London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Kingston upon Thames 1968

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kingston-upon-Thames]

This page requires JavaScript

139
Of the 33 samples which were the subject of adverse comment
by the Public Analyst the majority were due to failure to comply
with labelling requirements. The provisions of the Labelling of
Pood Order, 1953 are designed to give information to the customer
and to this end require that most prepacked foods containing more
than one ingredient list the common or usual name. The
ingredients should be shown in the correct descending order of
proportion by weight.
Minced Beef and Onion with Gravy.
This article had a meat content of 37.8 per cent. Deficiency
of 25 per cent. The meat content for an article described as
Minced Beef and Onion with Gravy should be at least 50 per cent.
The matter was taken up with manufacturers who stated that it was
their intention to reformulate the product and the label before May
1969. In view of limited time before new regulations come into
force the matter was not pursued.
Creamed Potatoes.
The article was incorrectly labelled, should have read "Creamed
Potato Mix". This was taken up with manufacturers who did not agree
that "mix" was usual name of this food but that it was dehydrated.
In view of imminence of new regulations it was decided to leave this
matter in abeyance.
Coffee Sugar.
Contained non permitted colouring matter not included in the
permitted list of colours in the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations
1966. The manufacturers were of the opinion that the
sample was old stock.
Chewing Sum,
Ingredients incorrectly specified on label. The manufacturers
decided to omit the list of ingredients on the label so that there
would be no contravention of the Labelling of Pood Order, 1953.
Low Calorie Blackcurrant Health Drink (2 samples).
This was a case of misdescription. The label described the
article as "Triple Vitamin C enriched". There is no basic standard
for the enrichment of an article of this nature and the claim was
considered liable to mislead as to the quality of the drink. Following
correspondence the manufacturers agreed to amend the label by
omitting the word "Triple" and inserting "Rich" in its place.