View report page

The control of out-door food trading is exercised by registration under the provisions
of Section 11, Middlesex County Council Act, 1950, and during the year 6 persons
and 1 premises were registered.
Legal proceedings were taken in 10 cases in respect of food premises and food
stalls which failed to maintain proper standards with the following results:—
1. A wholesale butcher was fined £40 with £5 5s. 0d. costs in respect of 4 summonses.
2. A grocer was fined £10 with £3 3s. 0d. costs in respect of one contravention in
April 1969 and 5s. 0d. per day for 56 days (£14) with £2 2s. 0d. costs for a
similar offence in July 1969.
3. A restaurant proprietor was fined £12 with £5 5s. 0d. costs.
4. An ice-cream vendor was fined £30 and £2 with £4 4s. 0d. costs.
5. An ice-cream vendor was fined £3.
6. An ice-cream vendor was fined £32 with £2 2s. 0d. costs in respect of 2 ice-cream
vehicles.
7. A stallholder was fined £15 with £10 costs.
8. An ice-cream vendor was fined £18 with £6 costs.
(3) Food Sampling
The routine sampling of food and drugs for chemical analysis and bacteriological
examination was maintained throughout the year. Samples for chemical analysis were
submitted to the Public Analyst and those for bacteriological examination to the Public
Health Laboratory Service. The invaluable help and advice given by the Public Analyst
and the staff of the Public Health Laboratory Service substantially contributed to the
effectiveness of the sampling. A wide variety of samples was taken and particular
attention was given to the sampling of products for which there are legal standards and
to those products manufactured in the Borough. These specifically included meat pies
and sausage rolls, standards for which are prescribed in The Meat Pie and Sausage
Roll Regulations, 1967. The year 1969 was the first full year for the operation of these
Regulations. In May 1969, The Sausage and Other Meat Product Regulations, 1967
also became operative and specified requirements for the composition of products
defined in the Regulations. Samples of food manufactured in the Borough, and coming
within the scope of both these sets of Regulations, were in general reported upon as
being satisfactory.
Some samples were taken as a result of complaints from members of the public.
One complainant was of the opinion that satsumas in a particular shop in the
Borough had been imported in a green condition and had been dyed to give them a
more ripe appearance. A sample was taken but the nature of the complaint was not
substantiated as the sample was reported upon as being genuine.
A complaint was also received from a person who alleged that he had been served
in a public house with whisky which had been diluted with water. A formal sample
was taken but upon analysis it was found to be genuine.
A can of rice and curry was also the subject of complaint. The consumer considered
that the list of ingredients on the can was false as the product did not contain
pineapple as indicated, that the quantity of beef and sultanas was negligible compared
with the amounts shown on the illustration on the can and that therefore the illustraion
was misleading. A sample of the product was taken but the Public Analyst was satisfied
that there were no contraventions and considered the sample to be genuine.
During the year 467 samples were submitted for chemical analysis and of these 16
were considered to be irregular.
72
The following table shows the types of samples analysed
and the results obtained:—