View report page

68
examination of samples of Ice Cream, the results of which were anything but
satisfactory, and were duly reported to the Vestry at its Meeting on the 7th
September last.
At the Meeting of your Committee on Tuesday, the 27th September last, I
explained that the condition of the Ice Creams was mainly dependent upon the
condition of the milk from which they were made, and I informed your Committee
that it was my intention to report to you upon the question of the Bacteriological
Analysis of Food, when I had obtained sufficient matter and information upon
which to carefully base the methed of procedure in taking such a step.
The only prosecutions that have hitherto taken place in this direction have
been under the Food and Drugs Acts. In one case recently at Southwark, a
conviction was obtained by proving that the Ice Cream was a mixture of milk and
other ingredients, and that the milk was sour at the time of sale, as proved by the
discovery of the germ causing souring of the milk (oidium lactis) present in the
Ice Cream, and therefore that the Ice Cream was a mixture injurious to health.
Altheugh Ice Cream can thus be dealt with under the Food and Drugs Acts, milk
alone could not be so treated, since it is not necessarily a mixture, and therefore it
is necessary to find some other methed of dealing with unsound milk, or other
food, that is not so visibly unsound as to render it liable to seizure and yet may be
dangerous to health.
This methed of dealing with unsound food is found possible under the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, in Section 47 (3) of which it is provided that " Where
it is shown that any article liable to be seized under this Section, and found in the
possession of any person, was purchased by him from another person for the food
of man, and hen so purchased was in such a condition as to be liable to be seized
and condemned under this Section, the person who so sold the same shall be liable
to the fine and imprisonment above mentioned, unless he proves that at the time
he sold the said article he did not know, and had no reason to believe that it was
in such a condition." So that when food has been purchased for the food of man,
and it can be proved that it was unfit at the time of purchase, the vendor may be
prosescuted, altheugh the food has not been previously seized aud condemned.
The procedure of a London Autherity under this Section would appear to be (1)
to find in the possession of any person any article of food purchased by hiin from
another person for the food of man (whether for consumption or for re-sale) that
is diseased, or unsound, or unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man; and (2) to
prove that it was in such a condition when purchased by the person in whose
possession it was found.
It would therefore appear within the power of any London Autherity to
cause samples of food intended for the food of man to be subjected to
bacteriological examination, and if found diseased, unsound, unwholesome, or
unfit, to prosecute the vendor. I therefore recommend the purchase of samples of
food, and the submission of such samples to bacteriological examination, with a
view to taking action under this sub-section if found necessary.
The kind of food that lays itself open to be most effectually dealt with is
obviously milk. During the last 50 years there has been a great reduction in all