View report page

Of 17 formal samples of spirits purchased, one sample of whisky was found, on examination
by the Public Analyst, to be adulterated by water. The remainder of the samples were found to be
up to standard. In the case of the adulterated sample of whisky, legal proceedings were taken
against the firm concerned and a conviction was obtained.
An informal sample of minced meat was found on examination to contain preservatives, as a
result of which a formal sample was purchased from the same premises. This was also found to
contain preservatives. Representations were made to the firm concerned, who stated in reply
that the preservatives had been added by the Manager, who mistakenly thought these were permitted,
as he had read an article in the Meat Traders Journal regarding the addition of preservatives
as a way of improving the look of minced meat exposed for sale. The firm immediately
ceased this practice and gave an undertaking that in future no preservatives would be used in
minced meat. In view of this undertaking no further action was taken in the matter.
As in previous years made-up foods, such as pies of all descriptions, sausages, luncheon
meats and the like, were purchased as it is felt that this type of food is more prone to contamination
through improper handling than other foods which are prepacked by the manufacturers
before sale to the retailer. It is usual to purchase these commodities on Monday morning as most
retail food premises in the City area are closed from Friday evening to Monday morning and it is
felt that this would give a more accurate indication of the freshness or otherwise of food offered
for sale during the early part of the week. None of the samples purchased in this manner was the
subject of an adverse report by the Public Analyst, and this is an improvement on previous years
when legal proceedings were taken against food firms for selling pies, fish cakes and chicken
croquettes which were mouldy and unfit for human consumption.
FOOD HYGIENE (MARKETS, STALLS AND DELIVERY
VEHICLES) REGULATIONS, 1966
Legal proceedings were instituted in two cases under the provisions of the Food Hygiene
(Markets, Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations, 1966, where very dirty and unhygienic conditions
were found to exist in two delivery vans. One, carrying meat from Smithfield to a retail
butcher in South London, had been detained in Aldermanbury Square. The other van had been
detained by the police whilst selling ice-cream in Monument Street and subsequently reported by
them to this department. These two prosecutions resulted in total fines of £31 and total costs
of £21.
The increasing number of City workers and the annually swelling volume of tourists visiting
the City have resulted in an increase in the number of opportunist street traders selling food from
unlicensed and grossly unhygienic stalls and vehicles. These itinerant traders are proving to be
increasingly difficult to deal with, both by the police and by this department. For some time the
Department has been concerned in dealing with the problems caused by unauthorised itinerant
vendors of ice-cream and hot dogs.
The relevant legislation dealing with these food businesses is contained in the Food Hygiene
(Markets, Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations, 1966. These regulations set forth requirements
on such matters as personal cleanliness, fitness of food, hygienic condition of the stall,
precautionary measures against contamination, provision of washing facilities for attendants and
equipment, means of refuse disposal and display of name and address of the person carrying
on the business.
Fly-by-night traders as recent press reports have shown, prefer to run the risk of prosecution
for unlicensed trading rather than display their identity, and to treat the occasional small fine
as part of normal business overheads. They work on a day-to-day basis for quick profits
and show little regard for the elementary principles of hygiene. Since they are generally of the
transient type and unco-operative, considerable difficulties are experienced in enforcement.
Addresses given as base premises and home addresses are immediately suspect and may prove
to be only of a temporary nature. Following complaint, there is no way in which immediate protection
can be afforded to the general public as there is no power to remove the stall from the
street. The normal summons procedure used at present is slow and cumbersome and is not capable
of dealing with these opportunist traders, since by the time action has been authorised they
may no longer be at the original address. They may still be operating in the streets, using the
same extremely unhygienic vehicles.
A further problem is that, as prices are very rarely displayed, visitors can easily be overcharged
and short-changed. It would be an advantage if vendors could be compelled to display a
price-list. Undoubtedly the cheating and swindling of foreign nationals is a difficult problem but
there is no need to shrink from the idea of harsher penalties, which should be sufficient to be
a real deterrent.
23