View report page

FOOD HYGIENE REGULATIONS, 1955
During the year as a result of the 3,387 visits made to food premises a number of
useful improvements were carried out and many contraventions of the Food Hygiene Regulations
were brought to the notice of the occupiers. There is no doubt that the general trend of
improvement in food premises which took place in 1956 was continued during 1957.
There Is little doubt that retailers will have to become acclimatised to the modern
method of pre-packaging for this method of packing foodstuffs is rapidly gaining impetus.
The open-front fish shop whioh the fishmonger regard as essential to the marketing of
fish in prime condition is now not acceptable to health authorities.
During the two years that the Regulations have been in force a number of weaknesses
have been revealed, and in the opinion of many Medical Officers of Health and Public Health
Inspectors the Regulations could be strengthened in a number of ways. New proposals for
strengthening the power of local authorities have been submitted to the Minister of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food by the Association of Munloipal Corporations. The Association says in a
memorandum that it considers a large majority of the existing regulations may be "unenforceable
so far as the penal clauses are concerned".
The Regulations have been criticised on a number of grounds including difficulty of
interpretation. Clearly requirements of a structural character and the provision of specific
fitments are easier to enforce than those relating to personal habits. To ensure absolute
observance of the latter would entail an army of inspectors greater than ever envisaged by
local authorities. The approach to the personal aspects of food hygiene has been by contact
with the persons concerned or on educational lines and must of necessity be a long-term policy.
The outcome of a successful appeal by a well-known firm of fishmongers against their
conviction by a Magistrates Court on charges laid under Regulation 8(a) of the Food Hygiene
Regulations caused some disappointment and apprehension among those whose duty It is to
ensure that the requirements of the law are met by food traders, and others concerned, and
will inspire caution when similar prosecutions are contemplated.
The Regulation reads:-
"A person who engages in the handling of food shall while so engaged take all such
steps as may be reasonably necessary to protect the food from risk of contamination and in
particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing), (a) shall not so place
the food, or permit it to be so placed, as to involve any risk of contamination".
The Magistrates had found the charges proved and convicted the defendants, but also
made the observation "that there was no material danger to the consumers' health". If in
their ruling they had not made this statement there is little doubt that the appeal, had
there been one, might not have followed the course it actually took. The Justices were
guided by the expert evidence of the Home Office Pathologist who had visited the shop and
considered there was no danger to public health.
The Lord Chief Justioe has now ruled that If the contamination of which there is an
alleged risk is not injurious to health, then there is no offence under the Regulations.
Obviously with so much food sold there must be some exposure to the air, and therefore
26