View report page

This milk was therefore deficient in milk fat to the extent of
35 per cent. of the normal quantity proper to natural milk. This
opinion is based on the above figures and on the Sale of Milk Regulations,
1939.
The amount of ash, however, indicated that the low figure for
milk solids other than milk fat was not due to the addition of water-
I understand that there was a complaint in connection with this
sample of a dry feeling in the mouth after drinking it. This suggested
the possibility of metallic contamination, but analysis yielded no
evidence of such.
The condition of this milk when received was too bad for tests
for taste or rancidity to be made.
Sausages and Sausage Meat
Sample No. 88 (Pork Sausages) was certified by the Public Analysts to
be deficient in meat to the extent of 7 per cent. A report to this effect was
made to the Public Health Committee who, after careful consideration
the matter, decided that as the sample was informal, a formal sample be
obtained and that proceedings be taken if the Analysts' certificate again
showed a deficiency.
As a result of this recommendation, a further sample (No. 102) was
purchased formally and again showed a deficiency of 7 per cent. In view
of the low deficiency, and taking into consideration that a margin of error
of 2½ per cent. allowed by the regulations would reduce the deficiency t0
4½ per cent., the matter was again referred to the Public Health Committee,
who decided that a warning should be issued to the vendor. (A further
sample taken in 1949 proved to be above standard).
Sample No. 94 was a sample of sausages deficient to the extent
14 per cent. of meat. The Public Health Committee decided that a further
sample should be obtained. The purchase of this sample (No. 94)
made at a multiple (general) stores and the opportunity did not occur, on
account of irregular supplies, to permit the purchase of a further sample.
Sample No. 106, a sample of sausage meat, was found to contain sulphur
dioxide, present to the extent of 400 parts per million. Although this amount
is below the permitted quantity of preservative, it was reported to the Public
Health Committee that the presence of preservative was not notified by
label or notice, as required by the Public Health (Preservatives in Foods)
Regulations. The Committee instructed that a warning be sent to the
vendor. As this article of food was supplied at irregular intervals, it was
not possible to obtain a further sample during the year.
Cereal Foods
Sample No. 119 was a carton containing one of the specially prepared
cereals and the purchaser complained that there was a taste of disinfectant.
The Public Analysts report is given below. It was not possible to obtain
a further sample of this food.
20