View report page

13
No action was taken in four of them because of insufficient evidence ; of the remaining 16, 11 firms
were cautioned and the Council decided to prosecute the other five. The results of the prosecutions were as
follows:—
1. Case dismissed for selling bacon infested with maggots.
The complainant bought the bacon on Saturday and first noticed the maggots on Sunday morning.
She brought the bacon to the Public Health Department on the following Tuesday, and it was examined by
a Public Health Inspector the next day. The Justices considered that the evidence did not establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the maggots were present in the bacon at the time of sale.
2. Absolute discharge on payment of five guineas costs for selling a pork pie containing a mouldy growth.
The wholesalers were not brought in by the defendants in this case and so the extent of their responsibility
could not be determined.
3. £25 with five guineas costs for selling bacon infested with maggots.
4. Absolute discharge on payment of five guineas costs for selling a bottle of mineral water with an offensive
smell.
The bottlers were not brought in by the defendants in this case and so the extent of their responsibility
could not be determined.
5. Case dismissed, for selling a bottle of milk containing pieces of glass,
There was doubt when the glass entered the bottle.
Clean food sampling
The Middlesex County Council is responsible for taking samples and for supervising the control of
food adulteration (Table 42). The Chief Officer of the Public Control Department has kindly supplied the
following information.
There were no prosecutions of the 8 firms responsible for the 16 samples found to be unsatisfactory;
5 firms were officially cautioned and no action was taken against the other 3.
A sample of cheese advertised as cream cheese contained insufficient milk fat; the manufacturers
agreed to amend their advertisement.
No action was taken against the manufacturers of two samples of cream slightly deficient in fat;
one sample was old stock and another one was not available; a second sample proved satisfactory in the
other one.
Official cautions were issued to two manufacturers of vinegar where two samples from each showed
where advertisements suggested a fruit content (the advertisements were amended); to the manufacturers of
only very slightly deficient.
Official cautions were also issued to the manufacturer of 5 samples of artifically flavoured sweets
where advertisements suggested a fruit content—the advertisements were amended; to the manufacturers of
codeine tablets which were old stock and contained an excessive amount of free salicylic acid; and to the
fishmonger who sold smoked cod as smoked haddock.
Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887-1953
1,075 displays of articles of food were examined under the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887-1953.
Minor infringements were dealt with by verbal warnings, but one grocery company which gave a false weight
on swedes and carrots was fined £20 with £5.5.0 costs, and another which labelled Irish bacon as "Danish"
was fined £15 with £5.5.0 costs. Two butchers in partnership were sued on 54 counts, including failing to
indicate, and falsely describing, the origin of imported meats ; they were fined a total of £108, with £10.10.0
costs each on 54 summonses, and their manager who aided and abetted them and removed brand marks indicating
the origin of meat was fined £67 and £10.10.0 costs. All the fines were originally double these amounts,
but were halved on appeal to Quarter Sessions.
Labelling of Food Order, 1953
818 articles of pre-packed food were examined under the Labelling of Food Order. No serious
infringements were detected.
False and misleading descriptions
Scrutiny of food advertisements and labels for false and misleading descriptions is usually combined
with inspections under the Merchandise Marks Acts and Labelling of Food Order. No serious infringements
were disclosed, but action was taken for descriptions applied to "seedless" oranges, tangerines and
grapefruit, and "cream" doughnuts and sponges.
Milk and Dairies
Milk sales are regulated by the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, the Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations,
1959, and the Milk (Special Designation) Regulations, 1960.
Willesden has been a specified area since October, 1951: all milk sold by retail is sterilised, pasteurised
or tuberculin tested; the sale of raw milk is prohibited.
The provisions of paragraph 6 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Milk (Special Designation)
Regulations, 1960, restricted the bottling of milk to the three premises in the borough where the milk is
pasteurised. These Regulations transferred the issue of dealers licences from the borough council to the
Middlesex County Council, who are the food and drugs authority for the area.
105 persons are registered by the Council to trade as distributors and three premises are registered
as dairies. Five inspections were made of the three dairies; one defect was found and soon remedied.
239 samples of milk were submitted for bacteriological examination (see Table 9).