View report page

23
On a great manv 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 :—

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.
Bacteriological examination.— During the year, apart from milk samples, 3
samples of ice cream and 1 sample of dried peas were examined bacteriologically.
All were found to be satisfactory.
C.— FOOD AND DRUGS (ADULTERATION) ACT, 1928.
The total number of samples taken under this Act in 1934 was 1,055, the figure
for 1933 being 1,012.
Of this number 5 were reported by the analyst as being below standard or not
of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser. This gives, as
in 1933, a percentage of adulteration of 0.50.
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.
A sample of a drug submitted by a medical practitioner for analysis with a
complaint as to a mistake made in connection with the filling of a prescription,
was not examined. On enquiry it appeared that the mistake was the result of an
oversight and that it had been remedied immediately it was reported by the practitioner
himself who detected it before the remedy was administered. The assistant
responsible for the mistake was cautioned and the manufacturers of the article were
invited to adopt any other precautions that could be devised as safeguards against
further possible and rather exceptional errors of the same sort.