Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Wandsworth, Metropolitan Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
200
Report of the Medical Officer of Health.
thoroughfares. The deputies employed have no legal right to
demand a sample and were they to be sent in advance, leaving the
Inspector concealed some hundred to two hundred yards away, if
the vendor of an adulterated article had the slightest suspicion
that it was to be supplied for analysis, in all probability the can
containing it would be "accidentally" overturned, as has happened
on more than one occasion. No proceedings for refusal to
serve could then be instituted, whereas if such a circumstance
occurred when the Inspector himself demanded a sample the
contrary would be the case.
Several cases of fraud have come under my notice during the
past year which are of special interest.
In the early part of the year information was received that a
considerable amount of margarine was being supplied as butter to
a large firm in the Borough where the assistants lived in. I therefore
instructed the Inspector to visit the shop of the vendor and
purchase a sample of butter by deputy and submit it for analysis.
This was done and the sample was reported to be genuine.
The next step taken was for a private sample to be sent by
the consignee to the Analyst. This was done and proved as suspected
to contain 96 per cent. margarine.
Arrangements were made for the Inspector to attend at the
place of delivery at the time the butter usually arrived and to take
a sample. Upon the arrival of the consignor's servant to deliver
the butter (which was contained in two separate packages—both
of which were in wrappers on which was printed "Pure Butter"),
a sample was taken from each and submitted for analysis. The
Analyst's report showed both samples were adulterated with 96
per cent. of margarine. From the information received in this
case I am convinced that this fraud had been existing for some
considerable period, and although previous convictions had already
been recorded against the consignor in this case, the amount of
the fine inflicted was only£5 on each of the two summonses.