal advice, that the phrase was not
misleading. Once having given tacit permission for such an inscription to appear on one manufacturer's
products, it would be difficult to refuse the same facility to any manufacturer who may wish
to give this kind of added respectability to his goods.
Sausages submitted for analysis were found to contain preservative. As these were being sold
loose from retail premises a notice regarding food being sold containing preservatives should
have been prominently displayed in accordance with the Preservatives in Food Regulations. The
attention of the management of shop concerned was called to this omission and they immediately
remedied the matter.
A sample of Irish Stew was reported as having fallen below the meat content standard of 35% for
this type of product as recommended in the Report of the Food Standards Committee for Canned
Meat, published in 1962. This recommendation, although having no force in law, denotes a standard
which in the opinion of the Committee, following consultation with interested parties, is a
reasonable one to adopt. The matter was referred to the appropriate Ministry for their information.
Some positive action cannot be long delayed as a result of the discussions which have been taking
place over a period of some years concerning meat content standards. The present situation lends
itself to certain difficulties; obviously some manufacturers are awaiting the introduction of statutory
enactments before adopting the standards recommended in the Report, for it is quite possible that
these may yet be amended.
An informal sample of pre-cooked prunes was found to contain 60 parts per million of sorbic acid
which is a non-permitted preservative in fruit and fruit products. The suppliers stated that the
product was based on a newly introduced process whereby the imported prunes were placed in a
nylon satchet with water and then sealed and cooked in a pressurised steam chamber until the
prunes absorbed the water and had been thoroughly sterilised. No preservative was added at any
time following arrival in this country. The Company stated that comprehensive laboratory tests
were constantly made, but the presence of a preservative had not been detected. The large
quantities dealt with however, made possible the overlooking of a few cartons of prunes whic may
have been treated with sorbic acid. The Analysts' opinion was that the preservative was present in
the prunes on arrival in this country as it was commonly used for drying the fruit in the particular
country from which they had come. Assurance was given that the sampling and checking procedures
at the factory would be intensified, and the standing of the Company concerned made this an
acceptable conclusion.
A jar of baby food when opened by the purchaser was found to contain an earwig, alive she
alleged, on the surface of the puree. An investigation was conducted with the manufacturers
who could only suggest that the insect had been present in the gap between the cap and the jar
and when the jar was opened the inrush of air, on release of the vacum, had caused the insect
to be drawn into the jar. Manufacturing processes appeared to preclude entry at the factory as the