View report page

4
They certainly would not stay in the City to attend lectures, and employers could not be
expected to release them during the intensely busy working hours. It seems that the only
possible way to impart instruction in food hygiene in the City is for the sanitary inspectors
to talk to individual food handlers during their visits to catering establishments, explaining
why this and that should or should not be done, criticising equipment, lay out and methods,
and giving reasons for their criticisms. This kind of instruction may be relatively slow, but
I believe it to be more effective than lectures which, even if they are fully comprehended, are
apt to be forgotten, and even if remembered are in many cases not related to the 'daily round
the common task'. Be this as it may, I believe that standards of food hygiene are
improving. There is a number of reasons for this; a wide public interest in food hygiene has
been created by the Press, outbreaks of food poisoning are news, and long may they remain
so, for if they do not always teach a lesson they convey a warning; sound broadcasting and
television have helped; improved housing has raised general standards of hygiene, and finally,
improved working conditions in kitchens are an example and an encouragement to the kitchen
staff.
As regards Clean Food Guilds I do not know how I could start one in the City, even if
I had the courage and the confidence to try. Those of us who have administrative responsibility
may realise how far a certificate awarded by a Clean Food Guild can be a guarantee
of safety, we know how much depends upon the individual, and that there are dangers
against which it is impossible to guard. But the public will take such a certificate as an
absolute guarantee. I have experience of outbreaks of food-poisoning in canteens which are
well constructed, well equipped, well staffed, well managed and not run for profit Incidents
of this kind are uncommon but they do occur and we know that, though we can do a great deal
to reduce the incidence of food-poisoning, we cannot give an absolute guarantee that it will
not occur in relation to any particular establishment.
In my opinion a more satisfactory way of hastening the improvement in standards of
food hygiene would be to require the registration of all catering establishments, with powers
to withdraw registration if reasonably practicable standards were not attained and maintained.
Quite understandably caterers fear that such powers might be abused, but cancellation of
registration would only be by authorisation of the Local Authority, before whom a caterer
would be entitled to appear to show cause why the registration of his premises should not be
cancelled, and in the City of London at least, where every member of the Local Authority
can, in the Court of Common Council or in Committee, freely express his personal opinion
on any question under consideration, caterers could certainly be confident that due attention
would be given to every extenuating circumstance they could advance.
(5) the method of disposal of unsound food;
Unsound food which is suitable for dry rendering for conversion into animal feeding
stuffs, fertilisers, etc., is removed to the condemned meat room at Smithfield Market,
whence it is removed by the appointed contractors for processing. Unsound food which is
unsuitable for any such purpose is removed by the Cleansing Department and disposed of
with the general refuse from the City.
(6) where special examination of a stock or consignment of food has been necessary, the
total quantity as well as the quantity condemned;
It is not clear to me what is required under this heading. Considerable quantities of
imported food stuffs are condemned at Riverside wharves but this is regarded as routine.
Details can be given if required.
Hygiene of Catering Establishments.
Each year I ask the two Inspectors, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Flynn, who devote the whole
of their time to the inspection of catering premises, to contribute some observations on thenwork
and their impressions of the progress that has been made. They have jointly submitted
the following: —
Steady, but at times irritatingly slow, progress has been made in the improvement of catering
establishments of all types in the City of London. In order to secure a reasonable basis for the
maintenance of cleanly and hygienic conditions, it has been necessary in many cases to gut
the inside of existing premises and completely to reconstruct, re-equip and re-design the kitchen
and ancillary rooms. In such instances prolonged technical discussions are inevitable before
work can even commence. Some appreciation of the delays which have occurred may be gained,
when it is considered that consent from each of the following authorities may be necessary,
before the work of improvement required by the Medical Officer of Health may be put in
hand: —
1. The Ministry of Works for a building licence.
2. The Divisional Food Office in certain cases when it is necessary for this Authority to
sponsor a building licence.
3. The Licensing Justices where alterations to licensed premises are concerned.
4. The Town Planning Department of the City Corporation.
5. The Architect's Department of the L.C.C. where temporary structural licences are
necessary in connection with the erection of external ducts for mechanical ventilating
plant.
6. The District Surveyor regarding all matters of a structural nature.
7. The War Damage Commissioners where repairs or alterations to war damaged premises
are involved.
In addition, there are delays due to the usual difficulties between landlord and tenant,
particularly when a new lease has to be negotiated, which is often necessary in order to extend
security of tenure before embarking upon heavy capital expenditure.