View report page

Sampling Observations. It will be seen from the detailed
classification that of two hundred and sixteen samples taken
during the year 2.30% were found to be other than genuine and
labelling Infringements accounted for a further 4.16%, making a
total of 6.46%.
For comparative purposes the figures for 1956 were 2.32%
and 1.86% respectively making a total of 4.18%.
The pattern of sampling has followed that of previous years
In that a wide range of commodltleshas been covered. Asatlsfylng
result has emerged since the Infringements revealed were generally
of a minor character and with the willing co-operation of
retailers or manufacturers were quite readily adjusted.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ANALYST
( Food and Drugs Act, 1955)
The detailed worklngof the Act In respect of the Individual
samples purchased and analysed Is adequately covered by the Chief
Public Health Inspector's Report and I shall confine myself in
these remarks to more general comments on certain aspects of
enforcement as they appear to the Public Analyst, and as
exemplified by the action taken on various samples during 1957.
When the public analyst reports on a sample submitted to
him as a result of routine sampling he usually does so after
consideration of various principles laid down in the Act and
after asking himself the following questlons:-
1. Is the article of the nature, substance.and quality demanded?
2. Is the article fit for human consumption?
3. Is the label on the article false or misleading?
4. Is the article (If pre-packed) correctly labelled?
5. Is there anything Injurious or potentially Injurious present?
In answering the first four questions he must attempt to
put himself into the same position (and state of mind) as the
purchaser and this Is not always an easy matter. It has been
contended time and time again that the public analyst Is no fit
person to do this since he Is an expert on analysis only and
his opinion on anything else Is not worth anything, Nothing is
further from the truth since there Is no doubt that the public
analyst goes to a very great deal of trouble to find out what
the ordinary purchaser thinks, and in the course of years he
develops a sixth sense which enables him, In the light of his
analysis, to separate the 1 genuine' samples from the 'adulterated'
with a fair degree of accuracy. However, the very fact that it
is not easy to do this does make us cautious in alleging that an
Importer, manufacturer, packer or retailer has committed what is
22