London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Stepney 1922
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Stepney]
This page requires JavaScript
The 39 cases consisted of 16 informal samples and 23 formal samples. Proceedings were taken in 18 cases and the results are shown in Table L. Five vendors were cautioned for minor infringements of the regulations.
| Number. | Offence. | Action. Result of proceedings. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| J | 26 | Improperly stamped wrapper | Vendor paid 2s. costs. |
| T | 30 | Improperly stamped wrapper | Fined £2 with £1 costs. |
| F | 24 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined £3 with £2 4s. costs. |
| D | 48 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined 10s. with 10s. 6d. costs |
| D | 50 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined 10s. with 10s. 6d. costs |
| D | 51 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined 10s. with 10s. 6d. costs |
| A | 49 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined £1 with £1 1s. costs. |
| A | 52 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined £1 with £1 1s. costs. |
| F | 55 | Improperly stamped wrapper | Vendor paid 7s. 6d. costs. |
| F | 56 | Unstamped wrapper | Vendor paid 7s. 6d. costs. |
| 63 | Unlabelled bulk and unstamped wrapper. The sample also contained excess butter. (See above.) | Fined £5 with £2 2s. costs for selling from an unlabelled bulk, and ordered to pay £2 costs for selling in an unstamped wrapper. | |
| 79 | Improperly stamped wrapper | Fined £1 with £2 2s. costs. | |
| D | 74 | Unstamped wrapper | FinedlOs with 10s. 6d. costs |
| D | 77 | Improperly stamped wrapper | Fined £1 with £1 1s. costs. |
| D | 84 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined 10s. 6d. |
| D | 87 | Improperly stamped wrapper | Fined 10s. 6d. |
| F | 98 | Unstamped wrapper | Fined £1 with £2 5s. costs. |
Cream and Preserved Cream.
The 26 samples consisted of 13 which were sold as Preserved Cream and
13 which were sold as Cream.
The 13 samples of preserved cream were all satisfactory. Each of them
contained more than the statutory minimum of 35 per cent. of fat and was
labelled with the statutory declaratory label stating the nature and amount of
preservative present, and that the sample was unsuitable for infants and
invalids. In each case, the label stated that boric acid was present in amount
not exceeding 0.4 per cent. Analysis bore out these statements. In three
cases, printing on the carton in which the sample was supplied, described the
contents as " Thick Rich Cream " or " Rich Cream." The Milk and Cream
Regulations require that "'preserved cream " shall, under no circumstances,
be described as " Cream "; whenever the word " Cream " is used, the word
" Preserved " must accompany it in letters of equal prominence. The three
vendors were cautioned and a circular letter on the subject was sent to all
registered milk vendors in Stepney.