View report page

now constitutes about one fifth of total household expenditure on food. This is reflected in the
increasing number of complaints of unsound food received by the Department.
In practice it is found that coding by manufacturers to identify batch and date of production,
date of despatch and delivery is not the complete answer to this problem. The majority of the 94
food complaints investigated proved to be directly attributable to handling failures in one form or
another. The commonest cause was unsatisfactory or prolonged storage by the retailer often greatly
exceeding the shelf life of the commodity. There were cases involving the small retailer who kept
his limited stock too long, others occur in the rapid turn-over of the larger stores where frequent
deliveries get mixed even when the supplier's delivery men actually load the shelves; sometimes
over stocking takes place but in stores with a large tum-over this is really less of a problem than
the indifference of staff.
Food manufacturers often point out that date stamping of food on sale would convey little
or nothing to the consumer concerning the quality and purity of the ingredients in the food, of the
method of storage, of distribution or of conditions on the retailer's premises, but the main objection
is that it invariably results in a considerable drop in sales owing to customers exercising a very
natural preference for products with the latest date. Whatever the arguments for and against date
stamping, the ultimate responsibility for the soundness of foodstuffs rests with the vendor. In
pleading a defence of "due diligence" he must satisfy the court that the blame rests elsewhere.
The correct rotation of stock would be included in a retailer's diligence. Retailers should, therefore,
adopt a system of coding or date stamping best suited to their own trade and circumstances. Many
retail firms have already done this to very good effect.
Legislation with respect to hygience in the sale, storage and preparation of food was
strengthened during the year with the introduction of new Regulations dealing with stalls and
delivery vehicles and with the publication of codes for hygiene practices in the bakery trade and
in the designed and operation of automatic food vending machines.
Activity under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act was devoted primarily to
consolidation re-inspection and enforcement. A limited amount of specialisation was necessary
during the formative years of the Act, to further the registration and survey of business premises,
but with the completion of the major portion of initial detailed inspections and registrations, the
stage has now been reached when administration and enforcement of the Act is being fully absorbed
by the district public health inspectorate as part of their routine district work.
This is a field in which local responsibility is fundamental and there are strong grounds
for opposing any suggestion of transferring responsibility for enforcement of the Act to central
government. Inspection of business premises by local authority officers covers a wide sphere of
activity involving many separate but inter-related, statutes, orders and regulations concerned with
environmental health, welfare, hygiene and public protection. Transfer of administration would
bring about duplicity of inspections and responsibilities resulting in officers of both central and
local government visiting the same premises for essentially the same purpose. It would also be
bad for the promotion of good public relations.
A comprehensive survey of the condition of the borough's housing stock was undertaken
in co-operation with the Greater London Council involving a 4% sample of rateable units - some
3,500 dwellings. A statistical analysis of the findings of this survey is included in a separate
report dealing with the activities of the department in relation to housing and slum clearance
page
- 11 -