View report page

34
etc. This exposed the plant to an unusual degree and permitted the ingress of insects. Fly screens
were in position to all windows and doors, and in addition apparatus for killing flying insects was
in use. The Company were aware of their responsibility in the matter of the hygienic production
of food and gave an assurance that every effort would be made to avoid any similar incident.
A piece of wood found in a portion of french bread presented the Department with the difficulty
of endeavouring to decide where the blame lay. The retail shop received the same type of bread
from two sources and it was not possible to identify the sample with the particular supplier involved.
Both bakehouses were inspected by the respective local health departments, and the proprietor
of each was reminded of the care necessary in the preparation of food intended for human
consumption. The fact that the bread might have been supplied by either of the two companies
involved precluded the possibility of legal proceedings being taken against either one of them,
and the alternative would have been to proceed against the retailer. As, however, no blame could
be attached to him, this course of action was not considered appropriate and the matter was dealt
with informally.
Communications are often received alleging that articles purchased or served at premises are
unfit, or contain "foreign material". In some cases these have been returned by the complainant
or left at the premises, or even destroyed. Unless the offending article is examined by the public
health inspector, or submitted for analysis, there is little the local authority can do other than inspect
the premises concerned, and give a warning. This may give little satisfaction to the complainant,
but formal action on the hearsay evidence of the complainant alone is virtually impossible.
Complaints are sometimes received relating to alleged bad conditions or practices at premises
where the complainant is an employee, and "is just about to leave". These are all investigated,
but as might be expected they are not always justified.
Apples were requested from a display in the front shop of greengrocer's premises. The assistant
proceeded to serve the apples from a box at the back of the shop and the purchaser insisted that
he asked for apples "from the display" in the front shop. On failing to get satisfaction he requested
to see the manager, who also refused to serve from the display. The matter was reported to this
Department. It is perhaps generally known that there is no provision in law which requires a trader
to sell goods from a prepared display. If the customer is supplied from another source in the shop,
and the goods are in no way inferior to those on display, and which were requested, this satisfies
the requirements of Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, in that the goods sold were of the
substance, nature or quality demanded. In this instance, a test purchase of apples on display was
subsequently made and these were also served from the rear of the shop. Examination of the fruit
showed it to be in all respects satisfactory, and to be of similar quality to that on display.
Sandwiches purchased were alleged to contain glass but this was found to consist of magnesium
ammonium phosphate commonly known as struvite. Struvite crystals frequently develop in products
such as canned salmon, canned crab and other fish or marine products on keeping, and although
not harmful may at first sight be mistaken for pieces of glass.
Legal proceedings—Food and Food Premises
The following matters resulted in legal proceedings being taken by the City Council against
those responsible:—
A rye loaf purchased at a large departmental store was found to contain a cigarette end. The
bakers were prosecuted and a fine of £20 with £8 8s. Od. costs resulted.
During the consumption of ice cream and chocolate sauce as part of a meal, the diner crunched on
what she thought was a piece of ice. On closer inspection it proved to be a piece of glass. At
the hearing the Magistrate granted an Absolute Discharge but awarded £5 5s. Od. costs to the
Council.
A further case of glass in food occurred at a restaurant. It was not possible to determine the
source of the contamination but it was obvious that sufficient care had not been exercised in the
preparation of the sandwich concerned. A fine of £10 with £2 costs resulted.
Following a complaint alleging milk chocolate purchased was infested with insect larvae, a
visit made to the retail premises confirmed that some 13 lbs. of stock was affected. This was
seized and taken before a Magistrate under the provisions of Section 9 of the Food and Drugs
Act 1955, and he ordered its destruction. At the subsequent legal proceedings a fine of £20 with
£15 15s. Od. costs was imposed.
A chocolate cake was thought by the purchaser to be "off". Analysis confirmed it had an odour