View report page

These samples were obtained from 44 premises and represent the
produce of 111 manufacturers. 10 of the samples reported as not genuine
were the result of food complaints and the remaining 3 were labelling
offences.
Consultations take place with Chief Public Health Inspectors in
South Essex in order to avoid excessive duplication. In this consultative
area 2,387 samples were obtained during 1971 of which 128 were found to be not
genuine; labelling offences being the most common, followed by unsatisfactory
compositional standards of meat products and milk products. Samples obtained
in Chigwell and duplicated elsewhere were confined to 1 bottle of pasteurised
milk, 1 can of condensed milk and 1 can of processed peas.
(b) Food complaints:
During 1971, 32 food complaints were received. These may be divided
into the following groups
(i) 10 complaints which justified further action and the complainants
were willing to attend Magistrate's Court. In 7 instances legal
proceedings were instituted and 6 convictions obtained.
(ii) 9 complaints which justified further action but the complainants
were not willing to attend Magistrate's Court.
(iii) 13 complaints which did not justify any further action.
(c) Food Hygiene;
The Food Hygiene Regulations impose obligations in respect of the
construction, repairs and maintenance of food premises; the facilities to be
provided including sinks and wash-hand basins; the cleanliness of food handlers
and their clothing and the action to be taken if they are suffering from or are
carriers of certain diseases; and the temperature at which certain foods must be
kept. 704 visits were made to places in the district where food is kept for
sale. The most effective way to achieve high standards of hygiene in food
premises is frequent inspection incorporating education of food handlers. In
general, the food premises are satisfactory but taking the view that the
Regulations impose a minimum standard it is always possible to secure improvement.
The continuing absence of adequate temperature control regulations is
mystifying. It would seem that the campaign for date-stamping is taking
priority at the moment but a date can never give a guarantee of fitness or
quality. Any date must always be qualified by a "subject to satisfactory keeping"
condition. I am not suggesting that date-stamping should not be introduced but
rather that adequate temperature control is essentially of greater importance.
Consider a humble meat pie which, following manufacture, is transported in a
refrigerated vehicle to a town far from the bakery, there it is decanted on a
garage forecourt (luxuriously termed a depot) into an unrefrigerated vehicle,
which advertises for all to see that the products are "fresh daily", there it
remains in possibly hot and humid conditions until the driver arrives in the
morning. It is then delivered to a local shop where it is again placed under
refrigeration until the shop opens to the public. Following advice from the
manufacturer, the pie is placed in a huge pyramid by the door (and probably in the
sun) in order to promote sales, but who will have the courage to disturb this work
of art by the shopkeeper and in any case our clever housewife will surely prefer a
pie from the unartistic but cool display on the refrigerated counter. At the end of
-22- /the