View report page

100
and Drugs Authority. The Middlesex Local Government Conference
Committee submitted a report on this matter to the County Council
and District Councils and a recommendation: "It is not desirable at
the present time that the County Council should delegate to County
District Councils in Middlesex its function as Food and Drugs Authority,
but that the County Council be asked to send more frequent reports
of the action which it takes under the Food and Drugs Acts to County
District Councils for their information." The Public Health Committee
when it considered this report at its meeting in December submitted no
observations.
While the work of an authority under the Food and Drugs Act is
very closely related to that of a sanitary authority, the two functions are
in fact quite distinct. The local sanitary authority is concerned mainly
with sanitary questions relating to the sale, etc., of food unfit for human
consumption, to the taking of precautions against contamination and
to the avoidance of food poisoning. In regard to milk it is concerned
with preventing contamination, and with the registration of milk distributors
and of certain dairy premises. The functions of the Food and
Drugs Authority, however, as regards food relate mainly to the composition
of food and drugs, and to the additions that should not be made
to milk, with the object of securing that food and drugs are sold only in
a pure and genuine condition. Because the sanitary authority has its
own responsibilities in regard to food, responsibilities which it cannot
pass to any other body, responsibilities too which necessitate the visiting
and inspecting of all places where food is dealt with at any stage, there
are advantages in the staff of the local sanitary authority carrying out
the duties of the inspectors of Food and Drugs Authorities. There is
too the advantage of the local knowledge acquired by sanitary inspectors,
and so often it is the District Council which is first approached on these
matters by an aggrieved member of the public. The case for the County
Council seems to rest primarily on the fact that under the existing arrangements
for the distribution of foodstuffs the result of a sample submitted
for analysis in one district might well be accepted as indicative of the
state of a similar commodity in another area, and that covering a large
field they can more efficiently plan their scheme for sampling. In regard
to costs of administration, the County Council points out that these
food and drugs activities are only part of the functions of the staff of the
Public Control Department, an arrangement which results in economic
management.
The following information has kindly been provided by the Chief
Officer of the Public Control Department of the Middlesex County
Council: Of the 887 samples taken 57 were unsatisfactory. 31 of these
adverse reports were of 315 samples of raw milk which were taken on
delivery at milk depots in the district. In 13 instances deficiency was
in fat, in 18 in solids-not-fat. Where in spite of any deficiency it was
probable the milk was genuine, advisory action only was taken. This
was so in all these instances. Seven adverse reports related to various
milks of which 62 samples were taken. Six of these were of hot milk
in four cafes. In only one instance was prosecution instituted. The
seventh sample was of bottled milk sold by retail. This had a very