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 London 1910

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London, City of ]

This page requires JavaScript

Table: Concurrently with the bacteriological examination of these samples, duplicates were taken and submitted to the Public Analyst for chemical analysis, who reported as follows:—

Concurrently with the bacteriological examination of these samples, duplicates were taken and submitted to the Public Analyst for chemical analysis, who reported as follows:—

Sample received.No. of Sample.Result of Analysis.Nature and amount of Adulteration, &c.Remarks.
Fat.Solids (not fat).Total Solids.
1910.
June 1st13.358.8112.16...Boric acid and formalin absent
June 1st23.278.6711.94...„ „
June 1st33.388.7012.08...„ „
June 1st43.248.6611.90...„ „
June 1st53.238.7912.02• ••„ „
June 1st63.808.9012.70...„ „
June 3rd73.188.8812.06„ „
June 3rd83.138.8511.98...„ „
June 3rd93.018.5711.58...„ „
June 3rd103.128.9812.10...„ „
June 3rd118.148.8612.00...„ „
June 3rd122.858.8111.665 per cent. fat deficient„ „
June 6th133.178.6711.84...„ „
June 6th143.338.6511.98...„ „
June 6th153.138.8511.98...„ „
June 6th163.428.9012.32•••„ „
June 6 th173.078.5911.66...„ „
June 6th183.668.9812.64...„ „
June 8th192.618.5711.1813 per cent. fat deficient„ „
June 8th203.188.8011.98...„ „
June 8th212.668.9011.5611 per cent. fat deficient„ „
June 8th222.858.7911.645 per cent. fat deficient„ „

Text

Copy text to clipboard

Average of 30 Samples taken at
Railway Stations, 1902.
Fat 4.00 per cent.
Solids (not fat) 8.79 „
Total solids 12.79 „
Average of 28 Samples taken at
Railway Stations, 1904.
Fat 4.10 per cent.
Solids (not fat) 8.65 ,,
Total solids 12.75 „
Average of 48 Samples taken at
Railway Stations, 1910.
Fat 3.17 per cent.
Solids (not fat) 8.79 ,,
Total solids 11.96 „
This is the third time I have taken samples from railway stations for the
purpose of ascertaining the chemical character of the milk as it arrives in the
City, and it will be seen from Dr. Teed's summary of analysis that there is a
distinct decline in its quality, which confirms the opinion I have more than
once expressed, that there is a tendency on the part of the farmers to take
advantage of the low standard prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries in the Sale of Milk Regulations, 1901, good quality milk being
"toned" down to the limit by the addition of skimmed or separated milk.
This illustrates one of the disadvantages of the establishment of
"standards" where natural good products are concerned, comparatively low
limits being adopted owing to the very occasional variations found in the
genuine article.