London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Marylebone 1932

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for St. Marylebone, Metropolitan Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

37
Food Inspection.—The work of food inspection receives year by year adequate
attention. During 1932, as formerly, the special Saturday night and Sunday
inspections in market streets, etc., were made, and in carrying them out Inspector
Smith received the assistance of other members of the staff having the necessary
qualifications and experience.
On a great many occasions the inspector was called by vendors to examine
articles of food under Section 47 (8) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and
to accept surrender of such as were unsound or unwholesome or unfit for food.
Amongst the articles dealt with in this way were:—
Unsound and Diseased Food Condemned and Destroyed During the

Year 1932.

Meat—Fruit—
Beef46 lbs.Apples26 boxes
Mutton38 „Pears26 boxes
Pork2 carcasesTomatoes3 trays
Bacon4 cwt. 2 qr. 10 lbs.Bananas1 crate
Poultry, etc.—Miscellaneous (Tinned Goods, etc.).
Turkey1Corned Beef268
Fowls10Briskets of Beef9
Rabbits2Hams, Gammons, etc.16
Fish—Brawn68
Tongues14
Veal4
Haddock1 boxPork and Stuffing4
Shell—MusselsI bagChicken and Ham Roll19
Sausages25
Cream195

Food Premises.—The points of importance in relation to food premises
generally, i.e., slaughterhouses, bakehouses, etc., have already been defined, and
here it is unnecessary to say more than that during the year these places were
kept under regular supervision. Numerous visits were paid and inspections both
of the premises and contents carried out. The necessity for inspecting premises
used for the preparation of cooked and other foods intended for sale preliminary to
registration led to a considerable increase in work and also to the detection of a
certain number definitely unsuitable or requiring alteration or amendment before
registration could be made.
C.— FOOD AND DRUGS (ADULTERATION) ACT, 1928.
The total number of samples taken under this Act in 1932 was 1,102, the figure
for 1931 being 1,108.
Of this number 6 were reported by the analyst as being below standard or not
of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser. This gives a
percentage of adulteration of 0.54. In 1931 it was 0.17.
The method adopted in connection with the taking of samples and described in
former reports, it has not been found necessary to alter.
The majority were "formal" samples, and in carrying out the sampling, the
officer was almost invariably assisted by an agent.
The bulk of the samples taken were of milk and dairy produce.