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

View report page

Sutton and Cheam 1951

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Sutton and Cheam]

This page requires JavaScript

Continued from previous page...

Sample No.ArticleInfringementAction taken
1407Ice Cream (Chemical) (Informal)Sample contained only 5½ per cent of milk solld6 other than fat Instead of not less than 7½ per cent as required by the Food Standards (Ice Cream) Order 1951Manufacturer Warned The attention of the manufacturer was drawn to the deficiency of milk solids other than fat. A repeat sample proved satisfactory
1429Vinegar (Malt) (Formal)Labelling Infringement The addition of 0.7 per cent of salt was not disclosed on the labelManufacturer Warned New labels were printed with a declaration that the malt vinegar contained salt and caramel
1437Ice Cream (Chemical) (Informal)Sample contained 6¾ per cent of milk solids other than fat, Instead of not less than per cent as required by The Food Standards (Ice Cream) Order 1951Manufacturer Warned The deficiency of milk solids other than fat was due to the use of an unsatisfactory alternative constituent Ingredient. A repeat sample proved satisfactory
1464Salt Iodised (Informal)Labelling Infringement Sample contained 375 micrograms of Iodine per ounce, Instead of a minimum of 433 micrograms as declared on the labelManufacturer Warned The Informal sample showed a deficiency and the formal sample an excess of Iodine content per ounce. The manufacturers rightly assert that difficulty Is experienced In the mixing and migration of this article and the matter Is at present being vigorously Investigated by the trade in an endeavour to find a solution to the problem
A703Salt Iodised (Formal)Sample contained 775 micrograms of Iodine per ounce Instead of not more that 723 micrograms as declared on the label
1492Cake Decoration -"Sugar Strands" (Informal)Labelling Infringement The Ingredients of this article were not specified on the label as Is required by The Labelling of Food Order 1950Manufacturers Warned The manufacturers agreed that the label did not conform to the requirements of the Labelling of Food Order 1950. As a result new labels have been printed and found to be satisfactory