[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Orpington] page 35

Orpington 1964

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Orpington]

This page requires JavaScript

Text

Copy text to clipboard

35.

Table: Continued from previous page...

Download table as:

Continued from previous page...

NATURE OF UNSATISFACTORY SAMPLE	REMARKS
(a) Serial No.21
Fruit Salad (evaporated) Composition: Pears 35%, Prunes 22%, Peaches 22%, Apricots l6%, Apples 5%. This did not accord with the labelling. Unsatisfactory.	Fruits were not packed in the correct proportion according to the label and an assurance was given by the shopkeeper that the matter would be rectified.
(b) Serial No.84
Fruit Salad (evaporated) The constituents of the sample were Apricots 32.6%, Prunes 32.4%, Pears 19.0%, Peaches 15.3%, Apples 0.7%. Not in accord with the statement on the container. Unsatisfactory.	The manufacturers were contacted. Inconsistency due to errors in weighing at branch shop. Arrangements made for packing to be carried out at headquarters.
(c) Serial No.87. Minced Beef (tinned)
Lean Meat 32%, fat 13%. The proposed standard for meat with gravy was at least 80% and while it was appreciated that the product contained onions, it was the Analyst's opinion that the presence of onion did not justify a meat content as low as 45%. It was also noted that the proportion of fat to lean meat was relatively high. Unsatisfactory.	Adjourned pending the coming into force of the proposed Canned Meat Regulations.
(d) Serial No.100
Minced Beef (tinned) Meat content 35%, allowing 9% fat as due to meat as above. Unsatisfactory	as above.
(e) Serial No.176
Milk (Untreated). The sample showed a fat content of 2.9%, a deficiency of 3% in the minimum amount of fat Unsatisfactory.	The dealer was unable to account for the deficiency. A follow up sample was taken and proved to be satisfactory.
(f) Serial No.53
Milk (Pasteurised) The sample showed a fat content of 2.7%, a deficiency of 10% minimum amount of fat. Unsatisfactory,	as above.