View report page

84
trying to get samples, on which we could take any action in the event of their
being adulterated. I feel sure that the significance of these notices is not
realised by purchasers of spirits in Stepney. The fact that these notices are
posted in nearly all bars in the Borough must suggest to many people that
they are of little significance and are merely shown to comply with some
general regulation. I think few purchasers realise that such a notice as I
have given above, would legalise the sale of a mixture of one per cent. of
whisky and ninety-nine per cent of water. I consider that there should be a
statutory form of notice for the use of publicans who are not prepared to
sell spirits of the full legal strength. Such notices should state in clear
language that they are posted to legalise the sale of spirits below the standard
strength, and should state the actual strength of the spirits sold.
Particulars of the three samples examined are as under :—
M 14 (informal) Contained 6 per cent, excess Same vendor as M 28*
water.
M 28 Contained 6 per cent excess Summons withdrawn.
water.
G 17 (informal) Contained 23 per cent. On a subsequent visit
excess water. by the inspector, a
notice was displayed.
Other Foods.
Of the foods not dealt with above, 3 samples were adulterated. Particulars
are given below:—
Dripping.—An informal sample (K 76) contained 40 per cent. of foreign
fat. A subsequent sample was genuine.
Pepper.—An informal sample (L 84) contained 3 per cent. of foreign
starch. A subsequent sample, taken in 1923, had a similar composition
and the vendor was cautioned.
Tinned Peas.—An informal sample (S 66) contained 0.7 grains of Copper
per lb. Further supplies of the same brand were unobtainable,
Prescriptions under the
National Health Insurance Act.
Previous to 1922, none of the Metropolitan Boroughs had taken samples
under the Food and Drugs Acts of prescriptions dispensed for panel patients
under the National Health Insurance Act, though such samples had been
taken in the provinces. The Public Health Committee considered the
matter and suggested that taking samples of panel prescriptions was desirable.
The London Insurance Committee readily gave their consent, and
authorised medical practitioners to give prescriptions on the official forms, for
the use of inspectors under the Foods and Drugs Acts. The first batch of
samples, analysed, showed the necessity for some control (6 out of 11 samples
were returned as adulterated). The results of these analyses were reported to
the Insurance Committee, who circularised all the Metropolitan Boroughs,
asking their authorities to take samples. I understand that sampling in
London is now fairly general.
Of the 35 samples taken in Stepney, 15, or 42.9 per cent. were adulterated.