View report page

48
SUPERVISION OF FOOD AND DRUGS.
During the year 1937, 1,007 samples of food and drugs were submitted to the Public
Analyst for examination, 759 of which were taken as informal or test samples without
the formalities of the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, being observed. Eight
of these informal samples were reported against, as follows :—
2 of Cheese, out of 32 samples.
2 of Sausages, out of 30.
1 of Butter (with scone), out of 58.
1 of Tincture of Iodine, out of 12.
1 of Boric Eye Ointment, out of 2.
1 of Salicylic Ointment, out of 3.
Of the formal samples, 17 out of 248 were reported against, as follows :—
12 of Milk, out of 215 samples.
2 of Cheese, out of 2.
1 of Sausages, out of 1.
1 of Butter (with scone), out of 1.
1 of Tincture of Iodine, out of 1.
The above-mentioned samples, with the exception of milk, were taken as a result of
informal samples having been reported against.
General Observations.—The percentage rate of adulteration of all food and drugs sampled
in the City was 2-4, as compared with 2-6 in 1936.
Butter, Cream and Cheese.—At one period of the year there was a considerable rise in
the price of butter, and 58 informal samples of butter, served with bread or scone in refreshment
rooms, were purchased. One sample only was reported against. In consequence,
a formal sample was taken in connection with this sale, and it was found that the "butter"
consisted of 80 per cent, margarine, the vendor admitting that butter was mixed with margarine
on the premises. Legal proceedings were taken against him and a fine of 20s. was
imposed, with 2 gns. costs.
None of the 13 samples of cream taken was reported against.
Of the two samples of cheese reported against, one referred to Caerphilly full-cream
cheese, which was found to be 66 per cent, deficient in milk fat. The vendor was prosecuted and
fined £2 with £1 costs, the defendant admitting that the article had been wrongly described.
The other cheese sample referred to was a biscuit stick, with the centre filled with "cheese."
The retailer was summoned for selling " cheese sticks " which were not of the nature, substance
or quality of the article demanded. His supplier was also summoned for wilfully
giving a label which falsely described the article sold. There was no complaint that the
article was not wholesome, but it was submitted that it did not comply with the Food and
Drugs Act as to description. The substance forming the interior of the sticks was called
cheese, but was made up in the following proportions : Water, 5.4 per cent.; solids, not
fat, 50 -4 per cent. ; and fat, 44 -2 per cent. Of this fat, 70 per cent, was not milk fat, and,
therefore, the substance was not strictly within the provisions of the Act. It was shown
that these cheese sticks had a filling resembling cheese and a purchaser would undoubtedly
expect such filling to be wholly cheese. For the defence, it was stated that the filling could
not be made wholly of pure cheese as it would not keep, and a certain amount of fat other
than milk fat was necessary to make it a marketable article. The summonses against
both defendants were dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act on payment of 1 guinea
and 4 guineas costs respectively, the magistrate expressing the hope that all parties concerned
with the manufacture and distribution of this article would very carefully consider their
position.
Sausages.—Two of the 30 samples of sausages purchased were certified to contain
sulphur dioxide, the only preservative allowed in sausages, but no declaration of its presence
was made, as required by the Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations.
In one instance the amount of preservative was very small and enquiries failed to disclose
its origin, as the vendor did not use preservative in his business. No further action was
justified. In the other case, where the attention of the manager of the shop was called on
a previous occasion to similar neglect, legal proceedings were instituted, when a fine of
£5 5s. was imposed, with £3 3s. costs.