View report page

26
SECTION E.
INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION OF FOOD AND FOOD
PREMISES
Food and Drugs Administration.
In the following statistics the figures for last year are given within
brackets.
290 (294) samples were taken during the year, of which 277 (269)
were found genuine (List A), 12 (25) to be sub-standard (List B) and
in one instance the result was not to hand.
18 (7) food complaints were referred to the Public Analyst (List C)
and 34 (44) food complaints were dealt with informally (List D).
The accompanying lists (A and B) indicate the wide variety of food
and drugs actually sampled.
Sub-standard samples (List B) comprise 8 individual food products
and 2 drugs. Apart from the follow-up samples respecting which the
results were not to hand by the end of the year, it may reasonably be
said that the outcome was satisfactory. This does indicate that
manufacturers are normally quite willing to investigate any doubts
expressed to them as to description or content and to take action to
resolve in material measure well-founded criticisms brought to their
notice.
It happens of course that official standards may be lacking, e.g., in
pork luncheon meat and the question then becomes one of opinion in
the light of price, description, content and the like.
It is our experience that the informal approach does secure results
satisfactory to you, to the manufacturers and, most important of all,
to the buying public.
Food Complaints referred to Public Analyst—(List C): 18 instances,
involved bread in 4 cases, and milk products in 4 cases, the rest
including a variety of articles.
Legal proceedings were brought and succeeded in 3 instances.
Your views on the position were sent to 5 firms and the remainder
of the complaints were either not substantiated or did not merit further
action.
Food Complaints NOT referred to the Public Analyst—(List D):
To the number of 34 these reflected a wide range of evident conditions,
12 referred to milk, milk bottles, etc., 5 involved bread and 3 meat or
pork pies.
It will be noted that 5 prosecutions—all successful—were undertaken
and the non-reference to the Analyst does not therefore imply that the
complaints were of a less serious order.