View report page

70
A prosecution was also undertaken under the Public Health (Preservatives ike. in
Pood) Regulations, in respect of a sample of Sausages, which contained an added preservative
and were not labelled in accordance with the Regulations. A penalty of 20s. was imposed
and costs of £2 2s. Od. allowed.
Wholesale Dealers in Margarine. —No certificates of registration under the provisions
of the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act were issued during the year.
PUBLIC HEALTH (PRESERVATIVES IN FOOD) REGULATIONS 1925-1927.
All samples were examined for any contravention of these Regulations and two were
found to contain proportions of preservatives contrary to the standards. These samples (one
sardines and one sausages) had been taken formally and the Committee decided to send a
cautionary letter to the vendor in the first case. In the case of the sausages a prosecution
was instituted and a fine of £1 with £2 2s. Od. costs was imposed.
I have to thank Mr. J. Kear Colwell, f.i.c., the Borough Analyst, for the following
notes upon the work he has carried out during the year.
Report of the Borough Analyst.
During the year 1936, 800 samples were submitted for analysis in accordance with
the provisions of the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, 347 having been purchased
with the required formalities and 453 obtained informally.
Of this total, 30 (3.8 per cent.) proved to be adulterated, 14 being samples submitted
formally and 16 informally. Last year 26 (3.25 per cent.) were so certified, 18 being submitted
formally and 8 informally.
The adulterated articles consisted of Milk, Minced Meat, Sardines, Liver Sausage and
Sausages.
Milk.—Three hundred and nineteen samples of milk were examined and fourteen
(4 4 per cent.) fell below the limits required by the Board of Agriculture Regulations—
3.0 per cent, for fat and 8.50 per cent, for non-fatty solids—and were certified to be
adulterated.
Thirteen of the adulterated samples were deficient in fat, the amount varying from at
least 2.9 per cent, to at least 40 0 per cent., and to the remaining adulterated sample water
had been added to the extent of at least 2.9 per cent.
It must be pointed out that the Board of Agriculture limits are not to be regarded
as the average for milk of good quality, but are to be taken as the limits for genuine milk of
the poorest quality, and if the sophistication in the samples mentioned in the previous
paragraph were compared with the average milk supply of St. Pancras the adulteration
certified would be much greater.
In the table given below I have set out the results of the analyses of the genuine milks
month by month, prepared by the Public Health Department, and have compared them with
a similar table introduced in the last Annual Report.