London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Marylebone 1935
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for St. Marylebone, Metropolitan Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
25
Adulterated Samples, etc.
The sum paid in respect of each analysis was 12s. 6d. per sample.
The Public Analyst (Mr. J. F. F. Rowland) comments, as follows, with regard to the only sample found to be adulterated:—
| Serial Number | Article | Whether Formal, Informal, or Private | Nature of Adulteration or Irregularity | Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 162 | Ale | Private | The sample contained at least 0.003 per cent. of phenol. | The sample had undergone no change which would interfere with the analysis. |
Milk.—Of the 169 samples examined, none was adulterated.
The average composition of the milk taken during the year as well as those
of the two years preceding was as follows:—
Total Solids Solids
Year. Sp. Gr. Fat. not Fat.
1933 1031.4 12.2 3.50 8.70
1934 1031.5 12.17 3.56 8.71
1935 1031.0 12.07 3.47 8.60
Cream.—26 loose creams were examined during the year and 6 tinned creams.
None was adulterated and the average composition of each kind was as follows:—
Fat. Preservatives.
Loose 46.45 Nil.
Tinned 26.40 Nil.
It is very satisfactory to note that of the samples taken during the year 1935
only one was adulterated and that probably by accidental contamination; but new
food products previously unheard of keep appearing in commerce, and as naturally
no standards are avilable for such newcomers, it becomes necessary to determine
their exact chemical composition and to decide whether they contravene the Food
and Drugs (Adulteration) Act in any way or are likely to be injurious to the consumer.
Equally also it is necessary to determine if their real food value bears
any reasonable relationship to the price charged or to the claims, if any, made for
it by the manufacturer.
During the year two such new products were investigated—"Repova" and
"Honey Jelly." The directions given for using "Repova" were as follow: "Always
replace at least a quarter of your egg content with the same quantity of Repova
(i.e., instead of using 4 lbs. of eggs to a mixture use 3 lbs. eggs and 1 lb. Repova,
etc.)." Suggesting that 1 lb. eggs = 1 lb. Repova. On the analysis, the calorific
value of Repova as compared with eggs proved to be:—
1 lb. Repova = 95.0 calories.
1 lb. eggs (with shells) = 635 calories.
On analysis this article was found to consist mainly of the carbohydrates,
soluble starch, dextrine and dextrose and was in no way equal in food value to
the same weight of egg; Indeed, not one but 6—7 lbs. of Repova must be taken
to obtain even the theoretical calorific value only of an equal weight of egg, leaving
out of all account the wonderful balance existing between the various food constituents
present in the egg itself which Repova makes no attempt to imitate.
When foods bearing new and fanciful names are put upon the market the
purchasing housewife has to rely solely upon her native wit and acumen. No
legal ruling is at her elbow and nothing in the way of guidance is available to help