View report page

Food Inspection.
Now that the sampling of foods for analysis and the inspection of foods for
diseased conditions and other causes of unfitness are under the same control,, there is
much better cohesion than existed in former years. Matters discovered by one branch
which affect another branch are now referred and followed up immediately. An unceasing
watch has been kept upon factories where food products are manufactured, on the kitchens
of cafes and other places wherein food is prepared, and upon the shops, stalls and
markets where the food is sold. No cases of exposure for sale of meat, affected by
disease, were discovered, but there have been Instances of the sale or exposure for sale
of food, which was unsound through other causes.
Reference was made in the Annual Report of 1951 to a retailer of tinned foods,
who would persist in buying Job-lots of damaged or rejected foodstuffs., which caused some
anxiety. This trader appeared to have left this Borough for areas where conditions were
more conducive to his happiness, until on the 4th April, he was found on a bombed site
adjoining a street market, when the following foods, which he was exposing for sale, were
seized, condemned by a Justice of the Peace, and in respect of which proceedings were
instituted against him:-
Pastry Mixture. 7 pkts. Tomato Soup. 36 tins.
Milk Pudding. 4 tins. Cream of Celery Soup. 4 tins.
Beef Broth. 1 tin. Cherries 1 tin.
Concentrated Tomato Soup. 1 tin.
The defendent was convicted and a fine of £20 was imposed, since when he has not been seen.
Included on the very heavy list of surrenders of foodstuffs„ are 393 dozen, one
pound, Jars of marmalade, which had been purchased by a local Jobber as a damaged consignment,
and which, on being examined by him, were found to contain mice excrements on the
tops of the papers covering the marmalade. It is fortunate, that in this case, the Jobber
surrendered this consignment and so avoided any possible risk to consumers.
A mince pastry was brought to the office by the purchaser, who complained that it
contained a nail. The confectioner retailer who had sold it to him, had in turn purchased
the pastry from a wholesale firm of cake and pastry manufacturers of good reputation.
Following correspondence, the latter firm undertook to install modern detection machinery,
and in these circumstances no further action was taken.
In another case, a mouldy scone was brought to the office on a Monday afternoon, by
a citizen, who said that he had bought it from a retailer that day. On investigation, it
was found that the retailer had purchased the scone, as part of a consignment from a wholesaler,
on the previous Friday. In the circumstances, it did not appear possible to decide
who was the actual offender, and in view of the previous good character of the retailer,
the matter was dealt with by a warning letter,
17