View report page

12
Four cafe proprietors were prosecuted for contraventions of the Food Hygiene Regulations, with the
following results:—
(a) 5 contraventions—convicted on 3 with a total fine of £15 with £5 5s. Od. costs; granted an absolute
charge on 1, and 1 dismissed;
(b) 11 contraventions—convicted on 10 with a total fine of £36 with £2 2s. Od. costs, and 1 dismissed;
(c) 7 contraventions—convicted on 6 with a total fine of £24 with £2 2s. Od. costs, 1 dismissed;
(d) 6 contraventions—convicted on 5 with a total fine of £15 with £5 5s. Od. costs, and granted a conditional
discharge on 1.
Premises where food is prepared
Premises which manufacture or sell ice-cream or prepare or manufacture sausages, potted, pressed,
pickled or preserved foods, including cooked meat or fish intended for sale, must be registered by the Council.
If the Council refuses or cancels a registration, the owner can appeal first to them and if unsuccessful to a
court of summary jurisdiction (Table 37).
Premises where ice-cream is manufactured are kept under constant supervision. Most of the icecream
sold in the borough is manufactured outside the district, and is usually pre-packed. The ice-cream
reaches a high standard of purity (Table 9).
Education in food hygiene
Lectures and talks illustrated with film shows, filmstrips and bacteriological cultures were given to
social and political organisations and school leavers.
Food poisoning
It is pleasing to report that there was no outbreak of food poisoning in the borough. This is
probably a reflection of the general improvement in handling, preparation, storage and sale of food.
Food unfit for human consumption
Nearly 1| tons, 2,355 tins and 1,335 packets of food inspected by the Public Health Inspectors were
found to be unfit for human consumption (Table 38). All the food was dealt with as trade refuse by the
Borough Engineer's Department and deposited on the controlled refuse tip.
Two butchers were prosecuted for offences under section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, with
the following results:—
(a) fined £5 0s. Od. with £5 5s. Od. costs for having in his possession for the purpose of sale 13 chickens
and 1 duck unfit for human consumption;
(b) fined £10 0s. Od. with £5 5s. Od. costs for selling liver unfit for human consumption.
Contaminated food
17 specimens of contaminated food were dealt with by the department. They included foreign
matter in a bottle of milk, in a steak and kidney pie and in loaves of bread; mouldy growth in cakes, and
in a steak and kidney pie; a bottle of beer with an offensive smell; beetles in a tin of strawberries and a
loaf of bread; a drinking straw in a carton of soft drink; and larvae in a packet of puff pastry mix.
No action was taken in five of them because of insufficient evidence; of the remaining 12, 9 firms
were cautioned and the Council decided to prosecute the other 3. The results of the prosecutions were as
follows: —
1. Fined £5 0s. Od. with £8 8s. Od. costs for selling a steak and kidney pie containing mould ;
2. Fined £20 0s. Od. with £5 5s. Od. costs for selling a loaf of bread containing a beetle ;
3. Fined £15 0s. Od. with £5 5s. Od. costs for selling cakes containing mould.
Clean Food Sampling
The Middlesex County Council is responsible for taking samples and for supervising the control of
food adulteration (Table 39). The Chief Officer of the Public Control Department has kindly supplied the
following information.
Of the four firms concerned in the nine samples found to be unsatisfactory, 3 were prosecuted and
1 was officially cautioned.
A cafe proprietor was prosecuted and fined £10 with £8 10s. Od. costs for selling 3 samples of hot
milk containing 11.8% of added water; a butcher was fined £15 with £5 7s. Od. costs in respect of 3 samples
of minced beef containing sulphur dioxide, a preservative which is not permitted in meat; and a manufacturing
baker was fined £15 with £5 5s. Od. costs for supplying a loaf of bread containing a rusty nail head.
An official caution was issued to a firm of sausage manufacturers because they failed to supply labels declaring
the presence of preservative in sausages, although the quantity of preservative was within the limits prescribed
by the Public Health (Preservatives, etc. in Food) Regulations, 1925.
Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887-1933
646 displays of articles of food were examined under the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887-1953.
Minor infringements were dealt with by verbal warnings, but official cautions were given to 2 greengrocers who
described Seville oranges as 'Jaffa', and South African and Israeli grapefruit as 'Jaffa'.
Labelling of Food Order, 1953
935 articles of pre-packed food were examined under the Labelling of Food Order. A caution was
sent to the manufacturers of pickled cucumber where the label indicated the use of preservative but not its
nature; and to the packers of lamb chops where the label did not give a sufficient address.